The Role of Mixed Methods in Improved Cookstove Research

Abstract

The challenge of promoting access to clean and efficient household energy for cooking and heating is a critical issue facing low- and middle-income countries today. Along with clean fuels, improved cookstoves (ICSs) continue to play an important part in efforts to reduce the 4 million annual premature deaths attributed to household air pollution. Although a range of ICSs are available, there is little empirical evidence on appropriate behavior change approaches to inform adoption and sustained used at scale. Specifically, evaluations using either quantitative or qualitative methods provide an incomplete picture of the challenges in facilitating ICS adoption. This article examines how studies that use the strengths of both these approaches can offer important insights into behavior change in relation to ICS uptake and scale-up. Epistemological approaches, study design frameworks, methods of data collection, analytical approaches, and issues of validity and reliability in the context of mixed methods ICS research are examined, and the article presents an example study design from an evaluation study in Kenya incorporating a nested approach and a convergent case oriented design. The authors discuss the benefits and methodological challenges of mixed-methods approaches in the context of researching behavior change and ICS use recognizing that such methods represent relatively uncharted territory. The authors propose that more published examples are needed to provide frameworks for other researchers seeking to apply mixed methods in this context and suggest a comprehensive research agenda is required that incorporates integrated mixed-methods approaches, to provide best evidence for future scale-up.

Assessment of traditional and improved stove use on household air pollution and personal exposures in rural western Kenya

“…Qualitative findings on stove characteristics and functionality, fuel consumption, health effects, and user acceptability were collected through in-depth structured interviews and focus group discussions can be found at Loo et al (2016) and Stanistreet et al (2015).…”

“…), help document actual use and the reasons for the choices made by households in carrying out their cooking tasks. Given the complexity and detail inherent in the different methodologies, we report key components of the work separately (Stanistreet et al, 2015; Loo et al, 2016; Lozier et al, 2016) and then synthesize overall findings and explanations in the paper by Pilishvili et al (2016). The overall goal of this exposure paper was to provide information to support the identification of stoves emitting the lowest concentrations of PM 2.5 and CO, based on kitchen and personal measurements.…”

Effectiveness of Six Improved Cookstoves in Reducing Household Air Pollution and Their Acceptability in Rural Western Kenya

“…[8] However, studies integrating evaluation of acceptability to local users with an assessment of impact of improved cookstoves (ICS) use on indoor air quality are lacking. [9] In addition, few studies measure directly household air pollution in the cooking area along with personal exposure monitoring, qualitative assessment of user perspectives, and can integrate these findings for a number of different makes of ICS. We conducted a study in a household setting in rural Western Kenya to determine whether everyday use of the six ICS, which in a laboratory setting reduce emissions by at least 50% compared to the open fire, would deliver levels of PM 2.5 and CO associated with substantially reduced health risks.…”

An integrated systems model for energy services in rural developing communities

“… Disruption-Tradition, habit, and experience shape the fabric of human behavior. The alteration of the manner of preparing food is commonly termed behavior change and the understanding of the mechanisms of why and how change happens is complex (Stanistreet et al, 2015). Devices that require a change in the timing, method, or practice of energy use will likely face difficulty, and insensitivity to these is a common downfall of development projects (Slaski and Thurber, 2009).…”