University of Groningen Nexus in the rural system Das, Karabee · 2.2. Food and cooking fuel in...

University of Groningen

Nexus in the rural systemDas, Karabee

DOI:10.33612/diss.119869603

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Das, K. (2020). Nexus in the rural system: understanding the synergies and trade-offs among water,energy, food, land and labour. [Groningen]: University of Groningen.https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.119869603

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 14-07-2020

https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.119869603

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/nexus-in-the-rural-system(a1710ab6-a12e-4d08-ae1c-aff339f769b8).html

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/persons/karabee-das(531b71ea-4014-45f6-8c18-692bdf9c1a50).html



https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.119869603

Nexusintheruralsystem:

Understandingthesynergiesandtrade-offsamongwater,energy,food,landandlabour

KarabeeDas

Colophon

TheworkinthisthesiswascarriedoutattheCenterforEnergyand Environmental Studies (IVEM) at the University ofGroningen,TheNetherlands.

PhD.Thesis:Date:

KarabeeDas1May2020

Nexusintheruralsystem:Understandingthesynergiesandtrade-offsamongwater,energy,food,landandlabour

DoctoralDissertation,UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands

Keywords: Ruralareasindevelopingcountries,waterfootprint,cookstoves,energyanalysis,westernworld

Cover: ChandaKaushikGogoiandKarabeeDas

Publisher: UniversityofGroningenGroningen,theNetherlands

Printedby: ZalsmanGroningenbv

Layoutby: KarabeeDas

ISBN: 978-94-034-2530-6(printedversion)ISBN: 978-94-034-2529-0(electronicversion)

©2020byKarabeeDas

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthematerialprotectedbythiscopyrightnoticemaybe reproducedorutilized inany formbyanymeans, electronicallyormechanically, including photocopying, recording, or by any informationstorageandretrievalsystem,whiteoutthepriorpermissionoftheauthor.

Nexus in the rural system Understanding the synergies and trade-offs

among water, energy, food, land and labour

PhDthesis

to obtain the degree of PhD at the University of Groningen on the authority of the

Rector Magnificus Prof. C. Wijmenga and in accordance with

the decision by the College of Deans.

This thesis will be defended in public on

Friday 1 May 2020 at 11.00 hours

by

KarabeeDas

born on 4 January 1988 in Guwahati, Assam, India

SupervisorsDr. S. Nonhebel Prof. M.A. Herber

AssessmentCommitteeProf. K.S. Hubacek Prof. A. Purushothaman Vellayani Prof. J.S. Clancy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thewoodsarelovely,dark,anddeep,ButIhavepromisestokeep,AndmilestogobeforeIsleep,AndmilestogobeforeIsleep.- RobertFrost(StoppingbyWoodsonaSnowyEvening)

I came across the poem, “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening”,whenIwasahighschoolgirlitstayedwithmeforever.And,interestinglythesefourlinesismymantra,whichalwayskeptmemotivatedtowork,tolive,toseekwhatIlikeandtobehappy.WhilepursingMSfromAsianInstitute of Technology in Thailand, my supervisor (Prof. P. A. Salam)showedmethepathwaytotheacademia.Sincethen,somewhereinmymind Iwaspretty sure that IwilldoPhD,but Iwasnot sureabout theproperpath.Withtimepassingby,IstartedworkingonmyPhDproposalwithaverylimitedknowledgeandtraining.Despiteofalotofrejectionsandacceptations, Iwasstill searching for thementorwho isabsolutelyalignedtomyareaofresearch.Finallyon7December2014Ifoundthementorwho isworkingalmostonthesameresearcharea.Hername isDr. Sanderine Nonhebel who is a Professor at the University ofGroningen, The Netherlands. By gathering enough courage, I wrote anemail to the mentor with the subject line- “An Appeal for DoctoralPosition”withabriefdescriptiononmyareaofinterestandhypothesis.Fortunately, shewroteback tomewithanalmostpositive replywithanegative signal to the source of funding. However, I again gatheredenough courage to start my PhD thesis from April 2015 under hersupervisionwithavery limitedpersonalfund.Andhavingabsolutelynoclue about future funding. With few months passing by, my mentormanagedtogivemeaveryminimalmonthlystipend.With time, I learned quite a lot of things throughout my stay inGroningen: like cooking, learning a different language and mostimportantly,livingalow-budgetlife.Iamthankfultomydepartmentforacceptingmeandbeingalovelyfamilytome.Thisthesisisanoutcomeof hardwork, perseverance, toil and love. I would like to thank mysupervisor Dr. Sanderine Nonhebel for her consistent support andpatience.Shestoodalongwithmeduringmygoodaswellasbadtimes.SheisthatpersonwhopersonallyhelpedmetoshiftwhenIrelocatedto

new apartment, provided crockeries, fruits and furniture’s during mystay.IwouldalsoliketothankProf.RienHerberforbeingagoodlistenerandamotivator. All the R&D sessions andmeetings had been a big thrustduringmy low-times. I amverygrateful toProf. TonSchootUiterkampfor his words of encouragement all the time, especially those words“everypaperhas itsownwayout”.Now,thishasbecomemysurvivingmantra.I thankProf.PeterWeesieandhisentire family forgivingmeahomelyfeelingfarawayfromhome.Thosecyclingtoursandfamilydinnerswerereallyamazing.IwouldliketothanktheentireteamofIVEMandSSGforthetalksoverthe tea/coffee breaks, delicious lunches (Monday lunches) and being apartofmylife.ThankyouRené,KarinRee,KarindeBoer,Franko,SjaakandDr.HennyJ.VanDerWindtforalwaysbeingbymyside.IwouldalsoliketothankMichielwhotrustedmeandgavemeanopportunitytobeapartoftheE&Dteam.Iwould liketoexpressmythankstothewhole IVEM&SSGcolleagues.Thank you Santiago for your continuous support and encouragement.Workingwithyouwasreallyfunandlearningpointforme.Iwouldalsolike to thank Gudina and Edgar for the long chats during tea/coffeebreaks. I appreciate my first office-mates Reino and Ron for yourconsistent support. Ialsoappreciateall the timesspentwithmy fellowcolleagues: Tjerk, Gideon, Frank, Yanmei, Jingrui, Binjuang, Fan, Jack,Wahab,Soma,Srini,Weier,Ahmed,RachaelandYounis. Iwould like tothankmy twopreciousparanymphs cumoffice-mateEstherand Linh. Icannever imagine completingPhDwithoutbothof you. Thank you forthosemoralsupport,sweettreats,motivationalcardsand“hugs”,duringmybadphaseofPhD.IamgratefultoDr.P.Winnie-LeenesforherguidanceinthelaterstageofmyPhD. Iwouldalso liketothankDr.MoonmoonHiloidhariandDr.DebendraCh.Baruahforcollaboratingwithmyresearch.This PhD journey would not have been possible without Annemiek.Thank you for all your consistent support and help not only indepartmentissuesbutalsoinpersonallife.IwouldalsoliketothankLeo.EventhoughheenteredquitelateinmyPhDjourney,yethemadequiteagoodimpression.Inaveryshortspanoftime,Ifoundagoodfriendinyou.I also thank Dr. Mike Dee for taking time to proof-read my articles. IappreciatetheentireMasters’studentsforalwaysbeingtherewheneverneeded:Sumiran,GreeshmaandAna.

IamthankfultomyreadingcommitteeProf.KlausS.Hubacek,Prof.A.P.Vellayani and J.S. Clancy for giving your precious time to evaluate mythesis.I would like to thank the whole Indian community in Groningen forprovidingthecomfortandsupportwheneverneeded.Iwasprettyluckyto land in TheNetherlands and share an apartmentwith an Indian girl(Bhagyashree),whohelpedmeinmyfirstdaysofmystayinGroningen.ThankyouBhagyashree forbeing therealways.ThankyouLucy for thegreattimethatwespenttogetherandourSundayvisitstochurch.Iamimmenselygrateful toMs.Soma forherhelpanddelicious foodduringthe first few months of my stay in Groningen. Thank you Hemant forbeing that trustworthy friend who can be called anytime wheneverrequired.Youwere thatpersonwhowasalways just “one-call” away. Iamgrateful toKetanforbeingsuchanice friendtome.Farawayfromhome, Iwas luckytohaveoneAssamesefriendSaumar.Eventhoughitwas in the later part of the PhD, we managed to have a good timetogether. I would also like to extendmy gratitude towards GroningenIndian Student Association (GISA): Shubham, Sandeep, Arijit, Varsha DiandmanyotherswhosupportedmeduringmystayinGroningen.Last but not the least, I am very grateful for having such a supportingfamily, my father, mother and younger sister,Minakshee. I thankmyparents for being there duringmy tough times and encouragingme towork hard. I thank Minakshee for supporting me throughout my PhDjourney. Iwouldextendmy thanks tomy in-laws for their support andlove.

Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyhusband,Bhargavforhispatience,loveand support. He has been a very loving partner, who was beside meduringmyupsanddowns.

Look at the sky. We are not alone. The whole universe is friendly to us and conspires only to give the best to those who dream and work

- A.P.J.AbdulKalam

Youcan'tcrosstheseamerelybystandingandstaringatthewater.- RabindranathTagore

TableofContentsChapter1 19

1.1.GeneralIntroduction 191.1.1.Understandingruralareasindevelopingcountries(RDC)andthewesternworldfromanexusperspective 21

1.2.Water-energy-foodnexus:Productionandconsumptionperspective 25

1.2.1.Existingnexus:Productionperspective 251.2.2.Virtualnexus:Consumptionperspective 27

1.3.Nexus:atruralareasindevelopingcountries 311.4.Aimandscopeofthethesis 341.5.Structureofthethesis 35

Chapter2 412.1.Introduction 422.2.FoodandcookingfuelinruralIndia 432.3.MethodsandData 45

2.3.1Landrequirementforfood(LRF) 462.3.2Landrequirementforcookingfuel(LRC) 47

2.4.Results 492.4.1Landrequiredforfoodconsumption(LRF) 492.4.2Landrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC) 502.4.3Totallandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuel 53

2.5.Discussion 53Landrequiredforfood(LRF)andlandrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC) 53

2.6.Conclusions 56

Chapter3 653.1.Introduction 663.2.SystemAnalysis 68

3.2.1.RuralIndia 683.2.2.Ruralconsumption:Foodandcookingfuel 683.2.3.WatersituationinruralIndia 69

3.3.Methodsanddata 703.3.1.Step1:Collectingconsumptiondataoffoodandcookingfuel

703.3.2.Step2: 71(a) Collectingwaterfootprintdataoffooditemsandcookingfuel(kerosene&LPG) 71

(b) EstimationofWFoffuelwood 723.3.3.Step3:AssessingtheWFofindividualfoodandfuelconsumption 74

3.4.Results 753.4.1.Totalgreen,blueandgreyWFforfoodandcookingfuelconsumption 753.4.2.Totalwaterfootprintoffoodandfuelwood 79

3.5.Discussion 803.5.1.Foodconsumption 803.5.2.Waterfootprintsforfuelwood 813.5.3.Trends 81

3.6.Conclusion 82

Chapter4 1014.1.Introduction 1024.2.EnergysituationinIndia 103

4.2.1.EnergysituationinAssam 1044.2.2.Cookingfueltransition 105

4.3.Materialsandmethods 1064.3.1.Systemanalysis 1074.3.2.Studyarea 1094.3.3.Datacollection 1104.3.4.Fuelwooddemand 1104.3.5.Timeestimation 112

4.4.Resultsanddiscussion 1144.4.1.Fuelwooddemandfordevelopedscenarios 1154.4.2.Timedemand 116

4.5.Conclusion 120

Chapter5 1255.1.Introduction 1265.2.MethodologyandData 127

5.2.1.BaselineScenario 1285.2.2AlternativeCookingEnergySystems 128

5.3.CalculationofTimeDemandandHEE 1305.3.1.SystemBoundary 1305.3.2.CaseStudyArea 1315.3.3.DataCollection 1315.3.4.Fuelwooddemandandnumberoftrips 1325.3.5.HumanEnergyExpenditure(HEE) 1335.3.6SensitivityAnalysis 134

5.4.ResultsandDiscussion 135

5.4.1.SurveyData 1355.4.2.Fuelwooddemandandnumberoftrips 1355.4.3.Energyexpenditureandtimedemand 1375.4.4.SensitivityAnalysis 140

5.5.Conclusion 142

Chapter6 1496.1.Introduction 1496.2.Consumptivenexusapproach:rurallevel 1496.3.Insightfromthenexusanalysis 151

6.4.Comparisonbetweenruralareasindevelopingcountriesandwesternnexuscomponents 154

6.5.Overallconclusion 1576.5.1.Conclusioninanutshell 160

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig.1.1.Water,energyandfoodfootprintfromanindividualconsumptiveperspective 29

Fig.1.2.Theinter-linkagebetweenwater,energy,foodandlandfromaconsumptionperspective 30

Fig.1.3.Thenexusatrurallevel,whichconstitutesofwater,energy,food,landandlabour 33

Fig.1.4.Frameworkofthechaptersinthisthesis 37

Fig.2.1.Percentagedistributionofhouseholdsfora)rural(detailedfigureisinthebargraph)andb)urbanhouseholdsusingtheprimarysourceofcookingenergy,2011-12[89] 44

Fig.2.2.ForestandTreesoutsideforestareainhaavailableinsixzonesofIndia[95] 45

Fig.2.3.AsimplifiedflowchartshowingallthestepsinvolvedintheassessmentofLRFandLRC 46

Fig.2.4.Relativerepresentationoffoodintake,energyintakeandthelandrequirementforthedifferentgroupsoffooditemsconsumedbyaruralpersonfromsixzonesofIndia 51

Fig.2.5.BiomassyieldfromTOFandforest(int/ha/yr)andindividualfuelwooddemandregion-wise(int/cap/yr) 52

Fig.2.6.Landrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC)forallthefiveregionsofIndia 53

Fig.2.7.Totallandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuel(a)Fuelwoodfromforest,and(b)FuelwoodfromTOF 54

Fig.3.1.Green,blueandgreyWFof(A)riceand(B)wheat(inm3/ton)acrossalltheprovincesofIndia.WaterfootprintdataisfromMekonnenandHoekstra[172]. 70

Fig.3.2.Contributionofrice,wheat,oil&fats,others(coarsecereals,pulses&legumes,vegetables,spices,potatoes,fruits,sugarandbeverages)andmilktothetotalwaterfootprint 75

Fig.3.3.Green,blueandgreywaterfootprint(WF)for(A)riceand(B)wheatconsumptioninruralIndia(m3/cap/yr) 76

Fig.3.4.Totalgreen,blueandgreywaterfootprint(WF)forpercapitafoodconsumptioninruralIndia(inm3/cap/yr) 77

Fig.3.5.GreenandbluewaterfootprintoffuelwoodperunitofenergyinruralIndia 78

Fig.3.6.Greenandbluewaterfootprint(WF)forfuelwoodconsumptioninruralIndia 78

Fig.3.7.TotalwaterfootprintforfoodandcookingfuelacrossalltheregionsofIndia 79

Fig.4.1.EnergyusedisparitybetweenurbanandruralIndia,2012[89] 104Fig.4.2.Percentagedistributionofhouseholdsbyprimarysourceof

energyusedforcookinginruralIndia,2009-2010[224] 104Fig.4.3.Bottom5-statesusingfuelwoodorwoodchipsforcookingin

RuralIndia,2012[224] 105Fig.4.5.EnlargedviewofNapaamvillage 109Fig.4.6.Meghalayacookstove[249] 111Fig.4.7.Productionchainoffuelwoodandcharcoal 112Fig.4.8.Fuelwoodrequiredandnumberoftripsperyear 116Fig.4.9.Timerequiredforfuelwoodcollectionfordifferentscenarios 117Fig.4.10.Grossandlabourtimerequiredindifferentkilns 118Fig.4.11.Totaltimerequiredintheproductionchainofcookingfuel 118Fig.4.12.Timecostandfuelwoodcostforallthescenarios 120

Fig.5.1.Systemdescriptionofthedevelopedalternativecookingenergysystems 128

Fig.5.2.Adetaileddescriptionofvariousactivitiesinvolvedintheproductionofcookingfuel.Theredarrowshowsthehumanandtimeexpenditureinthecookingfuelproduction,thebluearrowindicatesthefinalcookingfuelproduced,andtheblackarrowshowstheprocessflowofcookingenergyused. 130

Fig.5.3.Fuelwooddemandandthenumberoftripsrequiredforitscollectionfordifferentcookingenergysystems 137

Fig.5.4.Theenergyexpenditureofandtimedemandonwomanintheproductionofcookingfuelforthevariouscookingenergy 138

Fig.6.1.Schematicdiagramshowingalltheinteractionsamongthecomponentsfortheruralworld 151

Fig.6.2.Connectingchaptersandthecomponentstogethertomakeanexus 160

LIST OF TABLES

Table1.1.Comparisonbetweenruralareasindevelopingcountries(RDC)andthewesternworldbasedonsocietalandtechnologyfactor 22

Table3.1.Waterfootprint(WF)ofkeroseneandLPGinm3/ton 72

Table4.1.Per1000distributionofruralhouseholdsinAssambyprimarysourceofenergyusedforcooking,2012[224] 105

Table4.2.Annualenergydemandandnumberoftripsrequiredforfuelwoodcollection 115

Table4.3.Averageincomeandmarketcostoffuelwood 119

Table5.1.Adetaileddescriptionofthesystems 129Table5.2.Surveydataonfuelwoodcollection 135Table5.3.Asensitivityanalysisoftheweight(fuelwood)carryingfactoron

timedemandandHEE 142

Table6.1.ComparativetableshowingthevariationsbetweenRDCandwesternworldconsideringfewimportantfactorsforfoodconsumption 155

Table6.2.ComparativetableshowingthevariationsbetweenRDCandwesternworldconsideringfewimportantfactorsforfuelwoodconsumption 156

Table6.3.Comparisonofthetotallandrequirement(inMha/yr)andwaterrequirement(inGm3/yr)bytheRDCandWesternworldforfoodandfuelconsumption 157

LISTOFABREVIATIONS

BEF BiomassExpansionFactorBMR BasalMetabolicRatecap CapitaCV CalorificValueeq. EquationFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnited

NationsFSI ForestSurveyofIndiaFW Fuelwoodg GramGSVD GrowingStockVolumeDensityha HectareHEE HumanEnergyExpenditurehh HouseholdICS ImprovedcookstovesIWRM Integratedwaterresourcemanagementkg Kilogramsl LitreLCA Life-cycleassessmentLPG LiquefiedPetroleumGasLRC LandrequirementsforcookingfuelLRC-F LRC(fuelwoodfromforest)LRC-TOF LRC(fuelwoodfromTOF)LRF LandrequirementsforfoodMAI MeanAnnualIncrementMJ MegajoulesNSSO NationalSampleSurveyOfficePAR PhysicalActivityRatioRDC Ruralareasindevelopingcountriest TonneTCS TraditionalCookstovesTOF TreesoutsideforestWEF Water-energy-foodWF WaterFootprintWHO WorldHealthOrganization

CHAPTER1:Introduction

19

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

Chapter1

Introduction

1.1.GeneralIntroduction

Land andwater are the primary natural resources involved intheproductionoffoodandfuel[1].Foodisthebasicnecessityforhuman survival. The input of cooking energy is also an essentialrequirement since the majority of the staple food items (i.e.cereals and pulses) has to be cooked with the help of cookingenergyusingenergycarrierslikebioenergyorfossil-basedfuels[2].Thereare several steps involved in theproductionchainof food,starting from cultivating the crop to cooking the final foodproducts and serving it into a dish. The whole process of foodproduction requires resources like water, energy and land.Similarly,theproductionofcookingfuel,especiallybiomass-basedfueldemandswaterandland[3].

Waterisanintegralpartofthefoodandfuelproductionchain.Inthefoodproductionchain,waternotonlymeetshumanneedsbyprovidingdrinkingwater,but it is alsoused inagricultureandlivestockproduction.About 70%of the global freshwater is usedfor agricultural purposes, which is used to produce food for theglobal population [4]. Likewise, land is the primary resource forhumanfoodandfuel.Arablelandavailableperpersonisabout0.2ha [5].Theglobal landarea is13.2billionha.Of this,12percent(1.6 billion ha) is currently in use for cultivation of agriculturalcrops, 28 percent (3.7 billion ha) is under forest cover and 35percent (4.6 billion ha) comprises of grasslands and woodlandecosystems [1]. The involvement of land and water in the fuelproductiondependsuponthetypeoffuel.AstudybyGlobalLandOutlook [6], indicated that fossil-based fuel has a very less landrequirementwithrespecttobiomass-basedfuel.Likewise,astudyby Gerbens-Leenes [7] showed that the water requirement forbiomass based fuel production is much larger than fossilbased

CHAPTER1

20

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

fuel.Biomass-basedfuel includesagriculturalwaste,energycropsandorganicwaste. However, in the entire food and fuel production chain energyplaysanimportantrole.Theenergyisgenerallyfromfossilfuelorbiomass-based, utilized in the production, transportation anddistributionoffood.Similarly,theproductionoffuelitselfrequiresenergy. For example, the production of biofuel from Jatropha itrequires energy to run the grinding machines as well as humanphysicalenergytoharvestJatrophafromfield[8]. The production and utilization of water, energy and food areintricately linkedamongeachother.Poppetal. [9] indicatedthatproductionoffoodandbiomass-basedfuelareresourceintensive,itrequirestobemanaged.Globalfutureprojections indicatethatthe freshwater, energy and food demand will increase over thenext decades due to increasing population, economicdevelopment, diversifying diets, cultural and technologicaladvancements [10][11]. In this context, a Water-Energy-Food(WEF) nexus thinking approach has emerged to identify thelinkages across the resources and improve the efficiencies in abalancedmanner [12]. By 2050, the earth has to feed 10 billionpeople,whichmeans56%morefood,600millionhamorearableland and 50% more primary energy demand than now [13][14].However,inclusionofnewtechnologiesandpoliciescouldchangethe future demand of water, food and energy. As the demandgrows, the competition among the components in food,agriculture, energy, forestry, livestock, aquaculture and othersectors will increase, which will have an impact on theenvironment. Such as, bioenergy plantation may have synergiceffect like providing easy access to energy and employment,however the trade-off is usingwater and land,whichwill createcompetitionwithfoodsecurity[10].

Water and land are finite resources [15], which means thatincreasing demand for food and fuel will put more pressure onthem. Mostly, the use of water and land are territory-boundedwhere the population uses the land andwater available in theirarea [16]. However, the interdependencies among the water,energyandfoodresourcesareverycomplex.Theintensityofuse


21

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

andallocatingoneresourcewillhavedirector indirect impactontheother.Typicalexampleisusingefficientwatertechnologieslikeirrigationsystems incropproduction itwill savewateraswellasproducemore crops.However, irrigation systems requireenergy,which can be either fossil- or renewable-based. Theseinterdependencies are quantified mostly in a sectoral approach.Forinstance,incaseoffood-energyapproach,foodoragriculturalwaste is used to produce energy for consumption. However, therelativedemandof these landandwater resourcesand the foodandenergyconsumptiondependsuponthelocationofthesystem.Forinstance,theavailabilityandaccessibilityoflandandwateraswell as the consumption of food and energy will vary from therural areas in developing countries to the western world. In thecoming chapters, “rural” is referred to the rural areas indevelopingcountries(RDC)unlessspecificallyindicatedotherwise.

1.1.1. Understanding rural areas in developing countries (RDC)andthewesternworldfromanexusperspective

The production supply chain of food and fuel differs fromcountrytocountry,basedontheavailabilityoftechnology,marketand resources. The western world has a different productionsupply chain in comparisonwith the RDC. For instance, the foodproduction chain in Western world is a well-structured chain,comprising of producers, processors, distributors and consumers[17]. However, the rural population in developing countries livesan agrarian life mostly depending upon agriculture for theirlivelihood.Theproductionsupplychainofaproductandtheinputsrequired are very different from the system in a developedcountry. Normally, rural population does a subsistence farmingwhere they produce their own food. They practice a traditionalfarming system, which involves less mechanization and morephysical labour. There is lack of a structuredmarket in the ruralareas,whichhampers thedirectaccessibilityof the farmer in thevaluechain.

The inter-linkage between the water, energy and foodcomponents exist in both developing and western countries.However,theintensityofeachcomponent’sconsumptiondependsupon many factors like ease of accessibility, availability and

CHAPTER1

22

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

affordability.Hence,thenexusthinkingapproachdiffersbetweendeveloping countries and western world, as there is a widedifferencebetweentheruralareasinthedevelopingcountriesandthewesternworld.Table1.1showsabriefdescriptionoftheruralareasindevelopingcountriesandthewesternworld.Itcomparesthetwoareasonthebasisofsocietalandtechnologicalfactors.Table1.1.Comparisonbetweenruralareasindevelopingcountries(RDC)and

thewesternworldbasedonsocietalandtechnologyfactor

Factors Ruralareasindevelopingcountries(RDC)

Westernworld

Societal Rural areas in developingcountries arecharacterized by adependence onagriculture and naturalresources; highprevalence of poverty,isolation,andmarginality;neglected bypolicymakers; and lowerhumandevelopment[18].

Western world ischaracterized byindustrialization,modernization,resource-intensivelifestyle and hascapitalist economies[19]

Technology Rural areas lack access toelectricity and modernfuels.Ruralpeoplemostlydepend upon human andanimal power formechanical tasks, likeagricultural activities andtransport and on thedirect combustion ofbiomass for heat andlighting[20]

The Western worldhas a well-structuredelectrical grid systemfor heating andlighting. Coal, oil andnatural gas are themain sources ofenergy[20]

Aquicklookatthewesternworldfoodproductionchain:(a)theproductivity isrelativelyhigherthantheotherpartsoftheworld,duetohighinvestmentintechnology.Alltheagriculturalactivityistechnology intensive, like using high quality seeds that aremore


23

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

climate-resilient or developing water-efficient irrigationtechnology; (b) there is a structured market, which benefits thefarmers [21], (c) the processing part of the food chain is verycrucial for western countries, as it includes the food that isprocessed tosell in themarketand the“ready toeat”processedfood.Forprocessing,thereareprocessingcompaniesexplicitlyforproducingparticularproductslikemillingoilseedstoproduceoilsandseedcake,meatslaughtercompanies,bakery,dairyandmanyothers;(d)theconsumershavehighcaloriediet,alsotheiranimal-basedproductconsumptionishigherthanothervegetalproducts[22].However, theconsumershaveoptions toget their food likeby shopping food items (like cereals, meat etc.) from grocerystores or grabbing “grab and go” meals from grocery foodcounters,gasstationsetc.Thismakestheirlifeeasierastheydon’thave to invest their time and energy in the production andcooking. In case of energy production supply chain, the westerncountries have a very secured grid system. The source of theenergyisfossil-fuelbased,withalittlebitofrenewableenergyinit. The issues that are faced aremostly related to extending thegrid or switching to renewable sources of energy [23]. In theWesternworld, bioenergy sources like agriculturalwaste, energycropsandwoodareconsideredasanalternativeenergysourcesormoresustainablesourcesforfossilfuel.Theyproducebioethanol,biodiesel or wood using efficient combustion technology.However, in rural areas traditional biomass is often the primarysourceof energy,which is used for heating, lighting and cooking[20].Theaccessibilityofwater,energyand food foran individualstayinginaWesterncountryisjustbyputting“on”aswitch,whichsavesalotoftime.

As stated by Trienekens [24], market access is dependent onfactorsliketechnologyavailabilitytotheproducers,knowledgeonmarketandinfrastructure.ThemainprobleminRDCisthelackofallthesefactors,whichmakesthefarmersvulnerableintheglobalmarket[24].Insimplewords,theagro-foodsystemsintheRDCareunorganized and stand-alone systems. For instance, in the foodproductionsupplychains the farmersuse traditionalmethods forfarmingandprocessing their food.Oneexample,wheat is grown

CHAPTER1

24

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

both in India and France. In India, it is grown in a 90% irrigationsystem,howeverthewheatyieldis2.9Mg.ha-1whileFrancehasarainfed systemwith awheat yield of 7.7Mg.ha-1[25]. Theuse ofmoreefficienttechnologyinFranceresultsinithavinghigheryieldthan in India.Moreover, in India the household energy source isnotconnectedwiththenationalgridsystem,whichforcestheruralpopulationtodependuponstand-alonesystemlikesolar,biomass,wind and micro-hydro power [26]. Due to lack of access toelectricityandmodern fuels, they relymoreonanimalorhumanenergy for anymechanical work. Similarly, human energy is alsoexpended in households chores like cooking, washing and otheragriculturalactivities[20].Inruralcommunities,woodfromforestis one of the major sources for cooking [24]. As such, womenspendhours tocollect fuelwood forcooking,heatingand lighting[27]. Households in RDCuse themost in-efficient cookstoves i.e.traditionalopenfirecookstove[28].

AsindicatedbyCaietal.[29]water,energyandlandarecriticalinputs to the production of other resources. There are no singlemethods to assess theWEF nexus. Lot of nexus frameworks hasbeendevelopedfromaproductionperspective[30].Daietal.[31]pointedoutthatmuchlessstudieshavebeendoneonWEFnexusatcityornationallevel.Italsorevealedthatmicro-levelstudiesarevery sector specific like assessing water required for foodconsumption or land required for food consumption. However,increasing population and changing intensity of food and energyconsumption will put great pressure on the water and landallocation.Asdiscussedintheearliersection,theRDCmostlyhassubsistence living and all the components are more intensivelylinked to each other.Mabhaudhi et al. [32] showed that aWEFnexus for rural livelihoods is important as it indicates theframework tomanage resources. However, it also indicated thatstudies at household level would be better to understand theimpact of consumption on water, energy and food. Hence, thisthesis will address the nexus framework for RDC from aconsumptiveperspective.


25

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

1.2. Water-energy-food nexus: Production and consumptionperspective

1.2.1.Existingnexus:Productionperspective

The integrated assessment approach of components can bedated back to the study on integrated water resourcemanagement (IWRM), which highlighted the linkage betweenwater,energyandfood[33].ThetheoreticalcontextintheIWRMapproach mainly focuses on water assessment and attaining asustainable use of water by maintaining balance with theecosystem related to water. However, IWRM explicitly focus onwaterand itseffectonothersectors, like impactofgroundwaterirrigationonfoodsecurity.

In the context of IWRM, the water-energy-food (WEF) nexusapproach was developed to understand and analyze theinteractions among the natural resources and human activities.Thenexusapproachvaries intheconceptualizationofthesystemanddefiningthescope,objectiveandsystemboundary.Asstatedby Zhanget al. [34] there aredifferent approaches todefine thenexus framework. For instance, World Economic Forum [35]presented the nexus framework from the security perspective(water, energy and food security). Their goal was to develop asustainablenexus,whichcanprovidesecurityinthewater,energyandfoodproduction.However,FAO[10]describedtheWEFnexusfrom a food security perspective. The WEF nexus frameworkdevelopedby FAO ismore focusedonefficientuseofwater andenergy to achieve food security and sustainable agriculturalproduction. Similarly, Hoff [33] developed the WEF nexusframework from water security perspective, where water isconsidered as the focal point and impact of energy and food onwater is established. These nexus frameworks are mostlydeveloped to contribute to policy objectives like food security,energyaccess,sustainabledevelopmentetc.[36].

