Understanding Consumer Preference and Willingness

Transcription

FINAL REPORT
Understanding Consumer Preference
and Willingness to Pay for
Improved Cookstoves in Bangladesh
USAID WASHplus Project
August 2013
WASHplus, a five-year (2010–2015) cooperative agreement implemented by FHI 360 with
CARE and Winrock International as core partners, is funded through USAID’s Bureau
for Global Health. WASHplus creates supportive environments for healthy households and
communities by delivering interventions that lead to improvements in water, sanitation,
hygiene (WASH) and indoor air pollution (IAP). WASHplus uses at-scale as well as integrated
programming approaches globally to reduce diarrheal diseases and acute respiratory
infections, the two top killers of children under 5 years of age. For information, visit
www.washplus.org or email: [email protected].
Contact Information:
USAID WASHplus Project
FHI Development 360
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009-5721
Authors:
Julia Rosenbaum, Elisa Derby, Karabi Dutta, with inputs from Kirstie Jagoe and David Pennise
Communication via: [email protected] and [email protected]
Acknowledgments:
The WASHplus team would like to acknowledge and thank our colleagues at USAID, both in
Washington and Bangladesh: Merri Weinger, Pam Baldinger, Sharon Hsu, Richard Greene,
Sher Khan, Ramona El Hamzaoui, and Helen Petach.
We are also indebted to those who supported this study both in the field and back in
Washington, DC, including Orlando Hernandez, A.K.M.Anowar Hossain Mollah, Kate Kennedy
Freeman, Syeda Hosneara Akter, Shajahan Mia, Laila Ishrat Jahan Ruen, Nadia Rahman,
Sultana Aziz, A.F.M. Iqbal, Nazmul Haque, Jibun Nessa Begum, Sarah Yagoda, Rachel Lenzi,
Dana Charron, Kirstie Jagoe, Todd Wofchuck, David Pennise, Misti MacDonald, and Kathrin
Tegenfeld.
TableofContents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................................5
STRATEGICAPPROACH.............................................................................................................................................................6
STUDYOBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................................................................7
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................................................8
Procedure....................................................................................................................................................................................9
DescriptionofStudyGroup..............................................................................................................................................13
FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................................................................17
CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPS......................................................................................................................................41
AnnexA:NGO,Village,andHouseholdSelectionCriteria
AnnexB:WillingnesstoPayWorksheets
AnnexC:StoveProfileSheets
ListofFigures
1. CookingFuels
2. GatherorBuyWoodFuel
3. NumberofPeopleNormallyCookedforinHome
4. Husband’sMainOccupation/SourceofIncome
5. Women’sOccupation
6. PreferredStove
7. NumberPreferringICSoverTraditionalStove
8. NumberPreferringICS
9. NumberPreferringICStoTraditionalStove
10. ImprovedCookstoveisGood
11. “WordCloud”representingattributesnamedbyallconsumerstryingICS
12. CookingProblems
13. ChangestoMakeStoveBetter
14. EstimatedMonetaryValueasaProportionofAnticipatedSalesPrice(Aggregate)
15. EstimatedMonetaryValueasaProportionofAnticipatedSalesPrice(bystovetype)
16.StoveUsageDuringandFollowingtheKPTStudy
17.Monitoredvs.ReportedStoveUsage
18.Boxplotshowingfuelconsumptionbystovegroup
19.PercentageofWomenRespondentsReportingIndependentDecisionMakingon
HouseholdPurchases
Charts
1.DescriptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseICS
2.ChangesinCookingPattern
3.PerceptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseTheseNewStoves
4.WillingnesstoPayforICS–Method1
5.WillingnesstoPayPricingScenarios–Methods1&2
6.ProportionofAllRecordedCookingEventsPerformedbytheInterventionStove
7.MeanDailyFuelConsumptionEstimates
8.Mean24‐hourAirPollutantConcentrationsintheKitchen
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
Astheevidencebaselinkingimprovedcookstoves(ICS)withpositivehealthandenergy
impactsgrows,sodoesattentiontohowbesttoinfluencehouseholduptakeand
consistentandcorrectuse.Appropriately,attentionfocusesonboth“hardware”and
“software”issues—howtoimprovethefieldperformanceofthestovesthemselvesand
makethemmoreaffordable,accessible,andappealingtotheneediestconsumers.
Thisstudyusesqualitativeandquantitativemethodsthatdrawfromsocialmarketing
andsocialsciencetoexploreconsumerperceptionsoffiveofthemostpromisingICS
potentiallyavailablefordistributioninBangladesh.Thestudycomplementsother
effortsbyarangeofstakeholderstostrengthenmarket‐basedapproachesand
consumerchoiceforimprovinghouseholdairqualityandreducingtheenvironmental
impactsassociatedwithdependenceonbiomassfuels.
ThroughsupportfromUSAID/Bangladesh,theUSAIDAsiaRegional
Bureau/Washington,andanadditionalgrantcontributionfromU.S.StateDepartment’s
OfficeoftheSecretaryofState,GlobalPartnershipInitiative,WASHplusislayinga
foundationfortheUSAID/BangladeshCatalyzingCleanEnergyinBangladesh(CCEB)
programandotherkeyactorsbyconductingacomprehensiveassessmenttobetter
understandconsumerneedsandpreferencesastheyrelatetoincreasingtheuptakeof
ICS,includinghouseholdtrialsofimprovedstovesnotcurrentlywidelyavailablein
Bangladesh.
Toassessconsumerpreferences,researchersappliedaninnovativemethodologycalled
TrialsofImprovedPractices,orTIPs.TheWASHplusapplicationoftheTIPsmethod
uses“elicitationquestions,”whicharesemi‐structuredquestionsthathavebeen
developedandvalidatedtosystematicallyidentifybarriersandmotivatorstochange,
includingwhichfactorsaremostinfluentialinspurringtheperformanceor
nonperformanceofabehavior.
ICSfuelefficiencywasmeasuredusingathree‐daykitchenperformancetest(KPT),
widelyacknowledgedasthebestcurrentlyavailablemethodforaccuratelyestimating
dailyhouseholdfuelconsumption.TheKPTwascarriedoutusingacross‐sectional
studydesignin116studyhouseholdsand24controlhouseholds.Twoapproacheswere
usedtomeasuretheextenttowhichhouseholdsadoptedthenewstovesandthe
mannerinwhichtheyintegratedthemintotheircookingandkitchenmanagement
practices:self‐reporteduseofstovesattheendofeach24‐hourKPTmonitoringperiod
andstoveusemonitoringsensors(SUMS).TheSUMSrecordedthestovetemperature
every10minutesforatotalofapproximately10days;theresultingtemperature
profileswerethenanalyzedtodeterminethefrequencyof“cookingevents”(i.e.,
numberoftimesthestoveswerelit)perday.Theimpactoftheinterventionson
householdairqualitywasexploredduringtheKPTmonitoring;illustrative(not
statisticallysignificant)resultswerecollectedfrommeasuresofminute‐by‐minute
kitchenconcentrations(inalocationapproximatingthebreathingzoneofthecook)of
smallparticles(PM2.5)andcarbonmonoxide(CO).Theimpactoftheinterventionson
womenandchildren’sexposurewasexploredinthesamesubsetofhomesby
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013
1
monitoringthe24‐hourexposuretoCOofboththecookandonechildundertheageof
5inthehousehold.
Procedure
FivedifferentimportedICSmodels1wereplacedinhomes,withthreeofeachstovetype
pervillage,thustotaling15householdspervillageineightvillages,or120total
households.Eachhouseholdinthetrialwasonlyprovidedonetypeofstovetotest.In
eachhouseholddetailedcookstoveoperationandmaintenancetrainingwasprovided,
andcookswereaskedtotryoutthestoveundernormalconditions.Eachhouseholdhad
theopportunitytotryanewimprovedstove(notcurrentlywidelyavailablein
Bangladesh)forthreeweeksandwasaskedtoofferitsfeedbackandopinions.Unlike
othersurveymethods,whereallfactorsareheldconstantandresearchersanalyzethe
frequencyandrangeofresponse,thisqualitativemethodologyinviteshouseholdsto
identify,discuss,andresolvebarrierstousingthenewICS.Householdswerealsoasked
tocomparecookingontheICSwiththeirtraditionalorpreviousstoveonarangeof
criteria.Throughthesecomparisons,researcherswereabletoelicitcategoriesof
attributesvaluedbythetargetconsumer.InterviewswereconductedatDay1,Day3,
andDay21.
SummaryFindings
Thestudyclearlyshowedthatatleasttwostoveswereperceivedaspreferableto
traditionalcookstovesbymanyofthosewhotriedthem.Asiscommonamongmany
improvedstoveinterventions,2however,noneascurrentlyproducedmetallconsumer
needs,andnonemetsufficientconsumerneedstocompletelyreplacetraditionalstoves.
ConsumersmostappreciatedthePraktiandEco‐Chulastoves,withthepreferencefor
eachstovevaryingbydistrict.
OverallConsumerReactionstoNewStovesonKeyVariables
Overall,consumers“liked”thenewstoves,whichwasadistinctindicatorseparatefrom
whetherornotthey“preferred”theICStothetraditionalstove.Thesegeneralreactions
werecommonacrossstovetypes.Femalecooksfeltthatthetasteoftheirfoodwasthe
samewhencookedonanICSversusthetraditionalstove.Abouttwo‐thirdsofthestudy
participantssaidfoodtastesthesame,withtheothersequallysplitbetweensayingit
wasbetter(21)orworse(19).Respondentsoverwhelminglyfeltthestoveusedless
fuelthantheiroldstove,withthree‐fourthsofthegroupseeingfuelsavings.Someof
thesecooksreportedthatthenewstovessavedupto60percentofthewoodthey
wouldhaveusedinatraditionalwoodburningstovepercookingsession.Aboutafifth
1Ofnote,thestovestestedinthisstudywereallimportedfromelsewhereintheregionandwerenotdesignedforthe
Bangladeshmarket.Thesewerethesinglepot,built‐in‐place,rocketdesignstove(EnvirofitZ3000),asinglepot,
portable,rocketdesignstove(EcoZoomDura),a2‐potportablemetalchimneystove(PraktiLeoChimney),asingle‐
potportablefangasifierstove(Eco‐Chula),andasingle‐potportablenaturaldraftgasifierstove(Greenway).Only
oneofthefive(Greenway)wasavailableforpurchaseinBangladeshatthetimeofthestudy.
2Ruiz‐MercadoI.etal.2013.QuantitativeMetricsofStoveAdoptionUsingStoveUseMonitors(SUMs).Biomassand
Bioenergy.URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.002
PineK.etal.2012.AdoptionandUseofImprovedBiomassStovesinRuralMexico.EnergyforSustained
Development.URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.04.001
Ruiz‐Mercado,I.etal.2011.AdoptionandSustainedUseofImprovedCookstoves.EnergyPolicy,
DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.028
SchepersJ.andM.Wetzels.2007.AMeta‐AnalysisoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModel:InvestigatingSubjective
NormandModerationEffects.Information&Management,44,90‐103.
2
oftheparticipantsthoughtthestovesusedmorefuel,whichisinterpretedinthe
discussionsection.
Whenaskedaboutdifferencesinsmokeproduced,avastmajority(85)saidtheICS
producedlesssmokethantheirtraditionalstoves.Husbandspresentatthetimeofthe
surveywhoansweredthequestionhadbasicallythesameimpressionsastheirwives
regardingthereductioninsmokefromthenewICS.WhenaskediftheICShadany
impactoncookingpots,justoverhalftheusers(62)feltthenewstoveskepttheirpots
cleaner,afewsawnoimpact(15),andathird(40)feltitmadethepotsdirtierthanthe
traditionalstove.Again,thisfindingisdiscussedfurtherinthediscussionsection,but
someusers“jammed”theICSwithwoodtomakeflamesvisiblymeetthecookingpot,
whichwouldclearlyaffectimpressionsandcookstoveperformance.Amajorobstacle
reportedisthatthecookingtimewasslowerusingtheICS.Three‐fourthsof
respondents(91)reportedslowercookingtime,afifth(24)reportedfaster,andjusta
few(3)respondentssaidcookingtimewasthesame.
Whenaskedtheopen‐endedquestion,“Whatdoyouthinkaboutthestove?”afterthree
weeks,manygavetheunpromptedresponsethattheyenjoycookingonthestove(49),
andalmostafifth(21)saiditlooksnice.Womennotedthatchangeswererequiredto
theircookingstyle,includingtheneedtoprepareallingredientsbeforeinitiating
cookingandtositinfrontofthestovetendingthefire(asopposedtomulti‐tasking)
whilecooking(seechartonpage29).
Dislikesandsuggestionsforimprovementfellintotwogeneralcategories,thosethat
canbeaddressedthroughfairlysimplemodificationstothestovedesignandothers
moreappropriatelyaddressedthroughpoint‐of‐purchaseconsumereducationand
followupfromserviceagentsorhealthoutreachworkers.
Themostoverarchingcomplaintaboutallthecookstovesincludedinthetrialwastheir
inabilitytocooklargevolumesoffoodinlargepots,especiallythePraktiandGreenway
cookstoves.Studyparticipantscompensatedforthisbyjammingthestovewithmore
fuelandwrestlingwithlargepots,whichrenderedsomestoveslessstable.Asis
commonwithotherstovestudies,participantswereunaccustomedand/orunwillingto
chopwoodintosmallpieces,thuscomplaintsweremadeaboutthesizeandangleofthe
woodopening.Inaddition,traditionalstovesareconstructedsoastoallowa“natural
feed”oflargewoodpiecesandotheragrofuelsanddungsticks;becausetheopeninginto
thecombustionchamberanglesdownward,thefuelnaturallyslidesfurtherintothe
combustionchamberasitburns.Consumersmissedthisfeatureonthenewstoves;
improvedstoveshaveahorizontalfuelentry,sofuelmustbemanuallypushedintothe
stoveasitburns.Lastly,consumersfoundexcessashcollectedinthestoveand
suggestedatrayforeasyemptying.Whilethislastitemcanbeconsidered,someofthe
ashbuildupwasduetoexcessiveamountsofwoodbeingburnedinthestoves(Figure
12).IncaseofthePraktistovethemajorcomplaintwasthatthesecondpotwasnot
effectiveforcooking.FortheGreenwaystoveamajorcomplaintwasthatthestoveis
notstable.Besidesthesetwospecificconcerns,complaintsweresimilaracrossallstove
types.
