The challenges of improved cook stove promotion: Lessons ......Gram Vikas Installments Rebates w/use...

The challenges of improved cook stove promotion: Lessons from pilot programs in India

Marc Jeuland (Work w/Jessica Lewis, Subhrendu Pattanayak, Nina Brooks, Vasundhara Bhojvaid, Omkar Patange, and many others)

TRAction Roundtable; Washington DC; March 11 2014

1

Outline

Motivation: We know about the negative impacts of traditional stoves But adoption/diffusion rates for ICS are very low… Economics of adoption are not well understood

Our “pilot” strategy: Is it possible to design & evaluate an effective intervention to “sustain use” of improved stoves? Lets see … Systematic analysis of outcomes from these pilots

Conclusions and discussion

2

Motivation: Lots of negative impacts of biomass‐ burning

Large and growing literature: 1. Climate impacts (short term forcer, glacier melt) (IPCC, 2012; Ramanathan 2007)2. Regional air quality (ABC) (Rehman et al. 2011)3. Deforestation and forest degradation (Bensch & Peters 2013; Geist & Lambin)4. Time costs: Drudgery of fuel wood collection (Heltberg 2004; Mekonnen & Kohlin 2010)5. Health damages: Especially women & children (Dherani et al., 2008)

But… Many unknowns regarding drivers of adoption and impacts of improved cook stoves

(ICS) on climate, forest, health Supply chain is surprisingly underdeveloped, and local R&D efforts appear limited Uncertain costs and benefits (Jeuland & Pattanayak, 2012)

3

Motivation: Adoption of environmental health technologies

Adoption is a (bounded) rational decision (Pattanayak & Pfaff, 2009) Interventions can shift constraints: Information & subsidy reduce cost Psycho-social factors matter: Time & risk preferences, peer pressure

Increasing evidence on ICS: “Up in Smoke”: You can’t just drop stoves on people, even cheap and supposedly

clean/efficient ones (Hanna et al.) Ranging results from other “free stove” studies (e.g., Bensch et al.) A few low demand studies (papers by Mobarak et al.) “Low-risk” experience matters (Levine & Cotterman; Beltramo et al.) Larger gray literature, e.g. Shell Foundation; Abt Associates; GACC

Evidence in this domain raises many questions (implementation, short vs. long-term impacts, generalizability,…)

4

This study: Analysis of pilot testing of promotion strategies (part of a larger strategy to systematically study ICS adoption)

Literature / Prior Work• Adoption Determinants• Impact evaluations• Marketing studies

Context‐Specific Data• Baseline cooking and fuel

use behaviors• Knowledge & perceptions• Stove design preferences

Intervention Design

→ Purpose of pilots was to identify a set of meaningful intervention parameters that we could manipulate experimentally to test effects on adoption and useIn practice, this meant identifying elements that seemed more or less important for inducing behavior change in our study context (in preparation for large sample tests)

Pilots

5

Gangetic Plains of UP

Context: Three different pilot contexts in India

Mountains of Uttarakhand (UK)

Tropical Odisha6

Sample characteristics (15-25 hhs/pilot)7

Household characteristics Uttar Pradesh Odisha Uttarakhand TotalBPL 48% 43% 71% 55%% female headed household 13% 10% 11% 11%Head of household education (yrs) 5.3 5.1 6.7 5.7Head cook education (yrs) 1.4 3.4 5.1 3.6SHG membership 9% 57% 62% 50%# hrs electricity 5.0 18.8 20.2 16.6% latrine access 9% 94% 98% 79%% fuelwood used for heat 100% 76% 98% 89%% taken out a loan 9% 18% 64% 34%% trad stove ownership 100% 96% 98% 97%% Imp stove ownership 9% 14% 60% 31%Time spent gathering fuel (hrs/week) 16.3 4.5 18.8 12.3