Flamminietal.[37]madeanattempttoshapetheWEFnexusexplicitly to address the interactions between human andecosystem.Itincludedquantitativeandqualitativeanalysis,whichcomprised of both human and natural factors. However, thisapproach is a mere concept of WEF nexus and formulates a

CHAPTER1

26

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

systematic way to analyze the nexus in a participatory way. Tillhere, the nexus framework was more about a holisticunderstandingofthenexusat“macro-level”,yettheapproachwasasectoralone.Therefore,Kingetal. [38]developedaframeworkto assess thenexus at the system levelwhere all the interactionamongthecomponentscanbequantified.Intheframework,theyconcluded that ametric systemhelps to define and quantify thesystem more clearly. For example, energy input per unit offuelwooduse(MJ/kg)forcooking(MJ).Thisexampleshowsthatbydefiningthemetrics,thenexusiseasiertounderstand.

Existing studies have established the impact of varioustechnologies in the water and food supply chain process.Reasonably,thenexusapproachdescribesthesynergiesandtrade-offs in a defined system. Generally, the nexus study has beenapproached from a production perspective. These sort of nexusstudies are mostly focused on the “macro-level” drivers ofresourceconsumptionliketechnologyassessmenttoenhancetheoptimize productivity and understand the synergies and identifythe trade-offs at geographical scale (i.e. global, national, regionaletc.) [31]. Zhang et al. [34] indicated that life-cycle assessment(LCA) is one of the best methodologies for quantifying thecomponentsinthenexus.Inthisapproach,interactionsamongthecomponentsarequantified in theproductionchain.Forexample,Jeswani et al. [39] conducted an LCA study to understand theinteractions among water, energy and food and their impact ontheenvironmentpertainingtotheproductionofcerealsinEurope.The study included technological, environmental andtransportation aspects into its scope. Another example of thenexusstudy,Guptaetal.[40]analyzedtheimpactofsolarpumpinthewater,energyandfoodcomponentinIndia.Itwasacasestudyon a particular regionof India,where the solar project has beenimplemented. It showed that the due to the better efficiency ofthe solarwaterpump theaveragewater consumption increased,whichdecreasedthegroundwaterlevel.However,italsoreducedthe electricity consumption and increased the average croppingintensity(i.e.increaseinfoodsecurity).TheseLCAstudiesgiveanoverviewontheimpactoftechnologiesintheWEFnexus.Thissort


27

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

ofapproach,whichiscommonlyknownas“top-downapproach”isapplicable inanyproductionsystem,wherethesystem isalreadyknown and the question is about making the system moreefficient.

Normallynexuscasestudiesandframeworksaredevelopedforthewesternworld.AstudyonwaterandfoodnexusbySIWI[41],showedthatmostoftheresearchonwaterandfoodproductionisrelatedtotechnologies.Currently,researchismorefocusedontheoptimization of food and energy production chain by using theavailable resources and technologies. That’s how the nexusapproachfitsintoawesternworldproductionsystem.

1.2.2.Virtualnexus:Consumptionperspective

Consumptionisdefinedastheprocesswhereanindividualbuysorusesgoodsandservicesforaspecificperiodoftime[42][43].Asdiscussed earlier, the world consumption of food and fuel willincrease in the coming decades. The rationality of consumptionperspectiveliesinthefactthatwithachangeintheconsumptionpattern,therewillbeanimpactonthesynergiesamongthewater,energyandlandcomponentsandthetrade-offs.Forinstance,thefood consumed by an individual is cooked using energy andproduced on an arable landwith the support of water irrigationsystem. In case of water scarcity, there will be less crop yield,which will have an impact on the individual’s diet. Broadlyspeaking, a nexus approach considers key issues related to food,energyandwatersecuritytoprovidesustainableframeworksforabalanced use of the components in the future. To date, theseframeworks mostly focus on technology development andresource development at national scale for optimization ofproduction[44].However,“security”doesnotsolelydependuponthe sustainability of resources, but also on the availability andaccesstotheresources,socialstructureandthecapacitytoutilizetheresources[45].

Abouteightmillionpeoplearescatteredaroundtheglobe,theyallhavedifferentconsumptionpatterns,economicconditionsandthepopulationsareunevenlydistributed,whicheventuallyaffectsthe land and water consumption. The severity of the impact ofhuman needs on the components depends onmany drivers, like

CHAPTER1

28

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

population, geographical distribution and income. To understandthe dynamics of the human consumption and its effect on theenvironment, a very well-known model i.e. IPAT model wasdeveloped[46].AccordingtotheIPATidentity,theenvironmentalimpact (I) is a function of population (P), prevailing level ofaffluence(A)andtechnology(T).Applyingthisidentityinthenexusconcept,thewaterandlandrequiredfortheprovisionoffoodandenergy depends on the total number of people, averageconsumption rate of an individualwithin the population and thetechnologyinvolvedinit.

Evolutionoftheconsumptivewater,energyandfoodfootprintapproach

The impact analysis of human consumption on water, energyand food has been done in a “silo” manner. The methodologyinvolved in the “silo” analysis of a system is based on aconsumption-based indicator,namely“footprint”.The“footprint”analysisisdoneforwater,foodandenergyconsumption.Itcanbedefinedastheamountof land,waterandenergythat isrequiredtoproducegoodsandservices(i.e.foodandfuel)consumedbythepeopleoranorganizationoranation.Forinstance,Blasetal.[47]dida comparativewater footprintanalysison theMediterraneanand the Spanishdiet. They stated that theMediterraneandiet issupposed to be a healthier diet, however the countries in theMediterranean regions aremoving towards aWestern-style diet,which ismoremeat-based diets. The comparative study showedthattheWFofthepresentSpanishdietishigherwhencomparedwith the traditional Mediterranean diet. Likewise, land footprintwasintroducedwiththeaimtoquantifythelandusewithrespecttoconsumptionandfurtherassociateitwithotherresources[48].Gerbens-Leenes et al. [49] developed a “silo” type model todeterminethelandrequirementsrelatingtothefoodconsumptionpattern, which is applied for the Dutch consumption as a casestudy.Kastneretal.[50]establishedthelinkbetweendietchangeand its impact on the land requirements globally. It showed thatthedynamicsbetweenthree factors:agricultural technology,dietandpopulationaffects the landrequired for food. Italsoshowed


29

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

that the dynamics were more complex in developing countries.Similar footprint studieswerealsodone forenergyconsumption.Abrahamse&Steg[51],showedintheirstudythatthehouseholdenergy use depends on two important variables (i.e. consumerbehavior variable and socio-demographic variables like income,household size and age). They found that socio-demographicvariableshavemoreimpactthantheconsumerbehaviorinDutchhouseholds.Fig1.1showstheoverviewofthewater,energyandfood footprint approach from a consumptive perspective. In thisapproach, the footprintsaredone ina“silo”process,whereonlyfoodconsumptionisquantifiedforanindividual.Justas,forwaterandenergy.

Fig.1.1.Water,energyandfoodfootprintfromanindividualconsumptiveperspective

Land is an important primary source for food and fuel. Untilnow, land footprint has covered topics related to foodconsumption [52]. Cooking fuel like fuelwoodplays an importantrole in human life as fuelwood is used for heating and cookingpurposeathouseholdlevel,especiallyinRDC.Fig.1.2indicatestheinter-linkagesbetweenwater,food,energyandlandcomponents.Bothfossilfuelandbiomasshaveanimpactontheland,whichhas

CHAPTER1

30

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

been accounted in Global Land Outlook [6], next to this it alsoplays a role in water supply (reservoirs, groundwater) [12].Especially,incaseofbiomassenergy,waterandlandplayapivotalrole.ThewaterfootprintintheproductionofprimaryenergyfuelshasbeenquantifiedbyGerbens-Leenesetal.[7],wherethewaterrequired in the production chain process of all the fossil,renewableandbiomassbasedfuelhasbeenanalyzed.TheirstudyshowedthattheWFofenergyfrombiomassisabout70-400timeslargerthantheWFoffossilfuelbasedenergy.Generally,fuelwoodisexcludedfromthebiomassanalysis,becauseoftheproblemsindata collectionand the fuelwoodsystem (likeusing fuelwood forcooking) isadecentralizedsystem[23].However,amajorpartofthe global population depends upon fuelwood for cooking andheating[53].

Fig.1.2.Theinter-linkagebetweenwater,energy,foodandlandfromaconsumptionperspective

This“silo”modelonquantificationofthecomponentsdemandforhumanconsumptionhasnotbeenput intoanexusapproachyet.Todate,allthefootprintstudieshavebeendoneinasectoralapproach. The footprint analyses forwater, energy and food are


31

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

mostly done for theWesternworld, since the food and fuel (i.e.fossilfuel)consumptionarehigherthantheRDCe.g.HannahandRoser[54]foundthattheaveragepercapitaenergyconsumptionofanUScitizenisalmosttentimeshigherthanthatofanaverageIndian citizen and 4-5 times higher than that of a Brazilian.However,theenergycarriersareverydifferent,whichmighthavedifferent impact in the landandwater components. Sukhwanietal. [52] identified somechallenges in theWEFnexusapproachatrural level. One of the major challenges is the absence of asynchronizedanalytical frameworktoestimatetheoverallsystemefficiency. As pointed earlier, the production and consumptionchainoftheruraldevelopingandwesternworldareverydifferent.The rural population in developing countries is yet to overcomethe food, water and energy access problem. The problem ofaccessibility actually results into un-structured production-consumptionsupplychainandhencethere isshortageofdatatoquantify the footprints. Hence, the footprint approach is difficultto use in these cases. In the next section, I will describe thesituation in the RDC with examples and provide insights on theexistingnexus.

1.3.Nexus:atruralareasindevelopingcountries

About three billion people reside in RDC [18]. Theymostly doagricultureand livestock farminganddependuponbiomass fuels(like fuelwood,agricultural residues, charcoaletc.)and inefficientcookstoves (i.e. 3-stone fire cookstove) for cooking [55]. Singhetal. [56] established in their study that fuelwood is consumed byrural households in India primarily for cooking purposes. Thestructureoftheruralsystemissomewhatsimilarinalldevelopingcountries. For instance, fuelwood is used as cooking fuel in alldevelopingnations,e.g.inMyanmar,70%ofalltheprimaryenergyconsumption isderivedfromfuelwood[57]. InBurkinaFaso,95%of the households uses fuelwood [58]. Fuelwood is normallysourcedfromforestortrees-outside-forest(TOF)areas.Normally,peoplehave to travel longdistances togather fuelwood for theirconsumption. In some rural areas, households prefer to usecharcoalandbriquettesforcookingpurposes,astheyhavehigherenergy content and are easy to store. These charcoal and

CHAPTER1

32

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

briquettes are either available inmarket or are prepared by thehouseholditself.Inmostcases,duetolackofmarket,householdsprefertomaketheirowncharcoalandbriquettes.

Working whole day on agricultural farms and gatheringfuelwoodrequiresphysicalenergy,whichisfulfilledbytheamountofnutritionalfoodconsumed.Otherthanphysicalenergy,humansalso have to provide enough time to complete their work.Altogether, physical energy and time is called labour. Typically,women in thehouseholds take careof the cooking sector,whichinvolves collection of fuelwood, cooking and other householdchores as it is consideredas thenon-economic sector [59].Ruralwomen from Asia and Pacific region, tend to domore laboriouswork for longer hours[60]. A woman has a large amount ofhousehold chores and other activities to do in a day that aremetabolic energy intensive and mostly goes unaccounted for[61][62][63]. Inmostcases, theseallocationsofhousehold labourare due to cultural customs in rural areas [64]. In developingcountries like Nepal and India, households spend most of theircrucial time on collecting fuelwood. Clancy et al. [65] concludedthataholisticapproachfortheanalysisofwomen’sphysicalinputinthecollectionofbiomassisrequired.

Fig1.3showstheinteractionsamongthecomponentsatRDC.Itappearsthat labour isthemaincomponent intherural life,sinceinanyactivityinvolvementofhumanenergyisanecessity.Humanenergy is required in the production of food and cooking fuel,nonetheless, it is equally important to consume food andwater,which acts as “fuel” for the human energy production.Water isalsonecessaryforcookingfuelandfoodproduction.Inthecontextoftheruralareasindicated,land,waterandlabouractasinputofresourceswhilefoodandenergyaretheoutputoftheresources.


33

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ctionFig.1.3.Thenexusatrurallevel,whichconstitutesofwater,energy,food,land

andlabour

Studies havebeendone specifically on the food consumptionpattern of women to understand their nutrient consumption.Padmadasetal.[66]analyzedthefoodconsumptionofwomeninIndia based on survey data. According to their study, theconsumption differs with socio-economic, demographic andculturalconditions.However,thefoodconsumption(inkcal)ofanaverage individual is almost similar in all developing nations. Forinstance, an average rural Indian consumes about 2500kcal/cap/day [67] and an average Sub-Sahara African individualconsumesabout2310kcal/cap/day[68].

The rural world is a stand –alone system, which is notconnected to the national grid system. The population doessubsistence farming, due to which there is, no trade with othersystems and hence the system boundary is very distinctive. Asindicated by Ibarrola-Rivas et al. [69], agriculture productionrequires amixtureof components like land,water, nutrients andlabour, which are inter-related to each other. From Fig 1.3, it isclearthatlabourisaveryintegralpartoftheruralsystemasmostof thework isdonephysically.Therearevery fewstudieson thelabourfootprintfortheruralsystem.However,studiesonenergyconsumptionpatternsrelatedtohumanbehaviorhavebeendoneforthewesternworld.Forinstance,inwesterncountriesthefocus

CHAPTER1

34

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

is on behavioural changes like focusing more on the end-usebehaviorofanindividual[70]. Inenergyanalysis, labourismostlyexcluded from the system in case of western countries [71]. Inwestern countries,most of thework is donemechanicallywhichdoesnot includehuman labour. The situation is verydifferent incaseofruralworld,asmostoftheirworkisphysicallyintensive.

This section introduced labour as one of the importantcomponentsinthenexus.Italsoshowedthatthereisinter-linkageof labour with other components. Until now, researchers haveoften focused on the Western countries for nexus studies;however, a large portion of the population resides in developingcountries.Theinter-linkageamongthecomponentsinRDCisverydifferent,whichisworthstudying.

1.4.Aimandscopeofthethesis

This thesisaims toquantify thewater,energyand labouruseforfoodandfuelconsumedbyaruralindividual.Thisisbasedonahypothetical rural system, where an individual does subsistencefarming and produces her own cooking fuel.Moreover, it showsthesynergiesbetweenthecomponentsandtherelatedtrade-offs.This nexus approach considers the interactions betweencomponents while quantifying it. For example, while quantifyingthe food consumption of an individual, it also assesses the land,water and energy requirement. Likewise, quantification of fuelconsumption also includes assessment of impact on the othercomponents.Thisthesisisbasedonabottom-upapproachmodel;thus it will emphasize the variations in the food and fuelconsumption across the regions depending upon demographicconditions and land andwater availability. This regional study offood and fuelwill provide two important insights: (a) the factorsaffectingthevariationinthefoodandfuelconsumption,and(b)acomparativestudyof the land,waterandenergy footprint in thefoodandfuelconsumption.

Thus,themainresearchquestionis:Howmuchwater,landandenergy are required in the food and fuel consumption of anindividual residing in a RDC?What are the synergies among thecomponentsandtherelatedtrade-offs?


35

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

Thesub-questionsrelatedtothemainresearchquestionofthethesisincludes:

(a) What is the landandwaterrequirement for the individualconsumptionoffoodandfuel?

(b) Isthereanyregionaldifferenceinrelationtowater,energyandlandusewithrespecttofoodandfuelconsumption?

(c) What are the opportunities for reduction in thecomponentsdemand?

(d) Howmuchlabourisrequiredintheproductionoffoodandfuel?

Theanalysesinthisthesisarebasedonlocalandregionaldata.Focusing on regional level will provide insights about dynamicsamong the components in the “micro-level”. I also assessed theper capita consumption of land, water and energy, which willeventually provide understanding about the amount of theresourcesrequired.Ihaveconsideredonlyphysicalquantities liketons,hectaresandcalories;andnoteconomicvariables, like,costofproductionorconsumption.Thisthesiswillshowthemagnitudeof variations among the resources used for food and fuelconsumption. This thesis will provide an understanding on themagnitudeofland,waterandenergyrequiredforaruralindividualfood and fuel consumption, and how technology can change themagnitude of demand. Finally, the results obtained for the ruralpopulationindevelopingcountriesareputinaglobalperspectiveandcomparedwiththeexistingknowledgeforthewesternworld.

1.5.Structureofthethesis

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the thesis with a generalintroduction and frameworkof the chapters. It gives informationon the existing nexus approaches and its related frameworks. Iestablished that the consumption studies are mostly done in a“silo” manner. In chapter 1, a brief introduction about ruralpopulation indevelopingcountrieshasbeengivenalongwiththeunderlying importance of nexus beneath it. It also established anexus framework considering five important components. In thecomingnext chapters, thedeveloped frameworkwill beused forquantifyingtheinter-linkages.

CHAPTER1

36

C

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

Chapter 2 and 3 focus on the total land and water requiredwhileconsumingfoodandfuelbyanindividual.Thefooditemsaremainly agricultural and animal products produced at rural level.Thecookingfuelismainlytraditionalsolidbiomass(i.e.fuelwood,charcoal and briquette) and the cookstove is a 3-stone fire. ThisanalysiswasdoneasacasestudyforIndia,sinceitisstillhometothe highest number of the rural population [72]. These chaptersshow the magnitude of land and water required, and showwhether there is competition for resources or not. Based on theresults of Chapter 2 & 3, a hypothetical system was developedwhereimprovedcookstoves(ICS)andhighenergycontentfuellikecharcoalandbriquettewereintroduced.Inthechapter4,themostimportant factor has been taken into consideration i.e. timerequired in the production of cooking fuel. Traditional cookingsystem is takenas thebaselinescenario,andwith respect to it, Iassessedthetimerequiredtoprepareothercookingfuelandhowmuchtimeapersonhastoinvestinit.Thischapterwillshowhowtechnologycanaffectthelabourtime.

In Chapter 5, the same hypothetical system was used as inchapter 4 for assessing the human energy required in theproductionofcookingfuel.Itshowshowtechnologycanaffectthehumanenergyrequirementbyaperson.Chapter6integratesthefindingsofallthechaptersandputsitinabroaderperspective.ItdescribesindetailhowthenexusisworkinginRDCandquantifiestheimpactofaninterventionbyanewtechnologyinthepresentscenario. Fig. 1.4 shows the framework of all the chapters, andhowthenexusisformingamongstthem.ComingbacktotheIPATidentity,thisthesisprovidesanewinsighttoit.Chapter2and3islinked to the population and affluence factor. It shows thevariations in the food and fuel consumption of an individual.Chapter4addressesthetechnologylinkedtothecookingsystem.Chapter 5 is associated to the time and human energy of anindividual.


37

CH

APT

ER1

:Introdu

ction

Fig.1.4.Frameworkofthechaptersinthisthesis

40

AdditionalinformationofthechapterAuthors KarabeeDasa,SanderineNonhebela

Keywords Landrequirement,Foodconsumption,fuelwood,forest,treesoutsideforest(TOF)

Yearofpublication 2019-11Nameofthejournal AgriculturalSystems176(2019),ISSN:0308-521X,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102682

aCentre for Energy and Environmental Sciences, ESRIG, University of Groningen, TheNetherlands.

CHAPTER2:AcomparativestudyofthelandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuelinruralIndia

41

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Chapter2 Acomparativestudyofthelandrequiredforfoodandcooking

fuelinruralIndia

ABSTRACT

Land is a limited resource that provides food and cooking fuel to theruralpopulation.Inthispaper,wedeterminethelandrequiredforfoodproductionand compare itwith the land required for cooking fuel (i.e.fuelwood) for six different regions of India. We use regional data toassess the land requirements for both food and fuelwood. Dietarypatternsandagriculturalyieldsarethemajordriversoflanddemandforfoodproduction. The average land requirement for food is about 1000m2/cap/yr, but the values range between 800-1300 m2/cap/yr. Thegreatestproportionofthislandrequirementisforcereals,especiallyriceand wheat. Determining the land needed for cooking fuel requiresbiomassproductivityandfuelwooduse.Wefoundthattheaveragelandrequirement for fuelwood is about 3 to 7 times larger than the arearequiredtoproducefood.Thus,thereisawidedisparityinlanddemandbetweenalltheregionsofIndia.Dietarychangeisnotanoptionasruralinhabitants are already consuming less than their urban counterparts.Changes to cooking fuels could be another option. This comparativestudyshowsthehighdemandforlandforcookingfuelincomparisontofood. It impliesthat,fromalandrequirementperspective,reducingthefuelwood consumption and shifting to a more efficient cooking fuelwouldbeabetteroption.

CHAPTER2

42

CHA

PTER

2

2.1.Introduction

Landisalimitedandsignificantresourceforhumansustenance.It is the basic provider of food, feed and energy to the globalpopulation.AccordingtotheWorldBank[5],thetotalagriculturallandmakesupabout37%oftheEarth’stotallandarea,andforestsabout 31%. The intensity of global agricultural land use isincreasing and gradually the forest area is decreasing. Alexanderet.al [73] revealed that a rural Indian requires about 2000m2 ofagricultural landforfoodconsumptioneachyear.However,thereare large differences in the land requirement for food (LRF)depending on the dietary pattern. In most cases, high-incomecountries with affluent diets are associated with more LRF thanlow-incomecountries[74].

The majority of the rural population (≈ 3 billion population[75]) residing in developing countries depends on fuelwood forcooking,andthispatternwillremainsignificantforthecoming30years [76][77]. Such fuelwood is basically sourced from eitherforestsoropenspaces.FAOstatedthatin2011about3billionm3of wood was harvested globally from forested land, and almost50%wasusedasfuelwood[78].

Inthecomingyears,thedemandforfoodandcookingfuelwillincrease as farmers will tend to encroach on forests to expandagriculturalland[79].Thiswill leadtoincreasedcompetitionoverland for food and fuel. In the future, low and middle-incomecountries will alter their dietsmore towardsmeat consumption,particularly places like India [80], where a majority of thepopulation have traditionally had vegetarian diets [81]. Bosire etal.[74]statedthattheconsumptionofanimalproductsisnowthemajordriverforlandusechange.Studieshavebeencompletedonthe land requirement for food from a consumption perspective[82].Extensivestudieshavealsobeenconductedonbiomassandroundwood production potential for various purposes [83][84].However,thelandrequirementforcookingfuel(LRC)hasnotbeenaccountedfor.Keepinginmindthatlandislimitedanddemandisincreasing,itisimportanttodeterminewhatproportionoflandisrequired to produce food and cooking fuel. Joint studies on thetotal landrequiredforbothfoodandfuelhaverarelybeendone.


43

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Suchcomprehensive studiesareurgently required fordevelopingnationswherepeople relyon land for theirbasicsustenance (i.e.food and cooking fuel). Thus, to obtain insights in the order ofmagnitude in the land required for food and fuel,we assess thelandrequirementforthefoodconsumedandfuelwoodusedbyanindividual from a consumption perspective. This assessment isdoneattheregionallevel.First,wedeterminethefoodintakeandcooking fuel demand per capita. Ultimately, we assess the landrequirement for food and for cooking fuel and compare theresults.

2.2.FoodandcookingfuelinruralIndia

Indiahasthehighestruralpopulationintheworldthatdependsonagricultureforfoodandsolidbiomassforcookingfuel[85].Thefood diet in India is quite diversified. Rao et al. [81], stated thatrural Indians have a more diversified diet, with more cerealsconsumption than their urban counterparts. Cropproductionhasincreased in the last 30-40 years, yet the average crop yield ismuch less than the global average [86]. Rural India still practicessubsistence farming, where farmers mostly produce crops andbreedlivestockforthehouseholditself[87].

Nearly 90% of the total energy consumed by households inIndia isusedforcooking, therest isusedfor lightingandheatingpurposes [88]. Fig.2.1 shows thepercentagedistributionof ruraland urban households by the primary source of energy used forcooking. The National Sample Survey of India described in their“Energy Sources of Indian Households for Cooking and Lighting”report[89] thatruralhouseholdsarestilldependentonfuelwoodfor cooking and urban households on LPG. Other solid fuels likedungcakeandcharcoal,arealsoused,however,theircontributionis much smaller than fuelwood [90][91]. The pie and bar graphbelowforruralareasshowthatthereareinter-regionaldisparitiesincookingfueluse.About90%ofthehouseholds inCentral Indiausecookingfuel,but inNorthIndiaabout40%ofthehouseholdsusefuelwood.NorthIndiahasagreatervarietyofcookingenergysource,whichmeans that they use substantial amounts of other

CHAPTER2

44

CHA

PTER

2

cookingfuelslikeLPG,keroseneanddungcake.Thesourceofthisfuelwood is mostly from forests or trees-outside-forest (TOF).According to a study on one Indian state (Gujarat) [83], thecontinuousextractionoffuelwoodfromforestsdirectly linkswiththedegradation rate1,which eventually affects the livelihoods ofruralhouseholds.

*StatesdividedundereachzonehasbeengiveninAnnexure2.A(Table2.A.1).

Fig.2.1.Percentagedistributionofhouseholdsfora)rural(detailedfigureisinthebargraph)andb)urbanhouseholdsusingtheprimarysourceofcooking

energy,2011-12[89]

TheForestSurveyofIndia(FSI)recognizestwotypesofsourcesfor fuelwood production: forests and trees-outside-forest (TOF).TheFSI[92],hasdefinedtheforestedlandasallthelandwhichhasatreecanopydensityof10percentandabove,overaminimumofonehectare.Trees-outside-forest(TOF)referstothelandwherealltreesgrowoutsiderecordedforestareasirrespectiveofpatchsize.In2011,a totalof3.2millionm3ofwoodwasproduced in India,andthemajorityofthewoodcamefromTOF[93][94].TheforestsandTOFareaavailablevaries fromzonetozonedependingupon

1AccordingtoFAO,degradationrateisdefinedasthereductionofthecapacityofaforesttoprovidegoodandservices[318].


45

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

their geographical and climatic conditions (Fig. 2.2). Fig 2.2, itshows that Central India has 6.7million ha and 15million ha offorestandTOF respectively,whichmakes themthehighestofallthe zones. Northern India has the lowest forest area (i.e. 0.9millionha).TOF for theNorth-Easternarea isonly1.1millionha,makingitoneofthelowestofallthezones.

Fig.2.2.ForestandTreesoutsideforestareainhaavailableinsixzonesofIndia[95]

2.3.MethodsandData

Inthisstudy,wedividedIndiaintosixregions(i.e.North,South,East, West, Central and North-East). To assess the landrequirement for food (LRF), we followed the methodologydevelopedbyKastneretal.[96].Thismeansthatthedataonfoodconsumptionperpersonandtheyieldperhectarewerecombinedto determine the area needed for food for one person. Forestimating the land required for cooking fuel,we used the sameapproach: firewood consumption per personwas combinedwiththefuelwoodproductionperhectare.Fig.2.3showsall thestepsrequiredinthecalculationofLRCandLRF.

CHAPTER2

46

CHA

PTER

2

Fig.2.3.AsimplifiedflowchartshowingallthestepsinvolvedintheassessmentofLRFandLRC

In the coming sections, we give a detailed description of thedatacollectionandanalyticalmethodologiesinvolvedinthisstudy.

2.3.1Landrequirementforfood(LRF)

The food diet is the end product of cooked food itemsconsumedbyoneperson inoneyear.Wetookanaverageofthefood items intake for all the six regions of India (Annexure 2.A(Table 2.A.1)). We also estimated the calorie intake (i.e. energyintake in kcal) of a rural person on the basis of the food itemsconsumedperday.

WeusedthefoodconsumptiondataforruralpeoplefromtheNationalSampleSurveyOffice (NSSRound68) for theyear2011-12[97].TheNSSdatasetprovidesconsumptiondataonthebasisof a 30-day recall at the household level.We compiled 69 fooditems into 9 categories; namely, cereals and millets pulses andlegumes, green leafy vegetables, spices, roots and tubers, fruits,oils and fats, sugar and jaggery and animal products. The foodconsumptiondataisinkg/cap/day.

TheLRFpercapitawasestimatedusingmethodologydevelopedbyKastneretal.[96].Sincethisstudyisexplicitlyfocusedonrural


47

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

consumption, to calculate the LRF we take crop yield data(Annexure 2.B (Table 2.B.1)) and cropping intensity [98] forextensive agriculture. The calorie intake is calculated by usingcaloriccontentdatafromFAO[99][100].

2.3.2Landrequirementforcookingfuel(LRC)

Fuelwoodistheenergycarrierforruralhouseholdsthatisusedforcooking.FuelwooddemanddatawascollectedfromNSSO(NSSRound68,2011-12)[97].Weassembledallthedataandaverageditforallthesixregions.Tolinkfuelwooddemandint/cap/yrwiththelandrequiredforfuelwooduseinm2/cap/yr,weestimatedtheamountofbiomassyieldint/ha/yr.

We considered the possibility that fuelwood was harvestedfrom either forests or TOF. The estimation of LRC was doneseparately for both forest and TOF. LRC is the combination ofbiomassyieldfromforestorTOFwiththeindividualfuelwooduse.Biomassyieldwascalculatedusingtheamountofannualgrowingstock multiplied by weight density and annual increment of thewood. The annual increase in the volume of wood grown perhectareistermedmeanannualincrement(MAI).WeusedMAIforthebiomassyieldsothatthereisnodeforestationafterfuelwoodharvest.Growingstockvolume(inm3)andareaavailable(inkm2)for forestandTOFforall theregionswerecollectedfromtheFSIreport [92]. The growing stock volumedensity (GSVD) (inm3/ha)wascalculatedbydividinggrowing stockvolumeby theavailablearea.Weestimatedtheannualgrowthoftreesperyearforforestand TOF, by dividing GSVD by the age of the forest or TOF,respectively. Basedon the studydonebyBhojvaid et al. onTOF,we assumed that the standing age for TOF is 7 years [101].Similarly, Gautam et al. did their study on forests, where theyconsidered the standing age of a forest to be about 35 years[102][103].Biomassyieldreferstothedryweightoftreebiomassexpressedintonnes.Theabovegroundbiomassyieldforeachzonewas calculated usingMAI, theweight density of the trees and abiomass expansion factor (BEF). BEF is a factor used to converttimbervolumetoallbiomass[104][105].Ittakesintoaccountthe

CHAPTER2

48

CHA

PTER

2

biomass of the other aboveground components [106][107]. BEDwassubsequentlymultipliedbyweightdensitytoconvertitfromavolumetoamass.Theweightdensityoftreesvariesfromtreetotreeandcountry tocountry [108].Wetake thevalue for tropicaltreesinAsia(int/m3)fromFAOpaper[109].Forourstudy,wealsoincluded scrubland. Scrubland is the degraded forest landwith acanopy density of less than 10%. In this study, we excludedmangroveareas,sincewewereonlyconcernedwithlandarea.

