GLP Final Project Raga Maweel Matt Official Final Draft
Preview:
Citation preview
- 1. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page1
GlobalLeadershipProgram MarketAnalysisforEcostovesinBluefields,
Nicaragua Date:June23,2014-September12,2014
Authors:RagaAyyagari,MaweelSabrieandMatthewBurke
ReviewedbyMathiasCraigonSeptember9th,2014 ProjectDescription:
Thisprojectfocusedoncreatingamarketanalysisforthefutureimplementation
ofecostovesinBluefields,Nicaragua.Inadditiontoresearchingtechnicalaspectsof
ecostovesinNicaragua,wedesignedandconducted159surveystounderstandthe
customsandneedsoffamiliesin5neighborhoodsofBluefields.Usingthisdata,we
chose4modelsofecostovestotestwiththefamilies.Thesecondphaseofthestudy,
continuedbyMaweelSabrie,MatthewBurkeandtheEnergyTeaminvolvedtestingthe
ecostoveswith5families.Thiswasdoneinordertoprocesstheirfeedbackonthe
functionalityandsocialacceptanceofthemodels,aswellasselectonemodelforfuture
implementationbyblueEnergy.
- 2. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page2 Contents
0.EXECUTIVESUMMARY.....................................................................................................................4
1.BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................................5
1.1CONTEXTANDJUSTIFICATIONOFPROJECT........................................................................................5
1.2LITERATUREREVIEW..........................................................................................................................5
1.3PREVIOUSBLUEENERGYWORKORBACKGROUNDCONTEXT............................................................6
2.OBJECTIVES&IMPACT....................................................................................................................7
2.1GENERALOBJECTIVE/OUTCOMES......................................................................................................7
2.2SPECIFICOBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES....................................................................................................7
2.3IMPACT.................................................................................................................................................7
3.ACTIVITIES..........................................................................................................................................8
3.1.
DESIGNOFTHESURVEY...................................................................................................................9
3.1.2MODIFICATIONSMADE...................................................................................................................10
3.2SELECTIONOFFAMILIES....................................................................................................................10
3.3
FOURSELECTEDSTOVEMODELS....................................................................................................11
4.TIMELINE...........................................................................................................................................12
5.BUDGET..............................................................................................................................................14
6.RESULTSANDANALYSIS...............................................................................................................14
6.1DESCRIPTIONOFIMPORTANTFACTORSTOCONSIDER....................................................................14
6.2TRENDSOBSERVED............................................................................................................................16
6.2.1PRICE...............................................................................................................................................16
6.2.2TYPEOFFUEL.................................................................................................................................17
6.3
IMPACTSONHEALTH......................................................................................................................19
6.3.1IMPACTSONTHEENVIRONMENT...................................................................................................20
6.3.2IMPACTSONTHEECONOMY...........................................................................................................20
6.4STOVEEFFICIENCY.............................................................................................................................24
6.5LIMITATIONSOFDATACOLLECTED...................................................................................................26
7.CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................27
7.1CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................27
7.2NEXTSTEPS........................................................................................................................................27
X.1APPENDIXAWEEKLYREPORTS...........................................................................................29
WEEK5.....................................................................................................................................................33
WEEK8.....................................................................................................................................................38
WEEK9.....................................................................................................................................................39
WEEK10...................................................................................................................................................40
WEEK11...................................................................................................................................................41
X.2APPENDIXADDITIONALINFORMATION...........................................................................42
- 3. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page3
X.3APPENDIXBIBLIOGRAPHY(REFERENCES)......................................................................43
X.4PICTURES........................................................................................................................................43
- 4. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page4 0.EXECUTIVESUMMARY
InmanyoftheruralandurbancommunitiesintheSouthAtlanticAutonomous
RegionofNicaragua,woodandcharcoalburningstovesarecommon.Thesemethodsof
cookingareextremelyinefficientandcausesevereharmtotheenvironmentinmore
thanoneway.Takeforexampleafamilythatcooksindoorswithawoodburningstove.
