Kendra N Williams1, Josiah L Kephart2, Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio2, Suzanne M Simkovich3, Kirsten Koehler4, Steven A Harvey5, William Checkley3. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Center for Global Non-Communicable Disease Research and Training, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: kendra.williams@jhu.edu. 2. Center for Global Non-Communicable Disease Research and Training, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Center for Global Non-Communicable Disease Research and Training, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to promote clean cooking through adoption of clean-burning fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are often based on the idea that near-exclusive use of LPG could lead to health improvements. However, benefits beyond health, such as time savings, could be more tangible and meaningful to LPG users. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effect of an LPG intervention on time spent cooking and collecting fuel, using objective measures of stove temperatures combined with self-reports under conditions of near-exclusive LPG use. We also investigated the perceived value of any time savings and potential economic and quality of life implications. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cardiopulmonary outcomes and Household Air Pollution trial in Puno, Peru, a randomized controlled trial with 180 participants assessing exposure and health impacts of an LPG stove, fuel, and behavioral intervention. Surveys conducted with 90 intervention women receiving free LPG and 90 control women cooking primarily with biomass assessed time spent cooking and collecting biomass fuel and use of time savings. Cooking time was objectively measured with temperature sensors on all stoves. Qualitative interviews explored perceptions and use of time savings in more depth. RESULTS: Intervention women spent 3.2 fewer hours cooking and 1.9 fewer hours collecting fuel per week compared to control women, but cooked on average 1.0 more meals per day. Participants perceived time saved from LPG positively, reporting more time for household chores, leisure activities, and activities with income-generating potential such as caring for animals and working in fields. DISCUSSION: This paper suggests that the benefits of LPG extend beyond health and the environment. LPG use could also lead to economic and quality of life gains, through increased time for work, rest, and consumption of hot meals, and reduced arduous biomass fuel collection.
BACKGROUND: Efforts to promote clean cooking through adoption of clean-burning fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) are often based on the idea that near-exclusive use of LPG could lead to health improvements. However, benefits beyond health, such as time savings, could be more tangible and meaningful to LPG users. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effect of an LPG intervention on time spent cooking and collecting fuel, using objective measures of stove temperatures combined with self-reports under conditions of near-exclusive LPG use. We also investigated the perceived value of any time savings and potential economic and quality of life implications. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cardiopulmonary outcomes and Household Air Pollution trial in Puno, Peru, a randomized controlled trial with 180 participants assessing exposure and health impacts of an LPG stove, fuel, and behavioral intervention. Surveys conducted with 90 intervention women receiving free LPG and 90 control women cooking primarily with biomass assessed time spent cooking and collecting biomass fuel and use of time savings. Cooking time was objectively measured with temperature sensors on all stoves. Qualitative interviews explored perceptions and use of time savings in more depth. RESULTS: Intervention women spent 3.2 fewer hours cooking and 1.9 fewer hours collecting fuel per week compared to control women, but cooked on average 1.0 more meals per day. Participants perceived time saved from LPG positively, reporting more time for household chores, leisure activities, and activities with income-generating potential such as caring for animals and working in fields. DISCUSSION: This paper suggests that the benefits of LPG extend beyond health and the environment. LPG use could also lead to economic and quality of life gains, through increased time for work, rest, and consumption of hot meals, and reduced arduous biomass fuel collection.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Kendra N Williams; Josiah L Kephart; Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Leonora Condori; Kirsten Koehler; Lawrence H Moulton; William Checkley; Steven A Harvey Journal: Energy Res Soc Sci Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Kwaku Poku Asante; Samuel Afari-Asiedu; Martha Ali Abdulai; Maxwell Ayindenaba Dalaba; Daniel Carrión; Katherine L Dickinson; Ali Nuhu Abeka; Kwesi Sarpong; Darby W Jack Journal: Energy Sustain Dev Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Eva A Rehfuess; Elisa Puzzolo; Debbi Stanistreet; Daniel Pope; Nigel G Bruce Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Dina Goodman; Josiah L Kephart; Catherine H Miele; Kendra N Williams; Mitra Moazzami; Elizabeth C Fung; Kirsten Koehler; Victor G Davila-Roman; Kathryn A Lee; Saachi Nangia; Steven A Harvey; Kyle Steenland; Gustavo F Gonzales; William Checkley Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Christine A Kelly; Amelia C Crampin; Kevin Mortimer; Albert Dube; Jullita Malava; Deborah Johnston; Elaine Unterhalter; Judith R Glynn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Josiah L Kephart; Kendra N Williams; Timothy Shade; Temi Adekunle; Kyle Steenland; Luke P Naeher; Lawrence H Moulton; Gustavo F Gonzales; Marilu Chiang; Shakir Hossen; Ryan T Chartier; Kirsten Koehler; William Checkley Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Ellen Boamah-Kaali; Darby W Jack; Kenneth A Ae-Ngibise; Ashlinn Quinn; Seyram Kaali; Kathryn Dubowski; Felix B Oppong; Blair J Wylie; Mohammed N Mujtaba; Carlos F Gould; Stephaney Gyaase; Steven Chillrud; Seth Owusu-Agyei; Patrick L Kinney; Kwaku Poku Asante; Alison G Lee Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 11.035