MAI for forested land or TOF was calculated by using thefollowingequation:

MAI= !"#$!"#$%& !" !"# !"#$%&$' !"# (!" !"#)

(2.1)

where;GSVD=Growingstockvolumedensity(m3/ha)

= !"#$%&' !"#$% !"#$%&!"#$%&"& !"#$%& !"#!

2.3.2.a)Estimationofbiomassyieldfromforest

Thebiomassyield froma forestwascalculatedusing the followingequation[110][111][112];

Biomassyield(tha-1yr-1)=MAI×WD × BEF (2.2)

where; WD=Vol.-weightedavg.wooddensity(t/m3)BEF=BiomassExpansionfactor=!"#$%&'#()* !"#$!!"# !"#$%&& !" !"##$!"#$ !"# !"#$%&& !" !"#$"%&'!$( !!"#$%

Finally, land demand per capita was computed by dividing thebiomassyieldbytheleveloffuelwooddemandperyear.

2.3.2.b)Estimationofbiomassyieldfromtreesoutsideforest(TOF)

Theabove-groundbiomassproductionoftreesoutsideforestperyearwascalculatedusingthestockvolumeandthewooddensity[113][114].

Biomassyield(t)=MAItof(m3)× Wooddensity(t/m3) (2.3)


49

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Finallythe landrequiredforcookingfuel (LRC),wasestimatedbyusingthefollowingequation:

LRC=!"#$%!!" !"# (! !"#/!")!"#$%&& !"#$% (! !!/!")

(2.4)

DetaileddefinitionsofthetermsaregiveninAnnexure2.A(Table2.A.2).

2.4.Results

2.4.1Landrequiredforfoodconsumption(LRF)

Fig.2.4shows the food intake,energy intakeandtheLRFofarural food diet for all the six regions of India. The foodconsumptionpatternshowslargevariationsbetweentheregions.In almost all the cases, cereals and millets (particularly rice andwheat) are themost consumed food items.Wheat is the staplecropofNorthernIndia,however,movingtowardsEastandNorth-East,ricebecomesthestaplefood.ThewheatintakeintheNorthregion is almost 90% higher than the North-East region (referAnnexure 2.C (Fig. 2.C.1)), but the rice intake is as low as 71%.Otherregions(i.e.West,East,SouthandCentral)havemoreamixof rice and wheat in their diets. Cereals and millets constituteabout50%ofthetotalfoodintakeexceptinNorthIndia.Itisquiteinteresting that 34% of total food items are animal products forNorthIndia,mainlymilkanditsby-products.Greenleafyvegetableconsumption stays almost the same for all the regions, and thesame goes for pulses and legumes. Even spice consumptionremains consistent for all the regional diets. The average foodintakeofaruralIndianisabout320kg/cap/yr.

Wefoundthatthevariationinenergyintakeismuchlessthanin food intake.More than50%of theenergycomes fromcerealsand millets. Even though 20-30% of animal products andvegetables are consumed, the energy intake is almost negligible,since the calorie content of such foodstuffs is almost 3-fold lessthancerealsandmillets.Theaverageenergyintakeisabout1918kcal/cap/day,butitrangesfrom1768-2026kcal/cap/day.

CHAPTER2

50

CHA

PTER

2

LRFisacombinationofyieldandindividualfoodconsumption.Sincetheconsumptionofcerealsandmilletswashigh,morethan50%of the landdemandwasduetocerealsandmillets. Insomeregions, it reached as high as 75%. Rice and wheat play animportant role in the LRF of food diet across all the zones(Annexure2.C.1).Comparing,thefoodintakeandLRFgraphofFig2.C.1 (from Annexure 2.C.1), it is quite interesting to find thatSouth India has amuch lowerwheat intake, however, the LRF isstill quite high. One of the reasons for this high LRF is very lowwheatyields(0.32t/ha)inSouthIndia(Annexure2.B,Table2.B.1).The relative LRF for pulses & legumes lies between 5-13%.However,theLRFforpulses&legumesintheNorth-Eastzoneis41m2/cap/yr,which isalmosthalf thatoftheotherzones.Thetotalshareofotherfoodcategories(i.e.greenleafyvegetables,spices,roots& tubers, fruits,oil& fatsandsugar& jaggery) is less thantheanimalproductsforallthezones.TheabsoluteLRFforanimalproducts in North India is 202 m2/cap/yr, which is more thandoubletheLRFfortheotherregions.Theveryhighconsumptionofmilk and its products in North India ultimately increases its LRF.TheoverallaverageLRFisabout1000m2/cap/yr.

2.4.2Landrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC)

Fig.2.5showsthebiomassyield fromforestandTOF,andthefuelwood demand of individuals from different regions of India.ThereisconsiderablevariationinthebiomassyieldfromTOFandforestsbetweenalltheregions.ThebiomassyielddependsontheMAIof the forest or TOF.We found that thebiomass yield fromforests ismuch higher than the TOF. It ranges between 30-80%.ThereasonthatTOFhassucha lowbiomassyield isbecause theareaavailableforTOFismuchhigherwithrespecttothegrowingstock density. In the case of TOF, trees are scattered in an openareahowever, in forests treesaregrowndensely, so ina smallerareatheyhavemorebiomass.ThebiomassyieldfromTOF intheNorth-Eastregionishigherthantheotherregions. TheindividualconsumptionoffuelwoodisalmostdoubleintheNorth-Eastwith respect to other regions.Oneof the reasons forthislargeamountoffuelwooduseisthelackofamarketforother


51

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

cooking fuels like kerosene and LPG. It is interesting that thepatterninthepercentageofhouseholdsusingfuelwood(Fig.2.1)is different from the individual consumption (Fig. 2.5) pattern.FromFig.2.1,householdsinCentralIndiausemorefuelwood,butthepercapitaconsumptionishighestinNorth-Eastregion.

Fig.2.4.Relativerepresentationoffoodintake,energyintakeandthelandrequirementforthedifferentgroupsoffooditemsconsumedbyaruralperson

fromsixzonesofIndia

CHAPTER2

52

CHA

PTER

2

Fig.2.5.BiomassyieldfromTOFandforest(int/ha/yr)andindividualfuelwooddemandregion-wise(int/cap/yr)

Fig.2.6showstheLRCofthedifferentregions;whenfuelwoodis harvested from forests and TOF. The average LRC for anindividual when fuelwood is harvested from forests (LRC-F) isabout2500m2/cap/yr.TheLRC-TOF increasesby3-fold,whenanindividualoptstoharvesthisorherfuelwoodfromTOF.However,incaseofNorth-EastregiontheLRC-F isalmostequivalenttotheLRC-TOF.ThebiomassyieldfortheWestandNorth-Eastregionsisthesame,i.e.1.2t/ha/yr.However,Fig.2.6showsthattheLRCforNorth-East region is twice that of the West region. The reasonbehindthe2-foldincreaseisduetothehigherfuelwooduse.Fromeq. 2.4, we can find that LRC is indirectly proportional to thebiomassyield.Fig2.5,showsthatbiomassyieldislessinthecaseof TOF, thus there is an increase in land requirement with thesamefuelwooddemand.


53

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Fig.2.6.Landrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC)forallthefiveregionsofIndia

2.4.3Totallandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuel

The total land required, by combining for both food andfuelwood, is shown in Fig. 2.7. It is comparatively high forfuelwood harvested from TOF than from forests. However, thefinaloutcome is,whether the fuelwood isharvested fromforestsorTOF,fuelwoodconsumptionleadstohigherlandrequirements.

2.5.Discussion

ThisstudyprovidesacomparisonofthelandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuelinruralIndia.Itgivesaninsighttothemagnitudeofamountoflandrequiredfromaconsumptionperspective.

Landrequiredforfood(LRF)andlandrequiredforcookingfuel(LRC)

The methods used in this study for both food and fuelwoodfollowed the same procedure. We combined the yield and theindividualconsumptionvaluestoassessthelandrequirement.Theaverage LRF of a rural Indian is about 985 m2/cap/yr ( ≈1000 m2/cap/yr). The results also show variation among theregions.The1000m2for foodthatwascalculated inthisstudy issignificantly(about40%)lowerthanotherstudiesforthisregion.

CHAPTER2

54

CHA

PTER

2

Fig.2.7.Totallandrequiredforfoodandcookingfuel(a)Fuelwoodfromforest,and(b)FuelwoodfromTOF

The explanation for this can be found in the very low foodconsumption (1918 kcal/cap/day) that was found in the survey.Otherstudiesusedfoodconsumptionvaluesof2500kcal/cap/day.Further, in such studies the consumptionofanimalproductswasfar higher than in the survey used here. So, our value of 1000m2/cap/yrcanbeconsideredastheminimumareaneededtofeedone person (food at the starvation level). It is worrying that thearablelandavailableperpersoninIndiaisonly1200m2,sothereisnotmuchroomforimprovementofthefoodsupply.

WefoundthattheLRCisveryhighwithrespecttoLRF.DuetothepaucityofstudiesonLRC, inorder tovalidateourcalculationwe compared it with the biomass yield data from other studies.Theaveragebiomassyieldforforestsisabout1.32t/ha/yrandforTOFis0.47t/ha/yr,which issimilartothebiomassyieldgivenbyFAO for Asia [115]. According to theWorld Bank, the per capitaforestavailableinIndiaisabout640m2/cap/yr[5],andwefoundthat a rural Indian requires about 2507 m2/cap/yr to produce


55

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

fuelwood for cooking. This study indicates that there is alreadydemandformoreforestedland.Otherstudiesrevealedthatruralpopulationswouldstilldependonbiomassforcooking[116].FAOhas indicated that there is an ongoing competition for land andfood security [117]. Thus, with rising population and demand,there is a possibility that, to meet cooking fuel demands, ruralhouseholds could convert agricultural land to forested land[118][119][120].OurestimateforLRC-FandLRC-TOFarebasedontheannualgrowthoftheforestorTOF(i.e.MAI).Themainreasonbehind usingMAI is to avoid deforestation.Otherwise, completeharvests of roundwood from forests or TOF could eventuallydecreasetheLRC.TheTOFareconsiderednaturallygrownforthisstudy, i.e. there is no plantation method. However, for IndianforestsandTOF, there isascopeofplantation forhigheryieldofwood[92].AEucalyptuscanproducebiomassofabout2.5t/ha/yr(i.e.moreyield).So, ifwechosetouseall theTOFareaavailableforwoodproduction,thentheaverageLRCwillbe1100m2/cap/yr,whichalmost6timeslessthanLRC-TOF.

Weknowthat this isanexploratory studycomparing the landrequirement for food and cooking fuel for a rural diet.We haveexcluded some factors like the type of land used for producinganimal feed, different post-harvest loss and small shrubs in TOFareas.Evenifwehadoptedtoincludethesefactors,therewouldstill have beenmore input assumptions, making the studymorecomplexandyetnegligiblyaffectingtheresults.Thisisbecauseourstudyarea, therural Indianpopulation,hasa lowanimalproductintake and theymostly do subsistence farming, whichminimizestheirpost-harvestloss.

Ourfindingsshouldbereadasaninsightintothemagnitudeofland required for food and cooking fuel for a rural diet and notreduced to its absolute values. Fig 2.1 showed that, other thanfuelwood,thereareothercookingfuels(likecowdungetc.),whicharebeingused,inverysmallquantities(about4-10%).Theremightbe situations where households use fuelwood for heating,howeverinthesurveydatatheyuseditforcooking.Moreover,inmost cases households uses heating as a side activity, whilst

CHAPTER2

56

CHA

PTER

2

cooking. However, after fuelwood, households mostly usekerosene and LPG. They are energy intensive aswell as having alowerlandfootprintthanbiomass.GlobalLandOutlooksuggestedin their study that other efficient cooking fuel, normally non-renewableenergy(i.e.keroseneandLPG),hasa landfootprintof0.1-1m2/MWh,but thebiomass land footprint canbeashighas1000m2/MWh[6].

Cheng et al. [91] established that, even though rural IndianhouseholdsuseLPG,theydonotreplacefuelwood.Therefore,thebetter option to decrease the LRC is by using an improvedcookstove (ICS), which can decrease the fuelwood use by 3-fold[121]. Finally, we can conclude that many studies have so far beencompleted on land required for food in all regions in theworld.These studies mention that the availability of arable land in theworldwillbecomeamajorproblem.Inthispaper,weshowthatinruralareasarablelandisnottheissuebuttheforestedlandthatisneededforcookingfuel.Thesituation in Indiacharacterizedhereistypicalforallruralareaswherelandrequiredforcookingfuelisfarlargerthanthelandrequiredforfood.

2.6.Conclusions

This study gives an insight into the land requirement for foodandcookingfuelfromaconsumptionperspectiveanditsvariationamongtheregions.Eventhoughtherearevariousfooditemsinanindividualdiet,themaincomponentisthestaplefood(e.g.riceorwheat). It istheprincipalproviderofenergyintakeinhumans,aswellasbeingamajorcontributortotheLRF.TheaverageLRFforruralpeopleinIndiaisabout1000m2/cap/yr.However,theLRCisalmost doubled if fuelwood is from forests, and almost 6 timeswhen harvested from TOF. This study concludes that fuelwoodrequires farmore landthanthat for foodconsumption. It impliesthat efficient cooking fuel, which requires less land, should beintroducedtotheruralpopulation.


57

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

1. DetailedlistoflanddistributiondefinitioninIndia2

1. Areaundernon-agriculturaluse

Lands occupied by buildings, roads, railways orunder water and other lands put to uses otherthanagriculture.

2. Barrenandunculturableland

Land like mountains, deserts, etc. Land, whichcannot be brought under cultivation except at anexorbitantcost.

3. PermanentPastures&OtherGrazingLands

All grazing lands whether they are permanentpastures and meadows or not. Village commongrazinglandisincludedunderthishead.

4. LandunderMiscellaneoustreecrops&othergrovesnotincludedinnetareasown

This includes all cultivable land, which is notincluded in ‘Net area sown’, but is put to someagriculturaluses.

5. CulturableWasteLand

Lands available for cultivation,whether not takenup for cultivationor takenup for cultivationoncebutnotcultivatedduringthecurrentyearandthelastfiveyearsormoreinsuccessionforonereasonor other. The land which has potential for thedevelopmentof vegetative coverand isnotbeingused due to different constraints of varyingdegrees, such as erosion, water logging, salinityetc.

6. UnculturableWasteland

The land that cannotbedeveloped for vegetativecover, for instance the barren rocky areas andsnowcoveredglacierareas.

7. FallowLandsotherthanCurrentFallows

This includes all lands, which were taken up forcultivation but are temporarily out of cultivationforaperiodofnotlessthanoneyearandnotmorethanfiveyears.

8. CurrentFallows This represents cropped areas, which are keptfallowduringthecurrentyear.

2FSI,Indi7.aStateofForestReport2013.Dehradun:MinistryofEnvironment&Forests,2013.

ANNEXURE2.A

CHAPTER2

58

CHA

PTER

2

Table2.A.1.Listofallthestateswhicharedividedintodifferentzones

ZONES STATES

NORTH

HimachalPradeshPunjab

Jammu&KashmirChandigarhUttarakhandUttarPradesh

DelhiHaryana

WEST

Daman&DiuRajasthanGujarat

Dadra&NagarHaveliGoa

Maharashtra

SOUTH

Amdaman&NicobarIslandsLakshadweepPuducherry

AndhraPradeshKarnatakaKerala

TamilNadu

EASTBiharOdisha

JharkhandWestBengal

CENTRAL MadhyaPradeshChhattisgarh

NORTH-EAST

AssamSikkim

NagalandMeghalayaManipurMizoramTripura

ArunachalPradesh


59

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Table2.A.2.TermsrelatedtothisstudydescribedbyFAO3

Term DefinitionAbove-groundbiomass

Alllivingbiomassabovethesoilincludingstem, stump, branches, bark, seeds andfoliage.

Biomass Organicmaterialbothabove-groundandbelow-ground,andbothlivinganddead,e.g., trees, crops, grasses, tree litter,rootsetc.Biomass includesabove–andbelow–groundbiomass.

Biomassexpansionfactor(BEF)

Amultiplication factor that expands thedry-weight of growing stock biomass,increment biomass, and biomass ofwood-or fuelwood removals toaccountfor non-merchantable or non-commercial biomass components, suchas stump, branches, twigs, foliage, and,sometimes, non-commercial trees.Biomass expansion factors usually differfor growing stock (BEFS), net annualincrement (BEFI) and wood- andfuelwoodremovals(BEFR).

GrowingStock

Volumeoverbarkofalllivingtreesmorethan X cm in diameter at breast height.Includes the stem from ground level orstumpheight up to a top diameter of Ycm, andmay also includebranches to aminimumdiameterofWcm.

3D. Schoene,W. Killmann, H. von L. Lüpke, andM. LoycheWilkie, “Definitional issuesrelated to reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries,” Rome,2007.

CHAPTER2

60

CHA

PTER

2

Table2.B.1.AgriculturalyieldoffooditemsforallsixzonesofIndia4,5

Ton/ha North South East West Central North-EastRice 2.24 2.58 2.11 1.97 1.47 2.05Wheat 2.89 0.32 2.13 1.61 1.79 1.41

Coarsecereals 4.72 3.39 4.31 2.58 4.23 2.74

Pulses&legumes

0.85 0.54 0.76 0.64 0.71 0.95

GreenLeafyVeg.

17.71 20.90 16.75 8.65 12.65 9.19

Spices,Other 3.00 1.72 1.15 0.67 1.12 3.55Roots&tubers 18.04 7.00 18.38 14.49 17.36 8.61Fruits 9.31 13.34 11.00 9.08 14.86 9.40Oilandfats 3.11 2.34 4.06 3.50 3.96 2.89Sugarcane 34.65 78.10 71.63 58.05 20.68 27.04

Table2.B.2.ArablelandavailableinallthesixzonesofIndia6

‘000ha North South East West Central North-East

Arableland 3816 5601 5831 9928 11421 815

4Source:GovernmentofIndia,AgriculturalStatisticsataGlance2014,FirstEdit.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.

5 FAO, “FAO Statistical Database,” FAO, 2017. [Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data.[Accessed:05-Mar-2018].

6Source:GovernmentofIndia,AgriculturalStatisticsataGlance2014,FirstEdit.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.

ANNEXURE2.B


61

CHA

PTER

2

CHA

PTER

2

Fig.2.C.1.Illustrationoffoodintake,energyintakeandLRFforriceandwheat

ANNEXURE2.C

AdditionalinformationofthechapterAuthors KarabeeDasa,P.W.Gerbens-Leenesa,SanderineNonhebela

Keywords Waterfootprintfood;Waterfootprintfuelwood;foodconsumptionpatternsruralIndia;fuelwoodforcooking

Placeofpublication Journalofcleanerproduction(Acceptedminorrevisions)

aCentreforEnergyandEnvironmentalSciences,ESRIG,UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands.

CHAPTER3:Thewaterfootprintoffoodandcookingfuelinadevelopingcountry:Thecasestudyofself-sufficientruralIndia

65

CHA

PTER

Chapter3

Thewaterfootprintoffoodandcookingfuelinadevelopingcountry:Thecasestudyofself-sufficientruralIndia

Abstract

Water is needed for food and fuelwood. In general, people in developingcountriesconsumemanycarbohydraterichstapleswithlittleamountofanimalproduct,whileoftenusing fuelwood forcookingandthesameapplies to ruralIndia aswell. This study assessesWFs for food and fuel consumption in ruralIndia.Theresearchquestionis:Whatisthegreen,blueandgreyWFoffoodandcooking fuel consumptionperprovince in rural India (inm3/capita/yr)? ItusedtheWFmethodforthequantification.Dataonfoodandfuelwoodconsumptionwere derived from the National Sample Survey (2011-12). Foods werecategorized into 6 groups: 1.Rice; 2Wheat; 3Oils and fats; 4.Milk; 5. Otheranimal foods;and6.“Others”.Cookingfuel includes:1.Fuelwood;2.Keroseneand3.LPG.DataonWFsoffoodswerederivedfromliterature,WFsoffuelwoodwere calculated for India. TheWF of consumption is calculated by combiningdataon consumptionandproductWFs. There is largevariationof green,blueandgreyWFsforfoodacrossIndia’sprovinces.TheaverageWFforfoodis800m3/capita/year and for fuelwood 1630 m3/capita/year. Rice and wheatdominate green, blue and grey WFs for food. However, there are variationsamongprovinces. ThegreenWFof rice is larger than thegreenWFofwheat,whilewheathasalargerblueWF.Forcookingfuel,theaverageWFoffuelwoodismuch largerthantheWFoffossilcookingfuels.Water,energyandfoodarecloselyinterlinkedinruralIndia.ThetotalWFforfuelwoodistwicetheWFforfood, showing that in rural areas in developing countries, fuelwood is waterintensive with large impact on freshwater resources. Future prospects ofincreasingconsumptionofanimalproductswill increaseWFs.However, ifalsocookingfuelisconsidered,switchingtofossilcookingfuellowersWFsfarmoreand compensates the increase due to larger animal food consumption. ThetrendsfoundforIndiamightalsoberelevantforotherdevelopingcountries.

CHAPTER3

66

CHA

PTER

3.1.Introduction

Freshwater is a renewable but finite natural resource, with limitedavailability, often causing competition among its users. Freshwateravailabilityvariesacrossregionsand intime. Ingeneral,allproblemsoffreshwateroverexploitationandpollutionrelatetohumanconsumption[122]. To visualize the relationshipbetweenconsumptionof goodsandfreshwater use, Hoekstra [123] introduced the water footprint (WF)conceptwhichincludedsupply-chainthinkingcommoninenvironmentalsciences. The water footprint (WF) includes three components: green,blueandgreyWFs.ThegreenWFisthevolumeofrainwaterconsumedduringproduction.TheblueWFisanindicatoroftheconsumptiveuseoffreshsurfaceorgroundwater.ThegreyWFisanindicatorofthedegreeof freshwater pollution and is defined as the amount of freshwaterneeded to dilute polluted water to accepted water quality standards[124][125].Globally, theconsumptionof fooddominates theWF[126].EspeciallygrainsandfoodsfromlivestockproductionsystemsdominatetheglobalaverageannualpercapitaWF,withcerealscontributing27%,meat22%andmilk7%[126],butdifferencesamongcountriesarelarge,especiallybetweendevelopedanddevelopingcountries.

Ingeneral,peopleindevelopedcountrieshavealargecontributionofanimalfoodstotheirtotalfoodconsumption;developingcountrieshavefoodconsumptionpatternsbasedoncarbohydraterichstaplefoodswithlittle animal foods [127][128][129]. To prepare meals, they often usefuelwood collected from the local environment. Globally, nearly threebillion people rely on traditional biomass, i.e. wood, charcoal, cropresiduesandanimaldung,as theirprimarycooking fuel [130]. InSouthAsia, 75%of the households use traditional solid fuels for cooking andheating[131][132].Fuelwoodprojectionsindicatethattheconsumptionwill increasewith 24% [133] and also the number of households usingfuelwoodforcookingwill increase[134]. In India,thedominantfuelforcookingisfirewood[89].Adverseeffectsoffuelwooduseforcookingarewell known, especially health effects due to indoor air pollution[135][136], decrease of agricultural productivity, forest degradation[137][138] and contribution to global warming [139]. Although theadverseeffectsoffuelwoodarewidelyrecognized,womenindevelopingcountries responsible for cooking tend to prefer traditional cookingstoves[140].

Important natural resources to provide food and fuelwood are landand freshwater. Data on crop yields, and the inverse, land use, areavailablefromtheFAO[129],whiletherearesomestudiesonlandand


67

CHA

PTER

fuelwoodrelations [141][142].DataonWFsof foodareavailable [126],andtherearesomestudiesontheWFsofwood[125][143][144].Schynsetal.[145]haveassessedtheWFofroundwood,withfuelwoodasaby-product,distinguishingblueandgreenWFs,whereblueWFs representthewaterusedbytreesthathaveaccesstogroundwater. Globally, three billion people reside in rural areas of developingcountries, mainly in Asian and African countries. These people live onsubsistence farming and use fuelwood for cooking [117]. In thesecountries, water availability to water requirement for food productionmightbecomemoreproblematicthantoday[11].Thisisamajorconcernfor rural people, as they depend upon localwater availability for theirfoodandfuel.

In India, the internal WF dominates the total WF; the external WFcontributes only 2%. Over 62% of irrigated water and 85% of drinkingwater are sourced from groundwater [146]. Moreover, India is alsosuffering from green water scarcity [125]. Thus, India is a “waterstressed” country with 1544 m3 per capita water available [147]. TheaverageWFinIndiaforagriculturalandindustrialgoodsisaround1000m3/capita/year[148].ThisWFincludeswaterforfoodandelectricity,butexcludes water for fuelwood, e.g. for cooking. However, in rural areasfuelwood is the main energy source for cooking. Until today, nationalWFs includedWFsforagriculturaland industrialproducts,butexcludedWFs for fuelwood consumption. Moreover, studies were done on anational scale, not showing differences between urban and ruralconsumption. This study aims to give insight into the water volumesneededtoprovideboth foodandcooking fuel in rural India. Itanswersthefollowingresearchquestion:Whatistheblue,greenandgreyWFforfoodandcookingfuelconsumptionoftheruralpopulationperprovinceinIndia?

Quantification and comparison of per capitaWFs for food and fuelconsumption at the provincial level provides insight into the WFs fordifferent food and fuel consumption patterns in rural areas of adevelopingcountry.

CHAPTER3

68

CHA

PTER

3.2.SystemAnalysis

3.2.1.RuralIndia

About65%of India’spopulation resides in rural areas [149].Almost80% of the rural population has small landholdings, i.e. less than twohectares, where they perform agricultural activities [150][87]. Usually,ruralhouseholdsproduce theirown food (e.g. growingwheatand rice,livestock raising and some fishing) and cooking fuel (e.g. collectingfuelwoodormakingcharcoal)[151].Fuelwoodisnormallysourcedfromforestor treesoutside forest (TOF). Thedistanceofhouseholds fromaforestmattersalotinthecollectionoffuelwood[152].Peopleprefertocollectfuelwoodfromforestswhenitisnearby,otherwisetheycollectitfromTOFareas.PeoplewalktothenearbyforestorTOFandchopdowntreebranchesandcarrythembackhome.

Normally, smallholder farmers produce food for their ownconsumption. Surpluses are sold on the local or provincial market[153][154].Whenproductionisnotenoughfortheprovince,peoplebuyfrom thenearbyprovince [155]Crop residuesand foodwaste serveasfeed for livestock [156]. Many rural Indian households own somechickens, goats, dairy cows or buffaloes and pigs [157]. They providesomeeggs,milkandmeatforthehousehold.Duetoculturaldifferences,HindusconsidercowsassacredandMuslimsconsiderpigsasimpure,sothat cows and pigs are not raised or consumed by the respectivepopulations [158]. Generally, cattle are used for dairy and draftpurposes.Theymostlyroamaroundgrazing.

3.2.2.Ruralconsumption:Foodandcookingfuel

Food

ThefoodconsumptionpatterninruralIndiamainlyconsistsofvegetalfooditems[159]andsomeanimalfoods(egg,milk,meatandfish)[160].In India, rice and wheat are the main staple foods, with consumptionvariation throughout theprovinces [161]. In someprovinces, there is asubstantial milk consumption [162]. In general, rural households havemore diversified diets than urban households, because besides wheatandrice,theyalsoconsumesubstantialamountsofpulsesandlegumes[81].However, the consumption of processed foods is negligible [163].Studies has showed that the fruits and vegetable consumption is verysmall in rural areas, due to its availability [164]. For instance, peopleconsumeseasonalorlocalfruitsandvegetablesavailableintheprovince.


69

CHA

PTER

Cookingfuel

Rural households mostly use traditional energy carriers, i.e.fuelwood, charcoal and cowmanure [88] and some LPG and kerosene[165][166] for cooking. Rural households use traditional cookingmethodslikeusingfuelwoodandatraditionalcookstove(oftena3-stoneopenfire).Duetothesmallheatingvalueoffuelwoodandlowefficiencyof the cookstove [167], it is an energy inefficient way of cooking andmostoftheheatislosttothesurroundings.Low-incomeisanimportantfactor for using a traditional cooking method [168]. Traditionalcookstoves also provide room heating, which encourages rural peoplelivinginhighaltitudestousethem.

3.2.3.WatersituationinruralIndia

Water is an important resource for food and fuel production [169].India is not awater rich country [147]. Annual average precipitation isabout 1170 mm, of which 75% falls in the 4 months of the monsoon[170]. Due to spatial and temporal variability of rainfall, there is largevariationofwateravailabilityamongprovinces[147].Insomeprovincesgroundwater is abundant and in others it is scarce. India completelydepends upon internal water resources, where more than 62% ofirrigatedwaterand85%ofdrinkingwateraresourcedfromgroundwater[146],makingIndiaoneofthelargestuserofgroundwaterintheworld[171].ImportantcropsinIndia,likericeandwheat,butalsofuelwoodforcooking,arewaterintensive[169]. Fig. 3.1 gives an example of green, blue and greyWFs for rice andwheat per province, showing the large differences among provinces inIndia.

ThegreenWFof ricevariesbetween1200and2400m3/ton,exceptforoneprovince in the southwhere thegreenWF is smaller. TheblueWF of rice is small in central and north-east India, showing that ricereceives little irrigation. Rice does not need much irrigation, becausemost rice is grown during the monsoon. The greyWF is almost sameeverywhere, indicating similar amounts of fertilizer use. Fig. 3.1 showsthe small greenand largeblueWFofwheat in central India, indicatingthat the water requirement of wheat is for a large share met byirrigation. Wheat needs irrigation, because it is grown outside themonsoonperiod [173]. ThegreyWF forwheat is relatively large in thesouth.

CHAPTER3

70

CHA

PTER

Fig.3.1.Green,blueandgreyWFof(A)riceand(B)wheat(inm3/ton)acrossalltheprovincesofIndia.WaterfootprintdataisfromMekonnenandHoekstra

[172].

3.3.Methodsanddata

The assessment of theWF of food and cooking fuel for rural Indiaincludes three steps. Step 1 collects consumption data of food andcookingfuel;Step2comprisestwosub-steps:collectingWFdataoffooditemsandcookingfuel(keroseneandLPG)andtheestimationoftheWFof fuelwood; Step 3 assesses the WF of individual food and fuelconsumption in rural India. The assessment is done for all the 35provinces of India of six regions:North,West, South, East, Central andNorth-east. Annexure 3.A (Table 3.A.1) shows the 35 provinces andregions.

3.3.1.Step1:Collectingconsumptiondataoffoodandcookingfuel

Step 1 collects consumption data of food and cooking fuel of ruralpeople per province in India. The National Sample Survey ofConsumption Expenditure in India (NSSORound68, 2011-12) [97]withinformation from100,000ruralandurbanhouseholds in Indiaprovidesper capita consumption data of food and cooking fuel purchased and


71

CHA

PTER

produced per province. The survey distinguishes between rural andurban households.We derived consumption data on food and cookingfuelforruralIndiafromthesurvey[97].