Familiesoftenspendhours,multipledaysaweekgatheringfirewood,whichis
inefficientandcontributestodeforestation.Thefamilythenburnsthewood,increasing
carbondioxideemissionsandmostimportantlydamagingtheirhealth.Otherrisksof
cookingwithwoodandcoalincludehousefires,smokeinhalation,andsevereburns.
blueEnergyhasprovidedavisiontocombatthenegativeaspectsoftraditional
cookingwithwoodorcharcoal,withoutchangingthefuelsourceused.Ecostoveshave
longbeenusedthroughoutCentralAmericaandhaveshownpositivehealth,
environmental,andeconomicbenefits.Ecostovescomeinvariousshapesandsizes,
withthepointbeingtodecreasetheamountofsmokeproduced,amountofwoodor
charcoalusedandheatemittedthatdoesnotdirectlycontributetocooking.Ourproject
ledusinselectingfourdifferentecostovedesigns,throughthecombinationoffield-
surveysandfeedbackheardfromfamiliescurrentlyusinggas,woodandcharcoalstoves,
withanemphasisoncoalandwood.Afterfindingthesestatisticswecrunchedthe
numbersinthestatisticaldatasoftwareknownasSPSS,toviewsomeofthelong-term
effectsanimplementationofecostoveswouldhaveonafamilyslives.Throughthese
surveyswetestedtwoofthefourtotalselectedmodelschosen.Wetestedthese
ecostovesintheLomaFrescaand19deJulioneighborhoodsofBluefields,Nicaragua,to
processtheimmediateeffectoftheseecostovesinthecommunities.Thiswasdone
duringthesecondphaseofthisstudy.Thereportbelowdepictstheprocessofchoosing
offourmodelsoftheecostoves,amarkettostudyontheneedandtheacceptanceof
ecostoveshereinBluefieldsandtheprocessoftestingaselectedtwoofthefour
ecostovemodelswithintheLomaFrescaand19deJuliocommunities.Ultimatelythe
goaloftheprojectistoprovidethesocioeconomicbackgroundtopavethewayfor
blueEnergysgoaltoimplementoneeco-stovethatwillbestservethespecificneeds
andcustomsofBluefields.Thismodelwaschosenbasedonsocial,technical,and
economicdatacollectedfromsurveys.Themarketanalysisalsoincludesanevaluation
ofthefamilieseconomicsituationandwillingnesstopayforecostoves,pavingtheway
forafuturemarket-drivenblueEnergyecostoveproject.Thecombinationofhealth,
economic,andenvironmentalharmcausedbycookingwithcharcoalandopenflame
stoveshasgoneonlongenoughandthedatacollectedthroughthisstudycanserveasa
basisforfutureprojectsofimplementingecostovesinBluefields.
- 5. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page5 1.BACKGROUND
1.1ContextandJustificationofProject
Cookingwithopenfiresandfurnacesisaglobalissuethataffectshuman
health,environmentalpollution,andeconomicopportunity.Smokeandheatfrom
indoorcookingopenfiresisoneoftheleadingcausesofchildmortality,equivalent
tomothersandchildrensmokingthreepacksofcigarettesaday(StoveTeam
International).Furthermore,deforestationforfirewoodandcarbonemissionsfrom
burningcharcoaldamagestheenvironment.Thehealthandenvironmentalimpacts
ofopenfirecookingalsohasnegativeeconomicexternalities,aslossofproductivity
andthecostoffuelexacerbatespovertyinfamiliesthatcannotaffordimproved
cookstovesorgasstoves.
Studyingandimplementingecostovesthatuselesscoalandwoodand
producelesssmokehasthepotentialtoimprovehealth(especiallyofwomenand
children),environmentalsustainability,andeconomicempowermentforfamiliesin
Bluefields.
WhileblueEnergyhasconductedsignificantresearchandprojectsregarding
ecostovesinthecommunitiessurroundingBluefields,thepotentialforecostovesin
thecityofBluefieldswaspreviouslynotexaminedatalargescale.Thisprojectis
neededtounderstandthehealth,environmental,andeconomicconsequencesof
currenturbancookingpracticesinBluefields.Furthermore,inalignmentwith
blueEnergysapproachofnotgivingthingsaway,thestudyofecostovesfroma
marketperspectivehaspotentialtobenefitboththebeneficiariesandblueEnergy.
