Socio-Economic Survey as a Support Tool during the Scaling Up of Improved Stoves in the Logone Valley (Chad/Cameroon)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Survey Methods
Energy Supply | Level | Quality of Supply |
---|---|---|
Household fuels | 1 | Collecting wood or dung and using a three-stone fire |
2 | Collecting wood and using an improved stove | |
3 | Buying wood and using an improved stove | |
4 | Buying charcoal and using an improved stove | |
5 | Using a modern, clean-burning fuel and stove combination | |
Electricity | 1 | No access to electricity at all |
2 | Access to third party battery charging only | |
3 | Own low-voltage DC access for home applications | |
4 | 240 V AC connection but poor quality and intermittent supply | |
5 | Reliable 240 V AC connection available for all uses | |
Mechanic Power | 1 | No access to mechanical power. Hand power only with basic tools |
2 | Mechanical advantage devices available to magnify human/animal effort | |
3 | Powered (renewable or fossil) mechanical devices available for some tasks | |
4 | Powered (renewable or fossil) mechanical devices available for most tasks | |
5 | Mainly purchasing mechanically processed services |
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Socio-Economic Features of the Population Surveyed
Cooking manager | Household head | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
rural area | urban area | rural area | urban area | |
Occupation | ||||
farmer | 24% | 0% | 77% | 0% |
shop holder | 4% | 4% | 0% | 9% |
teacher | 1% | 2% | 3% | 11% |
student | 0% | 9% | 4% | 0% |
employee | 0% | 17% | 5% | 50% |
house manager | 71% | 59% | 5% | 13% |
not answered | 0% | 9% | 6% | 17% |
Educational level | ||||
None | 71% | 9% | 50% | 4% |
Primary | 26% | 14% | 35% | 9% |
Secondary | 2% | 67% | 12% | 56% |
Superior | 1% | 10% | 3% | 31% |
3.2. Cooking Habits
3.3. Fuel Use Patterns
- On average, three-stone fire and traditional fireplace users spend more time (about 2.5 h per time) than ICS users (0.5 h). This is likely to be linked to the different income levels of these two groups, as deducible by the observations above and by the less frequent need for supply due to lower consumption;
- A higher fuel procurement time can be observed in the population using only wood as household fuel (about 4 h per time), while the group using supplementary fuels, in particular agricultural residues such as millet reeds and charcoal (probably illegally self-produced), have a significantly lower time engagement (0.5 h per time). That is probably due to the fact that such secondary fuels are collected or produced close to the household;
Fuel expenditure per person (median) [CFA francs/week pp] | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fuel procurement mode | Collection/Purchase | Only purchase | |||
Area | Rural | Urban | Rural | Urban | |
Income class | <1.25 US$/day | 46 | - | 271 | 194 |
1.25–2 US$/day | 72 | - | 808 | 163 | |
2–5 US$/day | - | - | - | 225 | |
>5 US$/day | 77 | - | 1040 | 272 |
3.4. Energy Supply Index Assessment
Fuels | Electricity | Mechanic power | |
---|---|---|---|
Rural | 1.31 | 1.23 | 1.03 |
Urban | 2.65 | 3.04 | 2.43 |
Total | 1.70 | 1.75 | 1.43 |
4. Discussion
- In the urban area, local people were forced by the 2008 national ban to no longer use their traditional preferred solid fuel, i.e., charcoal. This resulted in a down-climb on the energy ladder, a return to the purchase and use of firewood rather than the upgrade to LPG. In this context, the purchase of fuel is perceived as more convenient in comparison to the collection, even if this is free. Therefore, with the possibilities given by a higher income level, households tend to switch from that more rudimental procurement mode that implies a greater amount of drudgery (see Figure 3) to this “more modern” procurement mode, and to use improved cooking systems. Therefore, a primary reason for the project’s success was its strong focus on meeting household needs and on its ability to make the ICS model proposed (the “Centrafricain” ICS) as affordable as possible. Increasing user adoption rates and appreciation indicates the appropriateness of the ICS model proposed in the urban contexts of the intervention area. Fuel consumption reduction and adaptability to the local cooking practices are the main features that the users indicated as strengths of the technology [47]. At the same time, survey outcomes highlighted that the adoption of ICS was more likely in households with higher educational levels (Figure 2), which also often resulted as being richer (see Section 1 of “Results”). Thus, a need for actions was identified, aiming at promoting awareness and at making fuel-savings cooking technologies accessible for lower income classes.