Wecategorizedfoodsinto6groups:1.Rice;2Wheat;3Oilsandfats(coconut oil, groundnut oil, sunflower seed oil, sesame oil); 4.Milk; 5.Other animal foods (pork, beef, goat meat and egg) and fish; and 6“others”. The “others” group includes coarse cereals (barley, maize,millet and sorghum), pulses and legumes (beans, kidney beans, peas,chickpeas, pigeon peas, lentils, urd and mung beans), vegetables(cabbage, lettuce, tomato, cauliflower, pumpkin, squash, gourd,cucumber, aubergine, onion, beans, peas, carrots, turnip and okra),spices (ginger, garlic, nutmeg, coriander, turmeric, pepper, capsicum,curry, anise), potatoes, fruits (coconut, banana, orange, lemons andlimes,grapefruit,apple,grapes,watermelon,guava,pineapple,papaya),sugarandbeverages(teaandcoffee).

Thesurveyprovidesenergyand fuelconsumptiondata forcooking,lightingandhouseholdappliancesforruralandurbanareas.Dataonfuelfor cooking include consumptionof cokeand coal, fuelwood, LPG, cowmanure, kerosene, charcoal, biogas and electricity. HouseholdconsumptionoffuelsforcookingenergysourcesisprovidedinAnnexure3.C(Fig.3.C.1).

3.3.2.Step2:

(a) Collectingwaterfootprintdataoffooditemsandcookingfuel(kerosene&LPG)

MekonnenandHoekstra[172]havequantifiedtheWFofcropsusingagrid-baseddynamicwaterbalancemodelthatconsiders localclimate,soil factors and nitrogen use for the years 1996-2005. For India’s,WFsareavailable at theprovincial level. Inour study,weassume thatpigs,goats and chickens are fed from household food waste and cropresidues. To avoid double calculation, we assumed that residues areenough for thesmall livestockherdandweassumedthatWFsofmeatandeggsarezero.Fordairycows,weassumedthatthemilkisproducedinagrazingproductionsystem.Feedingonlycropresiduestodairycowsis not enough to producemilk. For the assessment of theWFs ofmilkconsumption, we derived national average WF data for a grazingproductionsysteminIndiafromMekonnenandHoekstra[174].Forfish,

CHAPTER3

72

CHA

PTER

we assumed that it is taken from open lakes or ponds withoutsupplementaryfeed.Therefore,theWF’soffishisconsideredzero. Forthegroup’sspicesandfruits,wecalculatedtheaverageWFusingtheseparateWFsofthefoodsinthegroup.Forsomeprovinces,WFdatafor few food items are not available, because there is no production.When there is consumption,we assumed that the foods are bought inthenearestprovinces.ThisisforexamplethecasefortheLakshadweep,Andaman and Nicobar Islands. For the other provinces withoutproduction, we took the WF data of the nearby provinces using aweighingfactorbasedonruralpopulationperprovinceassumingthereisalineairrelationbetweenruralpopulationsizeandtotalproduction.Wecalculated the weighted average of WF of food items bought in aprovince,WFfd.avg,as:

WFfd.avg=!"#$%&% ! !"#$!!! ! … ! !"#$%&%

!" ! !! ! … ! !"!!!! (3.1)

whereWFpr istheWFofafooditeminprovince(inm3/ton)andx istheweighingfactor(i.e.ruralpopulationoftheprovince).

TheproductionchainofLPGandkerosene isconsideredtobesameeverywhere, irrespective of any physical factors like precipitation ortemperature. Hence, we assumed the WF to be the same for all theprovinces.Table3.1shows theblueandgreyWFofLPGandkerosene.DataweretakenfromFranckeetal.[175]andBosmanetal[176].

Table3.1.Waterfootprint(WF)ofkeroseneandLPGinm3/ton[175][176]

WFinm3/ton WFinm3/ton

Kerosene Blue 2.89 LPG Blue 2.69Grey 2.89 Grey 2.89

(b) EstimationofWFoffuelwood

TheWF for fuelwood is estimated in three steps: First,weassessedtheWFof theharvestedwood, followedby the secondstepwherewequantifiedthegreenandblueWF.Inthethirdstep,weassessedtheWFperunitoffuelwood(m3/GJ).

(i) AssessingtheWFofharvestedwood

The WF of the harvested wood is assessed by using the methoddevelopedbyVanOelandHoekstra[143].Normally,inthecalculationitusestheactualroundwoodharvested.Inthisstudy,weassumedthatall


73

CHA

PTER

thewoodisharvestedfromtheannualgrowthoftheforest(inm3/ha/yr)[177],theMeanannualincrement(MAI)(m3/ha/y),.Thevolumeofwaterassigned to the fuelwood production for “s” provinces in the year “t”,WFfw[s,t],iscalculatedas:

WFfw[s,t]=(!!"# !,! × !"# !,! ) !(!"# [!,!] × !! [!])

!"# [!,!]×fv[s,t] (3.2)

whereEactistheactualforestevaporation(m/y),Afwistheareausedfor fuelwoodproduction (m2), fw is the volumetricmoisture content offreshly harvested wood (m3 water/m3 wood) and fv a dimensionlessfraction that represents the relative value of harvested fuelwoodproductioncomparedtothevalueofotherecosystemservicesprovidedbytheforest.Inthisstudy,weassumedthatthefuelwoodistheprimaryproduct of forest and growth is equal to the harvest. Thus, the valuefractionisequalto1. The Eact is estimated based on annual temperature ( ℃) andprecipitation (m/y).While taking the annual data for temperature andprecipitation, we ensured that the seasonal monthly average data istaken,as seasonalvariabilityaffects theblueandgreenwater requiredby fuelwood. For the north-east region,we clustered temperature andprecipitationdatafortheprovincesSikkim,Tripura,Nagaland,Manipur,Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh and considered the clusteredprovincesasoneprovince.Temperatureandprecipitationdatawerenotavailable for 8 provinces (Chandigarh, Delhi, Daman & Diu, Dadra &Nagar Haveli, Goa, Andaman and Nicrobar Islands, Lakshadweep andPuducherry).Fortheseprovinces,wetooktheWFdataoffuelwoodfromthenearbyprovinces.MAIdataweretakenfromDas&Nonhebel[142].FormoredetailsonWfwseeAnnexure3.C,Section3.C.1.

(ii) QuantifyingthegreenandblueWF

ThegreenandblueWFisquantifiedbyapplyingafraction,wherethepartofwateruseoriginatesfromthecapillaryrise(fblue)fromSchynsetal.[145]:

WFfw.green[s,t]=WFfw[s,t]×(1-fblue[s,t]) (3.3)

WFfw.blue[s,t]=WFfw[s,t]×fblue[s,t] (3.4)

CHAPTER3

74

CHA

PTER

WFfw.green isthegreenWFandWFfw.blue istheblueWFfortheharvestedfuelwood. The fblue is the capillary rise (for details, see Annexure 3.C,Section3.C.1).

(iii) EstimationoftheWFperunitoffuelwood

TheWFperunitof fuelwood(WFp) isestimatedbymultiplyingWFfwwith a conversion factor (fconversion) (i.e. the amount of wood (m3)requiredtoproduceenergy(GJ)forcooking).

TheWFofthefinalproduct(i.e.fuelwood)willbeexpressedinm3/GJ.TheWFperunitoffuelwood,WFp,iscalculatedas:

WFp=WFfw×fconversion (3.5)

Theconversionfactor,fconversion,wascalculatedas:

fconversion = !!""# !"#$%&' × !"#$%&' !"#$%

(3.6)

Data on wood density were taken from [32]. The heating value offuelwoodisassumedtobe14MJ/kgdryweight[178].

3.3.3.Step3:AssessingtheWFofindividualfoodandfuelconsumption

The blue, green and grey WF for individual food consumption perprovince per year, WFf,i, was estimated by combining individualconsumption(fromsection3.3.1)withtheWFdataoffooditems(fromsection3.3.2.a)perprovince:

WFf,i=If×WFf (3.7.a)

where If is the individual consumption (t/cap/yr) andWFf is theWFperunitoffood.TheblueWFincludesfooditemsaswellasdirectbluewater consumption (i.e. drinking, cooking and washing utensils) (seeAnnexure3.G).

The blue and green WFs for cooking fuel were calculated bycombining individual fuel consumption (MJ/cap/yr) (from section 3.3.1wecollecttheconsumptionvalueinton/cap/yr,whichisthenmultipliedwiththeheatingvalueofcookingfuel)withtheWFsforfuelwood(fromsection 3.3.2.b) andother cooking fuels (from section 3.3.2.a). TheWFforcookingfuel,WFc,i(m3/cap/yr),iscalculatedas:


75

CHA

PTER

WFc,i=Ic×WFp (3.7.b)

where i denotes the blue, green and grey WF and c denotes thecooking fuel consumption, Ic is the individual consumption (MJ/cap/yr)andWFpistheWFperunitofcookingfuel.

3.4.Results

3.4.1.Totalgreen,blueandgreyWFforfoodandcookingfuelconsumption

3.4.1.1Waterfootprintforfoodconsumption

Fig. 3.2 shows the contribution of rice, wheat, oil and fats, other(coarse cereals, pulses & legumes, vegetables, spices, potatoes, fruits,sugar and beverages) andmilk to the totalwater footprint (WF) of anindividualinruralIndia.

Fig.3.2.Contributionofrice,wheat,oil&fats,others(coarsecereals,pulses&legumes,vegetables,spices,potatoes,fruits,sugarandbeverages)andmilkto

thetotalwaterfootprint

Inmostprovinces, the totalWF isdominatedby thecontributionofrice,wheat,oilsandfats.Inthenorth,westandsouthalsothegroupofothersisrelevant.InthenorthernprovincesthecontributionofthericeWFisrelativelysmall.Here,milkhasarelativelylargecontributiontotheWF.Thereissignificantvariationinthecontributionofriceandwheatto

CHAPTER3

76

CHA

PTER

totalWFsamongtheprovinces.Mostoftheprovinces inthenorthandwesthave largerwheatWFcontributionsthanricecontributions.Thereare some exceptional provinces like Madhya Pradesh and Puducherry,wherethewheatWFcontributionislargerthanthericecontribution.Intheeasternprovinces, rice andwheat together account for80%of thetotalWFwhere10-20%oftheWFrelatestowheatconsumption.Inthenorth-eastregion,thecontributionofwheatisalmostnegligible.Fig.3.3shows the annual green, blue and grey WFs for rice and wheatconsumptionofanindividualinruralIndia.

Fig.3.3.Green,blueandgreywaterfootprint(WF)for(A)riceand(B)wheatconsumptioninruralIndia(m3/cap/yr)

Although the green WF for rice is relatively large in all theprovincesinIndia(Fig.3.1),Fig3.3showsthatthegreenislargestintheeasternpartofthecountrywheretheconsumptionislarger.Inthenorthand south regions, the blue WF is larger than in the other regions,because irrigation is used for rice production. The greenWF forwheatconsumption is small in comparison with the green WF of riceconsumption.However,theblueWFforwheatconsumptionisrelativelylarge in the west and central region, as well as the grey WF. This is


77

CHA

PTER

caused by a combination of large specific blue WFs and large wheatconsumption. Fig.3.4showsthetotalgreen,blueandgreyWFforannualpercapitafood consumption. There are large differences among WFs for foodconsumptionacross theprovinces. ThegreenWF rangesbetween380-900m3/cap/yr.ThegreenWFislargemainlyintheprovinceslocatedinthe north, south and west regions. Fig. 3.3 showed that in the westregionthegreenWFisnotlargeduetoriceandwheatconsumption.Oilsand fats and other food items have more impact on the greenWF inthose provinces. Fig. 3.4 shows that a part of north-east India has arelatively large green WF, Fig. 3.3 showed that this is due to riceconsumption.

Fig.3.4.Totalgreen,blueandgreywaterfootprint(WF)forpercapitafoodconsumptioninruralIndia(inm3/cap/yr)

The blueWF ranges from 11m3/cap/yr in the north-east region to334m3/cap/yr in the central andwest region. BlueWFs are largest incentralIndia,andinsomeprovincesinthesouthernregion.Thereasonsfor relatively largeblueWFsdiffer fromprovince toprovince.TheblueWFisrelativelysmallintheeastandnorth-eastregions,duetohighriceconsumption grown without irrigation. Large blue WF in the southprovince isbecauseof irrigates rice consumption.However, the reasonforthelargeblueWFinthecentralregionisduetolargeirrigatedwheatconsumption.ThegreyWFrangesfrom50to170m3/cap/yr.Mostoftheprovinceslieintherange50-100m3/cap/yr.

CHAPTER3

78

CHA

PTER

3.4.1.2Waterfootprintforfuelwoodconsumption

Fig. 3.5 shows thegreen,blueandgreyWFof fuelwoodperunitofenergyinruralIndia.Therearelargevariationsamongtheprovincesforboth green and blueWFs. The greenWF for fuelwood is larger in thecentral,eastandnorthregions.OneprovinceinthesouthernregionshasarelativelylargegreenWF.

Fig.3.5.GreenandbluewaterfootprintoffuelwoodperunitofenergyinruralIndia

Fig.3.6.Greenandbluewaterfootprint(WF)forfuelwoodconsumptioninruralIndia


79

CHA

PTER

TheblueWFisevident inalmostalltheprovinces in India,except inthenorthandnorth-eastregion.Itisrelativelylargeinsomeprovincesintheeast,westandcentralregions.Thisisduetolowgroundwaterlevelsin those province, which eventually increase capillary rise (fblue) [179].Some provinces have relatively large green WFs and small blue WFs,which means that once compensates for the other. However, someprovinces have large blue and green WFs. This indicates that thoseprovinces experiencehigh forest evaporation rates and small fuelwoodproduction. Fig 3.6 shows the annual green and blueWF of individualfuelwoodconsumptionperprovinceinruralIndia.

The greenWF for fuelwood consumption is larger in the south andnorth-east provinces (2800-3500 m3/cap/yr). However, there is also areasonableamountof greenwateruse in the central andeast regions.The blue WF is relatively large in the western province (2800-3500m3/cap/yr). However, besides the northern provinces, fuelwoodconsumptionintheotherprovincesgeneratesablueWF.This indicatesthatthefuelwoodconsumptionissmallerinthenorthernprovinces.

3.4.2.Totalwaterfootprintoffoodandfuelwood

Fig. 3.7 shows the total water footprint of food and cooking fuelacross all the rural regions of India. The cooking fuel includes WF offuelwood,keroseneandLPG.

Fig.3.7.TotalwaterfootprintforfoodandcookingfuelacrossalltheregionsofIndia

Fig.3.7shows that if cooking fuelare included in theassessmentofWFs for food in rural India, it dominates the total WF. The WF forcooking fuel is relatively small in the northern region where theconsumptionoffuelwoodisrelativelysmallduetotheuseofkerosene.

CHAPTER3

80

CHA

PTER

Inallotherregions, theWFforcookingfuel is largerthanfor food.Fig.3.7alsoshowsthatthereisalargevariationinthegreen,blueandgreyWF for cooking fuel. For instance, theblueWF is relatively large in thewestern regionand relatively small in thenorth-eastern region.Due tothe inclusionofkeroseneandLPG,there isasmallgreyWFforcookingfuel. However, in comparisonwith the green and blueWF it is almostnegligible.

In case of food consumption, in all regions,WFs are dominated bygreenWFsanddespitedifferencesinconsumptionvariationoftotalWFsforfoodconsumptionissmall.

3.5.Discussion

3.5.1.Foodconsumption

AnearlierstudyhascalculatedtheaveragepercapitaWFsforIndiaof1089 m3/capita/year, including WFs for food, industry and domesticservices[180].ThegreenWFforfoodwas708m3/capita/year,theblueWFof213andthegreyWF93m3/capita/year.Thestudyincludedruralandurbanpopulations.Ourstudyforrural India findssmallerWFs.ThegreenWFfor rural India is15%smaller, theblueWF isalmosthalfandthegreyWFis19%smallerthanthenationalaverage.Thisprobablyhastodowiththedistinctionwecouldmakebetweenfoodconsumptionofrural and urban populations. Another difference is that we usedconsumption data of national food and fuelwood surveys rather thannationalsupplydatafromtheFAO.ItispossiblethatunderreportinghasoccurredsothatourstudymightunderestimateWFs.Wealsoassumedthat livestock is fed residues from agriculture and households, so thatthe WFs of meat and eggs are allocated to the food to avoid doublecounting.However,meatandeggconsumptioninrural Indiaissosmallthat the impact is negligible. In some provinces people consumesubstantial amountsofmilk though.Becauseof large consumption,weassumedthatresiduesarenotenoughformilkingcowsandweadoptedWFsformilkfromMekonnenandHoekstra[181].

OuranalysisassessedtheWFofruralIndiaassumingthatpeopleareself-sufficientandthattradeonlyoccurswhenthereisnoproductionintheprovinceitself,e.g.fortheIndianislands.ThereisfoodtradeinIndiathough, e.g. there is a net virtualwater flow related to the food tradefromthenorth to theprovinces in theeastof thecountry [182]. If therural population consumes foods produced locally, the virtual watertradereflectsurbanconsumption.


81

CHA

PTER

3.5.2.Waterfootprintsforfuelwood

The average WF for cooking is 1600 m3/capita/year, but variationamongprovincesis largerangingfrom2to4000m3/capita/yearcausedbydifferencesinindividualconsumptionandfuelWFs.Althoughwoodisthemaincookingfuel,provincesinthenorthuseasubstantialamountofkeroseneandLPGwithsmallerWFs,reducingthecookingWF.

Mean actual forest evaporation plays a major role in the WF offuelwood, since it affects tree water requirements. The averagemeanforestevaporationis940mm/year(Annexure3.H,Table3.H.1)givinganaverageWFofwoodof560m3/GJ,aboutfourtimeslargerthantheWFcalculatedbySchynsetal.[183]of122m3/GJ.Thatstudyassumedmeanforestevaporationinthesub-tropicsof800mm/year[144],15%smallerthan our estimate. Van Oel et.al showed that for Eucalyptus in Indiaevaporation is even smaller 500 mm/year [143]. Differences inevaporation cannot explain the large WF differences among studiesthough.Anotherreasonisthedifferentassumptionofwoodharvest.Ourstudy assumed that only the average annual growing part of the tree(MAI)isharvestedforcookingfuel,whichgeneratesasmalleryieldthanassumedbySchynsetal.[183].

We assumed that fuelwood is collected from forests, as there is noclear indication on the source of fuelwood. Rural people also collectfuelwood from trees outside forests (TOF), because of its easyaccessibility.WFsareexpressedperunitofyield,sothatfuelwoodyieldsareinverselyrelatedtofuelwoodWFs.TheTOFfuelwoodyieldishalfthewoodyieldfromaforest[142],sothattheTOFfuelwoodWFistwicetheWFofwoodfromforests.Assumingthatallwood is fromforestsmightunderestimatetheWFforcooking.

Anoption todecreaseWFs for cooking is touseenergy for cooking(fuelwood)moreefficiently.Inefficientcookstoves,liketraditionalopen-fire cookstoves used in rural India, require more fuelwood thanimproved cookstoves that have a 70% smaller fuelwood use thantraditionalcookstoves[121].

3.5.3.Trends

IfruralpeopleinIndiafollowthedevelopmentthatcanbeobservedin other rapidly developing countries, e.g. in China, towards a foodconsumptionpatternwithmore livestock foods [161], the totalWFwillincrease.OurstudyindicatedthoughthatinruralIndiatheWFrelatedto

CHAPTER3

82

CHA

PTER

food isdominatedby theuseofcooking fuel. Ifalso theperspectiveofcookingisincluded,moreefficientcookstoves,orashifttootherwaysofcooking that go along with rural development decrease the total WF.Thismight be the case in other developing countrieswith large use offuelwoodtoo.

3.6.Conclusion

This study showed that water, energy and food are closelyinterlinked. In self-sufficient rural India, the total WF for fuelwood istwice the WF for food, showing that in rural areas in developingcountries, especially fuelwood is water intensive with large impact onfreshwater resources. In rural India, the average WF for food is 800m3/capita/year and for fuelwood 1630 m3/capita/year. Green wateraccounts for57%,bluewater for30%andgreywater for3%.Riceandwheat consumption dominate WFs for food. However, there arevariationsamongprovinces.ThegreenWFofriceislargerthanthegreenWF ofwheat,whilewheat has a larger blueWF. For cooking fuel, theaverageWF of fuelwood ismuch larger than theWF of fossil fuels forcooking.

ForruralIndia,futureprospectsofincreasingconsumptionofanimalproducts will increase the WF. However, if also cooking fuel isconsidered, switching to fossil based cooking fuel will lower WFs farmoreandcancompensateaneventualincreaseoflargerconsumptionofanimalfoods.ThetrendsfoundforIndiamightalsoberelevantforotherdevelopingcountries.


83

CHA

PTER

Thissectionprovidesinformationabouttheregionaldivision.Allthe35provinceshavebeendividedintosixregions.

Table3.A.1.Indianstatesdividedintofiveregions

Regions Provinces

NORTH

Jammu&KashmirHimachalPradesh

PunjabChandigarhUttarakhandUttarPradesh

DelhiHaryana

West

Daman&DiuRajasthanGujarat

Dadra&NagarHaveliGoa

Maharashtra

South

Andaman&NicobarIslandsLakshadweepPuducherry

AndhraPradeshKarnatakaKerala

TamilNadu

EAST

BiharOdisha

JharkhandWestBengal

CENTRAL MadhyaPradesh

ANNEXURE3.A

CHAPTER3

84

CHA

PTER

Chhattisgarh

NORTH-EAST

AssamSikkim

NagalandMeghalayaManipurMizoramTripura

ArunachalPradesh


85

CHA

PTER

Thissectionprovidesdetailedlistoffooditems,whichisconsumedbyarural person. There are a total of 72 items, which has been furthergroupedinto13items.

Table3.B.1.Detailedfooditemsincludedinthefoodconsumptionofruralperson

CATEGORIES FOODITEMS

1 RICE 1 RICE

2 WHEAT 2 WHEAT

3 CEREALS

3 Barley

4 Maize

5 Millet

6 Sorghum(Jowar)

4 PULSES&LEGUMES

7 Peas

8 Gram

9 Beans

5 VEGETABLES

10 Onion

11 Tomato

12 Brinjal

13 Radish

14 Carrot

15 Spinach

16 GreenChilies

17 Okhra

18 Patal

19 Cauliflower

20 Cabbage

21 Gourd

22 Peas(Green)

23 Beans

24 Lemon

ANNEXURE3.B

CHAPTER3

86

CHA

PTER

25 Vegetables,Other

6 SPICES,OTHER

26 Ginger

27 Garlic

28 Jeera

29 Coriander

30 Turmeric

31 Spices,Other

32 BlackPepper

33 DryChillies

34 Tamaraind

35 CurryPowder

36 Oilseeds

7 POTATOES 37 Potatoes

8 FRUITS

38 Banana

39 Jackfruit

40 Watermelon

41 Pineapple

42 Coconut

43 Guava

44 Singara

45 Orange

46 Papaya

47 Mango

48 Watermelon

49 Pears

50 Berries

51 Litchi

52 Apple

53 Grapes

9 OILANDFATS

54 MustardOil

55 GroundnutOil

56 CoconutOil

57 RefinedOil


87

CHA

PTER

58 EdibleOil

10 SUGAR

59 Sugar

60 Gur

61 SugarPDS

11 DAIRYANDEGG

62 MilkLiq.(lt)

63 MilkPowder(g)

64 Curd(g)

65 Ghee(g)

66 Eggs(No)

12 FISH 67 Fish&prawns

13 MEAT

68 Goat

69 Beef

70 Pork

71 Chicken

14 BEVERAGES72 TeaLeaf(g)

73 Coffee(g)

CHAPTER3

88

CHA

PTER

ThissectionprovidesinformationonruralfuelconsumptionofallthesixregionsofIndia.

Fig.3.C.1.Percentageofruralhouseholdsusingvariouscookingfuels[89]

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

North South East West Central North-EastFuelwood&chips Kerosene LPG

Dungcake Charcoal Otherfuel

nocookingarangement Electricity

ANNEXURE3.C


89

CHA

PTER

Section3.D.1.WaterfootprintoffuelwoodThefollowingequationshasbeenderivedfromSchynsetal.[144]study.

A) Annualactualforestevaporation

Eact[s,t]=Pr[s,t]( !!! !! [!,!]!"[!,!]

!! !!! [!,!]!"[!,!] !

!"[!,!]!! [!,!]

)(eq.3.D.1)

wherePristheannualprecipitation(m/y),wadimensionlesscoefficientrepresenting plant water availability, E0 is the annual potential forestevaporation(m/y).

E0=(0.488T2[s,t]+27.5T[s,t]+412)×10-3 (eq.3.D.2)

whereTisthemeanannualtemperature(℃)

B) EstimationofgreenandblueWF

TheeqC.3hasbeentakenfromSchynsetal.[144]

fblue=!"#$,!"#

!"!"#$!! (1- !"!!"

!"#$,!"#)(eq.3.D.3)

AsstatedbySchyns,thefblueisbasedontwomainassumptions:

- Capillaryrise isatitsmaximuminaverydryyear(Eact/Pr=1)andmoveslinearly tozero in an extremelywet year (Eact/Pr=0).Awater potentialgradient is required tomovewaterup-wardfromthegroundwatertable.Whenthesoilisdrythisgradientisstrong.Ifthesoilissaturatedthisgradientisabsentandtherewillbenocapillaryrise.

- The distance that needs tobebridged by capillary rise (dcap, inm) is defined as thedifferencebetweenthegroundwatertabledepth(zg)andtherootdepthoftheforesttype(zr),bothinmbelowacertainreferencelevel.Themaximumheightofcapillaryrise(dcap,max,inm)dependsonthesoiltype.Whendcapisnon-limiting(≤0),therootstake up a share dcap,max of z r through capillary rise under very dry conditions. Thissharedecreases linearly to zerowhend capapproaches dcap,max(beyond, there is nocapillaryuptakeatall).

ANNEXURE3.D

CHAPTER3

90

CHA

PTER

Thevalueof zg iscollectedfromIndiangroundwatersurveyreport forall thesixregions[184].Howeverthezrvalueisassumedtobesameforalltheregions,duetolackofdata.Weassumedzr=2m[185].

C) Estimationofvolumetricmoisturecontentofharvestedwood(fwater)

The equation to assess the volumetric moisture content of harvestedwoodisgivenbelow:

fwater=d ×EMC(eq.3.D.4)

where d is the wood density (m3/t) and EMC is the equilibriummoisturecontent(t/t).TheEMCdataisavailableonlyfor4regions.Weassume that the EMC is equivalent for the nearby regions, where thedataisnotavailable(i.e.East=North-east;North=Central).Table3.D.1andtable3.D.2provideEMCandwooddensitydata.

Table3.D.1.Regionalequilibriummoisturecontentvalues[186]

EMC %West 12.9East 13.98

North-East 13.98South 12.75Central 10.67North 10.67

Table3.D.2.Wooddensitydataforalltheregions[187][188]

North West South East Central North-East

Wooddensity 0.478 0.9376 0.752 0.807 0.696 0.807


91

CHA

PTER

Table3.E.1.TotalruralpopulationacrossalltheprovinceofIndia[189]

Regions Provinces Ruralpopulation

NORTH

Jammu&Kashmir 9134820

HimachalPradesh 6167805

Punjab 17316800Chandigarh 29004

Uttarakhand 7025583UttarPradesh 155111022

Delhi 944727Haryana 16531493

WEST

Daman&Diu 60331

Rajasthan 51540236Gujarat 34670817

Dadra&NagarHaveli 183024Goa 551414

Maharashtra 61545441

SOUTH

Andaman&NicobarIslands 244411Lakshadweep 14121

Puducherry 394341AndhraPradesh 56361702

Karnataka 37552529Kerala 17445506

TamilNadu 37189229

EAST

Bihar 92075028Odisha 34951234

Jharkhand 25036946WestBengal 62213676

CENTRALMadhyaPradesh 52537899

Chhattisgarh 19603658

NORTH-EAST Assam 26780526

ANNEXURE3.E

CHAPTER3

92

CHA

PTER

Sikkim 455962

Nagaland 1406861Meghalaya 2368971

Manipur 1899624

Mizoram 529037Tripura 2710051

ArunachalPradesh 1069165


93

Table3.F.1.Foodconsumptiondata(inkg/cap/month)foralltheprovincesofIndia[97]

Region

Provinces

Rice

Wheat

Coarsecereals

Pulses&legumes

Vegetables

Spices

Potatoes

Fruits

Oils&fats

Sugar

Beverages

Milk

Meat

Egg

Fish

NORTH

Jammu&Kashmir

8.13

3.39

0.82

0.64 6.01

0.36

1.17

1.24

0.86

0.72

0.15

8.08

0.69

0.15

0.01

HimachalPradesh

4.39

6.43

0.92

1.26 5.36

0.33

1.48

2.76

0.84

1.20

0.09

9.42

0.26

0.06

0.01

Punjab 0.84

8.21

0.13

0.90 6.57

0.40

1.95

1.25

0.86

1.86

0.16

11.99

0.06

0.03

0.00

Chandigarh

2.69

6.09

0.00 1.39

5.83

0.43

2.23

1.47

0.85

0.97

0.13

9.80

0.04

0.07

0.00

Uttarakhand

4.94

6.90

0.03

1.02 5.57

0.37

1.92

1.22

0.80

1.11

0.12

7.73

0.16

0.09

0.05

UttarPradesh

4.06

7.16

0.06

0.87 4.07

0.32

3.07

0.94

0.61

0.78

0.06

4.98

0.13

0.04

0.08

Delhi 1.45

6.10

0.00 1.07 7.3

7

0.35

1.87

1.08

0.82

0.97

0.09

7.58

0.17

0.06

0.03

Haryana

0.72

8.55

0.11

0.75 6.70

0.36

1.83

1.87

0.57

1.72

0.15

14.79

0.11

0.03

0.00

WEST

Daman&Diu

3.88

2.56

0.75

1.20 5.04

0.52

1.27

0.96

1.31

0.69

0.12

3.33

0.42

0.31

0.63

Rajasthan

0.24

9.28

2.25

0.57 4.33

0.48

1.05

1.18

0.65

1.15

0.13

9.30

0.08

0.02

0.01

ANNEXURE3.F

CHAPTER3

94

CHA

PTER

Gujarat 2.04

3.71

3.40 0.84

7.95

0.45

1.30

1.08

1.05

1.02

0.13

5.47

0.15

0.03

0.05

Dadra&NagarHaveli

7.33

0.34

0.18

1.22 3.53

0.33

0.77

0.54

0.72

0.20

0.03

0.53

0.23

0.06

0.18

Goa 6.42

1.61

0.02

0.68 5.79

0.51

0.56

9.60

0.68

0.94

0.15

4.24

0.53

0.24

1.53

Maharashtra

3.24

4.31

1.88 0.98 4.5

8

0.53

0.82

1.72

1.00

1.10

0.11

3.25

0.30

0.09

0.09

SOUTH

Andaman&NicobarIslands

8.37

1.53

0.00 0.93 5.8

4

0.57

0.90

2.73

0.96

0.82

0.08

1.08

0.70

0.33

1.58

Lakshadweep 8

.05

0.70

0.00 0.88 3.4

9

0.83

0.67

20.12

0.80

1.70

0.20

0.12

1.56

0.23

2.33

Puducherry

7.95

7.60

0.00

1.08 4.89

0.90

0.48

3.38

0.78

0.55

0.06

4.68

0.57

0.33

0.55

AndhraPradesh

10.83

0.27

0.27

0.86 7.10

0.71

0.51

1.82

0.80

0.56

0.07

3.56

0.66

0.23

0.15

Karnataka

5.62

0.90

1.48 0.91

4.34

0.56

0.38

4.22

0.71

0.83

0.13

3.39

0.50

0.12

0.17

Kerala 7.24

0.74

0.00 0.70

4.03

0.70

0.39

9.84

0.55

0.84

0.13

3.00

0.53

0.22

2.26

TamilNadu

8.60

0.53

0.02

0.99 4.50

0.69

0.44

3.94

0.62

0.64

0.06

3.71

0.49

0.18

0.26

EAST

Bihar 6.04

5.58

0.13

0.74 5.90

0.35

3.39

1.00

0.59

0.48

0.06

3.92

0.25

0.05

0.24

Odisha 12.14

0.67

0.01

0.61 5.76

0.31

2.27

1.47

0.44

0.41

0.04

1.20

0.13

0.07

0.44


95

Jharkhand

8.84

2.67

0.09 0.58

5.06

0.29

3.07

0.44

0.49

0.42

0.04

1.98

0.30

0.06

0.14

WestBengal

9.92

1.35

0.01

0.49 5.43

0.36

3.79

0.96

0.65

0.47

0.05

1.37

0.33

0.23

0.81

CENTRAL

MadhyaPradesh

2.19

8.48

0.67

0.85 4.02

0.41

1.41

1.42

0.64

0.88

0.08

4.04

0.10

0.04

0.05

Chhattisgarh

11.25

0.88

0.05

0.79 6.69

0.33

1.40

1.19

0.61

0.65

0.06

0.66

0.24

0.03

0.16

NORTH-EAST

Assam 11.87

0.48

0.00 0.65 6.7

2

0.28

1.76

1.38

0.52

0.50

0.09

1.39

0.43

0.21

0.67

Sikkim 9.41

0.56

0.17 0.48 5.6

5

0.32

1.73

0.51

0.63

0.41

0.13

6.43

0.55

0.08

0.01

Nagaland

13.08

0.01

0.13

0.41 6.30

0.37

1.40

1.00

0.26

0.31

0.16

0.16

1.83

0.16

0.28

Meghalaya

9.84

0.17

0.04 0.31

5.12

0.27

1.41

0.90

0.42

0.59

0.12

0.98

0.83

0.09

0.40

Manipur

14.01

0.00

0.00 0.40

4.46

0.41

1.11

0.94

0.36

0.26

0.05

0.25

0.37

0.08

0.46

Mizoram

12.69

0.07

0.15

0.45 6.17

0.37

1.20

1.00

0.65

0.71

0.12

0.54

0.87

0.18

0.18

Tripura 13.10

0.19

0.01 0.41

8.30

0.28

1.64

2.14

0.48

0.50

0.05

0.89

0.39

0.14

1.07

ArunachalPradesh

11.28

0.33

0.36

0.50 6.43

0.32

1.30

0.99

0.41

0.44

0.13

1.02

0.73

0.19

0.58

CHAPTER3

96

CHA

PTER

There are few assumption were taken into consideration, whichquantifying the blue water footprint for food consumption of anindividual.Followingarethedetails:

1. Rice

Riceisadrygrain.Itrequireslotofwatertoboilandcook.Forourstudy,weassumethatthewaterrequiredtocookriceisin2:1ratioi.e.tocook1kgtorice,weneed2lofwater[190][191].Therearevariouswaysofcookingrice,forexample,cookinginpotorpressurecooker.Obviously,cooking in pressure cooker will require less water. However, ruralhouseholdsprefertouseopenpot,astraditionallypeopleusedtocookinopenpot[192].