Financialparticipationinanecostovecanhelpensurebeneficiaryengagementand
commitmenttomaintainingandusingthestoves.Furthermore,theproceeds
generatedfromtheecostovescanhelpblueEnergysfinancialsustainability,
providinganadditionalstreamofrevenuethatcanbereinvestedincreatingmore
programimpact.Thisstudywillformthebasisofinformationandanalysisthatwill
informfuturemarket-relatedblueEnergyprojectsinecostoves.
1.2LiteratureReview
Nicaraguareliesonthreemainsourcesoffuelforcooking:gas,whichis
usuallyusedbythewealthy,woodandcharcoal.Nicaraguaisthesecondpoorest
countryintheWesternHemispherebehindHaiti.Duetohighratesofpoverty,a
largeportionofthecountrycookswithwoodandcharcoal,eitheronanopen
flamestoveorasmallcharcoalcookstove.Thesmokefromopenfiresleadsto
riskstohealthandsafetysuchasrespiratoryillnessandhousefires.Becauseof
theincorporationoffeaturessuchasaninternalcombustionchamber,chimney,
and,efficientmaterials,ecostovesproducelesssmoke,burnfuelmoreefficiently,
andovertimesavefamiliesmoney,health,andenvironment.
Duringtheopeningstagesofourresearch,westudiedvarious
organizationsandthefeaturesandcharacteristicsoftheecostovesthey
provided.WetookalookatorganizationssuchasProlea,Coci-Nica,Stove-
- 6. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page6
TeamInternationalandCHICA.Ourreasonsforchoosingtheseorganizations
includedlocaleoftheorganizations,efficiencyofeachstoveprovided,aswellas
overallcostofeachstove.DuetoourworkinBluefields,Nicaraguaweneeded
accesstoquickandaffordableshipping,makingsurethestoveswhereeither
builtinNicaraguaorinaneighboringcountrywasoneofthetopprioritiesinthe
beginningofourresearch.Wethenresearchedeachofthemodelsadvantages
anddisadvantagesandorganizedthefeaturesintoadatabase.Characteristics
consideredincludedspecificfeaturessuchaschimneys,grills,andburners,
physicalcharacteristicssuchassizeandmaterials,andfunctionalconsiderations
suchasefficiencyandtypesoffoodprepared. http://www.stoveteam.org
http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources/fact-sheets/igniting-change.pdf
http://www.prolenaecofogon.org/pdf/guia_tecnica.pdf
http://nicafund.org/initiatives/nica-communities/laguna-apoyo#pane4
1.3PreviousblueEnergyworkorBackgroundContext
Becauseoftheabilityofecostovestoimprovehealth,the
environment,andtheeconomy,theblueEnergyEnergyTeamhasconductedmany
projectsinthepastdesigningandimplementingecostoves.Mostoftheseprojects
havebeeninthecommunitiessurroundingBluefields.Forexample,pastGLP
projectshaveincludedinstallingINKAWASIstovesincommunitiesanddesigningthe
stovesblockswitheco-brick.Inaddition,afewpreliminarystudiesofecostovesin
Bluefieldsandthesurroundingregionshavebeenconductedbyvolunteersincluding
GabriellaLaRocca,whostudiedportableecostovesinBluefields,andBenjamin
Loiseau,whostudiedanddesignedecostovesinWawashangandKukraHill.
- 7. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page7
2.OBJECTIVES&IMPACT 2.1GeneralObjective/Outcomes
Thisresearchstudyconsistsoftwophases.Thefirstphaseisatechnicaland
socialevaluationofecostovesinBluefields.Thetechnicalevaluationconsistsof
readingtechnicalreportsonvariousecostovesproducedinNicaraguaandclassifying
theinformationinadatabase.Thesocialevaluationconsistsofcreatingand
implementingasurveyoffamiliesinBluefieldstounderstandfamilydemographics,
theircookingbehavior,theireconomicsituationandwillingnesstopayforecostoves.