Someoftheseproblemsandrelatedsuggestionsforimprovementcanbeappropriately
addressedbyimprovedconsumereducation,withoutwhichconsumerswillbeless
satisfiedbytheoverallperformanceoftheirstove,whichwillaffectuseandwordof
3
mouthrecommendationsforthenewstoves.Wesuggestrampingupeffortsin
consumereducationandbehaviorchangebecausesomestovefeaturesunder
discussion(e.g.,sizeoffuelopeningandlackofvisibleflamesleapingfromthestove)
arecriticaltoimprovedcombustionefficiencyandheattransfer;inotherwordsthey
arekeyrequirementsoftheimprovedstove.
PerceivedValueandWillingnesstoPay
Studyparticipantsvaluedstovesforcertainfeatures,butdramaticallyundervaluedthe
monetaryworthofthestove.Mostparticipantsestimatedthemonetaryvalueofthe
stovestobeonehalftoonequarteroftheiractualcalculatedvalue(whichalready
includesanassumedcarbonsubsidy)(Figures14and15).However,aswillbefurther
discussedinthefindingsanddiscussionsection,reportedvalueswerelikelyinfluenced
byashared(andperhapsdiscussed)perceptionthatparticipantsshouldbegiventhe
stovesasatokenofappreciationforparticipatinginthestudy.
Ofthe120households,105studyparticipantsweregiventheoptiontopurchasethe
stovesatthemarketvalue.Onlyoneoptedtodoso,andasecondnonparticipant
neighborpurchasedastove(seechartonpage33).Usingasecondmethodology,
however,theremaining15householdswereofferedthestovesasgifts,andwerethen
givenanoptionofacashbuyoutatmarketvalue.Surprisingly,onlythreeoptedforthe
(relativelysignificantamountof)cash;theother12preferredtokeeptheirstove.
SummaryKPTandSUMSFindings
ICSfuelefficiencywasmeasuredusingaKPTin116studyhouseholdsand24control
households,andtemperature‐loggingsensors(SUMS)affixedtoallstovesinthehouse
collecteddataonthefrequencyofcookingperiods.UsagepatternscapturedduringKPT
monitoringsuggesttheinterventionstoveswerecommonlyusedbythestudy
households,butinallcases,didnotfullydisplacetheuseofthetraditionalstoves(see
chartonpage35).Homesusingfouroutofthefiveimprovedstoveswerefoundtouse
atleast16percentto30percentlessfuelthanthecontrolhomesoverthecourseofthe
KPT,3arangethatmaybesomewhatartificiallylowduetounderreportedfuelmixingin
controlhomes(seechartonpage37).
3Itisimportanttonotethatthisdoesnotmeanthattheimprovedstovesused16–30percentlesswoodthanthe
traditionalstoves.Rather,homesusingtheimprovedstovesalongsidetheirtraditionalstoves(whichiswhat
happenedinmostoftheinterventionhouseholds)used16–30percentlesswoodthanhomesusingonlythe
traditionalstoves.
4
BACKGROUND
ConsumersinBangladeshtodatehavenotexperiencedanychoiceintheimproved
cookstovesmarketandhavenothadtheoptiontousehigh‐endimprovedmodels,
includingimportedportablemodels.Thecurrentlydisseminated“improved”stove
model,theBondhuChula,isabasicbuilt‐in‐placestovewithacementcombustion
chamberandchimney,surroundedbyclay/mud(seephotobelowright).The
traditionalstovesconsistofaholeinthegroundwitharaisedclayliponwhichtorest
thepot,withaseparatefuelentryhole(see
photobelowleft).
Traditional sunken‐hole stove (two pot version)
USAID/Bangladesh’sEconomicGrowthOffice
providedfieldsupporttoWASHplusto
conductanimprovedcookstove(ICS)
Bondhu Chula built‐in‐place chimney stove; the consumerneeds,preferences,and
current model of “improved” stove most widely willingnesstopayassessmentinBangladesh
disseminated in Bangladesh. (“Phase1”).TheUSAIDAsiaRegionalBureau
providedcomplementaryfundingtoidentifykeybehaviorchangeelementsanddevelop
amarketingplanandrelatedtools(“Phase2”)basedonthePhase1researchfindings
andotherregionallessons.
UnderPhase1,WASHplusislayingafoundationfortheUSAID/BangladeshCatalyzing
CleanEnergyinBangladesh(CCEB)programandotherkeystakeholdersbyconducting
acomprehensiveassessmenttobetterunderstandconsumerneedsandpreferencesas
theyrelatetoincreasingtheuptakeofICS,includinghouseholdtrialsofimproved
stovesnotcurrentlywidelyavailableinBangladesh.
ThisBangladeshICSassessmentrepresentsUSAID’sfirstsignificantinvestmentin
behaviorchangeandimprovedcookstovesandwillformthebasisforitsfirstmajor
investmentinimprovedcookstovesinBangladesh.Thecookstovesectorhasseen
consistentglobaltrendsofdrop‐offinimprovedstoveuseovertimeandparallelstove
use(stovestacking)4inpartbecausetheimprovedstovedoesnotmeetalloftheusers’
4
Ibid.
5
needs;bypayingmoreattentiontoconsumerneedsandpreferences,thebenefitsof
improvedstovescanbemaximized,andattritionandparallelusereduced.Other
reasonsforlowadoptionandsustaineduseofimprovedcookstovesincludedeficiencies
indistribution,consumereducation,financing,andafter‐salesservice.
STRATEGICAPPROACH
WASHplus,afive‐yearcooperativeagreement(2010–2015)managedbytheBureaufor
GlobalHealth’sMaternalandChildHealthDivision,isimplementedbyFHI360
(formerlytheAcademyforEducationalDevelopment),andincludesWinrock
Internationalasacorepartner,withprimaryresponsibilityforWASHplus’sindoorair
pollution(IAP)activities.WASHplus’soverarchingmissionistoincreasetheavailability
anduseofwater,sanitation,andhygiene(WASH)andIAPinterventions.
WASHplusfocusesonimprovingthepracticeofkeyWASHandIAP‐relatedbehaviors,
includingtheconsistentandcorrectuseofimprovedcookstoves.Tothisend,WASHplus
incorporatesmethodologiesandapproachesthatfocusonincreasingtheperformance
ofimprovedpractices,notmerelyincreasinglatrinecoverageorsalesofimproved
cookstoves.Planningandpromotionareundertakenfromtheconsumerpointofview,
incorporatingdesiredbenefitsandconsequencesratherthanfocusingonpromoting
“what’sgoodforyou”orwhatmakessensefromapublichealthandorenergyefficiency
pointofview.Equalemphasisisplacedonimprovinghealth‐relatedproducts(and
services)thatmeetconsumerneedsandwants—changingtheproductifneededto
bettersatisfyconsumersratherthanconvincingconsumerstobuyproductsthatthey
maynotvalueorthatmaynotmeettheirexpectationsandneeds.Lastly,WASHplusalso
focusesonincreasinghouseholddemand,inthiscaseforICS,bycraftingpromotional
appealsthatofferdesiredbenefitsthroughcrediblechannelsasdescribedabove;
increasingaffordableandaccessiblesupplythroughproductmodification,enhanced
distributionchannels,andfeasiblepaymentoptions;andshapinganenvironmentwith
supportivepolicyandadequatecapacitytoplan,manage,anddeliverproductsand
services.
WASHplusoperatesusingtheUSAIDFrameworkforImpact,whichpositsthattosee
improvedpractices,inthiscaseimprovedcookingpracticesinBangladesh,aprogram
(whetherpilotorat‐scale)mustensurethateffectiveandappealingproductsand
servicesareavailableandaccessibletoconsumers;thatinstitutionsandpolicies
supporttherelatedproductsorbehaviors;andthattheseproductsarepromotedina
waythatreachesconsumersthroughconvincingappealsandmultiplecredible
channels.ThismeansthatamarketingplanforICSinBangladeshmusttakeinto
accountstovedesign,paymentoptions,andfuelavailability;assessifgovernment
policiesinhibitimport,distribution,orsales;andhighlightwaysforpublicandprivate
sectorinstitutionstobuildneededcapacitiesandworkincoordination.Theactual
implementationanduptakeofthemarketingplanwouldoccurthroughabroadsector
supportprogramorprivatesectorinstitutions;themarketingplanwillpresentthe
analysis,rationale,andoptions.
WASHplusformativeresearchwillanswergapsininformationrequiredtodevelopa
comprehensivemarketingapproachforincreasingtheuptakeofICSinBangladesh.
WASHplusresearchwillcontributenotonlytopromotionalstrategies,butalsotoICS
design,distribution,andpaymentoptions.Withincreasedunderstandingofwhatboth
6
womenandmenwantfromastove—theattributes,characteristicsandbenefits—
stovescanbemademoreaccessible,affordable,andappealingtolowincome
consumers.
WASHpluswilldrawonlessonslearnedinbehaviorchange,demandcreation,and
marketingofsanitationandwatertreatmentproductstodevelopaneffectivemarketing
andbehaviorchangestrategythatwillsuggestalimitednumberofevidence‐based
approachestoincreasetheuptakeofstoves;concepttestkeyelementsofthese
approaches;anddeveloppractical“how‐to”toolstocontributetothegoalsandresults
ofUSAIDenergyandhealthobjectivesinBangladesh.
STUDYOBJECTIVES
Formativeresearchreferstoagroupofresearchmethodologiesspecificallydeveloped
toguideorinforminterventiondesigns.Guidingallformativeresearchisonesimple
questiondevelopedbythe“grandfather”ofsocialmarketing,AlanAndreason,aspartof
hisBackwardResearchModel5:Whatinformationisneededtomakedecisions?
Inthiscase,thequestionwasframedas:Whatinformationdoweneedtodevelopasolid
marketingplantoincreasetheuptakeofimprovedcookstovesinBangladesh?
Withthelargerguidingquestioninmind,theteamdevelopedasetofquestionsthatthis
formativeresearchsoughttoanswer.Theseare:
ConsumerPreferenceResearchQuestions
1. Whatarethedesiredattributesofacookstove?Thisincludescharacteristicslike
size,portability,stability,color,andfunction(e.g.,timetocook,highandlow
powercapabilities).Thisincludedexploringcurrentstoveattributesandcooking
experienceandinitialexperiencewithnewstoves.
2. WhataretheperceivedbarriersanddislikestothesefivemodelsofICSbasedon
athree‐weektrial?Whatmakesastovehardtouse?Whoapprovesor
disapprovesofthestove?AnsweringthesequestionsrequiredtheuseofSUMS
monitorstomeasuretheactualnumberoftimesanddurationthatstoveswere
usedinhouses,whichcouldthenbecomparedwithself‐reporteduse.
3. Aretherefeasiblesolutionstothesebarriers,eitherbychanginghousehold
behaviorsorthedesignofthestove?
4. Whatisgoodaboutthenewstove?Whatdocooksandtheirfamiliesperceiveas
goodthingsabouteachparticularICS?
5. Whatcharacteristics,attributes,likes,anddislikesaremostpersuasiveto
households?Besidessavingsinfuelcosts,whatotherattributeswillinfluence
thepurchaseofanICS?Aretherecross‐cutting“aspirational”attributesorother
moreabstractbenefitspeopleaspireto?Forexample,beingseenasmodern,a
goodprovider,agourmetcook—attributesthatresoundandmotivate
consumersfromdeepwithin.
5AndreasenA.1985.BackwardMarketResearch.HarvardBusinessReview.
7
WillingnesstoPay
6. Whatareconsumerswillingtopayforhigh‐endimprovedstoveswithfeatures
theydesire?
7. Howdoesofferinginstallmentpaymentoptionsinfluencestovepurchase?
EffectivenessofVariousImprovedCookstoves
8. Whataretheactualfuelsavingsofthetrialstoveswhenusedundernormal
householdconditionsinBangladesh?Thefivestovemodelstestedhavealready
beenshowntosignificantlyreducefueluseandIAPinlaboratorysettings,andin
somecasesfieldsettingselsewhere,andthroughthisactivitytheywillalsobe
fieldtestedforhouseholdeffectiveness.OnasmallerscaleIAPandsmoke
exposurewillalsobemonitored.
METHODOLOGY
Toassessconsumerpreferences,researchersappliedaninnovativemethodologycalled
TrialsofImprovedPractices,orTIPs.TheTIPsmethodologyisaqualitativemethod
usedtodevelopandtestbehavioralandproductoptionswithtargetconsumers.Ithas
beenappliedsuccessfullytointerventionsrelatedtoHIV,6nutrition,7waterfilters,8
dengue,9sanitation,andarangeofothertechnicalareas.TheTIPsqualitative
methodologywasfirstdevelopedfornutritionprojectstorehabilitateundernourished
children.10Itdrawsfromassets‐basedmethodologiesthatlookforfeasibleandeffective
behavioralimprovementsthatuseexistingorreadilyavailableresources.11
TheWASHplusapplicationoftheTIPsmethoduses“elicitationquestions,”12whichare
semi‐structuredquestionsthathavebeendevelopedandvalidatedtosystematically
identifybarriersandmotivatorstochangeandwhichfactorsaremostinfluentialin
spurringtheperformanceornonperformanceofabehavior.
Thedatacollectedthroughthesemethodswillfillkeyinformationgapsessentialto
developingacomprehensivemarketingapproachforincreasingtheuptakeofICSin
6BeryR.andJ.Rosenbaum.2010.HowtoIntegrateWater,SanitationandHygieneImprovementintoHIV/AIDS
Programmes.WorldHealthOrganization(WHO)/USAID.
7GriffithM.1992.ImprovingYoungChildFeedingPractices.USAID/TheWeaningProject.
8RosenbaumJ.2006.BringingtheConsumertotheTableResearchBrief:DevelopingaMarketingStrategyfor
ImprovingHouseholdWaterQualityinNepal.USAID/HygieneImprovementProject.
9RosenbaumJ.andE.Leontsini.2002.PlanningSocialMobilizationandCommunicationforDengueFeverPrevention
andControl:AStep‐by‐StepGuide.SpecialProgrammeforResearchandTraininginTropicalDiseases,Communicable
Diseases.WHO.
10DickinK.,M.Griffiths,andE.Piwoz.1997.TrialsofImprovedPractices(TIPs):GivingParticipantsaVoice,and
DesigningbyDialogue:AProgramPlanners’GuidetoConsultativeResearchforImprovingYoungChildFeeding.
USAID/SARAProject.
11LappingK.,D.Marsh,andJ.Rosenbaum.2001.ComparisonofPositiveDevianceandOtherAsset‐Based
DevelopmentModels.SavetheChildren/AcademyforEducationalDevelopment.
12MiddlestadtS.,K.Bhattacharyya,J.Rosenbaumetal.1996.TheUseofTheory‐BasedSemi‐StructuredElicitation
Questionnaires:FormativeResearchforCDC’sPreventionMarketingInitiative,PublicHealthReports.