2. Coarsecereals

Therearedifferenttypesofcoarsecereals,whichareconsumedbyruralhouseholds. It requires large amount of water to cook these coarsecereals.Weassumedthatthewater-cerealsratiotobe3:1i.e.tocook1cupofcereals,weneed3cupsofwater[193].Weassumethattheycookinopenpot.

3. Pulses

Pulsesarealsodrygrainslikerice.Anditrequireslotoftimetocook.Weassumethatthepulsesarecookedinopenpot.Thusitrequires3timeswatertotheamountofpulsescooked[194].

4. Wheat

In rural households, they mostly consume “chapatti”, which is madefrom wheat. They prepare dough by mixing water, pinch of salt andwheat flour. And then they make small bread from this dough.Whilepreparing this dough they use 0.5 times of water for each amount ofwheat[195].

5. Curry

Curries are made from mixture of different vegetables. Mostlyvegetableshasitsownwatercontent,buttomakecurryweassumethattheygive0.2lofwaterforeverykgofvegetables.

6. Tea

ANNEXURE3.G


97

Majority of Indian consumes tea asmorning drink. It ismade by usingmilk, tea leaves,water and sugar. For every1 l ofmilk, theyuse2 l ofwatertopreparetea[196].

7. Drinkingwater

We assume that an average rural Indian drinks 2.5 l of water per day[197].

8. Washingutensils

Weassumethatthewaterrequiredtowashutensils isabout12.9lpercapperday[198].

CHAPTER3

98

CHA

PTER

Table3.H.1.Temperature,precipitationandmeanactualforestevaporationofallthefiveregionsofIndia(2011-2012)

North West South East Central North-East

Temperature(inC) 21 27 27 26 26 22

Precipitation(inmm) 773 1343 1556 1256 1208 2251

Meanactualforestevaporation(mm/y)

594 887 1032 984 969 1155

ANNEXURE3.H

AdditionalinformationofthechapterAuthors KarabeeDasa,MoonmoonHiloidharib,DCBaruahc,Sanderine

Nonhebela

Keywords Fuelwood;Charcoal;Cookstove;Ruralarea;TimeefficiencyYearofpublication 2018-05Nameofthejournal Energy151(2018),ISSN:0360-5442,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.048

aCentreforEnergyandEnvironmentalSciences,ESRIG,UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands.bSchoolofEnvironmentalSciences,JawaharlalNehruUniversity,IndiacDepartmentofEnergy,TezpurUniversity,India

CHAPTER4:Impactoftimeexpenditureonhouseholdpreferencesforcookingfuels

101

CH

APT

ER4

Chapter4 Impactoftimeexpenditureonhouseholdpreferencesfor

cookingfuels

ABSTRACT

Access to energy for cooking is one of themajor challenges that ruralIndia faces. Most of the rural households of North-Eastern India relyheavilyupon fuelwoodandtraditionalopen-firecookstoves forcookingactivities. And everyday collection of fuelwood is time-consuming.Hence,womenoftengather fuelwood tomakecharcoal.While theuseofcharcoalhassomeadvantages,itisnotclearwhethertheinvestmentof time in making charcoal is worthwhile. In this paper, we comparehouseholdtimeinvestmentsforfuelwoodandcharcoalproduction.Thestudy isdoneusing surveydataonNapaamvillage situated inSonitpurDistrict of Assam, Northeast India. We developed a model to analysefuelwood needed and time spent upon the introduction of improvedcookstoves and/or charcoal production. This analysis reveals thatimproved cookstoves using fuelwood results in the least timeexpenditure on the production of cooking fuel. Whilst introducingcharcoalmarginallyreducestheamountoffuelwood,butincreasestimespent on cooking, due to the time required to produce the charcoal.Hence,ruralhouseholdswhomaketheirowncharcoalspendmoretimeonproducingcookingfuelthanthosehouseholdsrelyingondirectuseoffuelwood.

CHAPTER4

102

CH

APT

ER4

4.1.Introduction

Energyaccessisoneofthebasicissuesofruralareasandisakeytosocio-economic progress for developing nations. In rural areas it is notalways possible to secure a continuous supply of energy where oftenthere is no connection to a central grid. In most of the developingcountries,bioenergyservesastheprimaryfuelforruralpeople[199].Infact, bioenergy can provide independent and decentralized energy inruralareas[200][201][202].

Fuelwood is themostvital sourceofbioenergy,providing9%of theglobalprimaryenergysupply[203][204].Itisanessentialenergysourcefor cooking, forwaterandspaceheating, for cooking feed for livestockand for rice beer preparation in rural areas [205]. However, there arealsoseveraldisadvantagestotheuseoffuelwood.First,thegrowinguseof fuelwood leads to deforestation. Furthermore, for rural households,precioustimeislostinthecollectionoffuelwood,therebyreducingtimefor other productive work whichmight help to increase their financialresources[206][207][208][209][167].Yet, itcanbedifficulttosecureanadequatesupplyoffuelwood[210][211][212].Itisestimatedthatabout20% of the time per day is spent for the collection of fuelwood alone[213]. There is a steady growth of fuelwood consumption, though thegrowthhasbeenslowinrecentyears[214].

Dependence on fuelwood often leads to drudgery for women andchildren and as a result prevents women from engaging in income-generating activities [215]. Therefore, various programs have beenimplemented to reduce biomass consumption by introducing efficientcookstoves and improved technologies to produce cooking fuel[216][217][218][219]. Several studies have investigated the energytransitionofcooking fuelsandtime investmentonfuelwoodcollection,focusingon financial, behavioral or technological aspects [220][221]. Ingeneral, these studies conclude that transition fuels like charcoal andbriquette are more efficient and favorable choice for a cooking fuel.However, these studies were based on commercially available cookingfuels,whichisnotrelevantformanyruralhouseholds.Ifahouseholdhastomaketheirowncookingfuel,asincaseofruralareas,thetimespentonmakingcooking fuel i.e.charcoalmustbe taken intoaccount.Thesestudiesconfirmthattherearesignificantamountofvariouscookingfuelavailable in rural areas. But, there is an ongoing dilemma among ruralhouseholds on the preference of cooking fuel [222] and it depends onmanyfactors.Thus,inthispaper,weanalysethetimefactorinvolvedin


103

CH

APT

ER4

the production of cooking fuel. Therefore this paper only analyzes asingledimensionoftheongoingdilemmaamongruralhouseholdsonthechoiceofcookingfuel.

Inthispaper,weinvestigatetheuseofcookingfuel,i.e.fuelwoodandself-madecharcoal.First,wedevelopahypotheticalmodelofalternativecookingenergysystems.Secondly,wereportsurveydataonthevillageof Napaam to determine household-cooking energy needs and timespentonfuelwoodcollection.Finally,westudythetimedemandforfuelproductionwithseveraldifferentcombinationsofcookstoveandcookingfuel.

4.2.EnergysituationinIndia

It is estimated that about 40% of the total direct, commercial andnon-commercialenergyuse in India is in thehouseholdsector [223]. Inrural areas, cooking dominatesmost of the energy consumption [219].AccordingtorecentfiguresfromtheNationalSampleSurvey(NSS)[224],thiscookingenergydemandismetmostlybyunprocessedbiomassfuels(88.4%) viz., fuel wood, agricultural crop residues, dung cakes, etc. InIndia,almost85%ofruralhouseholdsarestilldependentuponfirewood,crop residues or cow dung as their primary source of fuel for cooking[202][225]. Fig. 4.1 shows that Indian households in rural areas relyheavily on fuelwood, whereas urban consumers depend on electricityandLPG.Thereisavastgapinenergyusebetweenruralandurbanareasof India; in rural areas fuelwood is in high demand, whereas in urbanareaselectricityismostlyused.

While India has recently launched theNational Biomass CookstovesInitiatives (NCI) to develop new cookstoves and replace old traditionalcookstoves [225], it appears that the use of transition fuels (charcoal,kerosene,andcoal)isalmostnon-existentinruralareas.

The percentage of households depending on firewood and wood-chipsforcookingexceeded70%inruralareas inallmajorstatesexceptPunjab and Haryana [202]. Fig 4.2. illustrates that fuelwood aloneconstitutessome76%ofprimaryenergyinruralIndia.

CHAPTER4

104

CH

APT

ER4

Fig.4.1.EnergyusedisparitybetweenurbanandruralIndia,2012[89]

Fig.4.2.PercentagedistributionofhouseholdsbyprimarysourceofenergyusedforcookinginruralIndia,2009-2010[224]

4.2.1.EnergysituationinAssam

Assam is situated in the North-Eastern part of India. It ispredominantlyruralandtheeconomyprimarilyagrarianinnature,withalmost 70% of the population directly dependent on agriculture as asource of income and another 15% of the population dependent onalliedactivitiesfortheirliving[226].Some35%ofthegeographicalareaiscoveredbyforest,butthesearedegradingataveryhighrate.Someofthe important forest products are industrial wood, fuelwood, bambooand cane, which contribute to the economy of the state also [227].


105

CH

APT

ER4

AccordingtotheMinistryofStatistics[224],asshowninFig4.3.,81%ofAssamhouseholdsinruralareasdependuponfuelwoodforcooking.

Fig.4.3.Bottom5-statesusingfuelwoodorwoodchipsforcookinginRuralIndia,2012[224]

Table 4.1 gives more insight on firewood consumption. It shows thathouseholdsinAssammostlyusefirewood,whichisfollowedbyLPG.ItappearsthathouseholdsofAssamhavenoaccesstoatransitionfuellikecharcoalatall.Thus,thereismorepossibilityforenergyinterventionlikecharcoalinAssam,asfuelwoodisavailable.

Table4.1.Per1000distributionofruralhouseholdsinAssambyprimarysourceofenergyusedforcooking,2012[224]

Cookingfuel Per1000distributionofruralhouseholdsinAssamFirewood 850LPG 142Dungcake 0Kerosene 5Others 0Noarrangement 1

4.2.2.CookingfueltransitionEarlier studies have applied a common model “Energy ladder”, to

describethehouseholdfuelchoicesindevelopingcountries.Thismodellinks thedifferences inenergy-usepatternsbetweenhouseholds to thevariations in economic status [228][229][230][231]. It suggests that asfamiliesgainsocio-economicstatus,theyabandontechnologiesthatareinefficient, less costlyandmostpolluting, i.e.ones loweron the ladder[232].Recently,researchershavereplacedtheenergyladdermodelwith

CHAPTER4

106

CH

APT

ER4

the “energy stack” model [230][232][233]. This model suggests thathouseholdsdonotfullyabandoncookingfuelsinfavorofefficientones,but rather they integrate those gradually into their households[234][235]. Studieshavebeendoneonruralhouseholdenergypotential,energyresource allocation, cookstoves and fuelwood material [55][236][237].Many studies have been done on different types of cookstoves usingcharcoal, examining efficiency and impact on health and environment[238]. Charcoal is considered a more efficient domestic fuel thanfuelwood. Hence, charcoal consumption is increasing not only in ruralareas but also in urban areas. In particular, people whomigrate fromruralareastocitiesswitchfromfuelwoodtocharcoal[239].Charcoal isoftenconsideredasthetransitionfuelbecauseitishigheruptheenergyladderandsuperiortofirewood,whichagainisbetterthancropresidueand dung [28]. In the production chain of fuelwood and charcoal, themain technologies are the traditional cookstove and the charcoalproductionkilns.Inadditiontotechnology,timeneedstobeconsidered.Since people from rural areas are involved in many time-consumingagricultural activities, each second of time is important for them. Thequestion then is whether charcoal offers adequate efficiency to beadoptedbyhouseholdsinruralareas.

4.3.Materialsandmethods

A hypothetical cooking energy system has been developed for thecase study area. The selection of cooking energy systemwas basedonthe availability of cooking fuels and cookstoves in the case study area.Thestudystartswiththeanalysisofthepresentcookingenergysystem.Thus, data were collected related to each household’s fuelwoodconsumptionandcookingtimeperdayperhousehold.Calculationsweredonetoobtaineachhousehold’senergydemandforcookingwhileusinga traditional 3-stone fire for fuel combustion. Subsequently, otherhypothetical cooking energy systemswere taken into consideration byreplacing the present fuelwood/cookstove combination with moreenergy efficient fuel and cookstoves like charcoal and improvedcookstoves(ICS).


107

CH

APT

ER4

4.3.1.SystemanalysisThissectionwillprovideastep-by-stepdemonstrationoftheanalysis,

whichstartswithdescribingthe fuelwoodenergysystem,andthenwillshowtheopportunitiesforimprovementinthecookingenergysystem.

4.3.1.1.Cookingenergysystems

We developed a systematic approach for creating a hypotheticalmodel to understand the feasibility of using efficient technology forcookinginruralareas.Fromthefuelwoodconsumptionperspective,weconsidered Scenario 1, where we calculate the direct consumption offuelwood for cooking, the time required for collectionof fuelwoodandthe useful energy demand for cooking. Fig 4.4, describes themethodologyusedforthisstudy.Ithasbeendividedintofourscenarios,whicharebrieflydescribedbelow:

a) Scenario 1 (SN 1): This is the present situation in the village,where households collect fuelwood and then use it in atraditionalcookstove(TCS)i.e.,3-stoneopenfireforcooking.

b) Scenario2(SN2):Thisisahypotheticalfuelwoodsystem,wherethetraditionalcookstove(TCS)isreplacedbyanimprovedwoodcookstove(IWC).

c) Scenario3(SN3):Thisisthehypotheticalcharcoalsystem,wherefuelwood is replaced by charcoal. In this scenario, charcoal isusedwithatraditionalcookstove(TCS).

i. SN 3 (a): charcoal is produced by using a 200-literhorizontaldrumkiln

ii. SN3 (b): charcoal isproducedbyusinganAdamRetortcharcoalkiln

d) Scenario 4 (SN 4): This is the last developed scenario, wherecharcoalisusedinanimprovedcookstove(ICS).

i. SN 4 (a): charcoal is produced by using a 200-lthorizontaldrumkiln

ii. SN4 (b): charcoal isproducedbyusinganAdamRetortcharcoalkiln

InthelasttwoscenariosSN3andSN4,charcoalisproducedbyusingtwo different charcoal kilns, i.e. a 200 lt-horizontal drum kiln for small

CHAPTER4

108

CH

APT

ER4

scale production and an Adam Retort charcoal kiln for large-scaleproduction.

The 200-lt horizontal drum charcoal kiln can bemade by using two200-ltOil drums and a fewbamboopoles for support. This technologycanyieldabout12-18kgofcharcoalfrom60-80kgoffuelwoodgivinganefficiency of about 20% [240][241]. It takes 1.3-9.4 hours forcarbonization, depending upon the type of wood and its size. Thismethodforcharcoalproductionisverybeneficialforsmallfamilyof4-5members.

An Adam retort charcoal kiln is a stationary charcoal kiln made ofbricks. A 3 -m3 volume of wood chamber can be loaded withapproximately750kgofwoodwithsomemoistureinit[242].And,about50 kg of waste wood is required in the whole process of charcoalproduction. The efficiency can be as high as 35-40% and noxiousemissionscanbereducedby70%[241][243].

Theusefulenergydemandfromscenario1 istakenasthereferencevalue (i.e. energy demand) for the other scenarios. In scenario 2, thetraditional cookstove is replaced by improved cookstove (ICS).Considering useful energy from scenario 1 as energy demand forscenario2,thefuelwoodrequiredandtimedemandwillbecalculated.Incaseof scenario3, charcoal is produced from twodifferent kilns andatraditional cookstove is used for cooking. Similarly for scenario 4, animprovedcookstoveisused.

Fig.4.4.Generalizedflowdiagramofusefulenergyproduction


109

CH

APT

ER4

4.3.2.Studyarea

Thispaperdrawsonthe6-monthsofsurveysconductedinNapaam,avillageintheSonitpurdistrict,during2009-2010[244].Throughoutthatperiod,datawascollectedforaprojectconductedbytheGovernmentofIndia [245]. The majority of the data were collected through a mixedapproach, consisting of unstructured and semi-structured interviewacrossthewholevillage.Fig.4.5showsanenlargedmapoftheNapaamvillage.

Fig.4.5.EnlargedviewofNapaamvillage

As per 2011 census, 91.11% population of Sonitpur district lives inruralareas.ThetotalpopulationoftheSonitpurdistrictresidinginruralareas is 1,754,835. There are 1748 villageswithin the Sonitpur district.And the case study done on this paper is one of the villages fromSonitpur, i.e.thevillageofNapaam.Thetotal landareaofthisvillageis93.32 hectares. Out of this, 68 hectares are crop land, 25.06 are yardlandand0.326constitutewaterbodies[206][246].

CHAPTER4

110

CH

APT

ER4

4.3.3.Datacollection

During the observation period, each and every household werevisited with a structured questionnaire and requested to indicate theamount of fuelwood collected every week, the time required forcollection of fuelwood and the number of people participating in thecollection from every household. During interrogation, some of thequestions were about the areas from where a household normallycollectstheirfuelwoodandthepurposeofitsuse. This village has 178 households with an average of 5 persons perhousehold with a total of some 870 people. The data collected wasbasedonthenumberofpersonsperhousehold,fuelwoodcollectionperday(kg/day)andfuelwooduseperdayperhousehold(kg/hhd/day).

Accordingly, fuelwood consumption was measured by using aweighted surveymethod [205][206][247]. Each household was given aweighted amount of fuelwood (i.e. 45 kg) and then requested to usefuelwood from the weighted stack. After 24 hours, the remainingfuelwoodwasweighedagaintomeasurethefuelwoodconsumedbythehouseholds.

4.3.4.Fuelwooddemand

This study depends on the useful energy and fuelwood demand fordifferent cooking energy systems. This section will give an in-depthdescription on the calculation of useful energy consumption andfuelwooddemandforallthedevelopedscenarios.

4.3.4.1.SN1:Fuelwoodwithtraditionalcookstove(TCS)

TheusefulenergydemandinFig4.4.,iscalculatedbymultiplyingtheamount of fuelwood used per household per year with the energydensity of wood and traditional cookstove efficiency, as given inequation4.1.

Eu=Fw×Ew×𝜼𝜼t×𝜼𝜼k (4.1)

where,Eu is theusefulenergydemand (MJ/hhd/yr), Fw is the fuelwoodusedperhouseholdperyear(kg/hhd/yr),Ewistheenergydensityofthefresh wood (MJ/kg) and𝜂𝜂 t is the cookstove efficiency of traditionalcookstove (0-1) and𝜂𝜂kis the kiln efficiency (0-1). For scenario 1 and 2,there is no kiln, so𝜂𝜂k equals 1. The energy content of freshwood isassumedtobe16.8MJ/kg[248].


111

CH

APT

ER4

4.3.4.2.SN2:Fuelwoodwithimprovedcookstove(ICS)

In this scenario,we have considered an improved cookstove. Thereare various cookstoves available, but in this studywe have specificallyassumed a “Meghalaya cookstove”, since, it has been developedprominently for Northeastern part of India (Fig. 4.6), and it does notrequireseducationalbackgroundforitsconstruction.Ithasanefficiencyof 24% [249]. This cookstove can use fuelwood, dung and agricultureresidues.

Fig.4.6.Meghalayacookstove[249]

The fuelwood demand for this scenario can be calculated by usingequation1,whereEuwillbeusedfromscenario1,andthus,bychangingefficienciesofcookstove,wecanfindthefuelwoodrequiredforscenario2.

4.3.4.3.SN3:Charcoalwithtraditionalcookstove

Fig.4.7,illustratesadetailedproductionchainoffuelwoodandcharcoalwherefuelwoodisthemainfeedstockforthecookingfuels.

CHAPTER4

112

CH

APT

ER4

Fig.4.7.Productionchainoffuelwoodandcharcoal

As we discussed earlier, that in this study we have considered twotechnologies for charcoal production i.e. a 200-lt horizontal DrumCharcoalKiln (for small-scaleproduction)andanAdamRetortCharcoalKiln (for large scale production). Both of these are economically viableforruralhouseholdsandcanbeconstructedwithavailablematerialslikebamboo,drumsandbricks.Thefuelwooddemandforthecharcoalproduction(Fch)isgivenby:

Fch= 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 × 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 × 𝜼𝜼𝒌𝒌 × 𝜼𝜼

(4.2)

whereEu is theusefulenergydemand (MJ/hhd/yr),Ech refers to thecalorificvalueoffuel(MJ/kg),Ecisthefinalenergyusingcookstove(MJ),𝜂𝜂 k is the efficiency of the kilns (%) and𝜂𝜂 is the efficiency of thecookstoves (%). In our study, the charcoal kiln efficiency for a 200-lthorizontaldrumkilnisconsideredtobe20%[211][250]andforanAdamRetort charcoal kiln to be 40% [242]. The calorific value of charcoal isassumedtobe28MJ/kg[216][225].

4.3.4.4.SN4:Charcoalwithimprovedcookstove

The fuelwood demand is calculated by using equation 4. 2, bysubstitutingtheefficiencyof improvedcookstove.Acharcoalcookstovehasathermalefficiencyofabout30%[28][167].

4.3.5.Timeestimation

4.3.5.1.Timeestimationforfuelwoodproduction(SN1andSN2)

In theprocessof fuelwoodcollection,ahouseholdneeds tomakeatrip either on a weekly basis or daily basis. The number of trips (Nt)requiredbyhouseholdsdependsonthecarryingcapacityoffuelwoodbytheperson.“Onetrip”forthisstudycanbedefinedasthejourneybackandforthforfuelwoodcollection.Itiscalculatedbyusingequation4.3.

Nt=𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭

(4.3)


113

CH

APT

ER4

whereNtisthenumberoftripsrequiredforfuelwoodcollection(hhd/yr),Fcisthefuelwoodcollectedinpersingletrip(kg)andFwisthefuelwooddemandforeachscenario,whichiscalculatedbyusingearlierequations.Thetimerequiredfor fuelwoodcollection(Tw)canbecalculatedbytheequation4.4.

Tw=Nt×Tc (4.4)

whereTw is the timespent in collectionof fuelwoodbyonehousehold(hrs/yr)andTcisthetotaltimerequiredinonetrip(hrs).

4.3.5.2.TimeestimationforcharcoalproductionSN3(a&b)andSN4(a&b)

Thetimerequiredintheproductionofcharcoalisthesumofboththefuelwood collection time and the charcoal production process time.Wood charcoal production is a labour intensive activity,mainly carriedoutbymen,employingpeopleatdifferentstagesofthecharcoalprocess[251].Inthisstudy,wehavecalculatedtimeestimationintwodifferentways, i.e. Gross labour time and Net labour time. These can bedeterminedinthefollowingways:

I. Grosslabourconversiontime(Tco,G):Thetimerequiredforcharcoalmaking in charcoal kiln throughout the whole process, whichincludes labour time and also charcoal processing time (i.e. timerequiredinkiln).

II. Net labourconversion time (Tco,N): The timerequired forcharcoalmaking in a charcoal kiln, only for all the activities requiringphysical labour. In otherwords, this does not include thewholecharcoalprocessingchain,butonlythoseactivitieswheremanuallabourhastobedone.

Thus,equation4.5isusedtocalculatedgrossornetconversiontimeforcharcoalproduction.

Tco=𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭

×T (4.5)

whereFin is thefuelwood input(inkg) insidethekilntomakecharcoal,Fchisthefuelwoodneededforcharcoalproduction(kg)andTisthegrossornet labour time (inhours). Thevalueof “T”dependson the typeofkilnusedintheproductionprocess.Grosslabourtimeincludesloadingof

CHAPTER4

114

CH

APT

ER4

fuelwood, unloading of charcoal, cleaning of the kiln and the wholeprocessing time of charcoal, whereas, net labour time, excludes thecharcoalprocessingtime.

4.4.Resultsanddiscussion

ThecookingenergysurveyforthisstudywasdoneforavillagenamedNapaam. This villagehas178households, anddata samplingwasdonefromeachandeveryhouseholds.Theaveragenumberofmembersperhousehold is 5. The survey found that fuelwood was the major andnearly only fuel used for cooking. Fewhouseholds reported using LPG,butmostly during some occasion,which iswhy in our studywe foundLPG usage nearly negligible. The average demand of fuelwood forcookingperhouseholds isapproximately6.57kg/day. Theaveragepercapita consumption of fuelwood is about 1.45 kg/capita/day withstandarddeviationof0.83andvariance0.689.Therearereportsofotherstudy from area near to our study area, says that, the per capitafuelwooddemandisapproximately1kg/capita/day[252].

Thehouseholdsinourstudydependontheseasonalincomefromthesubsistentfarming.Thereisnofuelwoodmarketavailableinthevillage;hence, they collect their fuelwood from open spaces and forest. Theincome from small occupation like selling vegetables and seasonalmasonrywork are used to cover household expenses like clothing etc.Thus, it is the time, which they have to spend to collect their cookingenergyfuelforfulfillingtheirdemand. In this study, SN 1 is the baseline scenario for the other developedhypothetical system. From the surveyed data collection, we used thedatatocalculatethefuelwooddemandandtimerequiredforfuelwoodproductionforthepresentsituationi.e.SN1.Weassumedthatapersoncouldcarryaloadof25kgoffirewoodinonetrip.Fromthesurveydata,byusinga24hourweighingmethod,wefoundthatahouseholdrequireson average about 7 kg of wood per day in Napaam village. Thus, ahouseholdrequires2588kgoffuelwoodperyear,whichresultsinabout104 trips per year. Hence, by using equation 4.3, we found that itrequires 828 hrs/yr for a household to collect fuelwood. By usingEquation4.1,wefoundthatthegrossenergydemand,whichisthefinalcooking energy demand per household, is 43.4 GJ/hhd/yr. This grossenergydemandisthefinalenergyreceivedbythecookingpotplacedatthe top of stove. But, in this study we have used only useful energy,calculatedbyconsideringcookstoveefficiency.SinceinSN1,households


115

CH

APT

ER4

areusingtraditionalcookstoves, thus,weassume it tobe10%efficient[225][28][253]. Byusing Equation4.1,we found that theuseful energydemand for a household is 4 GJ/yr (see Table 4.2). This energy is theenergy demand to calculate fuelwood demand for the developedhypotheticalscenarios.

In India, theworking hours of a service person is about 1960hoursper year which accounts for 22% of total time in a year [16][17], andnotably,fromourstudywefoundthatinruralareaonehouseholdhastospend10%oftheirtotaltimejusttocollectfuelwood.Itisimportanttonote that the person, who spends 1960 hrs/yr, earns money for theirwholehouseholdthattheyspendtoattaintheirdomesticdemandslikefooding,clothing,educationetc.,butremarkably,aruralhouseholdhastospend828hrs/yrtocollectfeedstockfortheircookingenergysystem.Thus,itseemsthatruralhouseholdshastoexpendmostoftheirtimeinfeedstockcollection.

Table4.2.Annualenergydemandandnumberoftripsrequiredforfuelwoodcollection

Woodrequiredperyear(kg/hhd/yr) 2588Grossenergyproduced(GJ/hhd/yr) 43.4Traditionalcookstoveefficiency(%) 10Usefulenergydemand(GJ/hhd/yr) 4No.oftripsreqd.tocollectfuelwood(yr/hhd) 104Timerequiredtocollectfuelwood(hrs/yr) 828

4.4.1.Fuelwooddemandfordevelopedscenarios

This study considers that charcoal is made from fuelwood. ThecookingenergydemandforSN2-4is4GJ/hhd/yr.Byusingequation4.2,we found that charcoal produced by using 200-lt horizontal drum kilnandTCSforcooking,demands7765kgfuelwoodperyear.