Thegoalofthefirstphaseistoidentify3-4modelsofecostovesthataremost
compatiblewiththeexpressedneedsandcustomsofthefamilies.
Thesecondphaseofthestudyinvolvesfieldtestingofthechosenmodels
withfamiliestogainfeedbackonthedesign,functionality,andeconomicsofthe
stoves.Thisphaseinvolvespurchasingthestoves,selectingfamiliesfortesting,
deliveringthestovestothefamilies,andanalyzingthefeedback.Thegoalofthis
phaseistoevaluatetheperformanceofthesemodelsandtocharacterizethe
potentialoftheecostovetobenefitthefamiliesandblueEnergyeconomically.
2.2SpecificObjectives/Outcomes
Conductingatechnicalandsocioeconomicinvestigationabouttheuseandaccessto
fuel,theneeds,andthecustomsofpeopleinregardtofutureimplementationsof
ecostoves. Evaluationofthesocialacceptanceof4differentmodels
Developamarketanalysisofthepotentialofecostovesinurbanandperi-urbanareas
inBluefields
TestthedifferentmodelsbothatblueEnergyandthroughaselectamountoffamilies
chosenfromtheEstufasMejoradassurveys. 2.3Impact
Theultimategoalofthisprojectistwo-fold.Theprimarygoalistoimprove
thehealthoffamiliesandtheenvironmentbyreducingcarbonmonoxideand
particulatepollutionfromsmokeexposurewhilesavingmoney,time,andfuel.This
studywillhaveanimpactonthisgoalbyprovidingtheinformationonthecustoms
andneedsofthepeopletoformthebasisofafutureblueEnergyecostoveprojectin
Bluefields.Thesecondgoalistoprovideamarket-basedmodelofrevenuefor
blueEnergytoimproveitssustainabilityasanorganizationandcontributetofuture
- 8. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page8
programimpact.Thisprojectwillhaveanimpactonthisgoalbyprovidinga
frameworkforunderstandingbeneficiarieseconomicsituationsandwillingnessto
payforecostovesthatcanbetranslatedtootherblueEnergymarketinitiatives.
3.ACTIVITIES SpecificObjective Activity Conductingatechnicaland
socioeconomicinvestigationaboutthe useandaccesstofuel,theneeds,and
thecustomsofpeopleinregardto futureimplementationsofecostoves.
-Createadatabaseorganizingfeaturesand
characteristicsofthevariousmodels -CallandemailNICA,CHICA,Prolea,
Tropitec,Mifogon,andONILtoaskfor detailsonthemodels
-Designasurveyandresponsesheet -Conduct159surveysinthebarriosofLoma
Fresca,19deJulio,SanPedro/Trocha,Santa Rosa,andCanal
Evaluationofthesocialacceptanceof4 differentmodels
-Organizethedatacollectedfromthe
surveysintoSPSS(StatisticalPackagefor theSocialSciences)software
-Analyzethedatausingstatisticaltests -Usethedatatoselectfourmodels
-Contactthecompaniesandpurchase modelstotryinthebarrios
-Selectfamiliesforthesecondphaseofthe study
Developamarketanalysisofthe potentialofecostovesinurbanandperi-
urbanareasinBluefields -Researchotherrelatedmarketstudiesand
willingnesstopayliteratureforwaterand energyprojects
-Analyzethewillingnesstopaydatafrom thesurveys
Assessandevaluateopinionsand observationsfromfamilieswhohave
usedecostovestodeterminewhichof thetwoecostoves(ProlenaRapiditaand
Coci-Nica)bettersuitsthefamiliesin peri-urbancommunitiesaround
Bluefields -Checkwiththefamilieswhohaveourtest
stovesforthefirstweekanddoafollow-up surveyeachtimetheytestastove.
-ProceedtoswitchthestovesfromCoci-
NicatoProlenaRapiditaandvice-versa. -CreatetheStoveusagetemplateor
familiestofilloutwhiletheyhavethetest- stoves
-Receiveinsightfromfamiliesaboutthe
test-stoves,proceedtobringourteststoves
tothenexttwofamiliesonourlist.
