Evaluation of the preference for and viability of clean cookstove adoption in rural Tanzania

IF 4.6 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS
Annelise Gill-Wiehl, Sara Sievers, Robert Katikiro, Daniel M. Kammen
{"title":"Evaluation of the preference for and viability of clean cookstove adoption in rural Tanzania","authors":"Annelise Gill-Wiehl,&nbsp;Sara Sievers,&nbsp;Robert Katikiro,&nbsp;Daniel M. Kammen","doi":"10.1186/s13705-023-00422-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 calls for “universal access to affordable, reliable, modern energy services” for the 2.6 billion individuals lacking access to clean cooking fuels and stoves. Low- and middle-income countries are designing policies towards clean fuels, but often prioritize World Health Organization defined ‘clean’ fuels and stoves to urban areas. As clean solutions are explored, it remains unclear what rural households prefer as their clean alternative.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study conducted household energy surveys with main cooks across four villages in Shirati, Tanzania to understand rural household preferences within the viable clean fuels. Data analysis includes descriptive statistics and a generalized linear model with the Poisson family and log link to estimate prevalence ratios, all of which were conducted in Microsoft Excel and STATA 16.1.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The results revealed that while 83% of households (<i>n</i> = 187) stacked a combination of firewood, charcoal, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and/or kerosene, 82% [95% Confidence Interval: 74%, 89%] of households stated a preference to use LPG. We found that aggregate expenditure on LPG was less than daily purchases of charcoal and firewood. Our analysis found that all villages had a higher prevalence of stacking firewood, charcoal, and LPG, than areas further from the main trading center. Both areas with trading posts had a lower prevalence of using only firewood.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Household preference should be systematically incorporated into clean cooking policy decisions. Our results imply that LPG should not be pursued only in urban contexts. We discuss how preference affect adoption and the need to include user preferences to meet universal clean cooking access (SDG 7).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":539,"journal":{"name":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s13705-023-00422-3","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy, Sustainability and Society","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13705-023-00422-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7 calls for “universal access to affordable, reliable, modern energy services” for the 2.6 billion individuals lacking access to clean cooking fuels and stoves. Low- and middle-income countries are designing policies towards clean fuels, but often prioritize World Health Organization defined ‘clean’ fuels and stoves to urban areas. As clean solutions are explored, it remains unclear what rural households prefer as their clean alternative.

Methods

This study conducted household energy surveys with main cooks across four villages in Shirati, Tanzania to understand rural household preferences within the viable clean fuels. Data analysis includes descriptive statistics and a generalized linear model with the Poisson family and log link to estimate prevalence ratios, all of which were conducted in Microsoft Excel and STATA 16.1.

Results

The results revealed that while 83% of households (n = 187) stacked a combination of firewood, charcoal, liquified petroleum gas (LPG), and/or kerosene, 82% [95% Confidence Interval: 74%, 89%] of households stated a preference to use LPG. We found that aggregate expenditure on LPG was less than daily purchases of charcoal and firewood. Our analysis found that all villages had a higher prevalence of stacking firewood, charcoal, and LPG, than areas further from the main trading center. Both areas with trading posts had a lower prevalence of using only firewood.

Conclusions

Household preference should be systematically incorporated into clean cooking policy decisions. Our results imply that LPG should not be pursued only in urban contexts. We discuss how preference affect adoption and the need to include user preferences to meet universal clean cooking access (SDG 7).

评估在坦桑尼亚农村采用清洁炉灶的偏好和可行性
可持续发展目标7呼吁为无法获得清洁烹饪燃料和炉灶的26亿人“普遍获得负担得起的、可靠的现代能源服务”。低收入和中等收入国家正在制定清洁燃料政策,但往往将世界卫生组织定义的“清洁”燃料和炉具优先用于城市地区。在探索清洁解决方案的过程中,尚不清楚农村家庭更喜欢哪种清洁替代方案。方法本研究对坦桑尼亚Shirati四个村庄的主要厨师进行了家庭能源调查,以了解农村家庭对可行清洁燃料的偏好。数据分析包括描述性统计和广义线性模型与泊松族和对数链接估计患病率,所有这些都是在Microsoft Excel和STATA 16.1中进行的。结果显示,83%的家庭(n = 187)将木柴、木炭、液化石油气(LPG)和/或煤油混合使用,82%(95%置信区间:74%,89%)的家庭表示更倾向于使用液化石油气。我们发现液化石油气的总支出低于每日购买木炭和柴火。我们的分析发现,与远离主要贸易中心的地区相比,所有村庄堆放木柴、木炭和液化石油气的比例都更高。两个有贸易站的地区只使用柴火的比例都较低。结论应系统地将家庭偏好纳入清洁烹饪政策决策。我们的结果表明,液化石油气不应该只在城市环境中追求。我们讨论了偏好如何影响采用,以及纳入用户偏好以实现普遍清洁烹饪的必要性(可持续发展目标7)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy, Sustainability and Society
Energy, Sustainability and Society Energy-Energy Engineering and Power Technology
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
4.10%
发文量
45
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Energy, Sustainability and Society is a peer-reviewed open access journal published under the brand SpringerOpen. It covers topics ranging from scientific research to innovative approaches for technology implementation to analysis of economic, social and environmental impacts of sustainable energy systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信