According to the “energy ladder” model, if we opt to move higheralongtheladder,thenthenextoptionfortransitionfuelafterfuelwoodischarcoal.However,morefuelwood isrequiredtomakecharcoal. It isclearly noticeable from Fig 4.8, that charcoal used in a traditionalcookstoveconsumes3timesmorefuelwoodthanthatofwoodused intraditionalcookstove.IncaseofSN2,whenICSisusedwithfuelwoodascookingfuel,thedemandforfuelwoodalmostreducedtohalf,i.e.1079kg. Itseemsthatwithachangeincookstove,there isahugedifference

CHAPTER4

116

CH

APT

ER4

offuelwooddemand.From literature, we found that normally 4-6 kg of fuelwood is

required to produce 1 kg of charcoal [228][254]. But, using improvedkilns for charcoal production, the fuelwood demand has decreasedalmost by a factor of 2. In SN 3, when charcoal is produced by 200-lthorizontal drum kilns and is then used in a traditional cookstove forcooking,thefuelwoodrequirementis7765kg.But,theinterestingfactisthat, justbyreplacingatraditionalcookstovewithanICS,thefuelwooddemand decreases by 3-fold. The final hypothetical scenario, i.e. SN 4,indicates that the fuelwood demand for an ICS using an Adam retortcharcoal kiln is almost equivalent to SN 2. Our research shows that,although charcoal has higher energy content than fuelwood, itsproductionrequiresalotoffuelwood.However,fromallthescenariosithasbeen found thatan improvedcookstovehas reduced the fuelwooddemandtoalargeextent.Thus,itseemsthatruralhouseholdscansavealotoftimejustbyoptingforanICSratherthanforcharcoal.

Fig.4.8.Fuelwoodrequiredandnumberoftripsperyear

4.4.2.Timedemand

According toour findings,currentlyahouseholdhas to investabout828hoursperyearmerelyforfuelwoodcollection.Fig.4.9indicatestheamount of time required for the various scenarios. The case of SN 3arequires the maximum amount of time, i.e. 2485 hours per year forcharcoalproduction.Interestingly,whenaTCSforSN3aischangedwithanICS,itrequiresonly828hrs/yr,whichisequivalenttoSN1.

Clearly,themostefficientcombinationisanAdamretortkilnwithan


117

CH

APT

ER4

ICS (i.e. SN4b),whichdemands the least time for fuelwood collection.Employing an ICS for cooking has the strongest influence in the timedemandforfuelwoodcollection.But,remarkablyincaseofSN4a,whenan ICS isused, itneverthelessdemandsalmost4 timesmoretimethanSN 2. The hypothetical system SN 2 is the most efficient amid alldevelopedscenarios.Fig.4.9showsthat,ifhouseholdscannotaffordtooptfortransitionfuels,thenintroductionofanIWCforfuelwoodenergysystemscanbemoretimeefficient.

Fig.4.9.Timerequiredforfuelwoodcollectionfordifferentscenarios

The process of charcoal production requires lot of time forhouseholds [255]. But as stated, it can be divided into gross and netlabour time. It can be seen in Fig 4.10, that the labour and gross timedepends significantly on the charcoal kiln and cookstove type. In bothlabourandgross time, thescenarioSN3arequireshighest timeamongallthescenarios.However,oncomparingbothSN4andSN3,wefoundthat charcoal produced by using a 200-lt horizontal drum kiln requiresmoretimethananAdamretortcharcoalkiln,regardlessoftheuseofanefficient cookstove. From our analysis, we found that SN 4b scenariorequirestheleasttimeincharcoalproductionforbothlabourandgrosstimei.e.15hrs/yrand65hrs/yrrespectively.ButforahouseholditisnotadvisabletooptforanAdamretortkiln,sinceitisusuallyusedforlarge-scale charcoal production. Hence, if a single household decides toproducetheirowncharcoal, thenfromFig4.7, it indicatesthata200-lthorizontaldrumwithanICSwillbemorefeasibleforthem.

CHAPTER4

118

CH

APT

ER4

Fig.4.10.Grossandlabourtimerequiredindifferentkilns

The total time requirement is the aggregate time demand in thecooking fuel production chain,which includes fuelwood collection timeand charcoal conversion time. It is interesting to find that trend offuelwoodrequirementforahouseholdhasthesametimedemand.InFig4.10, we found that scenario SN 3a requires themaximum amount offuelwood,andsimilarlywhenconsideringthetotaltimedemand,SN3ademandsmorelabouraswellasgrosstime(Fig4.11).

Fig.4.11.Totaltimerequiredintheproductionchainofcookingfuel

In case of SN 1 and SN 2, we have only gross time because thefuelwoodproductionchaindoesnothaveanyothertechnologyinvolvedinit,whichrequiresadditionallabour.Thus,itisinterestingtofindthat,SN2 is themost timeefficient cooking fuelproductionoption for ruralhouseholds.Itrequiresonly345hoursperyear,whichissignificantlylessthan other scenarios It is a very noteworthy result, as it shows that


119

CH

APT

ER4

irrespective of charcoal being a more efficient fuel than fuelwood, itrequiresmaximumtimeforproduction.

Otherstudieshaveconcludedthatincomeisasignificantfactor,but,it does not confirm that is really affects the use of cleaner fuels. It ismoreimportanttounderstandthesocialandtechnologicalfactors[256].In earlier paragraph, it has already been stated that a service personworksapproximatelyfor1960hoursperyear.Togetanoverviewofourstudy area economic scenario, we assume that a rural person worksalmostthesametimeasaserviceperson(i.e.1960hrsperyear),butitdoesnotearnthesameamountofmoney.Fromotherstudy,wefoundthattheaveragepercapitamonthlyincomeofruralhouseholdsisaboutINR 4167 [257][258] (≈ $ 65 [259]). A survey near our study area,discoveredthatithasamarketforfuelwoodwhereperkgfuelwoodcostabout INR3/kg(≈$0.046[259]).Assumingthepercapita incomefromother study and fuelwoodmarket cost from our survey study of othervillage, wewill analyze the trade-off between time cost and fuelwoodcost. Table 4.3, describes that average per capita income and marketcostoffuelwood,thatweassumedforourvillage.

Table4.3.Averageincomeandmarketcostoffuelwood

Averagepercapitaincomeperhour($/hr) 0.40Fuelwoodcostperkg($/kg) 0.046

Assuming the same income level for our 178 households,we foundthat households using traditional cookstoves are economicallyhampered.In1houraruralpersonnormallyearnsabout$0.40.Forthebaseline scenario SN1, a household spending 828 hours per year forcooking fuel collection, canearnabout$331 if theyhadopted toworkfor other purpose. However, if we consider the fuelwood marketscenario SN 1, for 2588 kg of fuelwood, it will cost about INR 7764 (≈$119[259]). ButforSN3a,thetimecostisalmost3timesthanthatofSN1 i.e. $ 994. Now, if a household opts for SN 3a scenario, they willhave to spend just 18% of their annual income to buy fuelwood frommarket,orelse theyarealmost losing50%of their income in the timeexpendedwhilecollectingfuelwood.Inallthescenarios,thecostoftimespent in fuelwood collection is higher than the cost of fuelwood frommarket(Fig.4.12).

CHAPTER4

120

CH

APT

ER4

Fig.4.12.Timecostandfuelwoodcostforallthescenarios

Thus, in economic perspective, we can conclude that for all thescenarios,ifthereisamarketavailableforhousehold,thenitsbettertobuyfuelwoodthantoproduceitsowncookingfuel.Asthereisatrade-off between the time demand and the choice of cooking fuel forhouseholds.

4.5.Conclusion

Acomparativetimeinvestmentstudybetweentwodifferentsourcesof end-use energy i.e., fuelwood and charcoal with improved andtraditional cookstoves has been done. In our analysis, we distinctivelyselected two different types of charcoal producing kilns. Thishypothetical analysis of cooking fuels and cookstoves is done for aspecificcasestudyarea. Asexpected,wefoundthatintheproductionofcharcoalusinganyofthe kilns, the fuelwood requirement is very high, which results in anincreasednumberoftripsforfuelwoodcollectionbywomen.

An interesting result is that using fuelwood with an improvedcookstove saves more time of women than by using charcoal with animproved cookstove. This couldbeoneof the reasons thathouseholdsstill prefer to use fuelwood over charcoal, as charcoal productionrequireslotsoftime.Thisalsoshowsthatthe“energyladder”or“energystack”model is quite evidentwhen households buy their cooking fuel,but when they opt for producing their own cooking fuel, then thesemodelsarenotvalid.

Many Government projects failed to compel rural households toswitch to cleaner energy. This research could be an insight to theproblemofswitchingfromtraditionalcookstovestocleanercookstoves.


121

CH

APT

ER4

Government of India has already initiated projects related to ICS, byincreasing its access and availability to rural households. One of suchprojectisNationalBiomassCookstoveProgrammes[224].ArecentstudyofICSdistributionintheOdhisastateofIndiaindicateda91%reductionin fuelwood use compared to that associated with traditional stoveutilization [260]. Furthermore, thesehouseholdswithout ICS lose twicethenumberofproductivehoursonlyonfuelwoodcollection,whichtheycould use to improve their livelihoods by doing other income givingwork.

CHA

PTER

4

AdditionalinformationofthechapterAuthors KarabeeDasa,GreeshmaPradhana,SanderineNonhebela

Keywords Cookstove;HumanEnergy;Briquettes;Charcoal;FuelwoodYearofpublication 2019-10Nameofthejournal Energy182(2019),ISSN:ISSN:0360-5442,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.074

aCentreforEnergyandEnvironmentalSciences,ESRIG,UniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands.

CHAPTER5:Humanenergyandtimespentbywomenusingcookingenergysystems:acasestudyofNepal

125

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

Chapter5

Humanenergyandtimespentbywomenusingcookingenergysystems:acasestudyofNepal

ABSTRACT

Inmostdevelopingcountries,manyruralhouseholdsusefuelwoodandatraditional cookstove (TCS). Women are the backbone of the cookingsystem, as they mostly manage it. Despite several existing efficientcookingenergysystems,householdsgenerallydonotpreferthem.Thus,ouraimistofindwhythisisthecase.Weestimatethetimerequiredandhumanenergyexpenditure(HEE)forproductionofcookingfuelforfouralternative cooking energy systems inNepal, as a case study. The timerequiredtoproducecookingfuelforthebaselinescenario(i.e.fuelwoodandTCS)is40hr/cap/yrandHEEis41MJ/cap/yr.System2(charcoalandTCS)hasthehighestdemandfortimeandHEE.Theresultssuggestthatthe most efficient system is System 1 (i.e. fuelwood and an improvedcookstove(ICS)).However,awomanproducescookingfuelforthewholehousehold,whichmultipleshertimeandHEEdemandtothehouseholdsize.ThissystemanalysisindicatesasignificantinfluenceintheselectionofcookingfuelduetotheHEEandtimedemand.Itconcludesthatinthefuture,moreimportanceshouldbeattachedtothelabourrequiredfromwomen in the cooking energy systems in the development oftechnologicalimprovements.

CHAPTER5

126

CH

APT

ER5

5.1.Introduction

Despite the rapid technological advancements, about 60% of thepopulations of developing countries and 40% of the global populationdependonsolidfuelsforcooking[1][2].Thesesolidfuels,likefuelwood,charcoal, animal manure and agricultural wastes are mostly used asprimarycooking fuelwith traditionalcookstoves (TCS) [263].This is themost inefficient form of a cooking energy system, since TCS has anefficiency of only 10% and solid fuels can lead to deforestation [4][5].Morethan90%ofruralhouseholdsusefuelwoodforcooking[6][7].

Indevelopingcountries,womenplayamajorroleintheselectionofacookingfuel,astheymakeorcollectmostofit[268].Theyprefertousefuelwood,since it iseasilyaccessibleandeconomicallyviable for them.They spend most of their time collecting fuelwoods from forests ornearby areas [121]. However, other than collecting fuelwood andcooking, they also have additional household chores and activities. Allthesemetabolicenergyintensivelaboriousactivitiesgounaccountedfor[61]. Previous research suggests that the time investment problem infuelwoodcollectioncanbesolvedbyswitchingto improvedcookstoves(ICS) [121]. Still, there are unanswered questions to the demand ofhumanenergyinvolvedinthecookingenergysystems.

TherearesomeexistingefficientcookingsystemsusinghighcalorificvaluesolidbiomassresourceslikebriquettesandICS,whichareprovidedthroughgovernmentornon-governmentprojectsinruralareas[11][12].Despitesubstantialeffort, theseprojectsarehardlysuccessful,which ishamperingsustainabledevelopment in ruralareas.Currently, there isaverypoorunderstandingof the subject of fuel-switching for cooking inruralareas[230]. Thefindingsfrompreviousresearchareimportantfromatechnologyperspective.However,muchlessattentionisgiventothefactthatintheproduction of solid fuels, women have to collect, chop, and carryfuelwoodfromaforesttotheirrespectivehouses.Afterall,householdsare not only users but also often producers of energy carriers. Otherhigh-energycontentsolidfuelslikecharcoalandbriquettesrequiremorework in their production. Although there are studies on the increasingenergycontentinthesesolidfuels,whicharecurrentlymoretechnologyspecific,muchlesshasbeenreportedontheactualtimeandmetabolicenergy required in the production of these solid fuels [249]. It hasalready been established that South Asian women spend about 374hoursonfuelwoodcollectioninhouseholdsusingTCS,whilewhenusingICStheywouldsaveabout70hoursperyear[264].Althoughthecooking


127

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

energysystemsinruralareasareoperatedmanually,whichincludesalotof time and human energy, these aremostly excluded from an energybalance and life-cycle analysis. However, they are a very importantcontributor to the analysis, sincewomen have to spend their valuabletimeandenergy,whichcouldbeusedforotherpurposes[268].

Metabolic energy is expressed as human energy expenditure (HEE),which is rarelymeasuredandusuallyexcluded from theenergy systemanalysis, despite the fact that, while producing cooking energy, a highamountofHEEisrequired[15][16].Otherfindingspointedoutthatthiscould be one of the reasons for the failure of many cooking energyprojects [61]. These studiesonwomenand sustainableenergy indicatethatlaboursavingtechnologiesmostlyfailtoincludewomen’stimeandenergy in their designs [272]. Therefore, studies concluded thatrenewableenergymanufacturersfail to identifythe importanceoftimeandHEE,whichclearlyaffectstheselectionofcookingenergy[62].

Thus, themainobjectiveof thispaper is toassess thetimeandHEErequirement intheproductionofdifferentcookingfuelsusingdifferentcookstoves.Inthispaper,wehavefourhypotheticalalternativecookingenergy systems. We made a cooking energy-balance analysis, whichincludes time requirement and HEE to produce cooking fuel. Theassessment was carried out using Nepal as a case study. This analysisconsistsoftwoparts.Inthefirstpart,wecalculatedthetimeandHEEforthe presently existing cooking system in rural Nepal (i.e. the baselinescenario). In the second part, we calculated the time and HEE for thefouralternative cookingenergy systems. Finally, resultswerediscussedand concluded fordifferent scenarios, on thebasisof timeandhumanenergyrequired.

5.2.MethodologyandData

Thissectionpresentsthecookingenergysystemthatwasdeveloped.Itconsistsoffouralternativecookingsystemstostudythetimedemandand HEE. The system describes all the processes needed to produceuseful energy (i.e. the number of MJs of thermal energy produced byfuelwoodforcooking.Thisstudy followsasystemapproach,wherethepresent existing cooking energy situation of the case study area (i.e.Nepal)isregardedasthebaselinescenario.Thehypotheticalalternativecooking energy systems are a combination of different ICS and energyfuels. Figure 1, shows the system description of the different cookingenergysystems.

CHAPTER5

128

CH

APT

ER5

For this study, we assumed that women carried out all the work,which includes the collection and production of cooking fuel for thewholehousehold.

5.2.1.BaselineScenario

In this baseline scenario, rural households mainly use fuelwood inTCS. The harvested fuelwood is left to dry. The calorific value (CV) offuelwood is assumed to be 14 MJ/kg dry weight [18][19]. A TCS isassumed to have 10% cookstove efficiency (𝜂𝜂cv %) in converting theenergy present in fuelwood into useful energy for cooking [274]. Theefficiency is much lower, since in TCS most of the heat is lost to theatmosphere. Figure 5.1, shows the detailed alternative cooking energysystemsconsideredfortheassessment.

Fig.5.1.Systemdescriptionofthedevelopedalternativecookingenergysystems

5.2.2AlternativeCookingEnergySystems

The four alternative cooking energy systems are combinations ofdifferent cooking fuelsandcookstoves. InSystem1,weused fuelwoodandICS.ForSystem2andSystem3,weconsideredcharcoalascookingfuel.However,forSystem2,weusedTCSandforsystem3ICS.InSystem3, we used briquettes as cooking fuel and ICS. We chose to only useproducts of fuelwood as cooking fuel, since fuelwood is the mostpreferred cooking fuel. Charcoal and briquettes are the next mostpreferred transition fuel after fuelwood. They are more preferable touse, yet do not change the whole existing cooking system.Moreover,they have a higher energy content than fuelwood. The detaileddescriptionof thedevelopedhouseholdcookingenergysystem isgiveninTable5.1.


129

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

Table5.1.Adetaileddescriptionofthesystems

Systems Descriptionofthesystems

System1 Inthissystem,ICS is introducedintothebaselinescenario. Inour study, we assume that the households residing in ourselected area of study uses Mud-Rocket stove for cooking[178].Thisimprovedcookstovehasanefficiencyofabout25%[275].

System2 Inthissystem,the low-energycontentfuelwood isconvertedintohigh-energycontentfuel,i.e.charcoal.Thecalorificvalueof charcoal is 28 MJ/kg [21][22]. We considered 200-lthorizontal drum kilns to prepare charcoal. FAO considered itas lowcost technologyforruralpeople [243].Thecharcoal ismade in 200-litre oil drum. Around 18 kg of charcoal can beobtained per batch using drum kiln [242]. The cookstove isTCS.

System3 The system 3 is a combination of charcoal and ICS. Thecharcoal production procedure is same as that of system 2.We have usedMud-Rocket stove which has an efficiency ofabout25%[275].

System4 Thelastsysteminvolvedbriquettingofcharcoal.Briquettingisthetechniqueofdensificationorcompactionoflooselypackedbiomass materials. Since charcoal loses its plasticity duringcarbonization, it needs a sticking material to enable abriquettetobeformed.Thecharcoalpowderismixedwith10-15% dry clay soil. Dry clay soil is an important component,since it keeps that briquette intact. This means that thebriquette contains about 15% binder and 85% of charcoalpowder by weight. The calorific value of such charcoalbriquettes with the binder is about 22 MJ/kg [277]. Thebriquettes produced can be used in a traditional stove or aspecifically designed briquette stove. An improved briquettestove has much higher efficiency compared to a TCS. Weassume that all the households use ICS for rural householdswhich isspecifically forbriquettes,andthethermalefficiencyisabout35%[26][27].

CHAPTER5

130

CH

APT

ER5

5.3.CalculationofTimeDemandandHEE

Thissectionpresentsabriefdescriptionofthesystemboundaryandtheequations(eq.)involvedinthecalculationoftimedemandandHEE.

5.3.1.SystemBoundary

A basic rural cooking energy system consists of cooking fuel, acookstove, and labour involved in the production of cooking fuel. Theprimary cooking fuel is fuelwood, which is collected by women. Ourstudydoesnotconsideranyspecificculturaldietorcookingprocedureinthe calculations. It is restricted to the cooking energy fuel used in thescenarios(Figure5.2).

Fig.5.2.Adetaileddescriptionofvariousactivitiesinvolvedintheproductionofcookingfuel.Theredarrowshowsthehumanandtimeexpenditureinthecookingfuelproduction,thebluearrowindicatesthefinalcookingfuel

produced,andtheblackarrowshowstheprocessflowofcookingenergyused.

Thepresentscenario(i.e.thebaselinescenario)isthecookingenergysystem forwhich thehouseholds inNepaluse fuelwoodandTCS.Theycollectfuelwoodfromtheforestandchopit.Forthealternativecookingenergysystem,weassumethatthefuelwoodfromthebaselinescenariois used tomake charcoal andbriquettes. The charcoal is prepared in a


131

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

kiln. In this study, kiln operation for charcoal production has beenrestricted to one type of kiln (i.e. a 200 l drum kiln), since this kiln isaffordableforruralpeople[243].Wefurtherassumedthatthebriquetteis made from the charcoal, which was initially made from fuelwood.Briquettes from agricultural waste are not feasible for this study,because the crop residues are used to feed animals. In our system, ahousehold collects and produces its own cooking fuel, as there is nomarketavailableinthevicinity

5.3.2.CaseStudyArea

Nepalisamountainous,landlockedandagrariancountry.Ithasanestimated population of about 28 million people and an annualeconomicgrowthof2.7%[280].About80%ofthepopulationresidesinruralareas[29][30].Nepal’senergysectorhasbeencategorisedasalowenergy consumption sector because of its small, inefficient andunreliable energy supply, and it ismostly based on traditional sources[283].Ofthetraditionalformsofbiomass,fuelwoodisthemostcommonenergysourceforhouseholds,accountingfor78%ofthenationalenergyconsumption[32][33].Themajorityofthefuelwoodissourcedfromtheforest[34][35]andmostlycollectedbywomenandchildrenwhospendseveral hours per day on this, often travelling significant distances,making it very strenuous work for them [36][37]. This study has beencarried out in three Eastern mid-hill districts of Nepal, namely, Ilam,Taplejung,andPanchtar.

5.3.3.DataCollection

For data, we refer to the project conducted by WINROCKInternational:“PromotionofCookingStoveUseinNepal[290]”in2013.Theprojectaimedtoinvestigatethefuelwoodconsumption,cookingfueltype, cooking devices, and distance and time demand on ruralhouseholds, depending on their gender and economic and healthaspects. The data of this study includes both a survey and a literaturereview.Forthesurvey,aquestionnairewaspreparedtocollectdataonfuelwood consumption, the fuelwood collection source, and the timeand distance required to collect fuelwood. Some of the data wassecondary data, which was collected from the literature review.Examplesofthiskindarethedataonthephysicalactivityratio(PAR)andthe weight of Nepalese women. The detailed survey data has beenshowninTable3.

CHAPTER5

132

CH

APT

ER5

The survey questionnaire was developed by theWINROCK officials,and before it reached households, an orientation programme wasconductedforlocalenumerators.Thetotalnumberofhouseholdsinthethreedistrictsis132207[165].Thesamplingmethodologyistakenfrom“Guidelines for sampling and surveys for CDM Project Activities andProgramofActivities (version2.0) [291]”.Weuseda stratified randomsamplingmethodtodeterminethesamplesize,sinceitismoreprecise.Ourcalculation(Appendix5.A)showsthatthissurveycoveredatotalof175householdsfromthethreedistricts.

Timeanddistancerequiredinthecollectionoffuelwoodareobtainedon the basis of thememory of women in the survey. Since our studyaimedtoassessthefourscenariosofthedevelopedhypotheticalmodel,data isnotrequiredtobeveryprecise.Themodel isrobustandcanbeusedforanycountryirrespectiveofanygeographicalconditions.

5.3.4.Fuelwooddemandandnumberoftrips

Forthebaselinescenario,wederivedtheenergyrequiredforcookingfrom the amount of fuelwood used, its calorific value and cookstoveefficiency. The useful energy demand in MJ per person annually, iscalculatedusingthefollowingequation:

Ec=(! × !" × ƞ!"

!) (5.1)

WhereEcistheusefulenergydemand(MJ/cap/yr),wistheweightofthe fuel consumed (in kg/cap), cv is the calorific value of the fuelproduced(MJ/kg),nisthenumberofpeopleinthehouseholds(cap)andƞ!"istheefficiencyofcookstoveusedforcookinginthehousehold(%).The useful energy demand is kept constant for all the systems (Figure.5.2), and thus,onecancalculate thequantityof fuelwood thatwomencollect ina year. Thequantityof feedstock (fuelwood) required for thefuelproductionisgivenby

𝐹𝐹! =!!

!" × ƞ!" × ƞ!" kg (5.2)

Where Fe refers to the amount of feedstock (kg), Ec is the usefulenergy demand (MJ), cv is the calorific value of the fuel (MJ/kg), ɳcvrepresentskilnefficiency(%)andɳcbisthecookstoveefficiency(%).

The energy spent in fuel gathering depends upon the number ofannualtripswomenmaketogatherfuelwood.Thenumberoftripsrelieson the quantity of fuelwood collected in one trip. In this study, weassumethatthewholefuelconversionprocessisdoneinthehouseitself


133

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

butnotatthesitefromwherefuelwoodiscollected.Withtheavailableinformation,wecalculatedthenumberoftripsrequiredasfollows:

𝑁𝑁! =!!!!

(5.3)

WhereNt is the average number of trips taken per year to collectfuelwood, Fe refers to the fuelwood consumed in a year (kg) and Qfrepresentsthequantityoffuelwoodcollectedinonetrip(kg).

Thetimedemandisdeterminedbyusingtheeq.(5.4),whichisgivenbelow:

T=Nt×Tc (5.4)

WhereTisthetimespentincollectionoffuelwood(hrs/yr),andTcisthetotaltimerequiredforonetrip(hrs).

5.3.5.HumanEnergyExpenditure(HEE)

TheFAOhasdefinedHEEastheaverageamountofenergyspent,ina24hrperiodbyan individualoragroupof individuals[71].Thus, itcanquantifythedailycalorieexpenditureofruralwomeninvariousactivities.

In this study, the measurement unit HEE is used to calculate thehuman energy expended while producing cooking energy fuel. Theenergy expenditure of an adult population is mainly determined byphysicalactivityandbodyweight[292].Thedifferenceinphysicalactivitycanbeestimatedbyusingtheenergycostforthephysicalactivitiesandthetimeallocatedtothoseactivities.Toaccountfordifferencesinbodysizeandcomposition,anindividual’sBasalMetabolicRate(BMR)canbeestimated.Thus, theenergyexpenditureofagivenactivity foranadultindividual can be calculated using PAR and BMR values [71]. BMR iscalculated using FAO equations based on sex, age, andweight [71]. Inourcase,wehaveused theBMRformula forwomenagedbetween18and30yrs.

𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 = (0.062 × 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤ℎ𝑡𝑡) + 2.036 (5.5)

Where, BMR istheBasalMetabolicRate(MJ/day)andweightisthebodymassofthepersoninkilograms(kg).InNepal,householdactivitiesaremostlycarriedoutbywomen.Therearenodistinctiveagesorweightrangesduringor inwhichawomanhas tohandlehouseholdactivities.However, in most cases yonger women do household chores, since itrequiresa lotofenergy [41][43]. For this study,we took theweightof

CHAPTER5

134

CH

APT

ER5

womentobe57.7kgasthestandardweight,sincetheaverageweightofanadultAsianwomanisabout57.7kginotherstudies[294].

BMRisusuallyexpressedastheunitofaday.Sincethetimerequiredfortheproductionofcookingfuelisinhours,wetakeBMRinMJ/hr.Theequationforcalculatinghumanenergyexpenditureforanactivitycanbecalculatedbyusingeq.(5.6).

𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = {𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃× 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 ℎ𝑟𝑟)}MJ (5.6)

In the above equation,HEE is inMJ, the PAR value is based on theactivityinvolvedinthecookingfuelproduction,andtime(inhours)isthetime expenditure of each activity. The activities involved in theproductionofcookingfuelaredetailedinTable5.C.1(Appendix5.C).

The PAR values for different activities are already listed by the FAOfor various physical activities. Not all of the activities involved in fuelproductionaredescribedintheFAOchart.Forourstudy,wehavemadeafewassumptionsrelatingtothephysicalactivity,similartothosemadeforthecookingfuelproduction(Table5.B.1,Appendix5.B).Forexample,toprepareabriquetteweneedwatertomixtheclayandcharcoal.IntheFAO,aPARvalueisgivenforfetchingwaterfromawell,howeverwatercanbecollected inmanyways,andeachwaywillhaveadifferentPARvalues.Hence,forthisstudy,weassumethatthePARvalueforfetchingwaterisconsistentwiththeFAOvalue.Similarstudieshavebeencarriedoutwhicharerelatedtofetchingwater inMali,WestAfrica,wheretheassumptionofthePARistakentobesimilar[271].

Toproduce cooking fuel, an investmentof time is required. For thebaseline scenario, the time required for fuelwood collection is takenfrom the survey. The detailed table has been given in Table 5.C.1(Appendix5.C).TheyearlyHEEisestimatedbymultiplyingtheHEE(fromeq.(5.6))bytheannualnumberoftripsrequiredforfuelwoodcollection.

5.3.6SensitivityAnalysisAsensitivityanalysiswasperformedon thebasisof theweight load

carriedbywomen.Therearemanyinputvariablesinourstudies,butweconsidered only the fuelwood weight carried by women. The carriedweightisanimportantfactor,sinceawomanhastocarryaconsiderableamount of heavy weight each time. Other variables, like cookstoveefficiency and cooking fuel calorific values, will indirectly indicate thechangeinthefuelwooddemand.Hence,almostallthevariablechangesaffect the fuelwood demand (in kg) in someway. This is linked to thenumber of trips that eventually relates to the amount of fuelwood awomanhastocarry.


135

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

5.4.ResultsandDiscussion

5.4.1.SurveyData

From the surveydata, itwas found thatonaverageawomancouldcarry41kgof fuelwood inonetrip (Table5.2). Inorder tovalidateourresults, we compared our datawith other study, carried out in similargeographical areas like the Eastern Himalayan regions of India. ThecomparisonrevealsasimilaritywiththeHimalayanstudies.Itshowsthatinbothcasesthesizeofhouseholdsdiffersbyjustonemember.

Table5.2.Surveydataonfuelwoodcollection

Survey Otherstudy[296]

Averagesizeofhousehold 6 5Averagefuelwoodconsumptionpercapita(kg/cap/day)

2.6 2.5

Averageamountofoneheadloadofwoodcarried(kg)

41 49

Averagetimeforfuelwoodcollection(hrs/trip)

1.7 -

The fuelwood consumption per capita is almost analogous, and thismaybeduetothefactthatbothcasestudieshavesimilargeographicalandclimaticconditions.Furthermore,itisinterestingtofindthatwomencarryalmostthesameamountofwood.TheaveragetimeforfuelwoodcollectionwasnotanalysedintheHimalayancasestudy.Insomecases,fuelwood demand is based on geographical conditions. For example,South Africa has a very different geographical condition. However, theaveragefuelwoodconsumptionperpersonisabout2kg/cap/day[295],whichisalmostequivalenttotheHimalayanandNepalesecasestudies.