- 9. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page9
-Createatesttemplatetocompareand
contrastthequalitiesoftraditionallyused stovesandecostoves.
-Goto4familieshomesandtesttheir traditionalstovesaswellasthetwo
ecostovestocompareandcontrastthe
traditionallyusedcharcoalandwoodstoves
withourecostoves.Inadditionourgoalis
togivethefamiliesfirst-handvisual
perspectiveofthebenefitsoftheecostove 3.1. Designofthesurvey
Throughouttheprocessofourresearchwedesigned2surveys.Thepurposeof
thefirstbeingtounderstandthetechnical,culturalandsocioeconomicbarrierscausing
theprolongeduseoftraditionalwoodandcharcoalstoves.Thesecondstudyisafollow
up survey, done after the chosen families for testing have had a
chance to test the ecostoves we provide.The first survey contains
four sections. The first section is the general demographic
information about the family. This information includes the
numberofpeoplelivinginthehouse,theage,gender,ethnicity,andeducationlevelof
each person. The second part of the survey includes a series of
observations of the
currentstoveandlivingconditions.Thisincludesobservationsaboutthedimensionsand
features of the stove. This information was relevant because the
type of stove used provided insight into the interest and economic
conditions of the family. The third section is an evaluation of the
families cooking habits and customs. Knowing information on the
fuel used, the frequency and nature of the stoves use and the
familysperceptionofthestovearerelevanttochoosingamodelthatalignswiththe
familyscurrentneedsandcustoms.Thefourthsectionincludesanevaluationofthe
familys current economic situation and willingness to pay for an
ecostove. This is relevant to identify a reasonable price range for
the ecostove models and identify
familiesprioritiesregardingpurchasingastove.
Thesecondsurveycontainsonlyonesection,madeofquestionsusedtoreceive
feedbackfromthefamiliesonhowthestovesworkandiftheyareanimprovement
from their traditional stoves. The goal is twofold: The first goal
is to recognize the
improvement,ifanyatall,theecostovesprovidecomparedtotraditionallyusedstoves
inBluefields;thesecondistodeterminethestovesworthinbothhealthandefficiency
fromthefamiliesperspectives.Inessencewewanttofindoutifthefamiliesfindthe
stovesasanimprovementandaninvestmenttheymaywanttomakeforthefuture.
- 10. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page10
3.1.2Modificationsmade
Throughtheprocessofapplyingthesurveys,weomittedquestionsthatwere
notrelevanttothegoalincludingquestions20,30and31andchangedthewordingof
question32,42,and43tomakethequestionsmoreclearandaccessibletothefamilies.
BoththeoriginalandthemodifiedsurveysareattachedinAppendix2.
3.2SelectionofFamilies
OurselectionofwhichfamiliestosurveybeganwithalistofpreviousblueEnergy
WASH(Water,Sanitation,andHygiene)projectbeneficiaries.Theserecipientswereto
besurveyedtoalsocontributetoblueEnergysPreparedFamily(FamiliasPreparada)
Initiatives.PreparedFamiliesisaclimatechangeadaptationplanthatincludesa
packageofblueEnergyservicesincludingwaterfilters,bio-intensivegardens,and
ecostoves.Thisdemographicinformationinthesurveywouldhelpidentifyatarget
audienceofpoorsinglemotherswhohadpreviouslyworkedwithblueEnergyandhave
childrenattendingschools.Thecookinghabitsandeconomicevaluationsectionsofthe
surveyprovideinformationaboutwhatmodelsofecostovesarebestsuitedforthe
beneficiariesofthePreparedFamiliesproject.WhileconductingsurveysfromtheASH
list,werealizedthat76%ofthe68familiesinterviewedusedgasstoves.Familiesusing
gasstovesarenotagoodtargetaudienceforecostovesfromasocioeconomic
perspective.Gasisthepreferredfueltypebecausegascooksrapidlyandproducesless
smoke.BecausethefamiliesfromtheASHlistwereaffluentenoughtoaffordagas
stoveandgas,manyfamilieswerenotinterestedinstovesthatusedcoalorwood.