8
Bangladesh.Understandingperceivedbarriersandsolutions;desiredorexecuted
modificationstostovesduringthetrialperiod(e.g.,removaloffuelgrateoradditionofa
makeshiftstove‐sideshelf,expressedcolorchange);andperceivedanddesiredbenefits
andattributeswillhelpprogramactivitiesgoingforwardtoidentifyappropriatestoves
intargetareasand/ormodifystovesforincreasedeffectiveness,appeal,anduse.This
willalsoprovideinformationvitaltodevelopingamarketingandbehaviorchange
strategy.
ICSfuelefficiency(reportedintermsofreductionsinfuelusage)wasmeasuredusinga
three‐dayKPT(version3.0,www.pciaonline.org/testing),widelyacknowledgedasthe
bestcurrentlyavailablemethodforaccuratelyestimatingdailyhouseholdfuel
consumption13.TheKPTwascarriedoutusingacross‐sectionalstudydesignin116
studyhouseholds(threehouseholdsdeclinedtoparticipateandafourthhadincomplete
data)and24controlhouseholds.
Twoapproacheswereusedtomeasuretheextenttowhichhouseholdsadoptedthenew
stovesandthemannerinwhichtheyintegratedthemintotheircookingandkitchen
managementpractices:self‐reporteduseofstovesattheendofeach24‐hourKPT
monitoringperiodandtheuseofSUMS.TheSUMStemperature‐loggingsensorswere
affixedtoallstovesinthehouse(includingbothtraditionalandinterventionstoves)to
collectdataonhowoftenthestoveswere“turnedon”(i.e.,lit).TheSUMSrecordedthe
stovetemperatureevery10minutesforatotalofapproximately10days;theresulting
temperatureprofileswerethenanalyzedtodeterminethefrequencyof“cooking
events”(i.e.,numberoftimesthestoveswerelit)perday.
TheimpactoftheinterventionsonhouseholdairqualitywasexploredduringtheKPT
monitoringinasubsetofsevenhomes(twohouseholdsfromthetraditionalstove
groupandonehouseholdfromeachofthefiveinterventionstovegroups)tocollect
illustrative(notstatisticallysignificant)results.Minute‐by‐minutekitchen
concentrations(inalocationapproximatingthebreathingzoneofthecook)ofsmall
particles(PM2.5)andcarbonmonoxide(CO)weremeasured.Environmentaland
contextualinformationthatmightimpactindoorairquality,suchaskitchenvolume,
wasalsocollectedduringthestudies.
Theimpactoftheinterventionsonwomen’sandchildren’sexposurewasexploredin
thesamesubsetofhomesthroughthemonitoringof24‐hourexposuretoCOofboththe
cookandonechildundertheageof5inthehousehold.
Procedure
TheWASHplusteamselectedpartnerNGOsineachofthestudylocations,whothen
helpedthefieldteamidentifyhouseholdstoparticipateinthestovetrial,distributethe
stovesandcollectthemattheendofthestudy,andensurestoveuserscontinuedtouse
theICSduringthestudyevenifsomefunctionalproblemoccurredwiththestove.Based
onthePartnerNGOSelectionCriteria(seeAnnexA),DESHGORIBangladeshinBarisal
andInstituteofDevelopmentAffairs(IDEA)inSylhetwereselectedtoconductsite
visitstoeachlocation.
13
Bailisetal.2007;Smithetal.2007;WHO2008.
9
WASHpluspurchased26modelsofeachstove(twoextraofeachmodelincaseofany
problems)andhiredBangladeshNGOfieldpartnerVillageEducationResourceCenter
(VERC)tocoordinatewithandtrainIDEAandDESHGORI,overseefieldlogistics,and
supportKPTwork.
ThepartnerNGOs,alongwithWASHplusstaff,identifiedsixvillagesineachoftheir
interventionareas(foratotalof12villages),basedonasetCommunitySelection
Criteria(seeAnnexA).PartnerNGOsthenidentified20householdsineachvillage(fora
totalof240households),usingHouseholdSelectionCriteria(seeAnnexA).Toavoid
selectionbiasofanykind,WASHplusstafftogetherwithVERCconductedashort
intensivefieldsurveytoensurevillagesandhousesmetallselectioncriteriaandwere
representativeoftargetconsumers.FourprojectstaffmembersfromeachpartnerNGO
weregivenatwo‐daytrainingonstoveinstallation,use,andmaintenanceinaworkshop
conductedbyVERC.Praktisentarepresentativetoparticipateinthisworkshopsince
manufacturingandproperinstallationofmetalchimneysinhouseholdsisvitalforthe
performanceofthestove.Theotherstovemanufacturerssentdetailedtraining
materialsandstep‐by‐stepguidesforstoveinstallation,use,andmaintenance.
WASHplusworkedwithalllocalpartnerstomakefinalhouseholdselections,distribute
stoves,andprovidetrainingontheirusetohouseholds.Stovesthenwererandomly
assignedto120ofthe240identifiedhouseholds.Theteamplacedoneofthefive
differentICSmodels(seebelow)ineachofthehouseholdsforcookstouseandprovide
feedbackonthroughsemi‐structuredelicitationquestions.
Basedonhighperforming14stovemodelsavailableinotherSouthAsiamarketsand
beyond,theWASHplusteamselectedthefollowingwood‐burningstovesforthisstudy,
showninthephotobelow:
- Singlepot,built‐in‐place,rocket
designstove(Envirofit)
- Singlepot,portable,rocketdesign
stove(EcoZoom)
- Two‐potportablemetalchimney
stove(Prakti)
- Single‐potportablefangasifier
stove(Eco‐Chula)
- Single‐potportablenaturaldraft
gasifierstove(Greenway)
Ofnote,allofthesestoveswereimported
fromelsewhereintheregionandwerenot Trial stoves, clockwise from top left: Eco‐Chula, Prakti, designedfortheBangladeshmarket.
Envirofit, EcoZoom, and Greenway. EcoZoomstovesarenotcurrentlyavailable
intheSouthAsianmarket,andonlyGreenwaystovesarecurrentlysoldinBangladesh.
14
The2012ISOInternationalWorkshopAgreementforcookstoveperformanceprovidesasystemforcategorizing
stovesbasedonseveralperformancemetrics,includingtwometricsrelatedtoefficiency,fromtier0representing
traditionalstovestotier4representingaspirationalgastechnologies.TheIWAtiersonlyprovidecomparative
classificationforstovesbasedonlabtests.Allofthestovesselectedforthisstudyhadachievedatier2orhigher
ratingfortheirefficiencymetricsinthelaboratory.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 10
ThestudyhadplannedtoincludetheBioLiteHomeStove,butbecauseBioLite
productionwashaltedinlate2012toaddressafanissue,itwasnotincluded.Thestudy
alsolookedatanimportedricehuskstovefromIndiathatmaybeagoodfitfora
segmentofBangladeshiconsumers,butdidnotincludeitinthestudyduetologistical
andgeographicchallengesofdoingso,giventhedistinctusergroupsforwoodversus
ricehuskfuel.Photosandmoredetaileddescriptionsofthefiveimprovedstoves
includedinthestudyareattachedhereinAnnexC.
Thesefivedifferentstovemodelswereplacedinhomes,withthreeofeachstovetype
pervillage,thustotaling15householdspervillageineightvillages,or120total
households.Eachhouseholdinthetrialwasprovidedwithonlyonetypeofstovetotest.
Ineachhouseholddetailedcookstoveoperationandmaintenancetrainingwas
provided,andcookswereaskedtotryoutthestovesundernormalconditions.Each
householdhadtheopportunitytotryanewimprovedstove(notpreviouslyavailablein
Bangladesh)forthreeweeksandwereaskedtooffertheirideasandopinions.Unlike
othersurveymethods,whereallfactorsareheldconstantandresearchersanalyzethe
frequencyandrangeofresponse,thisqualitativemethodologyinviteshouseholdsto
identify,discuss,andresolvebarrierstousingthenewICS.Householdswerealsoasked
tocomparecookingontheICSwiththeirtraditionalorpreviousstove.Throughthese
comparisons,researcherswereabletoelicitcategoriesofattributesvaluedbythetarget
consumer.Interviewswereconductedondays1,3,and21. WASHplusrecruitedandselectedaDhaka‐basedteamofinterviewersandprovided
themwithethicalandtechnicaltrainingtoconductthebaseline,Day3,andDay21
questionnaires.
OnDay1ofthetrial,thetrainedWASHplusenumeratorsvisitedeachcommunityand:
 Explainedthestudytoeachofthe15participatinghouseholdsineachvillage
(threehouseholdsforeachoffivestovemodels),usingascriptinBengali
preparedbytheWASHplusteam(Stove‐TrialIntroduction);thisscriptincluded
allinstitutionalreviewboard(IRB)‐requiredconsents
 Conductedthe“BaselineQuestionnaire”withthesehouseholds
Oncethebaselinequestionnairewascompleted,projectstaffofDESHGORIandIDEA
(overseenbyVERC)distributedtheimprovedcookstovestothesehouseholdsand
trainedcooksandheadsofhouseholdonthecorrectusageandmaintenanceofthe
stove.Closeattentionwaspaidtoqualitycontrolintrainingandapplication(bythe
NGOs)ofthestandardtrainingprocedureoncorrectusageforhouseholds,giventhe
impactthattrainingqualityandquantitycanhaveonimprovedstoveusageand
perceptions.
OnDay3ofthetrial,trainedWASHplusenumeratorsreturnedtoeachofthevillages
andconductedthe“Day‐3Questionnaire”witheachoftheparticipanthouseholds.On
Day21(afterthreeweeksofstoveuse),trainedWASHplusenumeratorsreturnedto
eachofthevillagesandconductedthe“Week‐3Questionnaire”witheachofthe
participanthouseholdsoveraperiodofsevendays.Intheprocessofdatacleaningand
analysis,recordsfromtwohouseholdsneededtobeexcludedfromDay3andDay21
comparisonsbecauseofpossibleerror/overlapinthedatacollectionprocess.Thetwo
householdsremovedfromtheDay3andDay21surveyanalysiswerebothinthe
Kunarchorvillage,resultingin58villagesfromtheSylhetdistrictand60fromBarisal.
Thefullcomplementof120householdrecordsisrepresentedintheanalysisand
reportingofbaselinefindings.Samplesizesforeachanalysisarenotedincharts.
KPTswereundertakenatdifferentpointsbetweentheDay3andDay21
questionnaires.Allhouseholdfuelstobeused(wood,cropresidues,charcoal,kerosene,
etc.)wereweighedatthebeginningandendofeachofthethree24‐hourmonitoring
periodsusingdigitalhand‐heldscales.Woodmoisturewasmeasureddailyineach
householdusingadualpin,electricalresistance‐stylemoisturemeteratthreepointson
threerandomlyselectedsticksinthewoodpile.Ashortquestionnairewasalso
administereddailytorecordinformationaboutcookingstoveandfuelusage,the
numberandtypeofmealsprepared,andthenumberofpeoplecookedfor.The
householdswereaskedtomaintaintheirtypicalcookingpatternsforthedurationofthe
survey.
AttheonsetoftheKPTs,SUMStemperature‐sensingdataloggerswereplacedonall
interventionstoves,aswellasonthepre‐existingtraditionalstoves(whateverthe
familyhadbeencookingonpriortothetrial),sothatusageofboththenewstoveand
theoldstoveweremeasured.TheSUMStrackedactualcookingperiodsforeach
improvedandtraditionalstoveoverthecourseofthethree‐weektrial.SUMSdatawas
downloadedattheendofthethree‐weektrialandanalyzed,comparingactualto
reporteduse,whichhelpeddetermineanyunreportedproblemswithornonusageof
theimprovedstovestested.
Thisactivityappliedthefollowingtools/scripts:
Stove‐TrialIntroduction:Thisscriptwasreadtoeachoftheparticipatinghouseholds
beforethetrialbegan.Itincludedafullexplanationofthetrial,explainedthefollow‐up
questionnairesandwhentheywouldhappen,explainedanypotentialrisks,andasked
permissionforparticipation,asrequiredbytheIRB.Thisscriptwaspreparedbythe
corestudyteam,translatedintoBengali,andreadbytheenumerators.
BaselineQuestionnaire:Thisquestionnairewasconductedwiththeparticipating
householdsonthefirstdayofthetrialbeforethehouseholdwasentrustedwithatrial
stove.Thisquestionnairedeterminedthebaselinestovemodel,stovecost,stoveusage
patterns,feedbackonexistingstoves,fuelusepatterns,fuelexpenditure,andother
relevantcharacteristicsofhouseholdsparticipatinginthestovetrials.
Day3Questionnaire:Thisquestionnairewasconductedaftereachparticipating
householdhadthechancetousethestoveforthreedays.Thiswasusedtodetermine
initialpreferences,usepatterns,andotherinitialreactionsafteronlythreedays.
Examinationofthestoveitselfandquestionsprobedforanymodificationsalready
madetothestoveand/oritsdesigned/correctuse(userswereNOTencouragedto
makemodificationstothestovedesignoruse,noradvisedaheadoftimethatthiswas
allowed).InterviewersnotedanyproblemsandthenrelayedthesetopartnerNGOstaff,
whothenvisitedthehouseholdtosolvetheproblems,whetherthroughretrainingthe
users,orservicingthestove.Commonproblemsincludedimproperusage,functional
problemsofthestove(e.g.,thebatteryofEco‐Chularunningoutduringcooking),and
usingpolytheneandplastictostartthefire,whichthencreatedthicksmoke.Boththe
problemsandacceptable/feasiblesolutionswerenotedasdataofinterest.NGOstaff
ensuredthatthestovewasinproperworkingorderbeforeleaving.
Day21Questionnaire:ThisquestionnairewassimilartotheDay3questionnairebut
wasconductedafterhouseholdshadtheopportunitytousethestovefor21days.Semi‐
structuredinterviewquestionswereagainusedtodocumentpreferences,
use/experiencewiththestove,qualitiesattributedtonewandoldstoves,fueluse,
cooking,andotheroutcomes.
DescriptionofStudyGroup
ThefieldsurveywasconductedinJanuaryandFebruary2013,intwowood‐fuel
burningareasofBangladesh—SylhetinthenorthwestandBarisalinthesouth.Both
areasusewoodastheprimaryfuel;thiswasconfirmedin105of120households.About
one‐thirdofthestudyparticipantsexclusivelygatheredtheirwoodandabouthalf
“mostlypurchasedorexclusivelypurchased”wood.Theremainderusedsome
combinationofpurchasedandcollectedwoodasnotedinFigure2.Duringthestudyit
wasfoundthatalthoughwoodwasthepreferredfuelthroughouttheyear,dryleafis
usedasasupplementaryfuelinthewintermonthslastingfromDecemberuntiltheend
February(Figure1).Manyhouseholdsburnthisfreefuelinspecialleaf‐burningmud
stoves,whichtheyconstructoutsideintheopencourtyardtoavoidtheheavysmoke
thatisemittedbythisfuel.