5.4.2.Fuelwooddemandandnumberoftrips

Thedevelopedcookingenergysystemhasacombinationofdifferentcookstoves and cooking fuels. Details of the calorific value (CV) andefficiencyof cookstoveshavebeengiven inTable5.C.2 (Appendix5.C).TheimprovedwoodcookstovethatisusedforSystem1hasalmostthesame efficiency as that of the improved charcoal cookstove used inSystem3.TheCVofbriquettes is lessthanthatofcharcoal. It isduetothe fact that briquettes are a mixture of clay and charcoal, whichdecreases the briquette efficiency. However, clay prolongs the cookingtime,makingitsuitableforhouseholdcooking[297].

CHAPTER5

136

CH

APT

ER5

Whenusingeq.(5.1),itisfoundthattheaveragefinalusefulcookingenergyforthebaselinescenariois1344MJ/cap/yr(~1.3GJ).Thisenergydepends on the amount of cooking fuel used and on cookstoveefficiency. The yearly fuelwood consumption is 960 kg/cap/yr in thebaseline scenario. For the alternative cooking energy systems, weassumethatthecookingfuel(i.e.charcoalandbriquettes)ismadefromfuelwood. Henceforth, for our further calculations, we will use 1.3GJ/cap/yr as the useful energy for System 1, System 2, System 3 andSystem4. Interestingly, in the caseof System2, fuelwood required forcharcoal production is 1600 kg/cap/yr (i.e. a 66% increase from thebaselinescenario).Thisisbecausemorethanhalfoftheenergycontentoffuelwoodistypicallyusedinthecarbonizationprocess,andtheotherhalfislostduetothepoorefficiencyofthestove.Withahighefficiencyimprovedcookstove,asisthecaseinsystem3,thecharcoalprovidesthesame amount of energy but with less fuelwood consumption (640kg/cap/yr). Even though briquettes have less energy content per unitweight than charcoal, if a stove specifically designed for briquettes isused, there is lessheat loss to the surroundings and thus an increasedenergyyield.InSystem4,thefuelwooddemandis495kg/cap/yr,whichis almost half of that of the baseline scenario. In system 1, the directcombustion of fuelwood in an improved cookstove is the most fuel-saving scenario, with a 60% reduction in feedstock consumption,comparedwiththebaselinescenario.FromtheFAO,itisclearthat1.14kg of charcoal is needed to provide useful energy equal to 1 kg ofbriquettes[277].AscanbeseeninTable5.1,almost8hoursarerequiredtoproduce14kgofbriquettes(i.e.forthemanualbriquetteproductionof1kgofbriquettes,onepersonrequires1.75hoursperday).

Figure 5.3, verifies the outcome from other studies that, in theproduction of charcoal, more fuelwood is required. That is,approximately 100 kg of charcoal requires about 700 kg of dry wood[121].However,arelevantresultfromFigure5.3isthatwhenfuelwoodis used with ICS, it happens to demands less fuelwood than othersystems. This is a very significant result, as other studies have labeledfuelwoodtheleastefficientofallsolidfuels.


137

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

Fig.5.3.Fuelwooddemandandthenumberoftripsrequiredforitscollectionfordifferentcookingenergysystems

We found that with a higher demand for fuelwood, the number oftripsneeded for fuelwoodcollectionalso increases.Womenmakeover23tripsayearinthebaselinescenario.InSystem1,whenTCSisreplacedby ICS, only nine trips are needed to collect the necessary amount offuelwood formeeting the annual energy demandper capita.However,the number of trips increases to 39, if the fuel source is switched tocharcoalwithTCSinsystem2.Nevertheless,withtheuseofcharcoalinanICS(i.e.System3),thefrequencyoffuelwoodcollectionisreducedbymorethanhalfcomparedtocharcoalwithTCS(i.e.System2).Insystem4, briquetting further reduces the number of trips taken to collect thewood.However,System1requirestheleastnumberoftripsperyear.

5.4.3.Energyexpenditureandtimedemand

Thehumanenergyrequiredforfeedstockgatheringandcookingfuelproduction is determined using BMR, the time spent on differentactivitiesandtheenergycost.Figure5.4showstheenergyexpendedandthe time investedbywomen in theproductionof fuels from fuelwood.The energy expenditure was calculated by using eq. (5.6), where aholistic approach to the cooking fuel production chain is taken intoconsideration. The result shows that the transportation stage (i.e.carryingwood)consumesmostofthewomen’smetabolicenergy.Thisisreasonable,aswomenhavetocarryaheavyloadoffuelwoodandwalktotheirhomes.Weassumethatthewomendonotincreasetheamountof fuelwood they collect in one go, hence the 41 kg woodlot is keptconstant.

CHAPTER5

138

CH

APT

ER5

Fig.5.4.Theenergyexpenditureofandtimedemandonwomanintheproductionofcookingfuelforthevariouscookingenergy

In the baseline scenario, women have to expend their metabolicenergyonlyforfuelwoodcollectionandproduction,whichamountstoatotalofabout41MJ/cap/yr.Itisinterestingtofindthatitrequires41MJofthephysicalenergyofawomantoproduce1.3GJofcookingenergyforahousehold.Earlierstudiescalculatedthattheaveragedailyenergyexpenditure of women is about 8 MJ (excluding cooking activities)[48][49][50] for rural Indian women. Similarly, for rural women fromSouth Africa, it is about 8MJ/day [301], and forMexican women it isabout9MJ/day [302].Therefore, theaveragedailyenergyexpenditureofruralwomenfromdifferentpartsoftheworldisquitesimilar.Thus,inour case study, we assumed the total energy expenditure of a ruralNepalesewomantobe8MJ/day.Thismeansthatannuallyalmost3%ofwomen’senergyisspentonproducingcookingfuel.WhenwebreaktheHEEandthetimedemandforalloftheactivitiesinvolvedinthebaselinescenariodown,wefindthatcarryingwoodfromcollectionsitetohomerequiresthemostenergyandtime.ItrequiresaHEEofapproximately22MJ/capita/yrandtimeexpenditureofabout16.4hrs/capita/yr,andit isfollowedbychopping fuelwood,whichneedshumanenergyofabout8MJ/capita/yearandthetimeexpenditureof7.7hrs.Theimportantpointtonote from thebaseline scenario is that choppingwood requires lesstime than collecting fuelwood andwalking to the collection site,whilethe human energy demand for chopping wood is higher than that forcollectingit.


139

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

For System 1, when ICS is introduced to the baseline scenario, thehumanenergyandtimedemandalmosthalvescomparedtothebaselinescenario.InthecaseofSystem1,thehumanenergydemandforcarryingwood back home is least amidst the entire developed systems (i.e. 9MJ/capita/yrandtimedemandis6.6hrs/capita/yr).

The next highest demand for human energy and time is for theoperationofthekilninSystem2,System3andSystem4.Thisisbecausewhencharcoalisinthekiln,peoplearestillrequiredatthesite,tomoveand watch the kiln to ensure no over-heating of feedstock or otherproblemsarise.Thisisanimportantfindingbecausewemayexpectthatnoextrahumanactivity is involvedwhenthekiln isoperating.Actually,thekilnoperationneedslesshumanenergy,butasthecharcoalmakingprocess requires a lot of time, the aggregate value of human energydemandrises.Amongthethreesystems,System2requiresmorehumanenergy and time for kiln operation than the other two systems (i.e.System3andSystem4).

InafurtherbreakdownoftheactivitiesinvolvedinSystem2,System3andSystem4,it isfoundthatthewholeoperationsystemofcharcoalproduction(i.e.charcoal loading,kilnoperatingandcharcoalunloading)demands more energy and time than other activities. The total timedemandforSystem2isabout160hr/cap/yr,andHEEis121MJ/cap/yr.Observingitsactivitiesclosely,wefoundthatthehighestHEEisrequiredfor carrying wood (i.e. 37 MJ/cap/yr) with a time demand of 27hr/cap/hr.MostofthetimedemandinSystem2isforoperatingthekilni.e.78hr/cap/yr.OperatingthekilnrequiresthehighestamountoftimeoutofalloftheactivitiesinvolvedinSystem2.System3requiresatotaltimeofapproximately64MJ/cap/yrandHEEofabout49hr/cap/yr.ThetotaltimeandHEEdemandofSystem3isalmosthalfthatofSystem2.The reason for thesharpdecrease in timeandHEE isdue to the lowerdemandforfuelwood(Figure5.3).InthecaseofSystem4,thefuelwooddemand is less and it has an efficient cooking energy system (i.e.briquettes and a metal ICS). However, more energy and time arerequired than inSystem3.This isbecausemoreactivitiesare involved,whicheventually increase the timeandHEE. Inpractice,charcoalhasahigh CV, followed by briquettes and then fuelwood. Rationally,researchers assume that the selection of cooking fuels are preferredaccordingly [303]. However, in this study the efficiency of the systemsrelatedtotimeandHEEhasaverydifferentresult.FuelwoodusedinICS(i.e. inSystem1) is themostefficientwith regard to timeandHEE. ICS

CHAPTER5

140

CH

APT

ER5

plays an important role in saving time, human energy and thermalenergy. Studies in other parts of the world also show that theintroduction of ICS has eventually lowered the fuelwood demand. InPeru,thefuelwoodconsumptionwas2kg/cap/daywhileusingTCS,butchangingcookstovetoICSsawthefuelwoodconsumptiondropby38%,and the same holds true for India [304]. People living in rural areasmostly earn their livelihoods from agriculture, however, they try todiversifytheir incomesourceandreducetheirvulnerability[305].Thus,saving timeby using efficient cookstoveswill eventually result inmoreincome options for rural households, and make them more self-sufficient.

Until now, the estimates have been made per capita. As statedearlier, a woman does all of household chores, hence she collectsfuelwood for the entire household. The yearly fuelwood consumptionperpersonisabout960kgforthebaselinescenario.FromTable5.3,weknowthattheaveragehouseholdsizeofourcasestudyareaisabout6personsperhousehold.Sinceawomancollects fuelwoodfortheentirehousehold, she has to collect 5664 kg/hh/yr for the baseline scenario.Thisissamefortheothersystemsaswell.Similarly,theHEEofandtimedemandonawomanwillbealmost6timesthepresentcalculations.Thetotaltimedemandonawomantocollectfuelwoodforthehouseholdisabout240hoursforthebaselinescenario.WhenthehouseholdusesICSwith fuelwood (i.e. such as in System 1), then the time demand is 96hr/hh.Awomansavesabout143hoursperyearbyusingICS.System2demands thehighest time (i.e. 960hr/hhand theenergyof about727MJ/hh)ofawoman.However,byusingICSwithcharcoal(i.e.System3),awomansaves576hoursand436MJperyearcomparedtoSystem2.ThisshowsthemagnitudeoflabourandtimethatawomanhastoinvestonlyinthecookingsystemandhowmuchshecansavebyusingICS.

Thishypotheticalmodelof alternative cookingenergy systemsgivesan insight intothetimedemandonandHEEoftheruralNepalcookingenergy system.However, thismodel is valid forothercountriesaswellandcanbeusedforatimeandHEEcalculation.

In section 5.4.4 a sensitivity analysis is carriedout to check onhowtheweightloadcarryingbyawomanaffectsthetimeandHEE.

5.4.4.SensitivityAnalysis

Themodelwasfurtheranalysedtodeterminethecontributionoftheinput parameters to the output variability. This was done using asensitivity analysis (Table 5.3). In our study, themain parameter is the


141

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

fuelwood weight load that a woman carries. According to the surveydata,Nepalesewomencarryabout41kgofweightloadfromaforesttotheirhouse.Foroursensitivityanalysis,weassumedalowerweightthanthesurvey(i.e.30kgoffuelwood),since41kgisalreadyaheavyloadtocarry, thus, we made an analysis for a lower fuelwood load. Theassumption of 30 kg wasmade on the basis of other studies [47][56].This changemeans that the PAR value also changes, as PAR is directlylinkedtotheamountofweightawomancarries.Wefoundthatwithadecrease inweight load, theoverallHEE forboth thebaseline scenarioandSystem1increaseby13%,butthemostinterestingresultisthatthetimedemandsoarsby37%forthebaselinescenario,aswellasinSystem1 and System 4. Even though we changed the weight load carried bywomen(i.e.30kg),theusefulenergyremainssame(i.e.1.3GJ/cap/yr).However,thenumberoftrips increases,aswomenhavetotravelmoreto get fuelwood. The HEE for System 2, System 3 and System 4 has acomparatively smaller percentage change, because of the inclusion oftechnologylikecharcoalkilnsintheproductionsystem.Theweightloadchangehadthemostsignificanteffectonthewoodcarryingactivity.TheHEEhasdecreasedby8%forallthesystemsbecauseofthedecreasedweight load.However, the timedemand for thewood carrying activityhas increased by 37%. Table 5.3 describes the effect of change in theweightcarryingcapacityofawoman.

Eventhoughwe includedasensitivityanalysisusingvariableweight,therearelimitationstothedataused.Forexample,thecalorificvalueoffuelwood ranges from 13.91 to 19.81MJ/kg dry weight [178]. For ourstudy,weassume it tobe14MJ/kg. In ruralareas,householdsharvestfuelwoodfromanytypeoftreeandstoreitinashedtodry.Eventhen,there is some moisture left which decreases the heating value offuelwood.Since,ourstudyisathousehold-levelandnotindustrial,hencewe considered the lower CV. This study also used very specificcookstovessuchasamud-rocketstoveandcookingfuellikecharcoalandbriquettes. At present, our survey site households use fuelwood forcooking, thuswe restricted our alternative source of fuelwood andwedid not employ the use of other, more efficient cooking fuels likekeroseneorliquefiedpetroleumgas(LPG).Thisdisparityofassumptionsdoesnotsignificantlyaffectonourstudy,asweaimtounderstandtherelativeeffectoftimeandhumanenergy intheselectionpreferenceofcookingfuels.

CHAPTER5

142

CH

APT

ER5

Table5.3.Asensitivityanalysisoftheweight(fuelwood)carryingfactorontimedemandandHEE

Systems HEE(MJ/cap/yr) Timedemand(hr/cap/yr)Originalscenario

NewScenario

Originalscenario

NewScenario

Baselinescenario

41 46 40 54

System1 16 18 16 22System2 121 130 160 184System3 49 52 64 74System4 55 57 88 120

5.5.Conclusion

This paper quantifies the time and human energy required fordifferent developed cooking energy systems. Our study considers themost frequently mentioned alternatives for traditional open-firecookstoves, which are charcoal, briquettes and improved cookstoves.These systems require more activities than collecting and choppingfuelwood.Itisfoundthattheseactivitiesdemandmoretimeandhumanmetabolic energy than the traditional cooking system. At present, awomanrequiresaHEEofabout41MJ/cap/yrand40hr/cap/yrof timetoproducefuelwood.IntroducingICSinthepresentscenariosavesabout60%oftimeandenergy.WhenICSandhigh-energycontentcookingfuelis introduced, it requires88hr/cap/yrand55MJ/cap/yr.Giventhefactthat these Nepalese women are already engaged in other householdchores,whicharetimedemandingandphysical-energyconsuming,theseadditional requirements of time and energy to produce cooking fuelcould be one reason why alternative cooking energy systems are notpreferred by local communities. However, this is applicable for anydevelopingcountrywherehouseholdsarestillusingsolid fuelsandTCSforcooking.Thus,newandmodifiedcookingenergysystemscanonlybesuccessful and beneficial when their impacts on the time and energyexpenditure of women are taken into account as well. Therefore, thisanalysis highlights the accounting method of energy analysis for acookingenergy system, and it reflectsonhowhumanenergy and timecontributetothepreferenceincookingfuels.


143

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

Samplingcalculation

1. Dataandmethodology

The survey was done for three Eastern mid-hill districts: Ilam,PanchtarandTaplejung.Thesamplingcalculationiscarriedoutbyusingstratified random sampling method that is described in the report“Guidelines for sampling and surveys for CDM Project Activities andProgramofActivities(Version2.0)7”.Step-wisedescriptionofsamplesizecalculationisgivenbelow:

A) Populationproportion

Proportion of population for each district is given below. The totalnumber of households of each district is collected from Nationalpopulation and Housing Census 20118(Table A1). Table 5.A.1 indicates

that20%of the totalhouseholds resides inTaplejung,31% inPanchtarandhighesti.e.49%inIlam.

Table5.A.1.Totalnumberofhouseholdsandpopulationproportion

B) SampleSizeThe minimum required sample size is calculated by using appropriatestatisticalformula,whichisgivenbelow:

n≥ !.!"#! !"!!! × !.!! ! !.!"#! !

(5.A.1)

where

7UNFCCC/CCNUCC,“GuidelinesforsamplingandsurveysforCDMprojectactivitiesandprogramme

ofactivities,”2012.8CentralBureauofStatisticsNepal,“NationalPopulationandHousingCensus2011,”Kathamndu,Nepal,2012.

Districts Numberofhouseholds(g) Proportion(p)

Taplejung(a) 26509 0.20Panchtar(b) 41196 0.31Ilam(c) 64502 0.49Total 132207 1

ANNEXURE5.A

CHAPTER5

144

CH

APT

ER5

V=!"!

!!

n =TotalsamplesizeSD2 =OverallvarianceP =OverallproportionN =Totalpopulation

SD2= ( !! × !! !! !! )!

(5.A.2)

P= ( !! × !! )!

5.A.3)

Wheregi=Sizeoftheithgroup

C) Numberofhouseholdstobesampled

The total number of houses to be sampled is determined by using thefollowingequation:

Nh=!!!×n (5.A.4)

whereNh=numberofhousestobesampled.

2. Results

Substitutingvaluesfromtable5.A.1inequation5.A.2,wefoundthattheoverallvarianceis0.22andusingequation5.A.3,theoverallproportionis0.375.Hence,usingequation5.A.1,wefoundthatthetotalsamplesizeis 159.5. Since there is a risk of oversampling, we assumed 10%oversampling and hence the final total sample is 175 households fromthethreedistricts.The totalnumberofhouses tobesampled fromeachdistrict is carriedoutbyusingequation5.A.4.Henceforth,atotalof35housesneedtobesurveyedfromTaplejung,55fromPanchtarand85householdsfromIla

1. PARvalueforHEEestimation


145

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

Table 5.B.1, shows different activities involved in the production ofcookingfuel.Incaseofbaselinescenarioandsystem1,labourinvolvedisfrom survey and for other systems, the labour information is fromliterature review. For our study, we have categorized all the activitiesinvolved in the fuel production. It is fully based on our assumptions,accordingtoourmodel.Forexample,apersonwillwalktotheforestinanormalpace.Since inFAO, theyhavenotmadeanyexplicitactivity forwalkingtoforest,henceweconsiderwalkingslowlyactivity.

Table5.B.1.PARvaluesofdifferentactivitiesinvolvedinproducingcookingfuel[71]

LaborActivity

Analogue PAR

BaselineScenario&System1

Walkingtothecollectionsite Walkingslowly 3

Chopfirewood Choppingwood 4.2Collectingwood Collectingwood 3

Carryingwoodonthebacktohouse

Carryingaloadof35-60kgon

head5.8

System2and3

Woodloadingintokiln Carryingwood 6.6

Kilnoperation Standing/movingaround

1.6

Charcoalunloading Carryingwood 6.6

System4

GrindingChar Grindinggrainusingamillstone

4.6

Fetchingwater Collectingwaterfromwell 4.5

Collecting/Sievingsoil Shoveling 4.6

Mixing Cementmixingwithshovel 5.3

CompressingwithhandCoconutsqueezing 2.4

ANNEXURE5.B

CHAPTER5

146

CH

APT

ER5

Thebaselinescenario is thedatacollected fromsurvey (Annexure5.A).Whilethetimeexpendituredataforsystem1tosystem4areobtainedfromvarious literature. In thewholeprocessofenergyproduction, thesizeof fuelwood is not taken into considerationbecause fuelwood sizedoesnotaffectthecookstoveefficiency[307]. Inourstudy,weassumethat, the frequency of charcoal production is equal to the number oftripsforfuelwoodcollection,asitisdifficulttomeasurethefrequencyofcharcoal production per households. Since,we have considered all thecooking fuel tobeproducedmanually, fromTable5.C.1, it canbeseenthat it takes 8 hours per day to produce briquettes from a batch ofcharcoal.

Table5.C.1.Timeexpenditurefortheproductionofcookingfuel

Activitiesinvolvedintheproductionof

cookingfuelHours Unit

BASELINESCENARIO

FirewoodGathering &Production

• Walkingtothecollectionsite

0.34 Peronetrip

Surveydata

• Choppingfirewood 0.33 Peronetrip• Collectingwood 0.33 Peronetrip• Carryingwoodon

thebacktothehouse

0.70 Peronetrip

SYSTEM1(FirewoodwithICS)Fuelgathering &production

Sameasinthebaselinesystem

SYSTEM2(CharcoalwithTCS)Gathering Sameasinthebaselinesystem

CharcoalProduction

• Woodloadingintokiln

0.29Peronebatch

(18kg)

[308]• Kilnoperation 2.93 Peronebatch

(18kg)

• Charcoalunloading 0.29 Peronebatch(18kg)

SYSTEM3(CharcoalwithICS)Charcoalproduction Sameasinthesystem2

SYSTEM4(BriquettewithICS)

ANNEXURE5.C


147

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

5

CH

APT

ER5

CharcoalProduction

Sameasinthesystem2

Briquetteproduction

• Grindingchar 0.33 Perbatch

[277]

• Fetchingwater 0.70 Perbatch• Collection/Sieving

soil0.50 Perbatch

• Mixing 0.20 Perbatch• Compressingwith

hand0.30 Perbatch

Table5.C.2.Detailsoncookingfuelandcookstoveefficienciesselectedforourdevelopedalternativecookingenergysystem

Cookingfuel CookstoveSystems Type CV(MJ/kg) Type Efficienc

y(%)BaselineScenario

Firewood 14[273] Traditional 10%

[309]

System1 Firewood 14[273] ICS 25%

[275]

System2 Charcoal 28[275][276]

Traditional 10%

[309]

System3 Charcoal 28[275][276]

ICS 25%

[275]

System4 Briquette 22[309] ICS 35%

[278][279]

CHAPTER6:DiscussionandConclusion

149

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

Chapter6

DiscussionandConclusion

6.1.Introduction

This thesis aimed to develop a nexus framework for rural world. Itentailsidentifyingtheinterlinkages,andquantificationofwater,energy,food,landandlabouruse,keepinginmindtheconsumptionpatternofarural individual. It alsoanalyzes the synergiesand trade-offsassociatedwith it. Previous chapters have established all the linkages among thecomponents to contribute the aim. In this chapter, the overall findingsare integrated and I will discuss the insight of the findings related tonexusandtheassociatedlimitationsofmynexusapproach.

6.2.Consumptivenexusapproach:rurallevel

Awave ofWEF nexus studies has been going on from the last fewdecades.Thesystemcanbefood,energyorwaterrelated.Thesestudieshavedevelopeddifferentframeworksfordiversesystemstounderstandthedynamics in it.However,thenexusapproachhasbeendonemostlyfromtheproductionperspective,wheretheimpactofproductiononthesystem is analyzed. In the rural developing world with subsistencefarmers, the production and consumption are intertwined as peopleproduce for their own consumption. Therefore, I started this WEFanalysisfromtheconsumptionperspective.

First, I determined the food consumption and the energy use forcooking in rural areas in the developing world. Land and water arerequiredtoproducethisfoodandcookingfuel.Theamountoflandandwatertoproducethecookingfuelwasfarlargerthanthelandandwaterneeded for the production of food. Then, I analysed options to reducethe fuelwood consumption by using different cooking appliances anddifferent types of fuel. Finally, I calculated the labour (time andmetabolicenergy)neededtoproducethedifferenttypesofcookingfuel.

Theanalysisof thehumanenergy involved in variousprocesses is amajordifferencewiththeexistingWEFstudies.Inthiscasestudy,itisanessentialpartofthenexus,asinRDCmostoftheworkrequiresphysicalenergy. This means that there is an extra linkage in the system: food

CHAPTER6

150RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

consumedbythehumansprovidesthemenoughmetabolicenergytodoheavywork.

Fig.6.1showstheschematicdiagramofanexusfromaconsumptionperspectiveforaruralsystem.Itshowsalltheinteractionsamongwater,energy, food, fuel and labour components. Throughout the thesis, thequantifications of the interactions among the components have beendoneatregionallevel.Thestudyisbasedonfoodandfuelconsumedbyanindividual,andtheconsumptionhasanimpactonthewater,landandenergyuse. Fig6.1 showsall the inter-linkagesamong thecomponentsaswellasthefactorsaffectingit.Forinstance,thefoodcomponenthastwo important factors i.e. consumption and production. Theconsumptionshowstheamountoffooditemsanindividualpurchasedorproducedforitsownuse.Theproductionofthefooditemsdependsonthe land and water availability. The energy use transforms theconsumption of cooking fuel (fuelwood, in case of rural areas) to cookthe food in order tomake it edible. Thus, food and fuel both dependsuponwaterandlandfortheirproduction.

Theinter-linkagebetweenland-food-fuelwood,willprovideaninsightinto the land footprint of food and fuelwood consumption. Therefore,land isan importantpartoftheruralnexus.Landhasbeencategorizedintoarableland,forestlandandotherareas.Thearablelandisusedforagricultural activity toproduce food forhumansand feed for livestock.The forest landandotherareasareused for fuelwoodproduction.Theyieldofcropsandfuelwoodvariesfromregiontoregiondependinguponthegeographicaldistributionandlandavailability.Itwillalsoprovideanunderstandingonthedemandofenergyforcooking.

Inthefoodandcookingfuelproductionchain,wateractsasaprimaryresource.Waterhasbeencategorized intogreen,blueandgreywater.Water is used for both crop and fuelwood production. Due to use offertilizers in the process of crop production it generated grey water,which isnotapplicable incaseof fuelwoodproduction. Incaseof ruralareas,fuelwoodissourcedfromnaturallygrownforest.TheWFdependsupon individual consumption and WF per unit of food and fuelproduction.TheWFperunitoffoodandfuelproductiondependsuponphysical and geographical factors like temperature, precipitation, soilstructure,wooddensity etc. The inter-linkagebetweenwater-food-fuelprovides the waterfootprint of an individual for food and fuelconsumption.Thiswillprovide informationabout thewaterdemandofanindividualonthebasisofconsumptionandproduction.

Labourisavitalpartofthenexussysteminruralareas.Inthisthesis,Iconsidered labour as human energy and time. Human energy can be


151

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

defined as themetabolic energy spent on performing physical activity;foodconsumptionbeingthesourceofthatmetabolicenergy.Normally,thephysicalenergyisspentonfetchingfuelwoodandwater.Timeisanimportantfactorforruralpeople,asthey investasignificantamountoftime in agricultural and households activities. Most importantly, ruralhouseholdsproducetheirowncookingfueli.e.fuelwood,whichrequiresboth physical metabolic energy and time. The inter-linkage betweenwater,energy,food,landandlabourisveryintensive.

Fig.6.1.Schematicdiagramshowingalltheinteractionsamongthecomponentsfortheruralworld

6.3.Insightfromthenexusanalysis

The insights from each chapter provided information on the inter-linkages about the components. Chapter 1 showed the importance ofnexus study from a consumptive perspective for rural areas. It alsoprovided detailed information on the production supply chain of foodand fuel in RDC and thewesternworld. It established the interactionsamongthecomponentsnamely,water,energy,food,landandlabour.

Chapter 2 used land footprint as an indicator to measure the landrequired for food and cooking fuel consumed by an individual in rural

CHAPTER6

152RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

India. The investigation was done at regional level to understand thevariation in the land requirement considering regional factors like yieldandconsumptionoffoodandfuel.Chapter2showedthatthefoodandfuelconsumptionvariesacrosstheruralregionsofIndia.TheIndianruralworldhasenergymix intheirprimaryenergysourceforcooking,whichcomprises of charcoal, coal, fuelwood, agricultural residues and fossilbased fuel [310]. However, fuelwood dominates the major share ofcooking fuel. Other than fuelwood, households use kerosene and LPG.However,thepercentageofkeroseneandLPGconsumptionisverysmall[311]. This chapter also showed that the yield of vegetal items andfuelwood varies from region to region. The average yield is relativelylower than in the western world. Chapter 2 revealed that the foodconsumption (calorie intake)byruralareas iscomparatively lesser thanthe averageworld consumption and the consumption of animal basedproductsissmall.Thisimpliesthattherearenotmanyoptionstochangefoodconsumption,toreducelandrequirements,asthepresentintakeisjustenoughtoprovidetheneedsofahumanbody.ThemainfindingofChapter2isthatthefoodconsumptionisnottheproblem,butit isthecooking fuel, which has a larger impact on the land requirement. Theland required for cooking fuel is about six times larger than the landrequiredforfood.

Chapter3usedwater footprint (WF) as an indicator toquantify thewaterrequiredfortheproductionoffoodandfuelconsumedbyaruralindividualofIndia.TheconsumptiondataforfoodandfuelaresameasChapter2.TheWFassessmentisdoneonthebasisofconsumptionandWF of the food and fuel produced. Chapter 3 showed thatWF of anindividual is higher for the fuelwood consumption than the foodconsumption. Chapter 2 and chapter 3 both established that fuelwoodhasaverylargeimpactonthelandandwaterrequirement.Eventhoughboththechaptersshowthesamemagnitudeoflandandwaterdemand,thefactorsinvolvedinthemethodologyforcalculatingoflandandwaterfootprints are very different. For instance, in the calculation of landrequirement,factorslikecroppingintensityandyieldareused.However,theWF calculation depends upon biophysical factors like temperatureandprecipitation. Fromanexusperspective, Chapter 3 established theinter-linkageamongfood,energyandwatercomponent.

Chapter 2 and chapter 3 determine that fuelwood has a very largeimpact on land andwater components at rural level. Even though thisstudy has been done for India, it reflects the situation of other ruralareasindevelopingnations.Forinstance,thefoodandfuelconsumptionofanindividualinruralAfricaisalmostthesameasinruralIndia[312].It


153

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

ispossiblethattheabsolutevaluesmightnotbesimilar,butitshowsthemagnitude of land and water requirement from a consumptiveperspective. Therefore, chapter 2 and 3 signify the synergies amongwater,land,foodandenergyandtheirimplicationsoneachother.

Following the findings of Chapter 2 and 3, fuelwood has the mostsignificant impacton landandwater requirement.Thus inChapter4,ahypotheticalmethodologywasdevelopedtolinkfuelwoodconsumption,technology (i.e. cookstove) and labour (i.e. time) altogether. Thedeveloped hypothetical cooking energy system is implemented for arural Indianvillageasacasestudy.Theanalysis isbuilton localsurvey-baseddatacollectionfromthecasestudyarea.Inthecurrentsituation,householdsareusingfuelwoodascookingfuelandtraditionalcookstove(i.e.3-stoneopenfire) forcooking.Forthehypotheticalcookingenergysystem,Iintroducedefficientcookingfuelandcookstovetotheexistingsystem. I considered high-energy content fuel (i.e. charcoal) andimproved cookstove (ICS) for the system to analyse the impact of adeveloped cooking system in labour (i.e. time) component. The resultsshowthatthemoretimeisrequiredintheproductionofcharcoalfromfuelwood,astherearemoreproductionstepsincluded(seeChapter4)init.TheimportantfindingofthischapteristhatICSdecreasesthelabourtime involved in the production of cooking fuel. Since ICS saves theenergy loss, it eventually decreases the fuel demand. This shows clearsynergiesamongthetechnology,labourandenergyconsumption.