Becausewewantedtofindthecommunitiesinwhichtheecostoveswould
benefitmorepeople,wedecidedtochangetheprocessofwhichfamiliestointerview,
consultinglocalstaffonwhichareasinBluefieldswouldbenefitmostfromeco-stoves.
Basedonthefeedbackofthelocalstaff,wedecidedtoexpandthestudytoElCanal,La
Trocha,SanPedro,andSantaRosaaswellasdifferentsectorsinLomaFrescaand19de
Julio.Doingsurveysintheseareasprovideduswithresultsbettersuitedtocontinueour
projectasweonlychosefamiliesthatusedwood,charcoaloracombinationofthetwo.
Thisgroupof91respondentswillbereferredtoastheEquipodeEnergiagroup
throughoutthereport.
AfterchoosingthestovesdesignatedforfamilialusethroughoutBluefields,we
decidedtoselectatotalofsevenfamiliesfromtheEquipodeEnergiagrouptotestthe
Coci-NicaandProleaRapiditastovesweorderedfromCoci-NicaandProlea,the
makersoftherespectivestoves.Outofthesevenfamilies,fivewereselectedtotest
eachstoveforaweek,whiletheremainingtwofamilieswereselectedincasesomeof
theoriginalfivedidnotwanttobeapartofthetestingprocess.Decidingon7outofthe
91familiesinterviewedprovedtobeadifficulttask;howeverwenarrowedthesearch
downbyonlychoosingfamiliesintheLomaFrescaand19deJulioneighborhoods,in
ordertocontributetothePreparedFamiliesresearch(eventhoughthefamilieswere
notfromtheASHlist).Thisleftuswith30familiestochoosefrom.Wethenselectedthe
familiesbasedoncriteriawethoughtwouldbenefitthemeconomically,while
- 11. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page11
benefittingblueEnergyfromaresearchstandpoint.Familysize,typeoffuelusedtocook
withandthefamiliesincomesweredefinedasthemaincriteriabywhichwewould
choosethefamilies.Withthenumberoffamiliesnowdowntosevenwebeganmaking
phonecallstotheselectedfamilies,thankfullyfouroutofthefiveoriginallychosen
familiesquicklyagreedtoassistusintheresearchprocess,whichallowedustofinda
replacementfamilywithoutlosingtimeonthetestingfront.
*ExcelchartofthefamilieschosencanbefoundinAppendix2. 3.3
Fourselectedstovemodels Figure1:Characteristicsoffourchosenmodels
Model Company Price (USD) Price (C$) Fueltype Durability Advantages
Disadvantages Picture Coci- Nica NICA 10 250 Wood, coal 2years+
Price, Portability, Easeofuse, Useswood andcoal, NICAisvery excited
about collaboratin gonthe project. Deliveryfrom thePacific takes
additional timeand money,size maybetoo smallforlarge families,also
Rapidita Prolea 30 573.65 Coal 4years Portability, material, price
Nooptionfor delivery,small size,onlyuses coal.
- 12. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page12 Sema- Docilar
Tropitec 20 521 Wood, Coal, Sawdust, Coffee beans, rice husk, corn
husk, peanut shell 2-4years Portability, materials, price,uses many
sourcesof fuel Deliveryfrom Honduras takestime andmoney Crucita
Sencilla CHICA 30 782.25 Wood 3years Price, efficiency, durability,
hasaburner andagrill Onlyuses wood, assembly requiredfrom Managua
team,not portable, largesize 4.TIMELINE Junio Julio Agosto
Septiembre Resultados Actividades sem2 sem3 sem4 sem5 sem6 sem7
sem8 Sem9 Sem10 Sem11 Sem12 R1. Carryoutatechnical
andsocio-economic investigationonthe useandaccessto
fuel,aswellasthe needsofthe populationforfuture installationofeco-
stoves A1.1.
Introductionandpresentationoftheframeworkforproject:Familias
Preparadasinitiative,newenergyprogramstrategy,objectivesand
critiques,bEwiththeeco-stoves,readingofbasictechnologyinformation,
andadvantagesofimprovedstoves A1.2.