Figure1
n = 120 Figure2
ThepartnerNGOs,DESHGORIfromBarisalandIDEAfromSylhet,selectedthestudy
villages.InBarisalthevillageswereBillobari,Bihangal,Ichakathi,andGonpara.In
SylhetthevillagesselectedforthestudywereJangail,Kewa,Tilargaon,andKunarchor.
InBarisalcookingusuallytakesplaceeitherinanopencourtyardinasemi‐permanent
structureorinaseparatekitchenawayfromthemainhouse.InSylhetthecookingtakes
placeinthemainlivingquarters;themajorityofthehouseholdscookontraditional
stovesplacedunderchimneyhoods(whichactaschimneys,pullingsmokeoutofthe
livingquarters).
Householdswereoriginallyselectedbecausetheyfitthebasiccriteriaofusingprimarily
woodforcooking,havingatleastfourpeopleinthehouseholdwithatleastonechild
under5,andbeingwillingtoparticipateinthestudy.Unfortunately,around20smaller
householdsmadeitpastthehouseholdselectionscreeningintothestudy,asthe
familiesincludedintheirreportednumbershouseholdmemberswhodonotlivefull
timeinthehouse.Mosthouseholdshadfourtofivefamilymembers,withtheaverage
size(5.3)fallingjustabovethenationalaverage(averagehouseholdsizeinBangladesh
is4.4people).Insomecasestheyreportedthecorrectfamilysizebutfailedtoreport
thatextrapeople(farmlaborers)atelunchandsnackswiththefamilysothatcooking
wasperformedforalargernumberofpeople(Figure3).
Figure3
About98outofthe120participanthouseholdswereMuslim,16wereHindu,andsix
wereChristian(allsixinBarisal).Themainoccupationofthehusbandwasbusiness
(30.83percent),followedbyservice(22.5percent).Othercommonoccupationswere
driverofhiredvehicles,farmers,artisans,andabout5.83percentweredailylaborers
(Figure4,representingfrequencies).Amongthewomen,46outof120wereengagedin
income‐generatingactivities.Poultryrearingandsewingwerethemostcommon
(Figure5).Abouthalf(61/120)oftheparticipantsbelongtosomesortofwomen’s
group(suchassavingscooperatives).
Figure4
Figure5
Amongeligiblehouseholds,WASHplusdeliberately
selectedhouseholdsthathadsomeregularincome
(thosewhowerenotextremelypoor)andwouldbe
abletobuythestovesattheendofthestudyifthey
reallylikedthem.Thisexcludedagriculturalsmall
farmersandfarmhands.Thestudyalsoexcluded
richfarmingfamilies,astheywerelikelytocook
withliquefiedpetroleumgas(LPG)orhave
domestichelpforcooking,ratherthanhavingthe
wife/motherofthehouseholdperformthattask.
Alltheparticipantswerewithintheagegroupof
16–65years;about60percentoftheparticipants
werecooksbelow35yearsofage.Some28percent
ofthewomenwere16–25yearsold,32percent
were26–35yearsold,23percentwere36–45,and
13percentwere46–55.Only4percentwereabove
55yearsold. ParticipantswererandomlyassignedoneoffiveICS
andaskedtotryitoverathree‐weekperiod,
providinginformationtointerviewersatbaseline,
threedays,andthreeweeksasexplainedabove. NOTE ON PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS This study included both qualitative and quantitative methods. In depth, qualitative questions were asked of smaller subsamples trying particular stoves (where n is 118, there were 24 each using Eco‐Chula, Envirofit, and Greenway; 23 using EcoZoom and Prakti) or small subsamples responding to particular questions. Following standard procedures for reporting qualitative data, we are reporting on these data using words (most, many, some, few) and numbers, and only use percentages when reporting on the entire study group of 120 for the baseline data, 118 for the 21‐day group, and a few other rare instances. For the most part, results of each stove trial group are reported as follows: Most = 90% or above (at least 20 of 24) Many = 40% or more (at least 10) Some = 15‐39% (at least 4, less than 10) Few = less than 15% (2‐3) UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 16
FINDINGS
OverallConsumerReactionstoNewStovesonKeyVariables
BasedontheirresponsestotheDay21survey,consumersfeltthatthetasteoftheir
foodwasthesamewhencookedonanICSversusatraditionalstove.Abouttwo‐thirds
ofthestudyparticipantssaidfoodtastesthesame,withtheothersequallysplitbetween
sayingitwasbetter(21/118)orworse(19/118).Respondentsoverwhelminglyfeltthe
improvedstovesusedlessfuelthantheiroldstoves,withalmostthree‐fourthsofthe
groupseeingfuelsavings(85/118).Afew(8/118)respondentssaidtheICSusedthe
sameamountoffuelasthetraditionalstoves.Interestingly,aboutafifthofthe
participantsthoughtthenewstovesusedmorefuel.ManyPraktiusers(16/118)and
mostEco‐Chulausers(21/118)reportedthattheirstovesusedlessfuelthanthe
traditionalstove.HoweversomeusersofEcoZoom(6/118),Envirofit(6/118),and
Greenway(6/118)reportedneedingmorefueltocookonthesestovesthanontheir
traditionalstoves.Thisisinterpretedinthediscussionsectionbelow,butacoupleof
pointsareimportanttonotehere.First,someofthestoveuserstookfreeleaffuelinto
accountintheirmentalcalculations,whichinfluencedtheseimpressions,andsecondly,
agroupofparticipantsjammedextrawoodintothefuelentry/combustionchambersto
createlargerflamesfromthestoves.Bothofthesepointsshouldbetakeninto
considerationintheresultsrelatedtofueluseforthenewstoves.Thesegeneral
reactionswerecommonacrossstovetypes.
WhenaskedaboutdifferencesinsmokeproducedbytheICSversusthetraditional
stove,avastmajority(85/118)saidtheICSproducedlesssmokethantheirtraditional
stove.Afewsaidnochange(13/118),andasmallgroup(19/118)reportedmore
smoke.Husbandspresentatthetimeofthesurveywhoansweredthequestionhad
basicallythesameimpressionsastheirwivesregardingthereductioninsmokefrom
thenewICS.
WhenaskediftheICShadanyimpactoncookingpots,justoverhalftheusers
(62/118)feltthenewstoveskepttheirpotscleaner,afewsawnoimpact(15/118),and
athird(40/118)feltitmadethepotsdirtierthanthetraditionalstove.Again,this
findingwasinpartduetosomeusers“jamming”theICSwithwoodtomakeflames
visiblymeetthecookingpot,whichwouldclearlyaffectimpressionsandisdiscussed
furtherinthediscussionsection.Amajorobstaclereportedisthatthecookingtime
wasslowerusingtheICS,especiallyforlong‐cookingfooditemslikericeanddaal.More
thanthree‐fourthsofrespondents(91/118)reportedslowercookingtimeusingthe
newstovescomparedtotheirtraditionalstoves,afifth(24/118)reportedfaster
cooking,andjustafew(3/118)respondentssaidcookingtimewasthesame.
Inresponsetoanopen‐endedquestion,“Whatdoyouthinkaboutthestove?”after
threeweeks,aclearmajoritysaidit:wascleaner,releasinglesssootandsmokeintothe
houseandkitchen;usedlessfirewood;andemittedlesssmoke.Manyofthe
participantssaid—unprompted—thattheyenjoycookingonthestove,andalmosta
fifthsaiditlooksnice.Foreachofthesepositiveattributesnotedhere,asmallminority
(lessthan20percentineachinstance)saidtheirstoveemittedmoresmoke(14/118),
thatitusedmorewood(12/118),andthattheydidnotenjoycookingonthestove
(21/118).
ByDay3,themajorityofhouseholdspreferredtheirnewstovetotheiroldtraditional
cookstove.After21days,however,farfewerhouseholdspreferredthenewcookstove
totheirtraditionalstove,withratesfallingfrom56percentpreferringthenewstove
after3daystoonly41percentpreferringthenewstoveafterusingitfor21days
(Figure6).Thebreakdownbymodelofstove(Figures7&8)andbymodelanddistrict
(Figure9)arebelow.
Threestoves—theEco‐Chula,EnvirofitandPrakti—wereclearlymoreacceptableto
consumersattheDay3survey.Morethanhalfofconsumerstryingthosestoves
preferredthenewstovetotheirtraditionalstove.BytheDay21survey,however,user
preferencehaddroppedforallfivestovetypes,mostdramaticallyfortheEco‐Chula.
Reportedreasonsbehindthisaredescribedinthediscussionsectionandprimarilyhave
todowithchangesrelatedtotheircookingpractices(Figures7,8,and9).
Figure6:HouseholdswereincludedinthiscomparisononlyiftheageoftherespondentatDay
3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeingcompared.
Figure9:ThestovespreferredbytheusersinSylhetindecreasingorderare:Prakti,Eco‐Chula,
EcoZoom,Greenway,andEnvirofit.InBarisalthedecreasingorderofpreferenceforstovesis:
Eco‐Chula,equalpreferenceforEnvirofit,Greenway,EcoZoom,andthird,Prakti.
Thedatapointsthatfollowexplainwhatconsumerslikedanddidnotlikeaboutthe
differentstovesbymodelofstove.Analysisoftheseresultsisincludedinthediscussion
section.Despitethedecreasedpreferenceforthenewstovesversustraditionalstoves,
78percentofparticipantsoverallstillsaidtheirnewstovewasa“good”stoveafter
threeweeksofuse.PercentageperceptionbystovetypeisfoundbelowinFigure10.
3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainthatpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeing
compared.
Explorationofthequalitativeandquantitativedatashedslightontheseseemingly
contradictoryfindings(seediscussionsectionbelow).Householdsappearedto“like”
and“value”thestovesbutstillfeltthestovesdidn’tsatisfyalltheirkitchenneedsinthe
waytheirtraditionalstovesdid.Ourconclusionsonwhatitwouldtake(including
considerationofstovedesignmodifications)togetparticipantsinterestedinpurchasing
andusinganICSareincludedinthediscussionsection.
ProfilesofSpecificStoves
Envirofit–Morethanhalfofuserssaidituseslessfuelandemitslesssmoke,andsome
likedthelooksandsaidthattheirhousewascleaner.Lastly,somementionedthatitwas
wellmanufactured.
Prakti–Almosteveryonecommentedthatthestoveemitslesssmoke,andamajority
alsomentionedthePraktileavestheirhousecleaner,useslessfuel,andlooksnice.
Greenway–Amajoritycommentedthatlessfuelwasneeded,thatitlooksnice,andthey
likedtheportability.Some(butnotamajority)mentioneditemitslesssmoke.Concerns
cooksnotedincludedthatitappeareddelicateandunstable,andtheyworriedthestove
wouldtipover.
EcoZoom–Comparedtotheirtraditionalstove,amajoritymentionedituseslessfuel
andaroundhalfsaiditemitslesssmoke,itlooksnice,andtheyappreciateits
portability.Cooksnotedthattheylikedthatitlookedbig(indiameterandheight)yet
portable,andhasabroadbasethatmakesitstable.Theyalsonotedthattheappearance
andweightofthestoveconvincedthemitwasdurable.
Eco‐Chula–Comparedtotheirtraditionalstove,manymentionedituseslesswood,
emitslesssmoke,andlooksnice.Abouthalfalsomentionedthehousewascleanerthan
whenusingthetraditionalstoveandmanymentioneditcooksfoodquicklyandis
portable.Concernscooksnotedincludedthatitappeareddelicateandthereforemight
notbedurable.Theyreportedlikingthefan,andthegasstove‐likeflamethataided
cooking.Theylikedthatitisportable,andthatthecookingvesselsareplacedona
separatemetal“quadrapod”frame,sotherewasnofearthatthestovemighttipover
duetotheweightofthepot.
PeoplemostlikedtheICSoverallbecausetheyemitlesssmokeanduselessfuel.
Rankingalmostashighwasthatthestoveslookednice.Thestoveswereperceivedtobe
cleanerandproducelesssoot.Lessfrequentbutstillstrongresponsesincludedthe
stoves’portability,andtoalesserextent,theiroverallqualityandabilitytocookfood
quickly.Otherresponsesincludedbothaspirationalbenefitssuchas:“impressesothers
andbringspridetomyhouse,”featureslike“theflameislikethatofanLPGstove,”and
thatitretainsheatandproducesmoreflameandheat(seewordcloudbelow).
Figure11:ThewordcloudaboverepresentsattributesnamedbyallconsumerstryingtheICSin
responsetoaskingwhattheparticipantslikedaboutthenewstovescomparedtotheirold
primarystoveafterthreeweeksofusage.Largertypesizereflectsthefrequencyofmentionof
theattribute.
Answersweresimilarinresponsetoageneralquestionaboutwhysomeone(anyone)
mightchoosethesestoves(asopposedtowhydoYOUlikethestove,whichcorrelates
withthewordcloudabove),withtheexceptionof“lookingnice”and“cooksfast,”which
werementionedfarlessoften(seechartbelow).
Chart1:DescriptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseICS
WhyWouldSomeone
Frequency
(Else)ChooseThese
%
N=118
Stoves?
Lesssmoke
80
68
Savesfuel
80
68
Portable
61
52
Kitchen/potsstaycleaner
58
49
Lookssmart/modern
4
3
Looksnice
3
2.5
Cooksfast
27
23
Noonewillliketouseit/no
goodreasontouse
Other
4
6
3
5
Whethertheypreferredtheimprovedstoveovertheirtraditionalstoveornot,all
usersencounteredsomeproblemsorbarrierstousingthenewstove.Therewas
littlevariationacrossstoves,withsomenotableexceptions,oftendirectly
attributabletothedesignofthatparticularstove.Someofthemajorproblemswere
thatinallthestovemodelsittookalongertimetocooklargequantitiesoffoodin
largevessels.Usersfeltthatbigpotsdidnotworkwellwiththesesmallportable
stovemodelsbecausetheflamedoesnotspreadtocoverenoughofthepotandthe
cookingpotmighttipover.InBangladeshthestaplefoodisrice,anditisconsumed
inallthreemealsoftheday.Dependingonthefamilysize,thestoveusersfoundit
verydifficulttocooklargequantitiesofriceinthesestovemodels(Figure12).This
wasanespeciallylargeobstacleduringthemonthinwhichthestovetrialstook
place,asfamiliestendedtocooklargerquantitiesofriceallinthemorningduring
thecoolerDecember‐Februaryseason,ratherthanduringmultiplecookingperiods
spreadthroughoutthedayasismoretypicaltherestoftheyear.Userswho
belongedtosmallfamiliesofuptothreetofourmemberslikedthestovemodels.
