1. 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. 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. 3. GLP:Ayyagari,Burke,SabrieSummer2014 Page3 X.3APPENDIXBIBLIOGRAPHY(REFERENCES)......................................................................43 X.4PICTURES........................................................................................................................................43
4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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