Implementationofadatabaseonthedifferentmodelsavailablein
Nicaraguathatcouldbeimplementedintheperi-urbanzonesofR.A.C.C.S.:
costs,technicalcharacteristics,socialconsiderations
- 13. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page13 A1.3
Draftingofthequestionnaireforinterviews A1.4
Implementationofinterviews R.2.Evaluatethe socialacceptanceof
4differentmodelsof improvedstoves
A.2.1.AutotraininginmanagementofSPSSsoftware
A.2.2.Creationofadatabaseforinterviewresults
A.2.3.Analysisofresults,definitionoftechno-socialcriteriaandselection
of4stovemodelsfortesting
A.2.4.Writingofintermediaryreport:surveyfindingsandjustificationof
the4selectedmodels
A.2.5.Developmentofmethodologytodefinefamilyselectionprocess,
messageofcommunicationandprocessoffollow-upstudy
A.2.6.Purchase,giveoutandmonitoringofstovemodelsfordifferent
families(usingrotationofstovesforbestcomparison)
A.2.7.Draftingoffinalreport:Conclusionofstudyofsocialacceptanceof
selectedmodels,selectionofmodelsforfutureimplementation
R.3.Developmentof amarketstudy simplifiedoneco- stovepotentialin
peri-urbanzonesof Bluefields
A.3.1.Generalinvestigationofmarketstudy:concept,methodology,etc
A.3.2Draftingofthequestionnairesurveys A.3.3Implementationofsurveys
A.3.4Simplifieddraftofmarketstudy:conclusionsofsocialacceptanceof
selectedmodels,selectionofmodelsforfutureimplementation
A.3.5Presentationofresultsandrecommendationsforstrategyon
implantationofstoves
- 14. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page14 5.BUDGET
Activity Materials Transport Other Subtotal
TaxiRidestothebarriosfortheinterviewsandstovetests5$ 78$ 83$
PayingforLorene'sassistanceontheencuestas 76$ 76$
Coci-Nicastoves(2) 20$ 14$ 34$ Proleaestufarapidita 30$ 7$ 37$ -$
-$ -$ -$ Total 55$ 99$ 76$ 230$ 6.RESULTSANDANALYSIS
6.1Descriptionofimportantfactorstoconsider
Theprimaryfactorsconsideredinthisdecisionmakingprocessweretheprice,
typeoffuelused,durability,portability,size,anddesign.Inaddition,weconsideredthe
intentionofuseforthestove(i.eprivate,commercial,oracombination).Wealso
consideredthefamilieswillingnesstoparticipateingivingustheirthoughtsontheprice
ofthestovesbyshowingthefamiliespicturesofvariousmodelsandaskingthemwhata
realisticpricewouldbeforthefamilies.Weconducted159surveysintotal-68inthe
PreparedFamiliesgroup(thegroupfromthelistofblueEnergyWater,Sanitation,and
Hygienepastbeneficiaries)and91surveysintheEquipodeEnergiagroup.Thisgroup
consistedofthegroupofrespondentsinLomaFresca(29families),SantaRosa(20),El
Canal(20),yLaTrocha(22)thatusedcoalandwood.Wechosethesebarriosbasedon
thefeedbackoflocalstaff,whoidentifiedthesecommunitiesbasedofpovertyleveland
observationsoftheircookingpractices.Inadditionwehadtodecideonwhichfamilies
tochoosefortestingduringphasetwooftheresearchproject,inputfromthePrepared
Familiesteamhelpedinfocusingourtargetaudiencetotwobarrios(LomaFrescaand
19deJulio),whileFamilysize,typeoffuelusedtocookwithandthefamiliesincomes
werethefocalpointsinfindingourseventestfamilies.
Basedontheresultsofthesurveys,wechose2modelsthatwerethemost
compatiblewiththeneedsandthecustomsoftherespondents.Thefactorthatwe
consideredfirstwastheprice.Becausethemajorityofthefamiliesreportedaprice
between0and1000cordobas,wechosemodelswhosepricesrangedbelow30USD.