What we varied in these pilots

Plan Partner Payment design Social marketing Stoves offered Sales Uttar Pradesh

ANon‐TERI

TERI

Upfront paymentRebates w/use

Basic: Pamphlets HH demos

Natural + Forced draft 0 stoves

B Installments Basic Natural + Forced draft 2 stoves

C InstallmentsRebates w/use

Intensive: Basic activities + … Community demos Village posters

Natural draft 3 stoves

OrissaD

Gram Vikas

InstallmentsRebates w/use Intensive + NGO Natural draft 14 stoves

E Installments Intensive + NGO Natural draft 4 stovesUttarakhand

F

Chirag

Installments Rebates w/use

Extended Intensive + NGO Extended village demos New pamphlets HH visits and demos

Natural draft + Electric stove 19 stoves

G InstallmentsStove return option Extended Intensive + NGO (see Plan F) Natural draft + Electric stove 17stoves

H InstallmentsRebates w/use Extended Intensive + NGO (see Plan F) Natural draft 2 stoves

8

What we varied in these pilots: 1. Context/institution


ANon‐TERI

TERI








OrissaD

Gram Vikas



F

Chirag






9

What we varied in these pilots: 2. Payment plans


ANon‐TERI

TERI








OrissaD

Gram Vikas



F

Chirag






10

What we varied in these pilots: 3. Promotion intensity


ANon‐TERI

TERI






Intensive Basic activities + … Community demos Village posters


OrissaD

Gram Vikas



F

Chirag






11

What we varied in these pilots: 4. Stoves


ANon‐TERI

TERI








OrissaD

Gram Vikas



F

Chirag






12

Stove purchases by stove type13

Forced & Natural Draft, 0%

Natural Draft, 0%

NaturalDraft, 0%

NaturalDraft, 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

A B C D E F G HPilot

Forced Draft Natural Draft Electric

Summary from these pilots


ANon‐TERI

TERI






Intensive: Basic activities + … Community demos Village volunteers


OrissaD

Non‐GVGram Vikas

Installments Intensive Natural draft 4 stoves

E InstallmentsRebates w/use Intensive + NGO Natural draft 13 stoves

Uttarakhand

F

Chirag




G InstallmentsRebates w/use Extended Intensive + NGO (see Plan F) Natural draft 2 stoves

H InstallmentsStove return option Extended Intensive + NGO (see Plan F) Natural draft + Electric stove 20 stoves

14

Bottom line for sales:• Limited success in UP, better success with NGOs in Odisha and UK• Installments seemed critical (few hhs willing to pay upfront)• Effect of rebates and stove return option unclear• Intensive promotion by NGO (demos and info sheets) necessary but

not sufficient • Stove choice really helped in UK (attractiveness of electric stove)

Other results: Features and awareness of ICS15

0.2

.4.6

% o

f hou

seho

lds

Did not purchase Purchased

Best Stove Attributes, by purchase decision

Smoke Produced Cooking TimeAbility to cook all foods Amount of fuelAttractiveness

0.2

.4.6

.8%

of h

ouse

hold

s

Did not purchase Purchased

Worst Stove Attributes, by purchase decision

Cost # of peopleMaintenance CleaningElectricity Bill

Adopters: - Were more likely to have seen demos or informational brochures- Spent greater amounts of time collecting fuels prior to ICS purchase- Had higher SES and greater reliability of electricity (hrs/day)Results are consistent with predictions from the household production model

Other results: Did households use purchased ICS?16

1. Yes, nearly all used the new ICS, and reported satisfaction with it

2. But they continue to use other stoves too

3. And electric stove purchasers do more cooking: What is the net effect?

“In a typical day when stove is used, how many hours do you use it?”

Discussion

Results are merely suggestive: Small samples, lots of things varying across pilots, but…

Demand side: It’s not that easy to sell stoves to poor rural households, but we got to 40-70% with: Choice of attractive, affordable stoves (particularly electric) Personalized demonstrations / visits, and detailed explanations

(limited knowledge prior to info provision) Installment payment options critical (cost is an obstacle) Rebates or option of stove return (perhaps) Use % at follow-up visits was high

Supply: Getting stoves into villages was no easy task! No existing ICS supply networks; we had to establish these Maintenance concern Implementing organization must be trusted and effective

17

The challenges of improved cook stove promotion: Lessons ......Gram Vikas Installments Rebates w/use...

Documents

Transcript of The challenges of improved cook stove promotion: Lessons ......Gram Vikas Installments Rebates w/use...