Stoveuserswereaskedaboutwhetheranythingabouttheimprovedstovewasn’t
functioningproperlyduetothedesignofthestove.InthecaseofthePraktistove,
themajorcomplaintwasthatthesecondpotwasnoteffectiveforcooking(13/23).
Forallstovemodels,especiallyPraktiandGreenway,arecurringcomplaintwasthat
thestovesizewastoosmallformosttasks(15/23and14/24).FortheGreenway
stoveanothermajorcomplaintwasthatthestovewasnotstable(13/24).
WhenuserswerethenaskedaboutproblemscookingontheICS,usersfoundit
difficulttochopwoodintosmallpiecesforthesestovetypes;thiswasnoted
especiallyfrequentlybyEco‐Chula(16/24)andEnvirofit(10/24)usersandtoa
lesserextentGreenway(7/24)andPrakti(8/23).SomeusersofthePraktistove
(5/23)complainedtheycouldnotusethesecondpothole(thiswastheonlystove
thathadthisissuebecauseitwastheonlystovewithtwopotholes).SomePrakti
(3/23)andEcoZoom(5/23)usersreportedthatthefuelchamberwassmall.Afew
usersofEco‐ChulaandGreenwayfounditdifficulttoignitethestoveevenafter21
daysofregularuse.OtherproblemsforsomeGreenwaystoveuserswerethatash
wouldbuildupquickly(10/24)andfuelwoodkeptfallingoffthetraywhilecooking
(4/24).Beyondthesecomplaints,othercomplaintswerecommonacrossallstove
types.Differencesbystovetypearehighlightedinthechartthatfollows(Figure12).
Figure12:*Cookingproblemsdenotedwithanasteriskareissuesthatareopportunitiesfor
consumerawarenessandeducation,ratherthanchangesthatshouldactuallybemadeto
stoves,sinceenlargingthecombustionchamberandincreasingflameheightaredetrimental
tostoveperformanceintermsoffuelsavingsandemissionreductions.Rather,consumers
canbeeducatedonhowtogetthebestperformanceoutoftheirstovesusingmethodsthat
optimizeitsdesign.
Afterusingthestoveforthreeweekstheusersprovidedsomesolutionsthatthey
perceivewillmakethesestovemodelsbetterandmoreacceptable.Morethan90of
the118usersforallstovemodelssaidthatthestovesshouldbelargerinsize.They
reportedthatthecombustionchambershouldbelargerforallstovemodelssothat
morewoodcanbefedintothestove.SomeGreenwaystoveusers(4/24)suggested
thatthestovecouldbemademorestablebymakingthetopplatethickerand
sturdiersotobetterbeartheweightofthepotsandvesselsplacedonthem.Some
Praktistoveuserswantedmoreheatinthesecondpotmouthandsuggestedplacing
thecombustionchamberbetweenfirstandsecondpotsothatbothpotscanbeused
forcooking(8/24).Asmallpercentageofuserswantedthestovestohavevisible
flameswhichwouldreachthepots,particularlyforEnvirofitandGreenway.
Althoughsomeofthesuggestionswereconstructiveandwouldrequiresomesimple
designchanges,othersuggestionsarebetteraddressedthroughconsumereducation
atthepointofsaleandduringaftersalesserviceforthesestovemodels(Figure13).
Figures13:*Suggestedchangesdenotedwithanasteriskareissuesthatareopportunitiesfor
consumerawarenessandeducation,ratherthanchangesthatshouldactuallybemadetostoves,
sinceenlargingthecombustionchamberandincreasingflameheightaredetrimentaltostove
performanceintermsoffuelsavingsandemissionreductions.Rather,consumerscanbe
educatedonhowtogetthebestperformanceoutoftheirstovesusingmethodsthatoptimizeits
design.
Inthisstovetrialamajorityoftheuserswereforcedtomodifytheircookinghabitsto
accommodatethedesignsofthenewstoves.Insteadofmulti‐taskingduringcooking,59
percentofusershadtositinfrontofthestovefortheentirecookingsession,adding
woodpiecesatregularshortintervals.Some31percentofstoveuserssaidtheyhadto
plantheircookingandprepareeverythinglikechoppingthevegetablesandcleaningthe
daalandriceinadvancebeforestartingtheactualcooking,sincethenewstoves
affordedlesstimeformulti‐tasking.Only29percentofuserssaidtheydidnotneedto
makeanychangeincookingstyletousethesestovemodels(seechartbelow).
Chart2:ChangesinCookingPattern
ChangesinCookingPattern,ifAny,
asAdaptedbytheUsersfortheNew
Stoves(AllStoves)
Sitinfrontofthestovetocook
everything
Prepareeverythingfirstandthencook
Frequency
(n=118)
%
70
37
59
31
Nochange
34
29
Perceptionsof“WhoistheStoveGoodfor?”and“WhatisitWorth?”
Inadditiontoconductingarigorouswillingnesstopayexercise,stoveuserswerealso
askedtodescribethekindofpersonthesestovesweregoodfor,aswellastoestimate
howmuchthestovewasworth.Thiswasdistinctfromwhethertheywantedtobuythe
stove,rathertheirestimateofitsvalue.
Theusersreportedthatthestovemodelsweresmallinsize,andoverwhelmingly
suggestedthatthesestovesaregoodforsmallfamilies.Tothedescriptionsofsmall
families,fewtosomeaddeddifferentotherdescriptions:“smallfamilieswhobuytheir
wood,”“wholiveinurbanorperi‐urbanareas,”“whorentorlackspacetoinstallstoves
outdoors,”andafewsuggestedtheyarebestforbachelors!Anotherfewuserssaidthat
sincethestovesareexpensive,thepeoplewhocanaffordthestoveswouldhavetobe
salariedprofessionalpeopleorpeoplewhohaveagoodincome(seechartbelow).
Uponcompletionofthestudy,generalcommentsaboutthestovesincludedthatthey
weregoodbuttoosmallfordailycookingsincetheaveragefamilysizefortheserural
householdswasmorethanfive.Participantsreportedthattheywouldliketousethe
presentsmallermodelsinthesummerandrainyseasonwhentheycannotcookoutside.
Theynotedthattheyuseonlywoodfuel(gatheredandsavedduringwinter)during
thesemonthsandneedtosaveonfuelwood.
Participantsrecommendedthatthesestoveswouldbeindemandwithsmallfamilies
(57/118)and,toamuchlesserextent,mentionedtheyareappropriateinurbanand
semi‐urbanareas(9/118).Becauseofthelackofspaceinurbanareas,users(5/118)
suggestedthosefamilieswouldwelcomeportablestovemodelsthatcanbeusedinside
theapartment.Someparticipants(9/118)alsonotedthatwoodfuelisalmost
exclusivelypurchasednotcollectedinurbanareas,andsincethesestovessavefuel
thereshouldbeagooddemandforthesestoves(seechartbelow).
Chart3:PerceptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseTheseNewStoves
WhatKindofPeopleWouldUseThis
Frequency
%
(These)NewStove(s)?
n=118
Smallfamilies
Modernpeople
Thriftypeople
Poorerpeople
Simple,ordinaryfamily
Someonepeoplerespect
People/familieslivinginurbanorperi‐
urbanareas
Smallfamilieswhobuywood
Smartpeople
Peoplelivinginrentedorlackspace
outdoors
Professionalpeopleorpeoplewithgood
incomes
Middleclassfamilies
Bachelors
57
52
25
11
23
11
48
44
21
9
19
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
Studyparticipants“valued”stovesforcertainfeatures,butdramatically“undervalued”
the(anticipated)priceofthestove.Many(49/111,or44percent)estimatedthestoveat
0to25percentofanticipatedsalesprice(whichalreadyincludesanassumedcarbon
subsidy);another35/111(32percent)estimatedthevaluetobebetween26and50
percentoftheanticipatedsalesprice.Only13/111(12percent)estimatedbetween51
and75percent,and6/111(5percent)between76percentandthesalesprice.Few
overestimatedpricingacrossallmodels(Figure14).However,aswillbefurther
discussedinthefindingsanddiscussionsection,reportedvalueswerelikelyinfluenced
byashared(andperhapsdiscussed)perceptionthatparticipantsshouldbegiventhe
stovesasatokenofappreciationforparticipatinginthestudy.
Figure14:Theseproportionsaregeneratedbydividingtheestimatedvaluebytheanticipated
salesprice,thuscreatingavaluetocompareacrossstoves,whichrangedinprice.
Figure15:Studyparticipants’estimatesofstovepricesaredisplayedasaproportionof
anticipatedsalesprice,bystovetype.Stoveswereforthemostpartundervaluedacrossallstove
types,withtheexceptionofEcoZoom,whichconsumersthoughtwasworthmorethanother
stoves(thusitfellintothehigherratios),apparentlybecauseofitslargersizeandheavier
weight;someconsumersmistakenlythoughttheentirestovewasmadeoutofcastiron,which
woulddemandahigherprice.
WILLINGNESSTOPAY
Twodifferentinnovativewillingnesstopay(WTP)assessments(basedonareviewof
regionalandotherIAPWTPmethodsusedtodateanddiscussionswithexperts
includingTRActiongrantrecipients)markedthecompletionofthestovetrial.15Final
formatsarefoundasAppendixB. Insevenvillages,all105householdsweregiventheopportunitytopurchasethestudy
stovesinabargainingexercisethatincludedinstallmentpaymentoptions,andinone
villageall15householdsweregiventhestoveasagift,butofferedcashto“sell”it
back.Ofthe105householdsofferedthechancetobuytheirstove,12enteredinto
negotiations,butonlyonestudyhome(andonenon‐studyhome)eventuallypurchased
thestove.
Thewillingnesstopayformswereusedonlyinthese12households;therestdidnot
wishtoevenbargaingiventhehighstatedvalueofthestove.Theywantedthestove
modelstobegiventothemforfreeasatokenofappreciationforhavingparticipatedin
thestudyforthreetofourweeks.Someuserssaidtheyhadparticipatedinthestudyto
helptheconcernedorganizationstobringinnewstovemodelsintoBangladesh.Tohelp
thestudy,theyusedwoodfuel,whichtheyeitherbuyorgatherandkeepforthe
summerandrainyseason.Duringthewintermonthstheygenerallyusedryleafy
biomassasfuel,whichisavailableforfree,inspeciallydesignedmudstovesthatthey
themselvesconstructoutsideintheopencourtyardtosavemoney.
Theuserswereveryvocalinstatingthatalthoughtheyknewthecostofthestovevaried
from1600–4000Taka,theywantedtobuyitatasubsidizedpricerangingfrom200–
500Taka,dependingonstovemodel.Therewereclearsignsof“collusion”and
discussionamongstudyparticipantswithinvillagesandperhapsacrossstudyvillages.
Theydidnotthinktheywouldbemakingagooddecisioniftheyboughtthesesmaller
stovesatthequotedpricebecausethesestovesalthoughgoodwouldnotreplacethe
traditionalstovefortheirdailycookingneeds.Itwouldremainan
additional/supplementarystoveforthefamily.Themajoritywerenotwillingtobargain
ornegotiate.
Belowisadescriptionofthe12householdswhowereinterestedinpurchaseand
engagedinthewillingnesstopay“bargain”butdidnotpurchaseastove,alongwiththe
onestudyparticipantandonenon‐studyparticipantwhodidpurchasestoves.Inall
householdsbothhusbandandwifeparticipatedinthenegotiations,withhusband
endingupbeingthemainrespondentforbargaining.
15AfterreviewingallavailableIAPstudiesandamid‐depthreviewofthewillingnesstopayliterature,as
wellasafewdiscussionswithresearchers,noneoftheresearcherswereparticularlysatisfiedwith
availableWTPassessmentmethodologies.Essentially,mostmethodologiesconsistofASKINGpeopleif
theywouldWANTtobuyaconsumeritem,andthenaskingwhatpricetheywouldpay.Themost
popular/bestpracticeofengagingparticipantsinan“auction”turnsoutnottobeatrueauction,buta
“stepDOWNoffering”betweenparticipantandinterviewer(wouldyoupayX?okaythen,wouldyoupay
X–$10?).IntheendtheitemissoldfortheSECONDhighestbid,tothehighestbidder.Onlyonepersonis
allowedtobuyastoveintheend.Theconcernwiththisapproachisthat1)itdoesn’ttakeintoaccount
theacceptedcustomofbargainingforANYpurchase,wherethepurchaserwouldbeina“losingposition”
torevealhowmuchtheyarewillingtopayforanitem;and2)itdoesn’ttakeintoaccounttheimportance
offinancingtotriggerandenableapurchase.
Chart4:WillingnesstoPayforICS–Method1
Village
WillingnesstoPay—BargainandFinancingOffered
DescriptionofThose12InterestedinBuying(2BoughtinEnd)
Stove
Lowest
Acceptable
OfferBased
onStove
Value
(BDT)
InitialPrice
Offeredby
Participant
(BDT)
FinalPrice/Resolution
Kewa
Prakti
3000
200
Kewa
EcoZoom
1600
300
Kewa
Greenway
2400
300
EcoZoom
1600
500
250
Finalpricedeclaredbythe
husband[notpurchased,as
finalofferbelowthreshold]
Refusedtobargainbeyond
thatpriceevenafterrepeated
persuasion[notpurchased]
400
afterlotofpersuasion[not
purchased,asfinaloffer
belowthreshold]
Husbandwasnotreadyto
negotiate[notpurchased]
SylhetDistrict
Kunarchor
althoughused
Greenwayin
study
Kunarchor
EcoZoom
1600
Tilargaon
Prakti
3000
Tilargaon
Prakti
3000
5 installments 5
x 750
3000
BarisalDistrict
Billobari
Prakti
3000
300
Bihangal
Gonpara
Gonpara
EcoZoom
Eco‐Chula
Greenway
1600
4300
2400
300
600
1200
Gonpara
Envirofit
2000
500
Wantedtoparticipatebut
backedoffafterhearingthe
statedvalueofthestove[not
purchased]
PURCHASED
3000
PURCHASED
Landladyofotherpurchaser
500afternegotiation[not
purchased,asfinaloffer
belowthreshold]
[notpurchased]
[notpurchased]
Saidunabletopaymoreashe
waspoor[notpurchased]
Refusedtonegotiatebeyond
thatprice[notpurchased]
InonevillageinSylhethouseholdswereofferedtheirstudystovesasgifts,thengiven
theoptionofsellingbackthestovesatthepricesdetailedbelow.In12ofthe15
householdseveryfamilymemberoptedtoretainthestoves,irrespectiveofthestove
model.Inonehouseholdthehusbandsaidthatalthoughhe,hiswife,andsonlikethe
Eco‐Chulaandwouldliketokeepittheywerebeingforcedtosellsincehiswifehasa
heartproblemandherequiresreadycashforhertreatment.Assuch,threeofthe15
householdstradedtheirstovesforcash,andtheothersturneddownthemoneyinfavor
ofthestove.ThethreestovesthatwereexchangedforcashweretheGreenway(for
2400Taka),theEco‐Chula(for4300Taka),andtheEnvirofit(for2000Taka).
