| Literature DB >> 30458001 |
Laura G Hooper1, Yakou Dieye2, Assane Ndiaye3, Aldiouma Diallo3, Coralynn S Sack1, Vincent S Fan1, Kathleen M Neuzil4, Justin R Ortiz4.
Abstract
Nearly half the world's population burns solid fuel for cooking, heating, and lighting. The incomplete combustion of these fuels is associated with detrimental health and environmental effects. The design and distribution of improved cookstoves that increase combustion efficiency and reduce indoor air pollution are a global priority. However, promoting exclusive and sustainable use of the improved stoves has proved challenging. In 2012, we conducted a survey in a community in rural Senegal to describe stove ownership and preferences for different stove technologies. This report aims to describe local stove and fuel use, to identify household preferences related to stove features and function, and to elicit the community perceptions of cleaner-burning stove alternatives with a focus on liquid propane gas. Similar to many resource-limited settings, biomass fuel use was ubiquitous and multiple stoves were used, even when cleaner burning alternatives were available; less than 1% of households that owned a liquid propane stove used it as the primary cooking device. Despite nearly universal use of the traditional open fire (92% of households), women did not prefer this stove when presented with other options. Propane gas, solar, and improved cookstoves were all viewed as more desirable when compared to the traditional open fire, however first-hand experience and knowledge of these stoves was limited. The stove features of greatest value were, in order: large cooking capacity, minimal smoke production, and rapid heating. Despite the low desirability and smoke emisions from the traditional open fire, its pervasive use, even in the presence of alternative stove options, may be related to its ability to satisfy the practical needs of the surveyed cooks, namely large cooking capacity and rapid, intense heat generation. Our data suggest women in this community want alternative stove options that reduce smoke exposure, however currently available stoves, including liquid propane gas, do not address all of the cooks' preferences.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30458001 PMCID: PMC6245512 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Composite image of various improved cookstoves shown to respondents when asked for their opinions about improved cookstoves.
Characteristics of study participants and households in Niakhar region of Senegal.
| Total | ||
|---|---|---|
| Count | (%) | |
| Participant Characteristics | ||
| Age, mean [SD] | 35.7 | [10] |
| Female | 1,103 | (100) |
| Smokes tobacco | 4 | (<1) |
| Relationship to children in household | ||
| Mother | 890 | (81) |
| Grandmother | 105 | (10) |
| Sister | 10 | (1) |
| Aunt | 47 | (4) |
| No response given | 50 | (5) |
| Household (HH) Characteristics | ||
| No. of HH in compound, mean [min, max] | 2.3 | [1,11] |
| No. of children per HH, mean [SD] | 7.5 | [3.6] |
| No. of people respondent cooks for per day | ||
| 4–6 | 68 | (6) |
| 7–10 | 362 | (33) |
| 11 or more | 671 | (61) |
| Assets | ||
| TV | 136 | (12) |
| Electricity | 137 | (12) |
| Access to running water or bore hole | 301 | (27) |
| Mobile phone | 1,049 | (95) |
| No response given | 27 | (2) |
| Building material | ||
| Mud bricks or mud thatch | 973 | (89) |
| Cement bricks | 105 | (10) |
| Zinc/Corrugated metal | 10 | (1) |
| Compound with resident smoker | 654 | (59) |
| Types of stoves owned by the household | ||
| Traditional | 1014 | (92) |
| Coal Pot | 63 | (6) |
| Liquid propane gas | 287 | (26) |
| Improved cook stove (ceramic insulated, side-feed design) | 238 | (22) |
| Solar stove | 0 | (0) |
| No response given | 29 | (3) |
| Households that own 2 or more stoves | 452 | (41) |
| Primary Stove Used in Household in dry season | ||
| Traditional (3-stone or metal tripod) | 753 | (68) |
| Coal Pot | 143 | (13) |
| Improved Cook Stove (ceramic insulated, side-feed design) | 20 | (2) |
| Liquid propane gas | 4 | (<1) |
| No response given | 183 | (17) |
| Household Health Measures | ||
| Child in HH with wheeze | 123 | (12) |
| Child in HH with nocturnal cough | 262 | (24) |
| Child in HH with severe asthma symptoms | 78 | (7) |
| Cook has difficulty breathing after cooking | 163 | (15) |
| Cook has wheezing after cooking | 110 | (10) |
| Cook has cough with phlegm | 167 | (15) |
Due to incomplete responses to some questions, not all percentages add to 100.
a Primary stove use reported for the dry season; rainy season figures are comparable (Traditional: 69%, Coal Pot: 13%, ICS: 2%, LPG: <1%, missing 17%). Item or unit non-response is reported when non-response exceeds 2%.
Fig 2Images of cookstoves used in survey area.
Associations (odds ratios) between respondent characteristics and first choice of most desired stove type.
| Top Stove Choice | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquid Propane Gas | Stove w/ Chimney | Solar | |||||||
| Characteristic | OR | (95% CI) | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
| Age, years | 0.98 | 0.97–0.99 | 0.004 | 1.03 | 1.01–1.04 | <0.001 | 0.99 | 0.97–1.00 | 0.059 |
| Socioeconomic status | |||||||||
| Low | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||||||
| High | 1.08 | 0.83–1.42 | 0.562 | 0.48 | 0.35–0.67 | <0.001 | 1.03 | 0.76–1.39 | 0.863 |
| No. people to cook for/day | |||||||||
| 4–6 | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||||||
| 7–10 | 0.87 | 0.49–1.53 | 0.626 | 0.89 | 0.50–1.70 | 0.715 | 1.08 | 0.59–1.97 | 0.807 |
| 11 or more | 1.00 | 0.58–1.72 | 0.991 | 1.33 | 0.71–2.49 | 0.365 | 0.67 | 0.37–1.20 | 0.176 |
| Cooking location, rainy season | |||||||||
| Outside | Referent | Referent | Referent | ||||||
| Enclosed kitchen | 0.76 | 0.53–1.08 | 0.133 | 1.57 | 1.00–2.45 | 0.050 | 0.75 | 0.51–1.10 | 0.145 |
| Respiratory symptoms of cook | 1.08 | 0.80–1.46 | 0.610 | 1.40 | 1.00–1.94 | 0.049 | 0.62 | 0.43–0.89 | 0.010 |
| Child with wheeze in household | 0.93 | 0.66–1.31 | 0.676 | 1.11 | 0.76–1.62 | 0.594 | 0.87 | 0.59–1.29 | 0.488 |
Multivariable logistic regression model with each outcome (top stove choice) compared to all participants without that outcome. The total number of participants with non-missing data on all covariates was 990 for each outcome analysis. Model adjusted for all characteristics as shown in table. Inclusion of village as a variable did not alter the direction or significance of the outcomes.
a Each outcome is mutually exclusive; each participant was only able to select one stove as their first-choice selection. Each stove preference listed is compared to all other stove options (liquid propane gas, improved cookstove, wood stove with chimney, electric, solar, or traditional tripod stove)
b Socioeconomic status defined by household building materials and household assets. Higher SES households used cement blocks and corrugated zinc as building materials and possessed a television and/or had access to electricity. Lower SES households used mud bricks, mud and sticks, and straw as building materials and lacked electricity and television
Fig 3General stove features considered most valuable, stratified by households with and without an LPG stove.
Fig 4Likert scale presentation of perceptions of improved cookstoves (ICS).
Fig 5Likert scale presentation of perceptions of liquid propane gas stoves (LPG).