4.5 Article

Cook stove technology adoption: Evidence from Kenya

期刊

ENERGY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 133-144

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.esd.2021.06.004

关键词

Ladder metaphor; Fuel and Stove balancing; Cook stoves; Technology (UTAUT-2); Multivariate Multiple Regression; Kenya; Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT-2)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the gradual transition of households towards using multiple fuels and stoves, influenced by factors beyond socio-economic and demographic characteristics, including technology, market, and financial factors. In terms of combustion technology, there is a need for more strategies to promote energy efficiency and reduce pollution.
Policies aimed at enhancing adoption of energy efficient, less polluting fuels, stoves and cooking practices need to be aligned to the realities of household multiple uses of fuels and stoves. In this paper we assess energy ladder model by using large nationwide survey data of 3665 Kenyan households collected in 2009. We show that the energy ladder is still sufficient to explain multiple fuel use and stove, and that the use of 'fuel or stove staking' metaphor was unnecessarily. Instead, we propose a metaphor 'fuel and stove balancing' to explain how uptake of single to multiple fuels or stoves happens gradually, through upwards and downwards movement on the ladder. Factors that influence stove balancing go beyond socio-economic and demographic characteristics to include stove type technology, markets, and financial factors. These factors are systematical analyzed using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT-2) framework that is based on seven constructs of technology adoption. They include performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, price value and habit. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Energy Initiative. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据