4.7 Article

Adoption and sustained use of improved cookstoves

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 7557-7566

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.028

Keywords

Technology adoption; Biomass fuel; Monitoring and evaluation

Funding

  1. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) [R01ES010178]
  2. National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM-PAPIIT) [IN109807]
  3. El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [23640]
  4. UC MEXUS-CONACYT
  5. United States and El Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The adoption and sustained use of improved cookstoves are critical performance parameters of the cooking system that must be monitored just like the rest of the stove technical requirements to ensure the sustainability of their benefits. No stove program can achieve its goals unless people initially accept the stoves and continue using them on a long-term basis. When a new stove is brought into a household, commonly a stacking of stoves and fuels takes place with each device being used for the cooking practices where it fits best. Therefore, to better understand the adoption process and assess the impacts of introducing a new stove it is necessary to examine the relative advantages of each device in terms of each of the main cooking practices and available fuels. An emerging generation of sensor-based tools is making possible continuous and objective monitoring of the stove adoption process (from acceptance to sustained use or disadoption), and has enabled its scalability. Such monitoring is also needed for transparent verification in carbon projects and for improved dissemination by strategically targeting the users with the highest adoption potential and the substitution of cooking practices with the highest indoor air pollution or greenhouse gas contributions. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available