What’s in a stove? A review of the user preferences in improved stove designs

Gill-Wiehl, Annelise; Price, Tom A. R.; Kammen, Daniel M.

doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102281

Cited by 32 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 145 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these 31 reviews, 13 (42%) were systematic reviews 6,28,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] and 18 (58%) were narrative reviews (figure 2). 3,8,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] The systematic reviews included 479 unique primary papers. The included reviews were published between 1992 and 2022 and were conducted in a variety of geographical settings.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review

Boudewijns¹,

Trucchi²,

Kleij³

et al. 2022

The Lancet Planetary Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review

Boudewijns¹,

Trucchi²,

Kleij³

et al. 2022

The Lancet Planetary Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is notable, given the prevalence of 'stacking' (combined use of multiple cooking modalities, old and new, rather than replacement) following the introduction of 'improved' cooking technologies [40][41][42][43] . This relates to the reasons for continued use of traditional stoves, which vary but include limitations of newly introduced technologies, need for concurrent cooking on multiple stoves, and fuel access and cost, as well as (less commonly) different context-specific cooking needs 40,41,43,44 . Participants in this study raised some of these issues, namely that of using multiple devices concurrently, although when asked they stated that they would use two stoves if they were available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“We threw away the stones”: a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Exposure to air pollution is responsible for a substantial burden of respiratory disease globally. Household air pollution from cooking using biomass is a major contributor to overall exposure in rural low-income settings. Previous research in Malawi has revealed how precarity and food insecurity shape individuals’ daily experiences, contributing to perceptions of health. Aiming to avoid a mismatch between research intervention and local context, we introduced a simple cookstove intervention in rural Malawi, analysing change in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposures, and community perceptions. Methods: Following a period of baseline ethnographic research, we distributed ‘chitetezo mbaula’, locally made clay cookstoves, to all households (n=300) in a rural Malawian village. Evaluation incorporated village-wide participant observation and concurrent exposure monitoring using portable PM2.5 monitors at baseline and follow-up (three months post-intervention). Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Quantitative analysis of exposure data included pre-post intervention comparisons, with datapoints divided into cooking and non-cooking (‘baseline’) periods. Findings were integrated at the interpretation stage, using a convergent design mode of synthesis. Results: Individual exposure monitoring pre- and post-cookstove intervention involved a sample of 18 participants (15 female; mean age 43). Post-intervention PM2.5 exposures (median 9.9μg/m3 [interquartile range: 2.2–46.5]) were not significantly different to pre-intervention (11.8μg/m3 [3.8–44.4]); p=0.71. On analysis by activity, ‘baseline’ exposures were found to be reduced post-intervention (from 8.2μg/m3 [2.5–22.0] to 4.6μg/m3 [1.0–12.6]; p=0.01). Stoves were well-liked and widely used by residents as substitutes for previous cooking methods (mainly three-stone fires). Most cited benefits related to fuel saving and shorter cooking times. Conclusions: The cookstove intervention had no impact on cooking-related PM2.5 exposures. A significant reduction in baseline exposures may relate to reduced smouldering emissions. Uptake and continued use of the stoves was high amongst community members, who preferred using the stoves to cooking over open fires.

show abstract

“…This is notable, given the prevalence of ‘stacking’ (combined use of multiple cooking modalities, old and new, rather than replacement) following the introduction of ‘improved’ cooking technologies 40 – 43 . This relates to the reasons for continued use of traditional stoves, which vary but include limitations of newly introduced technologies, need for concurrent cooking on multiple stoves, and fuel access and cost, as well as (less commonly) different context-specific cooking needs 40 , 41 , 43 , 44 . Participants in this study raised some of these issues, namely that of using multiple devices concurrently, although when asked they stated that they would use two stoves if they were available.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“We threw away the stones”: a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Air pollution exposure is responsible for a substantial burden of respiratory disease globally. Household air pollution from cooking using biomass is a major contributor to overall exposure in rural low-income settings. Previous research in Malawi has revealed how precarity and food insecurity shape individuals’ daily experiences, contributing to perceptions of health. Aiming to avoid a mismatch between research intervention and local context, we introduced a simple cookstove intervention in rural Malawi, analysing change in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposures, and community perceptions. Methods: Following a period of baseline ethnographic research, we distributed ‘chitetezo mbaula’, locally-made cookstoves, to all households (n=300) in a rural Malawian village. Evaluation incorporated village-wide participant observation and concurrent exposure monitoring using portable PM2.5 monitors at baseline and follow-up (three months post-intervention). Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Quantitative analysis of exposure data included pre-post intervention comparisons, with datapoints divided into periods of combustion activity (almost exclusively cooking) and non-combustion periods. Findings were integrated at the interpretation stage, using a convergent design mode of synthesis. Results: Individual exposure monitoring pre- and post-cookstove intervention involved a sample of 18 participants (15 female; mean age 43). Post-intervention PM2.5 exposures (median 9.9μg/m3 [interquartile range: 2.2–46.5]) were not significantly different to pre-intervention (11.8μg/m3 [3.8–44.4]); p=0.71. On analysis by activity, background exposures were found to be reduced post-intervention (from 8.2μg/m3 [2.5–22.0] to 4.6μg/m3 [1.0–12.6]; p=0.01). Stoves were well-liked and widely used by residents as substitutes for previous cooking methods (mainly three-stone fires). Commonly cited benefits related to fuel saving and shorter cooking times. Conclusions: The cookstove intervention had no impact on cooking-related PM2.5 exposures. A significant reduction in background exposures may relate to reduced smouldering emissions. Uptake and continued use of the stoves was high amongst community members, who preferred using the stoves to cooking over open fires.

show abstract

What’s in a stove? A review of the user preferences in improved stove designs

Cited by 32 publications

References 145 publications

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries: an umbrella review

“We threw away the stones”: a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi

“We threw away the stones”: a mixed method evaluation of a simple cookstove intervention in Malawi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About