- In rural areas, lower ICS adoption rates were observed. This is likely to be due to the fact that wood is collected for free, impacting the household activity in terms of time but not in terms of budget. Therefore, fuel saving is not seen as a priority and ICS is not perceived by the final users as having many advantages. The rural population has a lower educational level (as highlighted by the survey outcomes, see section one of the results) that probably reflects a limited awareness and knowledge of environmentally friendly and energy-saving practices. Moreover, the low household income level did not leave room in the budget for purchasing the ICS model promoted by the project.
- In order to overcome the identified barriers in the adoption of improved cooking systems, two different actions were put in field. On one hand, the advertising campaign about the advantages of the use of improved cooking systems was strengthened in order to increase the awareness of the local population and to make the message accessible also for that share of population with a lower educational level. On the other hand, an alternative “lower-tech” and cheaper ICS model (the “ceramic” ICS), more similar to the traditional rural fireplace and producible directly by the users, was proposed in order to be more affordable. Such a model was more appreciated by the rural population and by the low-income class in the urban population. This allowed the project to penetrate also into the rural areas, achieving a higher impact on the intervention territory and on the beneficiary population.
- These aspects have been fundamental for the scaling-up of the stove models and for the sustainability of the action. A self-standing market and a continuative adoption by households was observed, in particular, in urban areas, where fuel is purchased and the savings due to a lower wood consumption have a direct impact on household income.
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Collivignarelli, C.; Vaccari, M.; Vitali, F. Issues and recommendations for drinking water supply in an average Bosnian town: The case study of Zavidovici. J. Water Supply Res. Technol.—AQUA 2011, 60, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
- Sorlini, S.; Palazzini, D.; Sieliechi, J.M.; Ngassoum, M.B. Assessment of physical-chemical drinking water quality in the Logone Valley (Chad-Cameroon). Sustainability 2013, 5, 3060–3076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giardina, D.; Prandini, F.; Sorlini, S. Integrated assessment of the water, sanitation and hygiene situation in haitian schools in the time of emergency. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3702–3721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Bella, V.; Ali, M.; Vaccari, M. Constraints to healthcare waste treatment in low-income countries—A case study from Somaliland. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 572–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccari, M.; di Bella, V.; Vitali, F.; Collivignarelli, C. From mixed to separate collection of solid waste: Benefits for the town of Zavidovići (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Waste Manag. 2012, 33, 277–286. [Google Scholar]
- International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2012; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bailis, R. Wood in household energy use. Encycl. Energy 2004, 6, 509–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallding, K.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y. Learning from previous failures: Scaling up biogas production in the Chinese countryside. Clim. Dev. 2012, 4, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pattnaik, B.K. Science, technology and quality-of-life in the developing-world—A critical perspective. Indian J. Soc. Work 1994, 55, 391–404. [Google Scholar]
- Dang, H. Fuel substitution in sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Manag. 1993, 17, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, P.S.C.; Miller, J.B.; Wang, Y.D.; Byrne, J.B. Energy-microfinance intervention for below poverty line households in India. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1694–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neudoerffer, R.C.; Malhotra, P.; Ramana, P.V. Participatory rural energy planning in India: A policy context. Energy Policy 2001, 29, 371–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangopadhyaya, S.; Ramaswamia, B.; Wilima, W. Reducing subsidies on household fuels in India: How will it affect the poor? Energy Policy 2005, 33, 2326–2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biermann, E.; Grupp, M.; Palmer, R. Solar cooker acceptance in South Africa: Results of a comparative field test. Sol. Energy 1999, 66, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toonen, H.M. Adapting to an innovation: Solar cooking in the urban households of Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Phys. Chem. Earth 2009, 34, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggarwal, R.K.; Chandel, S.S. Review of improved cookstoves programme in Western Himalayan State of India. Biomass Bioenergy 2004, 27, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rehman, I.H.; Kar, A.; Banerjee, M.; Kumar, P.; Shardul, M.; Mohanty, J.; Hossain, I. Understanding the political economy and key drivers of energy access in addressing national energy access priorities and policies. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khennas, S. Understanding the political economy and key drivers of energy access in addressing national energy access priorities and policies: African Perspective. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zerriffi, H. Innovative business models for the scale-up of energy access efforts for the poorest. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 272–278. [Google Scholar]