- 15. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page15
Next,weconsideredsizeanddesign.Becausethemajorityofthefamilies
interviewedusedtheirstovejustforcookingforthefamilies,weoptedforsmaller,
moreeconomicalstoveswithafurnace-typedesign.Inaddition,becausethetesting
periodforthestoveswillberelativelyshort,itisnotfeasibletotrytotransport
materialsandinstallalargerstovesuchastheModeloEmeldaorINKAWASIwiththe
concreteblocksandchimneys.Manyfamiliesindicatedthatportabilitywasapriority
whenchoosingastove,sowefocusedonstovesthataresmallinsizeandlightenough
tomove.TheCoci-Nica,Rapidita,andSema-Domiciliararesmall,portable,andrequire
noinstallation,makingthemeasiertoimplementthantheCrucitaSencillamodel,which
requiresthetransportofheavymaterialsandinstallationonsite,thuswehadto
excludethemodelfromthetestingphase.Unfortunatelyduetodifficultiesin
communicationwithTropitec,themakersoftheSema-Domiciliarmodel
theprojectdeadlinefastapproachingcombinedwiththeamountoftimethetesting
phasewouldtakewewerealsoforcedtoputaholdonbringingtheSema-Domiciliar
modeltoBluefieldsfortesting.
Nextweconsideredfueltype.AsshownbyFigure3,44%oftherespondentsuse
wood,39%usecoal,and14%usedbothcoalandwood.Sincethereissuchasmall
marginofdifferencebetweenthepercentageusingwoodandcoal,wedecidedthatthe
modelsthatusebothfuelshavethebestpotentialfordiffusion.TheCoci-Nicaand
Sema-DomiciliarModelsutilizebothfuels,makingthemaccessibletothewidestgroup
ofusers.TheRapiditaandCrucitaSencillamodelsonlyusecoalandwood,respectively,
sothesestovescouldonlybeusedbyapproximatelyhalfofthesample.
Basedonthesecriteria,wepredictedthattheCoci-Nicamodelhadthegreatest
potentialfordiffusionduetoitslowcostof$10,itsportability,itssocialacceptance
fromthesurveys,anditsabilitytousebothcoalandwoodforcooking.Aftertesting
boththeCoci-NicaandtheProleaRapiditaitappearsthatourinitialpredictionwas
slightlyoff.WhiletheCoci-NicadoesboastalowercostthantheRapiditaandisinfact
moreefficientthanatraditionalwoodstove,theoverallresponsefromfamiliesthat
testedboththeRapiditaandtheCoci-Nicawasthattheypreferredthefuelusagerate
oftheRapiditaanditsefficiencyincookingfoodaswell.Withthatsaidweonlyhadtwo
familiestestbothstoves,whilehavingfivefamiliestesttheRapiditaandatotalof3
familiestesttheCoci-Nica.TheshortageoffamilieswhotestedtheCoci-Nicawasdueto
oneoftheCoci-Nicassplittingapart,renderingitinoperable.Webelievethatthis
problemoriginallyoccurredduringtheshippingoftheCoci-Nicaandonceputthrough
testscouldnothandlewhatitwassupposedto.Thebreakwasanunnaturaloccurance,
astheotherCoci-Nicaisoperableandwentthroughthesameshippingprocess(granted
ittootooksomedamage).Fortunately,intheendpositivesignswereshownduringthe
testingphase.Familiesagreedthattheecostovesbroughttothemwereinfactmore
efficientthantheircurrentmeansforcookingfoodandunderstoodboththehealthand
economicbenefitsinusinganecostovesuchastheProleaRapiditaandtheCoci-Nica.
- 16. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page16
6.2Trendsobserved 6.2.1Price
Figure1:ReportedwillingnesstopayforanecostovefortheEquipodeEnergia
group
Figure2:ReportedwillingnesstopayforanecostoveforthePreparedFamiliesgroup
Inthegraph,thetermNoSabeequatestofamilieswhodidnotgiveusananswerastohow
muchtheywerewillingtopayforanecostove. 7 28 34 11 20 0 5 10 15 20
25 30 35 40 NOSABE 0-500 500-1000