Chart5:WillingnesstoPayPricingScenarios–Methods1&2
Stovemodel Stove Buy‐back
Stove
Buy‐backoffer,
value offer,lowest
value
lowestsale
(US$) saleprice
(BDtaka) price
(US$)
(BDtaka)
Prakti
70
38
5000
3000
Greenway
45
29
3300
2400
Envirofit
40
24
3000
2000
Eco‐Chula
70
54
5000
4300
EcoZoom
35
19
2600
1600
The“stovevalue”isbasedontheactualcostWASHpluspaidforthestove(notincluding
shippingandhandling),plus$5/stoveforshipping(assumingbulkshippinginafuture
marketscenario),plusa10percentmark‐upforanationaldistributer,$4fortransport
outofDhaka,and10percentmark‐upforrural/localdistributer(upto$5).
The“buy‐backoffer,lowestsalesprice”takesthathighendandsubtractspossible
carbonrevenuefromit(assumingafour‐yearlifespanforthePraktistoveandtwo
yearsforallothers,and$8/ton/stove/yearforcarbonpricing)toreacharealisticvalue
thatthesestovescouldsellforintheBangladeshimarketoncemorewidelypromoted.
Ofnote,theselifespansareconservativeestimates;accordingtomanufacturer
specifications,expectedlifespansforthesestovemodelscancommonlyreachfiveyears.
SUMS
Semi‐structuredsurveyinstrumentswerecomplementedbySUMS,temperature‐
sensingdataloggersplacedonallinterventionstoves,alltraditionalstovesinthe
controlgroup,andonthetraditionalstovesin51percentoftheinterventionhomesto
trackactualstoveuse.
WithadditionalfundingfromtheU.S.StateDepartment’sOfficeoftheGlobal
PartnershipInitiative,BerkeleyAirMonitoringGrouptrainedagroupof10field
workersinkitchenperformancetestprotocolandprocedures.TogetherwithaBerkeley
Airsupervisor,thisteamundertookkitchenperformancetestsinallbutfourstudy
households,aswellas24controlhouseholds,totrackchangesinfueluse.BerkeleyAir
alsooversawlimitedindoorairpollutionmonitoringandpersonalexposure
monitoring.
SUMS‐measuredusageratesforallinterventionstoveswerebetween2.1(Envirofit)
and3.3(Eco‐Chula)usesperdayduringtheKPTmonitoring,withallgroupsincluding
thetraditionalstoveintheircookingsystemsbetween1.3and1.9timesperday.These
usagepatternsduringKPTmonitoringsuggesttheinterventionstoveswerecommonly
usedbythestudyhouseholds,butinallcases,didnotfullydisplacetheuseofthe
traditionalstoves.Thefollowingchartshowsthepercentageofcookingtasks
performedintheinterventionhomesthathadSUMSonbothinterventionand
traditionalstoves,bothduringandaftertheKPT.
Chart6:ProportionofAllRecordedCookingEvents
PerformedbytheInterventionStove(bystovegroup)
%Cooking
%Cooking
performedon
performedon
ICS:DuringKPT
ICS:PostKPT
EcoZoom(n=9)
65%
34%
Prakti(n=11)
72%
43%
Eco‐Chula(n=11)
73%
46%
Envirofit(n=16)
60%
29%
Greenway(n=9)
69%
30%
Interestingly,oncethefieldteamsstoppedvisitingthetesthomesdailytotakefuel
measurements,allstovegroups,includingthetraditionalstovecontrolhomes,showeda
markedreductionintheuseofanystoves,bothinterventionandtraditional.Thelargest
declinewasseenintheuseoftheinterventionstoves(Figure16).
Stove Usage During and Following the KPT Study Figure16
ThestoveuseratesreportedattheendofeachdayofKPTmonitoringwerecompared
totheSUMSdatafromthesameperiod.Cookswithaninterventionstovewerelikelyto
under‐reportuseofthetraditionalstovebutreporteduseoftheinterventionstovewith
relativeaccuracy(Figure17).
Monitored vs. Reported Stove Usage Figure17 KitchenPerformanceTesting
TheKPTwascarriedoutin140households.Afterremovalofinaccurateormissing
data,thefinalsamplesizewas134(Barisal:65andSylhet:69households).All
householdsineachstovegroupusedwoodastheirmaincookingfuelduringthe
monitoringperiod,withasmallnumberofhomesinBarisalreportingusingcrop
residue(intheformofdriedleaves)asasecondaryfuel(9percent,n=12).TheKPTdata
suggestthatallinterventionstovegroupsexceptoneused16to30percentlessfuelper
householdperdaycomparedtothetraditionalstove‐usinghomes.16
16Itisimportanttonotethatthisdoesnotmeanthattheimprovedstovesused16–30percentlesswood
thanthetraditionalstoves.Rather,homesusingtheimprovedstovesalongsidetheirtraditionalstoves
(whichiswhathappenedinmostoftheinterventionhouseholds)used16–30percentlesswoodthan
homesusingonlythetraditionalstoves.
Chart7:MeanDailyFuelConsumptionEstimates(reportedaskgperstandard
adult(SA)perdayandbyhousehold(HH)perday.±represents1standard
deviation)
%savings
%savings
compared
compared
Wood
Wood
Pvalue*
(kg/HH/
(kg/SA/
totrad
totrad
day)
day)
stove
stove
Traditionalstove
(n=23)
3.09±1.69
‐
0.73±0.30
‐
‐
EcoZoom(n=22)
2.39±0.77
22.7
0.60±0.19
17.8
0.106
Prakti(n=22)
2.58±1.16
16.5
0.69±0.41
5.5
0.746
Eco‐Chula(n=22)
2.19±0.79
29.1
0.63±0.23
13.7
0.223
Envirofit(n=24)
3.63±1.24
‐17.4
0.87±0.47
‐19.2
0.214
Greenway(n=21)
2.32±0.94
24.9
0.62±0.22
15.1
0.217
* Comparing intervention stove with traditional stove for (kg/SA/day value). Equal variances assumed in all cases.
Aboxplotofthekgwood/standardadult/daybystovegroupwasexaminedforthe
presenceofoutliersthatmighthaveanimpactonthesamplemean.Figure18below
identifiesoneoutlier17(denotedascircles)inthePraktistovegroupandtwointhe
Envirofitgroup.
Box Plot Showing Fuel Consumption by Stove Group (Kg/SA/Day) Figure18
17Outlierisdefinedas1.5timestheinter‐quartilerangefromthethird(75th)quartile.
Althoughthesedatapointswerefoundtobevalid,theirremovalwasexplored,which
changesthemeanwoodfuelconsumptionforthePraktistoveto0.63kg/SA/day(SD
0.28n=21).Thisestimateis13.7percentlowerthanthewoodfuelconsumptioninthe
traditionalstovehouseholds(versusa5.5percentreductionwhenthedatapointis
included).RemovalofthetwooutliersintheEnvirofitstovegroupwouldreducethe
fuelconsumptionto0.77kg/SA/day(SD0.34n=22),anincreaseof5.5percent
comparedtothetraditionalstoveestimates(versusa19.2percentincreasewhenthe
outliersareincluded).
Ofnote,itwasexpectedthatallofthesestoveswouldachieveatleasta35percent
reductioninfueluse,basedontheirlaboratoryperformance.18Ourresultsdonotshow
thepercentreductionthateachstoveachieved,butratherthepercentreductioninfuel
useinthehousehold.Giventhatweknowthatthehouseholdswereusingthe
interventionstovesandtraditionalstovesinparallel,wecannotsaywhetherthe
interventionstoveswereperformingasexpected,intermsofefficiency,inthefield.We
doknowthattheyweren’tmeetingcooks’needs,basedonthisparalleluse.Theone
exceptionistheEnvirofitstovegroup,whichwasfoundtouseMOREfuelthanthe
traditionalstovegroup.Basedonthisstove’sperformanceinthelaboratory,itislikely
thatthestudystoveswereinstalledorusedincorrectly,whichhighlightsthegrave
importanceofpropertrainingforbothstoveinstallersandstoveusers.
Itisalsopossiblethatwoodsavingsfortheimprovedstoveswasactuallyhigherthan
thedatasuggestduetounderreportedleaflitteruse,asfurtherexploredinthe
discussionsection.
Inaverylimitedsnapshotofindoorairpollution,alloftheinterventionstoveswere
seentoreducekitchenconcentrationsofcarbonmonoxideandparticulates,although
nottothehealth‐protectivelevelofWHOorEnvironmentalProtectionAgency
guidelines.Thepilotmeasurementsof24‐hourexposuretocarbonmonoxiderevealed
lowexposurelevelsthatwerenothealththreatening,eveninhomeswithtraditional
stoves.
ThekitchenconcentrationsofPM2.5andCOarereportedinthechartbelow.This
exploratorydatashouldbeseenonlyasanindicativepilot,however,sincethereisonly
onehouseholdperstovetype(twointhetraditionalstovegroup).Withoutalarger
samplesize,thecomparisonofhouseholdairpollutionlevelscanbemisleading,since
manyofthefactorsthataffectpollutionlevelsvaryfromhometohome.Factorsinclude
ventilationrates,thesizeandtypeofkitchen,themixofstovesandfuelsused,the
numberofpeoplecookedfor,lighting,andotherindoorsourcesofpollution,suchas
incenseandcigarettes.
18The2012ISOInternationalWorkshopAgreementforcookstoveperformanceprovidesasystemfor
categorizingstovesbasedonseveralperformancemetrics,includingtwometricsrelatedtoefficiency,
fromtier0representingtraditionalstovestotier4representingaspirationalgastechnologies.TheIWA
tiersonlyprovidecomparativeclassificationforstovesbasedonlabtests.Allofthestovesselectedfor
thisstudyhadachievedatier2orhigherratingfortheirefficiencymetricsinthelaboratory.
Chart8:Mean24‐hourAirPollutantConcentrationsintheKitchen
PM2.5
CO
(ppm)
(g/m3)
Traditionalstove
HH1
11,017
31.5
Traditionalstove
HH2
2,737
14.1
EcoZoom
1,744
2.8
Prakti
626
9.1
Eco‐Chula
2,587
7.8
Envirofit
1,343
0.9
Greenway
1,472
3.2
DISCUSSION
LimitationsoftheStudy
Ideally,astovetrialwouldbelongenoughforuserstotryoutastoveforseveral
months,ratherthanseveralweeks,sinceitcantakethatlongtogetusedtoanew
cookingapparatusandanewstyleofcooking,andusersmaynotsettleintonewuse
patternsforanumberofmonths.Givenbudgetandtimingconstraints,wewerenot
abletoextendthetrialbeyondthreeweeks.
Forthecurrentstudy,WASHplusselectedfivepromisingimprovedstovemodelsbased
ontheirlaboratoryperformancetestingresultsandtheiracceptanceelsewhereinthe
regionandbeyond.Wewerenotabletoincludeinthestudythetrulyaspirational
BioLiteHomeStove,whichmayhavebeenverypopularinBangladesh,givencellphone
penetrationratesandthestove’sabilitytorechargecellphones.TheBioLiteisnowback
inproduction,andwerecommenditsinclusioninafuturestovetrial.
Inaddition,giventhemixedreceptionoftheimprovedstovestrialedinthisstudy,and
clearunwillingnesstopayfortheimprovedstoves,WASHplusrecommendsthatthese
improvedstovesbecomparedwithBondhuChulamodelstoassessrelativepreferences
andperformance,sinceourpolicy‐makingandprogramimplementingaudiencemay
interpretfromthefindingsofthisreportthattheyshouldcontinuetopromoteBondu
Chulastovesgoingforward,despitetheirmediocrefieldperformance.
Furthermore,WASHplusrecommendsthatlargerandhigherfirepowertwo‐potstoves
betrialedinBangladesh.Althoughwedidincludeatwo‐potstoveinthetrial,users
complainedthatthesecondburnerdidnotburnhotenoughtoboilwaterorcookrice.
Becauseofdependenceonfreeagrofuels,trialingofaricehuskand/ormixedfuelstove
issuggested.
Lastly,whilethestudywasdesignedtogenerallyapplytoallwood‐burningstoveusers,
theresultsofthisstudyintwosmalldistrictsofBangladeshcannotnecessarilybe
extrapolatedtotheentirecountry;furthertrialsshouldbeundertakeninotherpartsof
thecountrytoaddmoredatapoints.
FuelUse/Seasonality
Overall,studyparticipantsfeltthattheimprovedstovestrialedwerenotbigenough(in
termsofbothphysicalsizeandfirepower)tocookthemealsneeded.Thiswasinpart
becauseduringtheseasoninwhichthestudytookplace,whentheweatherisrelatively
coolerandfoodthereforekeepslonger,householdsprefertocookriceforthewholeday
allatonceinthemorning,ratherthanateachmealtime,asiscustomaryduringtherest
oftheyear.Noneofthestudystovesweredesignedtocook1.5kgofriceatonetime
anddidnotmeetusersatisfactionforthattask.Assuch,mosthouseholdsendedup
usingthestudystovesforsidedishes,whilecontinuingtocookriceintheirtraditional
stoves.
Duringthestudyperiod,householdswerealsoaccustomedtosupplementingtheir
woodusewithfreegatheredleaflitterforfuel,enablingthemtosaveupfuelwoodfor
thesummerrainyseasonduringApril–August/September,whendrywoodor
agrowasteishardertocomeby.Soalthoughmoststudyparticipantsreportedthatthe
improvedstovesusedlesswoodthentheirtraditionalstoves,theywouldhave
preferredtobeusingleaflitter,andinfactdidsointheirtraditionalstoves.Theability
toburnleaflitterintraditionalstovesmayhavebeenasecondarycontributingfactorto
highertraditionalstoveusageandlowerimprovedstoveacceptance,preference,and
usageduringthestudyperiod.
Weonlydiscoveredduringthecourseofthestudythatmanyhouseholdsbuiltspecial
leaf‐burningstovesforuseduringDecember–February.Thesestoveswerebuiltaway
fromthehousesinanopencourtyardand/orsemi‐enclosedspacebecauseofthethick
smokethatburningleavescancreate.Inaddition,resultsfromtheDay3andDay21
qualitativesurveyssuggestthatleaveswereusedextensivelyforcookingfuelduringthe
timetheKPTswereconducted.Thiscouldhavepotentiallyinfluencedtheextentand
natureofwoodfuelconsumptioninboththecontrolandinterventionstovehouseholds.