- Bailis, R.; Cowan, A.; Berrueta, V.; Masera, O. Arresting the killer in the kitchen: The promises and pitfalls of commercializing improved cookstoves. World Dev. 2009, 37, 1694–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. The Welfare Impact of Rural Electrification: A Reassessment of the Costs and Benefits; Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hutton, G.; Rehfuess, E.; Tediosi, F. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of household energy and health interventions at global and regional levels. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2007, 11, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pachauri, S.; Spreng, D. Measuring and monitoring energy poverty. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7497–7504. [Google Scholar]
- García-Frapolli, E.; Schilmann, A.; Berrueta, V.M.; Riojas-Rodríguez, H.; Edwards, R.D.; Johnson, M.; Guevara-Sanginés, A.; Armendariz, C.; Masera, O. Beyond fuelwood savings: Valuing the economic benefits of introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2598–2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urmee, T.; Harries, D. Determinants of the success and sustainability of Bangladesh’s SHS program. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2822–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, S.C. Energy access programmes and sustainable development: A critical review and analysis. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2012, 16, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hailu, Y.G. Measuring and monitoring energy access: Decision-support tools for policymakers in Africa. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs; IEA; Eurostat and European Environment Agency. Energy Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies; IAEA: Vienna, Austria, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Khandker, S.R.; Barnes, D.F.; Samad, H.A. Are the energy poor also income poor? Evidence from India. Energy Policy 2012, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemmler, A.; Spreng, D. Energy indicators for tracking sustainability in developing countries. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2466–2480. [Google Scholar]
- Practical Action. Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2010; Practical Action: Rugby, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Koswari, R.; Zeriffi, H. Three dimensional energy profile: A conceptual framework for assessing household energy use. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 7505–7517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leach, G. The energy transition. Energy Policy 1992, 20, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccari, M.; Vitali, F.; Mazzù, A. Improved cookstove as an appropriate technology for the Logone Valley (Chad-Cameroon): Analysis of fuel and cost savings. Renew. Energy 2012, 47, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Reegle. Policy and Regulatory Overviews. Available online: http://www.reegle.info/policy-and-regulatory-overviews/TD (accessed on 2 October 2013).
- Agence pour l’Energie Domestique et l’Environnement (AEDE). Plan Directeur d’Approvisionnement en énergie domestique de N’Djamena; Ministère de l’Environnement et de l’Eau République du Tchad: N’Djamena, Chad, 2002. (In French)
- Maconachiea, R.; Tankob, A.; Zakariyac, M. Descending the energy ladder? Oil price shocks and domestic fuel choices in Kano, Nigeria. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 1090–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The World Bank. Chad/Data. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/country/chad (accessed on 2 October 2013).
- Legros, G.; Havet, I.; Bruce, N.; Bonjour, S. The Energy Access Situation in Developing Countries. A Review Focusing on the Least Developed Countries and Sub-Saharan Africa; WHO (World Health Organization): Geneva, Switzerland; UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme): Nairobi, Kenya, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Trochim, W.M.K. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd ed. 2006. Available online: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb (accessed on 2 October 2013).
- O’Sullivan, K.; Barnes, D.F. Energy Policies and Multi-Topic Household Surveys. Guidelines for Questionnaires Design in Living Standards Measurement Studies; World Bank Working Paper No. 90; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bruce, N.G.; Jagoe, K.; Bromley, H. Standard Monitoring Packages for Household Energy and Health Field Projects; Final Report; Liverpool University: Liverpool, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Practical Action and GIZ. Total Energy Wiki. Available online: https://energypedia.info/wiki/Totalenergywiki (accessed on 2 October 2013).