Thatsaid,theKPTteamdidnotseemanyhousesusingleaves.Theteamweighedthe
leaveswheneverthehouseholdreportedusingthem,whetherusedintheiroutside
stoveorinthetraditionalstoveintheirhouse.Some12ofthe134totalhouseholdshad
leavesweighedduringtheKPT,andall12ofthesehouseholdswereinBarisal.Thisfact
isinlinewiththefieldteamreportsthatleavesareusedasacookingfuelinadditionto
woodinBarisalduetotheabundanceoftreesthere,whileinSylhet,wheretreesare
lessabundant,leafuseislesscommon.Onlyoneofthese12householdswasacontrol
household.
Itispossiblethatsomeunreported,andthereforeunmeasured,leafusetookplace
duringtheKPT.TheKPTteamdidnothaveanystrongevidencetoindicatethatthis
occurred,orthatitoccurredmoreforleavesthanforwood(e.g.,smallsticksandtwigs).
Alsothis“leakage”inthemeasurementofleaflitterislikelytohavehadasimilarimpact
acrossallstovegroups,includingthecontrolhouseholds,sothatanybiasisspreadout
acrossthestudypopulation.
Thereisalsothepossibilitythattheprocessofmonitoringinfluencedthewaythe
householdusedtheirstovesandfuels.Ifthehouseholdsperceivedthemainfocusofthe
KPTtobewoodfuel(eventhoughtheyhadbeenaskedtoshowallfuelstobeweighed),
theycouldhavealteredtheirhabitstousemorewoodandlessleavesfortheperiodof
theKPT.TheSUMSdatasupportthishypothesisinthattherewasareductioninstove
use(includingbothtraditionalandimprovedstoves)inallhouseholdsaftertheendof
theKPTmonitoring.Thissuggeststhattheymayhavemovedfromtheimprovedand
traditionalwoodburningstoves,whichhadSUMSunitsplacedonthem,totheleaf
burningstove,whichwasnotmonitored(duetofearstheymightbestolenasthestove
waslocatedoutside).Theextenttowhichleafusereduceswooduseisnotclear.
AsdemonstratedinFigure8,thetwodistrictshaddifferentstovepreferences.InSylhet
householdsoftenhavechimneyhoodsunderwhichtheyusetheirtraditionalstovesin
kitchensattachedtothemainhousehold.Becausetheywereaccustomedtocooking
indoorswithoutheavysmokeemissions,thePraktistovewasthebestmatchforthem
(asithasachimney,socanbeusedinsidewithverylittleindoorsmoke).These
householdsthoughttheotherstovestoosmoky,especiallyduringthelightingprocess.
InBarisalhouseholdsusuallycookoutsideinsemi‐enclosedspaces,orseparaterooms,
ratherthaninthemainhouse/livingspace.SinceitrainsalotinBarisal,andthey’re
accustomedtocookingoutofthelivingarea,theyliketheportabilityoftheEco‐Chula.
OnesurprisingfindingfromthestudywasthedramaticdecreaseinacceptanceofALL
theimprovedstovesbetweentheDay3andDay21surveys.Thiswasespecially
pronouncedfortheEco‐Chulastove.Ourreportingindicatedthatpeopleinitiallyliked
theEco‐Chulabecauseitwasportableandcleanburningwithlittlesmoke(especially
valuableinBarisalwherepeoplecookinsemi‐enclosedareas),butthatovertimethey
grewtoresenthavingtochopwoodintosmallpieces,asrequiredbythestove,and
havingtositbythestovecontinuouslyaddingwoodpieces,ratherthanbeingableto
multi‐taskastheywereaccustomedtodoingwiththeirtraditionalstove.
WillingnesstoPay
Aninitialinterpretationofthewillingnesstopayfindingssuggeststhatwhen
acquisitionbarriersareremoved(asmodeledinthesecondWTP“buy‐back”scenario,
wherehouseholdswere“given”thestoveandthenofferedasumofmoneyto“buyit
back”),householdsvaluedthestoveshighly.Priceswereidenticalinbothcases;the
lowestpricetheteamwouldacceptforsellingthestoveinscenariooneequaledthe
offeredpriceforwhichtheteamwouldbuybackthestoveinscenariotwo,asperthe
tablefoundintheWTPfindingssection.
Peoplesawbenefitsandpositiveattributestothestoves.Some,butnotamajority,
preferredtheICStotraditionalstoves.Buteveryoneunderestimatedthemonetary
valueofthestove,andfewwerewillingtopayanythingclosetomarketvalueforthe
stove,evenwhenofferedinstallmentoptions(thatincludedinterestof20percentover
fiveinstallmentpayments).Thiswassurprising,astheauthorshypothesizedthat
financeoptionsnotoftenavailableforstoveswouldincreasetheirappealand
acquisition.
Accordingtothestoveusers,theylikethestovesandwouldhavelikedtokeepthemif
givenforfreeoratanominalcost.Improvedstoveswouldnotreplacetraditional
stoves,rathercomplementtheiruseundervariousconditions.Householdersrealized
thatthesemetalstovesareexpensive,buttheywerenotreadytobuythematmarket
price.Thevariousreasonsputforwardbythemwere,asfollows:
a. Thestovemodelissmallandcannotcompletelyreplacetheprimarystove.Itwill
beasupplementarystovethatwillbeveryusefulinthesummerandrainy
seasonwhenwoodistheonlyfuelandcookingneedstobedoneindoors.
b. Theyhadparticipatedinthestudy,sothestoveshouldbegiventothemata
nominalpriceorfree.
c. Theycouldnotriskpayingsomuchmoneyforanexperimentalmodelsinceafter
thestudytherewillbenoaftersalesservice.
d. Theydonotwanttobuythestovesoninstallments(oratleastontheinstallment
planoffered)sincetheydidpaymentcalculationsintheirheadsandrealized
theywouldenduppayingmuchmoreforthestoveonceinterestand/orservice
feefortheloanwasincorporated.
Fundamentally,studyparticipantsviewedtheWASHplusstudyfieldteamasNGOstaff,
andinruralBangladeshthereisastrongculture/backgroundofNGOsgivingawayorat
leastsubsidizinggoodsandservices.Assuch,studyparticipantsstronglyfeltthatthey
shouldbegiventheimprovedstovesfreeorataheavilydiscountedrate.Thiswas
especiallytrueincaseswheretheyfelttheimprovedstovewouldonlybeusedfor
specifictasks,andwasnotatotalcookingsolution.
Oursecondwillingnesstopayassessment(thebuy‐backexercise),however,
demonstratedthatconsumersDIDtremendouslyvaluetheimprovedstoves,oncethey
ownedthem.Giventhelowpurchaserateofthestoves,theteamwassurprisedtofind
thatsomanyfamiliesoptedtokeeptheirgiftedstoves,ratherthanexchangingthemfor
cash.Thisleadtheteamtoobservethattheparticipantsvaluedthestoveandpreferred
itoveritscashequivalentwhentheydidnothavetomakesacrificestotheirhousehold
economytokeepitandwhentheydidnothavetocomeupwithfundsfromwhatwas
analreadytighthouseholdbudgetinmostcases.
Ofnote,participationinawomen’sgrouphadaslightbutnotsignificantpositive
correlationwithexpressedinterestinpurchasingastove(independentofwhetherthey
ultimatelydidpurchaseastove).Almosthalf(55/120)oftheparticipantsbelongto
somesortofwomen’sgroup(suchassavingscooperatives).Ofthiswomen’sgroup
subset,60percentexpressedinterestinpurchasingastove,comparedto55.4percent
ofthe65womenwhodidnotbelongtoawomen’sgroup.Withsuchasmallsample
size,it’sverydifficulttosaywhetherwomen’sgroupparticipationhadanyreal
influenceonstovepurchasedecisions.Thesewomen’sgroupsarestillbeingconsidered
asapotential“vehicle”forpromotionanddistributionofstoves.
Thebaselinesurveyalsoaskedwhetherrespondentswereabletoindependentlymake
thedecisionwhetherornottopurchaseastove.Thegraphbelowshowstheresultsby
agebrackets.Womenparticipantswithinthe16–25agebracketwereprobablynewly
marriedorunmarrieddaughterswhodidnotyethaveauthoritytomakedecisionsfor
thefamily.Thegraphshowsagradualriseindecisionmakingpowersasageincreases
andthenaslightdipwhentheolderwomenlikelybegintohandoverhousehold
responsibilitiestothedaughter‐in‐law(Figure19).
Outof120studyparticipants,113answeredthequestion“Areyouthepersonthat
wouldmakethedecisiontopurchase[theimprovedstove]?”Outof31women
respondentswithinthe16–25agebracket,onlyaboutaquartersaidyes.Outof38
respondentswithinthe26–35agebracket,themajoritysaidyes.Outof26respondents
withinthe36–45agebracket,almostallsaidyes.Outof14respondentswithinthe46–
55agebracket,mostsaidyes.Outoffourrespondentswithinthe56–65agebracket,
mostallconfirmedtheywereabletoindependentlymakethedecisionwhetherornot
topurchaseastove(Figure19).
Percentage of Women Respondents Reporting Independent Decision Making on Household Purchases, by Age Group n=31 n=38 n=26 n=15 n=4
Figure19
CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPS
Astheevidencebaselinkingimprovedcookstoveswithimprovedhealthandenergy
impactsgrows,sodoesattentiononhowbesttoinfluencehouseholduptakeand
consistentandcorrectuseofstoves.Appropriately,attentionfocusesonhowto
improvestovesandmakethemmoreaffordableandappealingtotheneediest
consumers.Importantworkhasstarted,includinginSouthAsia,toidentifythe“drivers”
ofcookstoveadoption.
UnderPhase2ofWASHplusactivities,WASHpluswilldevelopagenericmarketingand
behaviorchangestrategy;suggestalimitednumberofevidence‐basedapproachesto
increasetheuptakeofstoves;concepttestkeyelementsoftheseapproaches;and
developpractical“how‐to”toolstocontributetothegoalsandresultsofUSAIDenergy
andhealthobjectivesinBangladesh.ThiswilldrawonlessonslearnedinBangladesh
andothercountriesintheSouthAsiaregioninbehaviorchange,demandcreation,and
marketingofsanitation,watertreatmentproducts,andcookstoves.
Amarketingstrategyaddresseswhatisclassicallyreferredtoasthe4Psofmarketing—
product,place,price,andpromotion—tosuggestavibrant“marketingmix”ofelements
thatwillmakeimprovedcookstovesappealingandaffordabletothemostvulnerable
Bangladeshimarket.Tohighlightthewayforwardandhowthesefindingswillbe
applied,we“preview”someapplicationsinthefollowparagraphs.Thestudyhasshed
lightonsomeessentialchangestoallfivestovesbeforetheyareappealingenoughto
consumersforthemtoopentheirpursestopurchasethem,andbeforetheyareableto
usethemconsistentlyandcorrectly.
Thestovemanyconsumers“want”islargeandstable,yet
portable,withamodern,well‐madedesign.Itcookslarge
volumesoffoodandhastwoactiveburners.Flamesarehotand
leaptotouchthepots,butdonotmakethemblack.Thestove
canusemultiplefuels,whichcanbefedinrelativelyunprocessed.
Woodinparticularcanbestuffedinlargepieces,andlefttofeed
almostautomatically.
Thestovedescribedabovewouldbeconsideredthe“ideal”formanyinthestudy,but
notwhatiscurrentlyavailablenornecessarilywhatweareaimingfor.Someofthe
criteriaarecontradictory(leapingflamesandcleanpots),thermo‐dynamically
impossible,undesirablefromafuel‐efficiencystandpoint,andfarfromwhatiscurrently
availableinthemarket.Thefivestovestestedbyconsumersoverthethree‐weektrial
periodmetsomeofthedesiredattributesdescribed,butusersexpressedmany
problemswiththecurrentICSmodels.Someoftheproblemsandsuggestedchangescan
beaddressedbymanufacturerswithoutmucheffortor“R&D”(researchand
development),suchasstabilizingthestoveand/orenlargingtheburnerto
accommodatelargerpots,oraddinganashtrytocatchburntashes.However,other
problemsandsuggestedchangesrevealconsumerpreferencebutarenotrecommended
changes,becausetheywillclearlyaffecttheefficiencyandemissionsofthestoves.This
doesnotmeantheyshouldbedismissed;however,theyclearlyindicatearangeof
educationandinformationthatshouldbedeliveredtoconsumersthroughpointof
purchasesalesmaterialsandinteractionwithdistributorsandsalespeople,in
promotionalmaterial,andthroughhealthorotheroutreachactivities.Addressingsuch
issueswillbeessentialforconsistentandcorrectuseofICS,forconsumersatisfaction,
andrelatedword‐of‐mouthrecommendations.
Understandingthepreferenceandobstaclestopurchaseandconsistentandcorrectuse
ofstovesfeedsdirectlyintopromotionstrategies,aswell.Althoughthestudydidnot
revealmuchaboutthedriversofstoveuptake(becausethestoveswerenotparticularly
wellreceived),whentakenincontextwithwhatisalreadyknownaboutdriversof
adoption19wehaveidentifiedkeyissuesaroundseasonalityofcookingpatternsandof
freefuelavailabilitysuchasleaves;ofthevisualappealofthemetalstovesas“well
made,nicelooking,andmodern”;andanumberofotherfeaturesthatwerelikedor
dislikedandcanserveasthefoundationofpromotionalappeals.
Thisstudyhasalsoidentifiedconsumergroupsmostlikelytobeinterestedand
empoweredtopurchaseimprovedcookstoves,andpromotionalstrategiesshouldtarget
thesepotentialearlyadopters:smallfamilies,especiallypoorbutnotdestituteperi‐
urbanfamilies,headedby30‐to55‐year‐oldwomen.
Thestudyhasalsorevealedthelowwillingnesstopayforstoves(price),atleastfor
currentmodels.Financingoptionswereexploredbutinconclusivebecauseconsumers
werenotparticularlyinterestedinbuyingsucha(relatively)highpriceditemthat
didn’tdeliverdesiredbenefits.Thefewinterestedinbuyingvaluedthestoveshigher
thantheywerewillingtopay,expectingsomesortofsubsidyfromtheNGOsbringing
themtotestformarket.Overalltheyrejectedinstallmentswithanysignificantinterest
orloanservicecostsattachedtotheloans.
19
LewisandPattanayak.2012.EnvironHealthPerspectives.
Placereferstotheplaceofsalesanddistribution.AgainthestudyshowsthatNGOsmay
haveanunintendedeffectonpoorhouseholds’willingnesstopay.Althoughconsumers
inthisstudytrustedNGOs,theyputtheminacategoryof“do‐goodersforthepeople”
andnotsalespersons.Inthemindoftheparticipantsofthisstudy,NGOsgivethings
away;theydonotfinanceorsellthem.
Itispredictablethatallresearchpresentationsendwiththecallformoreresearch,and
thisstudyisnodifferent,sinceitgeneratesanothersetofquestionsandareasto
investigate.WASHplusoffersthefindingsofthisfinalreporttoarangeofstakeholders
inBangladesh,includingUSAID’sCatalyzingCleanEnergyforBangladeshprojectand
planstodiscussthefindingsinvariousforumswiththehopesofapplyinglessonsand
deepeninglearning.Andwhilesomestakeholderstakestockofthesefindingsandother
inputstodate,andmoveforwardwithevidence‐basedinterventions,otherscanfurther
theappliedresearchagendainacoordinated,paralleltracktoadvanceoursystematic
understandingofthemarketdriversandconsumercontextthatwillopentheimproved
cookstovemarketinBangladeshandsupportuptakeanduse.
AnnexA
SelectionCriteria
PartnerNGOSelectionCriteria
- TheNGOmustworkinoneofthethreedivisionswherewoodismostprominently
usedasaprimaryfuelsourceforcooking(Sylhetdivision,Chittagongdivision,
Barisaldivision,datafrom2011DHSsurvey)
- TheNGOmusthaveanofficeoron‐the‐groundstaffinoneofthethreedivisions
wherewoodismostprominentlyusedasaprimaryfuelsourceforcooking
- NGOmusthavepreviousexperiencewithworkingatthehouseholdlevelandgood
communityrelationships.
CommunitySelectionCriteria
- Thevillagesmustbelocatedinoneofthethreedivisionswherewoodismost
prominentlyusedasaprimaryfuelsource
- Mustbewithingeographicrangeofpartnerorganization
- MustbeaccessiblebyroadinOct/Nov
- Atleastoneofthevillageschosenmustnothavehadanyformerstoveinterventions.
AtleastoneofthevillageschosenmusthavehadaBCSIR/bondhuchulha
interventioninthepast
- Villageswillbeselectedreflectingthereligiousmake‐upofBangladesh(primarily
MuslimwithsomeHindu)
HouseholdSelectionCriteria
- Primarycookingfuelmustbewood
- Musthaveatleastfourpeopleinthehousehold(averageHHsizeinBangladesh=
4.4people)w/childunder5
- Themajorityofthehouseholdsselectedshouldhavenopriorexperiencewithor
ownershipofICS;approximately10percentofthetotalsamplewillbepurposively
selectedforhavingusedanICSpreviously,forpurposesofcomparison.Note:We
couldnotfindbondhuchulaorotherICSprevioususerstorecruit.
- Iswillingtoparticipateintrials
CookstoveSelectionCriteria
- FollowthecriteriaoftheInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)International
WorkshoponCleanandEfficientCookstovesInternationalWorkshopAgreement
(ISO–IWA)—theinternationallyagreeduponcookstovestandardsandprotocols:
http://pciaonline.org/files/ISO‐IWA‐Cookstoves.pdf
- ThestovesmustmeeteithertheTIER2orTIER3requirementsinISO‐IWA
- Maybeeitherportablestovesthatmaybemetalandcapableofcookingmealsforat
least4‐6personsorfixedstoveswithchimneysthatareeasytoinstall(maybein
2/3piecesforeasycleaning.)
- Woodstovesbutmayalsobemulti‐fuel
AnnexB
Allsurveyinstrumentsandquestionnairesavailableonrequestandinfullreport.
COST/WILLINGNESS TO PAY SECTION House # Village # Interviewer: Unique ID# ______________ 

Select the ROW of the stove being used by your respondent.
Begin by repeating that they have the opportunity to buy the stove, but are under no
obligation at all.
Then say: 1. This stove is worth [insert the value in column A]
2. But because you’ve participated in the study, and because there is only limited
servicing available on the stove at this point, we can offer it to you for ________
[insert the value in column labeled B]
3. Would you like to buy the stove? Record in column C [check X if yes, make – if no and
proceed if no]
4. We can offer installment payments if easier. Are you interested in the stove if you
could buy it for [say the amount in column D] __________
RECORD response in column E [check X if yes, make – if no and proceed if no]
5. You know, here in Barisol/Sylhet, we never buy for the asking price, of course we
bargain. So please, I invite you to bargain with me and tell me what you are wanting
to pay.
6. Note amount in column F, then accept if above the minimum, or bargain using
columns G and H.
7. Note if they accept that price in column I.
8. Give last chance to counter-bargain. Note in J.
9. If still no, go back to the thank you and close the questionnaire.
10. If yes, make the financing/payment arrangement.
A B C D E STOVE TYPE (BDT) (BDT) 2.
1.
A
c
c
e
p
t? Value . Offering price 2.
2.
A
c
c
e
p
t? 5x1200 5600 Stove 1: Prakti 5000 Offer payments (calculate at 20% interest) F G H I J K L Your counter offer 2.3.
2.4. They agree They make final offer? Agree to anything this amount or above (note) (BDT) 2.7. They request installment payments for your counter offer? Note and accept if above min Invite bargaining. IF they offer … Note below the price they offer (circle which) Offered price (BDT) (BDT) IF NO, PUT ‘X’ (BDT) 4000 4500 3500 4000 3000 Or UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 45
3700 Stove 2: 3300 5x800 Greenway 3300 Stove 3: 3000 5x700 Envirofit Stove 4: Eco‐Chula 5600 2900 Stove 5: EcoZoom A 5000 2600 B 5x 1200 5x 600 C D E
F
3000 okay 5x750 2500
3000
2200 2600 Or 2000 2500 5x600 2500 2800 2200 2500 Or 2000 okay 5x500 4500 5000 4000 4500 Or 3500 okay 5x1050 2000 2500 1800 2100 Or 1500 1600 5x400 G
H
I
J 2400
2000 4300 1600 K Interviewer: House # Village # Unique ID# ______________ Before beginning, please find the row that corresponds to the stove given to the respondent. Then say: 1. We thank you for your participation in this survey, and as part of our thank you, we’re
giving you this stove. It’s actually valued at [pick from column B] _________
A B
Value C
Buy Back* Prakti Greenway Envirofit Eco‐Chula EcoZoom
5000
3300 3000 5000 2600
3000
2400 2000 4300 1600
Buy back value considers potential but realistic carbon credit subsidy in pricing. 2. Note any reaction. Wait a little bit, like one minute, before offering the buy back.
__________________________________________________________________
L
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
3. Now say:
As an alternative, if you don’t want to keep the stove, we can buy it back from you and
give you cash. The amount is a bit lower because the stove is now used of course, so
it’s not worth as much. It’s completely your choice. Would you prefer the stove, or XX
[select the corresponding amount from column C].
Note choice, and any reaction.
[ ] Chooses stove
[ ] Chooses cash
Reactions: [ ] Asks for a different stove
[ ] Tries to demand full pricing
[ ] Other
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
AnnexC
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY ECOZOOM USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER TRADITIONAL STOVE: When comparing EcoZoom to their traditional stove, a majority mentioned it uses less fuel, over half said it emits less smoke and they appreciate its portability, and some said it looks nice. PREFERENCE RATES: Just under half (9/19) preferred the EcoZoom to their traditional stove after three days; this slipped to 8/19 after three weeks. Of note, the EcoZoom and the Prakti had the smallest decrease in preference rates out of the five stoves. PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the EcoZoom to their traditional stove or not, many experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulty of cooking large quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove. Specifically, 15/23 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food. Ash buildup was a big problem for EcoZoom users (9/23). Less often than with other ICSs, some users (8/23) said that big pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread. Related to this same issue, a few (4/23) also said they had problems cooking rice in large quantities. Lastly, some (5/23) mentioned problems of wood slipping out due to the slant of the opening. Just a few users found chopping wood into small pieces (3/23) and the small fuel chamber (4/23) to be a problem. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: The majority (17/23) said the stove should be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. They suggested addressing wood falling out and not self‐feeding; specifically, they suggested the place for entering the wood in the stove should be slanting inwards to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (10/23), and also an ash tray to make it easier to remove the ash (4/23). As with other stoves, users wanted to have a larger combustion chamber to add wider and bigger wood (16/23). A few said the flame should reach the vessel bottom and spread (4/23). These final suggestions fall into the category of suggestions that will be taken into account and addressed through sales and education efforts, but not implemented because it would diminish the effectiveness of the stove. UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 48
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY PRAKTI USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER TRADITIONAL STOVE: Everyone commented that the Prakti stove emits less smoke, and a majority also mentioned that it leaves the house cleaner. Half said it looks nice and just under half said it uses less fuel. PREFERENCE RATES: At three days, just over half of those trying the Prakti said they preferred the stove compared to their traditional stove. After three weeks, this slipped slightly to just under half (10/21) of the users. PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Prakti to their traditional stove or not, many experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking large quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove. Specifically 17/23 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food and that big pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread (15/23). Related to this same issue, some (7/23) specifically addressed problems cooking rice in large quantities. Users of the Prakti stove complained that they could not use the second pot for cooking (5/23), and also that they needed to chop the wood (5/23) and could not use large wood pieces. Some mentioned problems of ash buildup (6/23) and wood pieces slipping out (6/23) due to the slant of the opening. Lastly, some (3/23) complained that the fuel chamber was too small and that they wanted to add more wood than the existing chamber allowed. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: Most users (18/23) said the stove should be larger to accommodate the cooking needs of big families. As mentioned above as a problem, many (15/23) wanted the chamber to be bigger/wider to allow for larger pieces of wood (this suggestion falls into the category of suggestions that will be taken into account but not implemented because it would diminish the efficiency of the stove). Many suggested addressing the problem of wood “falling out” of the entry; specifically, they wanted a slanted entry to hold the wood and have it “self‐feed” (10/23). Many had suggestions about changing the stove to make the second pot more functional. Related to this, some suggested that the combustion chamber should be between the first and second pot so that both pots can be used for cooking, and an equal number said that the second pot should have more heat for cooking (8/23). A few suggested adding an ash tray to make it easier to remove the ash (2/23). UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 49
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY GREENWAY USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER TRADITIONAL STOVE: Regarding the Greenway, a majority commented that less fuel was needed, that it looks nice, and half said they liked the portability. Some, but not a majority, mentioned that it emits less smoke. PREFERENCE RATES: Just under half (10/21) preferred the Greenway to their traditional stove after three days, and this fell slightly after three weeks to 7/21. PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Greenway to their traditional stove or not, many experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking large quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove, more than with all other stoves. Specifically, 19/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food, and almost everyone complained that big pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread (22/24). Almost half (10/24) mentioned problems of ash buildup (most probably due to overfeeding), more than any other stove. The most critical complaint, not as much for user satisfaction as for safety concerns, was the large number (9/24) (far more than any other stove) saying the stove was not stable when stirring pots, requiring pots to be held when stirring to avoid the pot falling from the burner. Some (3/24) complained that wood or embers fall off the tray, and 6/24 users found it difficult to chop the wood into small pieces and complained that they could not use large pieces of wood. A small group of users (2/24) said that pots become black. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: More than any other stove, the vast majority (21/24) said the stove should be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. They suggested addressing the problem of wood pieces falling out of the chamber by slanting the place for introducing wood into the stove (13/24). As with the other stoves, many (16/24) wanted the chamber to be bigger/wider to allow for larger pieces of wood (this suggestion falls into the category of suggestions that will be taken into account and addressed through sales and/or education efforts, but not implemented because it would diminish the efficiency of the stove). A few (4/24) suggested adding an ash tray to make it easier to remove the ash, and a few also said the flame should reach the vessel bottom and spread (5/24). A few strongly suggested dealing with the stability issue by making the plate with “stands” on top thicker to prevent vessels from sliding and tipping over (4/24). UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 50
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY ECO‐CHULA USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER TRADITIONAL STOVE: The popular Eco‐Chula was preferred over the traditional stove because it uses less wood, emits less smoke, and looks nice. Over half also mentioned the house was cleaner than when using the traditional stove, and that it cooks food quickly. PREFERENCE RATES: Many (16/20) preferred the Eco‐Chula to their traditional stove after three days, and although it was the most popular of all the stoves, it fell dramatically in preference after three weeks, to 10/20. PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Eco‐Chula to their traditional stove or not, many experienced some problems with the stove. Many Eco‐Chula users (16/24) found chopping the wood into small pieces very difficult, and 3/24 users found it difficult to ignite the stove, even after using it for 21 days. Still an issue but less so than with other stoves, users were bothered by the difficulties in cooking large quantities of food in bigger pots. Specifically, 11/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food, and some said that big pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread (8/24), but again less than with other ICS. Unlike other ICS, few other problems were mentioned. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: As with other stoves, the vast majority (20/24) said the stove should be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. Related to the cooking capacity, many (15/24) wanted the fuel chamber to be bigger/wider to accommodate more and bigger wood, something that needs to be addressed but not by making the chamber bigger (which would negatively affect the stove’s efficiency). Less than other stove users, only a few suggested the opening for entering the wood in the stove be changed (slanted) to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (4/24), and ash and flame size were not particularly problematic with the Eco‐Chula. UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 51
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY ENVIROFIT USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER TRADITIONAL STOVE: More than half of users said the Envirofit stove uses less fuel, looks nice and keeps the house cleaner. Some, but not a majority, mentioned that it emits less smoke and is well manufactured. PREFERENCE RATES: More than half (11/20) preferred the Envirofit to their traditional stove after three days, but this dropped to less than half after three weeks, to 6/20. PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Envirofit to their traditional stove or not, many experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking large quantities on the stove. Specifically, 16/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food, and that big pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread (12/24). Related to this same issue, a few (4/24) specifically addressed problems cooking rice in large quantities. Some (9/24) mentioned chopping wood as a problem. Lastly, some (6/24) mentioned problems of ash buildup and wood pieces slipping out (4/24) due to the slant of the opening. Just 2/24 mentioned problems with stability of the stove when stirring pots. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: As with the other stoves, the majority (15/24) said the stove should be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. Related to the cooking capacity, many (17/24) wanted the fuel chamber to be bigger/wider to accommodate more and bigger wood, something that needs to be addressed but not by making the chamber bigger (which would negatively affect the stove’s efficiency). Some suggested the place for entering the wood in the stove should be modified (specifically, slanting inwards) to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (9/24), but fewer than most other stove users. Ash and tipping were not of particular concern to Envirofit users due to the stove design, but flame size was perceived to be too small and users suggested the flame should reach the vessel bottom and spread (7/24). UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 52

Understanding Consumer Preference and Willingness

Transcription

Similar documents

CountrySide Stoves

Ecofan

Authorized BAC Dealers

listing PDF

INTEGRA II Customize with color to add an element of design to

Help us build a Finnish Cordwood Sauna

DIM108 Stove Brochure