- Practical Action. Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2012: Energy for Earning a Living; Practical Action: Rugby, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ravallion, M.; Chen, S.; Sangraula, P. Dollar a day. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2009, 23, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitali, F.; Parmigiani, S.; Vaccari, M.; Collivignarelli, C. Agricultural waste as household fuel: Techno-economic assessment of a new rice-husk cookstove for developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2762–2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitali, F.; Vaccari, M. Appropriate technology for household energy access: The case of the Centrafricain stove in the Logone Valley (Chad, Cameroun). In Technologies for Sustainable Development. A Way to Reduce Poverty? Proceedings of 2012 Conference of the EPFL-UNESCO Chair in Technologies for Development, Lausanne, Switzerland, 29–31 May 2012; Bolay, J., Hostettler, S., Hazboun, E., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Annexes
Household energy survey Vallée du Logone (Tchad–Cameroun)—February–March 2011 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | Identification | |||||||||||||
Place | Questionnaire n° | Date | ||||||||||||
1 | Household features | |||||||||||||
1.a | Person who cooks | Head of household | ||||||||||||
Occupation | Occupation | |||||||||||||
School attendance | □ None □ Primary □ Secondary □ Higher | School attendance | □ None □ Primary □ Secondary □ Higher | |||||||||||
1.b | Number of people | Number total: | ||||||||||||
Children (<14 year) | ||||||||||||||
Women (>14 year) | ||||||||||||||
Men (>14 year) | ||||||||||||||
1.c | Income | (francs/month) | ||||||||||||
Income level | □ Subsistence □ Low □ Average □ High | |||||||||||||
Main activity | ||||||||||||||
Agricultural Production (sacks/year) | Corn (price per sack ____________________) | |||||||||||||
Sorghum (____________________) | ||||||||||||||
….. (____________________) | ||||||||||||||
Feedstock | Nr chicken_________ Nr goats __________ Nr cows ____________ | |||||||||||||
2 | Cooking habits | |||||||||||||
2.a | In the year | |||||||||||||
Cooking place | Rainy season | |||||||||||||
Dry season | ||||||||||||||
2.b | During the day | |||||||||||||
Number of cooking event during the day (note time required for each preparation) | ||||||||||||||
2.c | Nr of people per meal (including guests) | |||||||||||||
2.d | Cookstove model used | [ ] Traditional | [ ] Improved: centrafricain | [ ] Other | ||||||||||
3 | Fuel need | |||||||||||||
3.a | Main fuel used | □ Firewood | □ Charcoal | □ Gas | ||||||||||
□ Kerosene | □ Petrol | □ Other ( ) | ||||||||||||
Notes | ||||||||||||||
3.b | Fuel supply | □ always collected | □ mainly collected | □ collected/purchased | ||||||||||
□ always purchased | □ mainly purchased | |||||||||||||
3.c | If purchased, fuel expenditure (for the main one) | (francs/week) | ||||||||||||
Unit cost of the fuel | ||||||||||||||
Mode of purchase (quantity and frequency) | ||||||||||||||
3.d | If purchased, fuel expenditure (for the others) | (francs/week) | ||||||||||||
Unit cost of the fuel | ||||||||||||||
Mode of purchase (quantity and frequency) | ||||||||||||||
3.e | Distance for fuel supply | (km) | ||||||||||||
(times/week) | ||||||||||||||
3.f | If collected, time required for the activity | (h/time) | ||||||||||||
(times/week) | ||||||||||||||
3.g | Family member who buys or collects the fuel | □ Head □ Woman □ Children |
© 2014 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Vitali, F.; Vaccari, M. Socio-Economic Survey as a Support Tool during the Scaling Up of Improved Stoves in the Logone Valley (Chad/Cameroon). Sustainability 2014, 6, 1427-1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031427
Vitali F, Vaccari M. Socio-Economic Survey as a Support Tool during the Scaling Up of Improved Stoves in the Logone Valley (Chad/Cameroon). Sustainability. 2014; 6(3):1427-1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031427
Chicago/Turabian StyleVitali, Francesco, and Mentore Vaccari. 2014. "Socio-Economic Survey as a Support Tool during the Scaling Up of Improved Stoves in the Logone Valley (Chad/Cameroon)" Sustainability 6, no. 3: 1427-1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031427
APA StyleVitali, F., & Vaccari, M. (2014). Socio-Economic Survey as a Support Tool during the Scaling Up of Improved Stoves in the Logone Valley (Chad/Cameroon). Sustainability, 6(3), 1427-1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6031427