Chapter 4 analysed whether application of other cookingmethods/techniques/fuels could reduce the fuel wood demand andwhether these methods affects the time investments in fuelwoodproduction.Amodelwasdevelopedtodeterminethefuelwoodandtimeinvestments for four different cooking methods (open fires, improvedcook stove, fuelwoodandcharcoal). Itwas shown that improvedcookstove reduces fuelwooddemand, but also reduce the time required toproducethefuelwood.Optionstoreducefuelwoodusewillalsoreducesthe land and water requirements for cooking. So in this chapter therelations between energy savings, land and water and human timeinvestmentareestablished.

In Chapter 5 the metabolic energy needed to produce the cookingfuel is analysed. It uses the methodology developed in chapter 4 asstarting point and includes the physical energy needed to produce thecooking fuel furtherbriquettesare introducedasextra fueloption.Theanalysisshowsthatmakingenergyefficientcookingfuellikecharcoalorbriquettes involves large amounts of physical work and a large time

CHAPTER6

154RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

investment.Thischapterestablishestherelationsbetweencookingfueltypesandhumanenergy.

Comingbacktothefindingsfromanexusperspective,fromChapter2and3, I found that fuelhas a very large impacton the landandwatercomponents.FindingsfromChapter4 indicatethatswitchingto ICScanreduce the land and water requirement. However, chapter 5 showedthat using ICS is not useful enough in case of energy-efficient cookingfuels,astheyaretimeandhumanenergyintensive.

6.4.Comparisonbetweenruralareasindevelopingcountriesandwesternnexuscomponents

As mentioned above most of the WEF nexus studies have beenconductedonproductionsystemsintheWesternworld.Toobtainsomeinsight in the differences between the two systems it is interesting tocompare the data obtained in this thesis with existing data of thewesternworldsystem.

Table6.1providesacomparisonofsomeselectedfactorsinanutshelltogiveanoverviewofdifferencesbetweenwesternandruralworld.Thetable provides information on the difference in the magnitude of thefactors.Thevaluesprovidedforruralworldisbasedonmystudies.Thevaluesforthewesternworldhavebeensourcedfromtheotherstudies.Toprovideafaircomparison,Icollectedthevaluesconsideringthatthedata used for the western world analysis has the same sort of datacollectionprocedurefollowedinthisthesis.Thecomparisonwillprovideavaluableinsighttothedemandandconsumptionscenariofortheruralworld. The table shows that the rural population is almost twice thanthatofthewesternworld,whichindicatesthedegreeofimpactthatwearedealingwithinthisthesis.Todate,mostoftheresearchwasdoneforthe1.5billionpeople,buthereIinvestigatedthe3billionpeople,whichwerepreviouslyleftunaccountedfor.Theruralpopulationisconsuminglessfoodperperson(kcal)andthemenucontainsverysmallamountsofmeat.

The water footprint calculations are based on the individualconsumption and theWF of the food items consumed. TheWF of theconsumedfoodbyawesternindividualistakenfromthesameliteraturewherethefoodconsumptiondatahasbeenconsidered.TheWFishigherincaseoftheWesternworld.Table6.1showsthatthelandrequirementfor food in theWesternworld is almost 3 times the ruralworld. Fromliteratureisknownthatthehigherwaterandlandfootprintsforfoodinthe Western world are due to the more luxurious food consumptionpatterns.


155

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

Table6.1.ComparativetableshowingthevariationsbetweenRDCandwesternworldconsideringfewimportantfactorsforfoodconsumption

Factors RDC Westernworld1 Population(inbillion) 3 1.5 [313]2 Foodconsumption(kcal/cap/day) 1920 2200 [47]3 Meatconsumption(g/cap/day) 15 90 [47]4 Waterfootprint(m3/cap/yr) 800 ≈ 1200 [47]5 Landfootprint(m2/cap/yr) 1000 ≈3000 [50]

Table 6.2 gives comparative details of few selected factors to showthe differences between the RDC and the western world from energyperspective. It shows that the cooking energy demand constitutes ofabout90%ofthetotalhouseholdsenergyintheRDC.HoweverincaseoftheWestern world, I took an example from US, where the residentialenergyuseisdividedintoairconditioning,spaceheating,waterheating,refrigerators TV’s and related, lighting, dryers and others. The “other”group constitutes about 12% of the total residential energyconsumption,andcookingenergy isoneof the factors in it.Thispointsout the relative energy consumption in western households, which iscomparatively smaller than in rural world. The cooking fuel demand isthe amount of energy required to cook per kg of food product. RDCrequires more energy to cook than the Western world. Since, theWestern world uses efficient cooking fuel and cookstove hence thedemandinMJislesserthanthatofRDC.TheWFperunitofgrossenergyfromfuelwoodislargerthantheelectricityproducedfromnaturalgas.

The WF value for the western world is the total water footprint,whichisusedintheproductionofelectricityfromnaturalgas.Itincludesthewholeproductionchain(i.e.operation,constructionandfuelsupply).Mekonnen et al. [314] established that the WF is very high in theoperation level of electricity production for fossil fuel based energysources. However, in case of electricity produced from fuelwood, itshowed that the fuel supply level has the highest WF, as the WF offuelwood is larger than that of fossil fuel. The land footprint providesinformation on the land required per unit of energy. It shows that thelandfootprintofLPGisalmostnegligibleincomparisontolandfootprintoffuelwood.Thewesternworld isusingfarmoreenergythantheruralareas,butsincetheenergyinthewesternworldismainlybasedonfossil

CHAPTER6

156RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

fuels, the land and water footprint of their energy use is negligible incomparisonwiththefootprintsoftheruralworld.

Table6.2.ComparativetableshowingthevariationsbetweenRDCandwesternworldconsideringfewimportantfactorsforfuelwoodconsumption

Factors RDC Westernworld

1Percentageofcookingenergydemandinahousehold(%) 90 [130] 12 [315]

2 Cookingenergydemand(MJ/kgfoodproduct)

12 7 [316][317]

3 Waterfootprint(m3/GJ) 5641 0.662 [314]

4 Landfootprint(m2/MJ) 1.51 0.00013 [6]

1Fuelwood;2Electricityfromnaturalgas;3LPG

Table 6.3 shows the total land andwater requirement by the ruralpopulationforfoodandfuelconsumption.Thetotallandrequiredbytherural population (3 billion people) for food consumption is about 300Mha/yr,howeverthewesternpopulationrequiresabout450Mha/yr.Sofewerpeopleusemoreland.Thewaterrequirementforfoodincaseoftheruralpopulationindevelopingcountriesisabout2400Gm3/yr,whichishigherthanthetotalwesternpopulationi.e.1800Gm3/yr.Thisisdueto the fact that the difference in WF of food between the twopopulationsissmaller.

The total land required by the rural population for cooking fuel i.e.fuelwood is about 750 Mha/yr. This implies that the rural populationitselfrequiresabout20%ofthetotalglobalforest landavailable justtocookfood.Itindicatestheurgencyofswitchingfromtraditionalcookingfuel to less-resource intensive cooking for rural people. The waterfootprintofcookingfuelforRDCisabout4900Gm3/yr.ComparedtotheRDC, the water footprint of the Western world for cooking is almostnegligible. It shows the large difference in the land and waterrequirement.Table6.3showsthatthetotallandrequired(foodandfuel)by the rural population twice than that of the western population.Regarding total water requirement, the RDC requires four times thanthatofthewesternworld.


157

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

Table6.3.Comparisonofthetotallandrequirement(inMha/yr)andwaterrequirement(inGm3/yr)bytheRDCandWesternworldforfoodandfuel

consumption

Food Fuel TotalLand Water Land Water Land Water

RDC 300 2400 750 4900 1050 7300Westernworld

450 1800 0.072 5 450 1805

Thelandandwaterfootprintfortheruralpopulationisrelativelylessthan that of theWesternworld.However, high population in the ruralworld increases the total footprints. It is much worse in case offuelwood, as the footprints are higher and hence high populationmultipliesthetotallandandwaterdemand. Theanalysisaboveshowstheenormousdifferencesbetweenthetwodifferent worlds population size, consumption, techniques used; as aconsequencesolutionstoreduceresourceuseintheWesternworldarenotatallapplicabletotheRDC.Thefindingsinchapter5areillustrativefor this. This chapter shows that someof theenergy reductionoptionsrequirefarmorehumanenergythanothersanditmightexplainonwhythe ICS are not accepted in rural areas. A lot of existing studies payattention to theproblemof not accepting ICS [221], butnoneof themaddresses the human labour issue, only social economic issues wereaddressed.HoweverfromtheWEFnexusperspectivehumanlabourisalimited energy source and efficient use of this resource is essential fortheruralpopulation.

The total resource use in the RDC however is very large andimprovements in resource use efficiencies in these communities areessentialfromaglobalperspective.Itisstrikingthatsolimitedresearchisactuallydoneonsuchalargeproblem.

6.5.Overallconclusion

A nexus study provides an important insight into the interactionsamong different components in a system. This rural perspective nexusstudy gives an impression of the intensive inter-connection of thecomponents. The bottom-up approach allows us to identify themagnitude of resource demand at local level and shows the ongoinginteractionsamongthecomponents.Normally,instudiesrelatedtofoodandfuel,atypicalanalysisof landandwaterdemandisdone.Basically,these sorts of studies are done for the Western countries because of

CHAPTER6

158RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

their affluent diet. In case of fuel, most of the studies are based ondevelopingefficientenergysystems.

Byapplyinganexusapproach,thisthesisprovidesaninsightintothecooking energy systemof the RDC,which has not been quantified yet.The quantification showed the synergies and trade-offs among thecomponents. This thesis pointed out that fuelwood has a very largeimpact on the land and water demand. It also showed that energyintensivefuelslikecharcoalandbriquettesarealsolabourintensive.

Thekeyfindingsofthethesisareasfollows:

a) This thesis quantified the amount of land, water and labourrequiredforan individual foodandfuelconsumption.ThisstudyshowedthattheenergyintakefromfoodconsumptionintheRDCisrelativelylowerthanthatofthewesternworld.Consumptionofanimal based products is much less compared to the westernworld.Normally,theruralpeopleconsumestaplefooditemslikerice andwheat, and a substantial amountofmilk,whichhas animpact on the land andwater demand. In case of cooking fuel,theconsumptionof fuelwood ismuchhigher than thatof fossil-fuelbased cooking fuel. I established that fuelwoodhasamuchhigherimpactonthelandandwaterdemandthanthefood.

b) Thisstudyhasbeenexplicitlydonefor IndiaandNepalasacasestudy. A bottom-up approach revealed that there are largeconsumption variations among the regions, which eventuallyaffects the landandwaterdemand.Theregionalstudyprovidedmoreunderstandingintothefactorsaffectingthewaterandlanddemand.Forinstance,cropandbiomassyielddiffersfromregionto region, which shows the variation among the regions.However, there are other physical and geographical factors liketemperature and precipitation, which has some impact on thewaterfootprint.

c) The land andwater footprint for food consumption in the ruralworldisnotabigissue,astheyalreadyhavesmallfootprintsforit. In caseof fuelwood, there is notmuch scope to increase thebiomassyield.Since,itisanaturallygrownforestortreesoutsideforest(TOF).However,peopleinruralhouseholdsusetraditionalcookstoves, which are highly inefficient cookstove. As shown inthis thesis, traditional cookstoves and cooking fuel have largeimpact on the land andwater footprint of an individual.Hence,


159

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

CHA

PTER

6

CHAP

TER6

inclusion of improved cookstoves (ICS) can eventually decreasethefuelwooddemand.

d) Labourisoneofthemainfactors,whichisanintensivepartofthenexus, especially in rural areas. Labour is mainly required toproduce cooking fuel, which is eventually used for cooking. Ishowed that a large amount of time and human energy isrequired in theproductionofcooking fuel,asaruralpersonhasto travel to collect fuelwood. Time and human energy are veryimportant for rural population. Hence, fossil fuel like keroseneand LPG could be a better alternative for conventional cookingfuelastheyhavelowerimpactonthelandandwaterdemand.

Finally,thisnexusapproachprovidesanoverviewoftheinter-linkageamong thecomponents fora sustainablenexus.Tobeprecise, there isno single solution for all the regions. For example, fuelwood collectingfromanearbyforestismoreeffectivethanbuyingkeroseneorLPGfromamarket,whichissituatedfaraway.Hence,alocallevelstudyprovidesmorein-depthinsightontheinteractionsamongthecomponents.EventhoughthisstudyhasbeendoneforIndiaandNepal,butitispossibletoextrapolate the values with those of other developing country’s ruralareas. Fig 6.2 concludes the final results from the Chapters and showsthenexusconnection.

CHAPTER6

160RE

FERE

NCE

S

CHAP

TER6

6.5.1.Conclusioninanutshell

Fig.6.2.Connectingchaptersandthecomponentstogethertomakeanexus

REFERENCES

161

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

REFERENCES

[1] FAO,“Thestateoftheworld’slandandwaterresourcesforfoodand agriculture (SOLAW)-Managing systems at risk,” Rome andEarthscan,London,2011.

[2] M. Balmer, “Energy poverty and cooking energy requirements:The forgotten issue in South African energy policy?,” J. EnergySouth.Africa,vol.18,no.3,pp.4–9,2007.

[3] E.Moiolietal.,“Analysisofthecurrentworldbiofuelproductionunder a water–food–energy nexus perspective,” Adv. WaterResour.,vol.121,no.May,pp.22–31,2018.

[4] TheWorldBank,“WaterinAgriculture,”WorldBankGroup,2017.[Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture.[Accessed:09-Oct-2019].

[5] The World Bank, “Arable land,” The World Bank Group, 2018.[Online]. Available:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?locations=IN.[Accessed:23-Mar-2018].

[6] GlobalLandOutlook,“EnergyandLandUse,”2017.[7] P.W. Gerbens-Leenes, A. Y. Hoekstra, and T. H. van derMeer,

“Water footprint of bio-energy and other primary energycarriers,”2008.

[8] L. K. Grimsby, J. B. Aune, and F. H. Johnsen, “Human energyrequirementsinJatrophaoilproductionforruralelectrificationinTanzania,”EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.16,no.3,pp.297–302,2012.

[9] J.Popp,Z.Lakner,M.Harangi-Rákos,andM.Fári, “Theeffectofbioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment,” Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.32,pp.559–578,2014.

[10] FAO,“TheWater-Energy-FoodNexus:Anewapproachinsupportoffoodsecurityandsustainableagriculture,”Rome,2014.

[11] D.Gerten,J.Heinke,H.Hoff,H.Biemans,M.Fader,andK.Waha,“Global Water Availability and Requirements for Future FoodProduction,”J.Hydrometeorol.,vol.12,no.5,pp.885–899,2011.

[12] C.Ringler,A.Bhaduri, andR. Lawford, “Thenexusacrosswater,energy, land and food (WELF): Potential for improved resourceuse efficiency?,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., vol. 5, no. 6, pp.617–624,2013.

[13] UNESCAP, “Water, Food and Energy Nexus in Asia and thePacific,”2013.

[14] J.Ranganathan,R.Waite,T.Searchinger,andC.Hanson,“HowtoSustainablyFeed10BillionPeopleby2050, in21Charts|World

REFERENCES

162RE

FERE

NCE

S

Resources Institute,” World Resource Institute, 2018. [Online].Available: https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts.[Accessed:26-Aug-2019].

[15] FAO,Dimensionsofneed:Anatlasof foodandagriculture.FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,1995.

[16] S. Hodgson, Land and water - the rights interface. Rome: FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,2004.

[17] Deloitte,“Thefoodvaluechain:Achallengeforthenextcentury,”London,2013.

[18] P. Dasgupta et al., “Rural areas,” in Climate Change 2014:Impacts,AdaptationandVulnerability,PartA:GlobalandSectoralAspects,C.B. Field,V.R.Barros,D. J.Dokken,K. J.Mach,M.D.Mastrandrea,T.E.Bilir,M.Chatterjee,K.L.Ebi,Y.O.Estrada,R.C.Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R.Mastrandrea, and L. L.White, Eds. Cambridge, United Kingdomand New York, NY, USA,: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp.613–658.

[19] V.WieglebandA.Bruns,“Whatisdrivingthewater-energy-foodnexus? Discourses, knowledge, and politics of an emergingresourcegovernanceconcept,”Front.Environ.Sci.,vol.6,no.128,2018.

[20] J. Goldemberg, A. K. N. Reddy, K. R. Smith, and R. H.Williams,“Rural energy in developing countries,” in World EnergyAssessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, NewYork:UNDP,2010.

[21] M.C.Nesheim,M.Oria,andP.T.Yih,Aframeworkforassessingeffects of the food system. Washington D.C.: The NationalAcademiesPress,2015.

[22] F.Harrisetal.,“TheWaterFootprintofDiets:AGlobalSystematicReviewandMeta-analysis,”Adv.Nutr.,vol.00,pp.1–12,2019.

[23] S.BouzarovskiandS.Petrova,“Aglobalperspectiveondomesticenergydeprivation:Overcoming theenergypoverty-fuelpovertybinary,”EnergyRes.Soc.Sci.,vol.10,pp.31–40,2015.

[24] FAO,“Energy-SmartFoodatFAO:Anoverview,”Rome, Italy,53,2012.

[25] V. Sandström, H. Valin, T. Krisztin, P. Havlík,M. Herrero, and T.Kastner,“TheroleoftradeinthegreenhousegasfootprintsofEUdiets,”Glob.FoodSec.,vol.19,pp.48–55,2018.

[26] FAO, “The Energy and Agriculture Nexus,” Environment andNaturalResourcesWorkingPaperNo.4,2000.[Online].Available:

REFERENCES

163

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

http://www.fao.org/3/x8054e/x8054e00.htm#P-1_0. [Accessed:21-Apr-2019].

[27] M. J.KetlhoilweandK.M.Kanene,“Access toenergysources inthe faceof climate change: Challenges facedbywomen in ruralcommunities,”JambaJ.DisasterRiskStud.,vol.10,no.1,pp.1–8,2018.

[28] L.C.ZuluandR.B.Richardson,“Charcoal,livelihoods,andpovertyreduction: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa,” Energy Sustain.Dev.,vol.17,no.2,pp.127–137,2013.

[29] X. Cai, K. Wallington, M. Shafiee-Jood, and L. Marston,“Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus –opportunitiesforwaterresourcesresearch,”Adv.WaterResour.,vol.111,pp.259–273,2018.

[30] Y.Nieetal.,“AFood-Energy_waterNexusapproachfor landuseoptimization,”Sci.TotalEnviron.,vol.659,pp.7–19,2019.

[31] J.Daietal.,“Water-energynexus:Areviewofmethodsandtoolsfor macro-assessment,” Appl. Energy, vol. 210, pp. 393–408,2018.

[32] T.Mabhaudhietal.,“TheWater–Energy–FoodNexusasaTooltoTransformRural Livelihoods andWell-Being in Southern Africa,”Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 16, no. 16, p. 2970, Aug.2019.

[33] H. Hoff, “Understanding the Nexus. Background Paper for theBonn 2011 Conference: TheWater, Energy and Food Security,”Stockholm,2011.

[34] C.Zhang,X.Chen,Y.Li,W.Ding,andG.Fu,“Water-energy-foodnexus: Concepts, questions andmethodologies,” J. Clean. Prod.,vol.195,pp.625–639,2018.

[35] World Economic Forum, “Water Security: The Water-Food-Energy-ClimateNexus,”World Economic ForumWater initiative.p. 39,2011.

[36] L.Bizikova,D.Roy,H.D.Venema,andM.McCandles,“TheWater-Energy-Food Nexus and Agricultural Investment: A sustainabledevelopmentguidebook,”Canada,2014.

[37] A. Flammini, M. Puri, L. Pluschke, and O. Dubois, “Walking theNexus Talk: Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in theContextoftheSustainableEnergyforAllInitiative,”Rome,2014.

[38] C.W.KingandM.Carbajales-Dale, “Food–energy–watermetricsacrossscales:projecttosystemlevel,”J.Environ.Stud.Sci.,vol.6,pp.39–49,2016.

[39] H. K. Jeswani, R. Burkinshaw, and A. Azapagic, “Environmental

REFERENCES

164RE

FERE

NCE

S

sustainability issues in the food-energy-water nexus: Breakfastcereals and snacks,”Sustain. Prod. Consum., vol. 2, no. July, pp.17–28,2015.

[40] E. Gupta, “The impact of solar water pumps on energy-water-food nexus: Evidence from Rajasthan, India,” Energy Policy, vol.129,no.December2018,pp.598–609,2019.

[41] SIWI,“Thewaterandfoodnexus:TrendsanddevelopmentoftheresearchLandscpae,”2012.

[42] P. C. Stern, “Toward a working definition of conusmption forenvironmental research and policy,” in EnvironmentallySignificant Consumption: Research Directions, Washington, D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress,1997.

[43] D.M.Evans,“Whatisconsumption,wherehasitbeengoing,anddoes it still matter?,” Sociol. Rev., vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 499–517,2018.

[44] S. Galaitsi, J. Veysey, and A. Huber-lee, “Where is the addedvalue? A review of the water-energy-food nexus literature,”Stockholm,Sweden,2018.

[45] E. M. Biggs et al., “Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods,” Environ. Sci.Policy,vol.54,pp.389–397,2015.

[46] P. R. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, “Impact of population growth,”Science(80-.).,vol.171,no.3977,pp.1212–1217,Mar.1971.

[47] A.Blas,A.Garrido,O.Unver,andB.Willaarts, “AcomparisonoftheMediterraneandietandcurrentfoodconsumptionpatternsinSpain from a nutritional and water perspective,” Sci. TotalEnviron.,vol.664,pp.1020–1029,2019.

[48] M. Bruckner, G. Fischer, S. Tramberend, and S. Giljum,“Measuringtelecouplingsinthegloballandsystem:Areviewandcomparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods,”Ecol.Econ.,vol.114,pp.11–21,2015.

[49] P. W. Gerbens-Leenes, S. Nonhebel, and W. P. M. F. Ivens, “Amethod to determine land requirements relating to foodconsumptionpatterns,”Agric.Ecosyst.Environ.,vol.90,no.1,pp.47–58,2002.

[50] T. Kastner, M. J. I. Rivas, W. Koch, and S. Nonhebel, “Globalchangesindietsandtheconsequencesforlandrequirementsforfood,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 109, no. 18, pp. 6868–6872,2012.

[51] W.AbrahamseandL.Steg,“FactorsRelatedtoHouseholdEnergy

REFERENCES

165

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

Use and Intention to Reduce It: The Role of Psychological andSocio-DemographicVariables,”Hum.Ecol.Rev.,vol.18,no.1,pp.30–40,2011.

[52] V.Sukhwani,R.Shaw,B.K.Mitra,andW.Yan,“OptimizingFood-Energy-Water(FEW)nexustofostercollectiveresilienceinurban-rural systems,” Prog. Disaster Sci., vol. 1, no. 100005, pp. 1–4,2019.

[53] A.Kamp,H.Østergård,andS.Bolwig,“Environmentalassessmentof integrated food and cooking fuel production for a Village inGhana,”Sustain.,vol.8,no.404,pp.1–16,2016.

[54] R.HannahandM.Roser,“EnergyProduction&ChangingEnergySources,”OurWorldInData,2019..

[55] N.A.MaccartyandK.M.Bryden,“An integratedsystemsmodelforenergyservicesinruraldevelopingcommunities,”Energy,vol.113,pp.536–557,2016.

[56] G. Singh, G. S. Rawat, and D. Verma, “Comparative study offuelwoodconsumptionbyvillagersandseasonal‘“Dhabaowners”’ in the tourist affected regions of Garhwal Himalaya , India,”EnergyPolicy,vol.38,no.4,pp.1895–1899,2010.

[57] Z. C. Win, N. Mizoue, T. Ota, T. Kajisa, and S. Yoshida,“Consumptionratesandusepatternsoffirewoodandcharcoalinurban and rural communities in Yedashe Township, Myanmar,”Forests,vol.9,no.7,pp.1–11,2018.

[58] S. Yamamoto, A. Sié, and R. Sauerborn, “Cooking fuels and thepush for cleaner alternatives: A case study from Burkina Faso,”Glob.HealthAction,vol.2,no.1,pp.1–9,2009.

[59] G. Kohlin, E. O. Silla, S. K. Pattanayak, and C. Wilfong, “SocialDevelopment Working Papers: Energy, Gender andDevelopment,”WashingtonDC,125,2011.

[60] R.Balakrishnan,“Ruralwomenandfoodsecurity inAsiaandthePacific:Prospectsandparadoxes,”Bangkok,Thailand,2005.

[61] B.Khamati-NjengaandJ.Clancy,“ConceptsandIssuesinGenderandEnergy,”2003.

[62] E. Cecelski, “The role of women in sustainable energydevelopment,”Colorado,2000.

[63] I. Mahat, “Integrating Gender into Planning, Management andImplementation of Rural Energy Technologies: The PerspectivesofWomeninNepal,”MasseyUniversity,2004.

[64] G. Kohlin, E.O. Sills, S. K. Pattanayak, and C.Wilfong, “Energy ,GenderandDevelopment,”2011.

[65] J. S. Clancy, S. Batchelor, andM. Skutsch, “The Gender-Energy-

REFERENCES

166RE

FERE

NCE

S

PovertyNexus,”Sustain.Dev.,2003.[66] S. S. Padmadas, J. G. Dias, and F. Willekens, “Understanding

Dietary Intake Behavior of Women in India : A Latent ClassApproach,”A03/15,2015.

[67] R.Nathetal.,“ChangesinArableLandDemandforFoodinIndiaand China: A Potential Threat to Food Security,” sustainability,vol.7,no.5,pp.5371–5397,2015.

[68] N. D. Chauvin, F.Mulangu, andG. Porto, “Food Production andConsumption Trends in Sub-Saharan Africa: Prospects for thetransformationoftheagriculturalsector,”2012.

[69] M. Ibarrola-Rivas,T.Kastner,andS.Nonhebel,“HowMuchTimeDoes a Farmer Spend to Produce My food? An InternationalComparison of the Impact of Diets and Mechanization,”Resources,vol.5,no.4,p.47,2016.

[70] E.R.Frederiks,K.Stenner,andE.V.Hobman,“Householdenergyuse: Applying behavioural economics to understand consumerdecision-makingandbehaviour,”Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.41,pp.1385–1394,2015.

[71] FoodandAgricuturalOrganization,“Humanenergyrequirements:ReportofaJointFAO/WHO/UNUExpertConsultation,”2001.

[72] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “News,” UN,2018. [Online]. Available:https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html. [Accessed: 22-Apr-2019].

[73] P. Alexander, C. Brown, A. Arneth, J. Finnigan, and M. D. A.Rounsevell, “Human appropriation of land for food: The role ofdiet,”Glob.Environ.Chang.,vol.41,pp.88–98,2016.

[74] C.K.Bosire,J.O.Ogutu,M.Y.Said,M.S.Krol,J.deLeeuw,andA.Y. Hoekstra, “Trends and spatial variation in water and landfootprintsofmeatandmilkproductionsystemsinKenya,”Agric.Ecosyst.Environ.,vol.205,pp.36–47,2015.

[75] G. Anríquez and L. Stloukal, “Rural Population Change inDeveloping Countries: Lessons for Policymaking,”Eur. View, vol.7,no.2,pp.309–317,2008.

[76] S.MallaandG.R.Timilsina,“HouseholdCookingFuelChoiceandAdoption of Improved Cookstoves in Developing Countries: AReview,”WashingtonD.C.,6903,2014.

[77] A.Mohan,“Whoselandisitanyway?Energyfutures&landuseinIndia,”EnergyPolicy,vol.110,no.June,pp.257–262,2017.

REFERENCES

167

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

[78] FAO,GlobalForestResourcesAssessment2015.Rome:FoodandAgriculturalOrganizationoftheUnitedNations(FAO),2015.

[79] S.CharoenratanaandC.Shinohara,“Ruralfarmersinanunequalworld: Land rights and food security for sustainablewell-being,”Landusepolicy,vol.78,no.June2017,pp.185–194,2018.

[80] P. Alexander, M. D. A. Rounsevell, C. Dislich, J. R. Dodson, K.Engström,andD.Moran,“Driversforglobalagriculturallandusechange:Thenexusofdiet,population,yieldandbioenergy,”Glob.Environ.Chang.,vol.35,pp.138–147,2015.

[81] N. D. Rao, J. Min, R. DeFries, S. Ghosh-Jerath, H. Valin, and J.Fanzo, “Healthy, affordable and climate-friendly diets in India,”Glob.Environ.Chang.,vol.49,no.March,pp.154–165,2018.

[82] W. Gerbens-Leenes and S. Nonhebel, “Food and land use. Theinfluence of consumption patterns on the use of agriculturalresources,”Appetite,vol.45,no.1,pp.24–31,2005.

[83] K.D.Singh,“Balancingfuelwoodproductionandconsumption inIndia,”Int.For.Rev.,vol.10,no.2,pp.190–200,2008.

[84] A. Chhabra, S. Palria, and V. K. Dadhwal, “Growing stock-basedforest biomass estimate for India,”Biomass and Bioenergy, vol.22,no.3,pp.187–194,2002.

[85] United Nations, “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014Revision,Highlights(ST/ESA/SER.A/352),”NewYork,2014.

[86] FAO, “Crop Diversification in the Asia-Pacific Region,” Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2001. [Online].Available:http://www.fao.org/3/x6906e/x6906e00.htm#Contents.[Accessed:21-Feb-2019].

[87] I. S. Bisht et al., “Subsistence Farming, Agrobiodiversity, andSustainable Agriculture: A Case Study,” Agroecol. Sustain. FoodSyst.,vol.38,no.8,pp.890–912,Sep.2014.

[88] R.RanjanandS.Singh,“EnergydeprivationofIndianhouseholds:evidence fromNSSO data,” NewDelhi,MPRA Paper No. 83566,2017.

[89] NSSO, “Energy Sources of Indian Households for Cooking andLighting,2011-12,”NewDelhi,2015.

[90] K. EkouevI and V. Tuntivate, “Household Energy Access forCooking and Heating: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward,”WashingtonD.C.,Paperno.23,2011.

[91] C.Y.ChengandJ.Urpelainen,“FuelstackinginIndia:Changesinthe cooking and lighting mix, 1987-2010,” Energy, vol. 76, pp.306–317,2014.

REFERENCES

168RE

FERE

NCE

S

[92] FSI, India State of Forest Report 2013. Dehradun: Ministry ofEnvironment&Forests,2013.

[93] GAIN, “Wood and Wood Products in India 2014,” New Delhi,2014.

[94] D.Pandey,“Treesoutsidetheforest(TOF)resourcesinIndia,”Int.For.Rev.,vol.10,no.2,pp.125–133,2008.

[95] ForestSurveyof India, “ForestandTreeResources inStatesandUnionTerritories,”IndianStateFor.Report,2015,p.181,2015.

[96] T. Kastner and S. Nonhebel, “Changes in land requirements forfoodinthePhilippines:Ahistoricalanalysis,”Landusepolicy,vol.27,no.3,pp.853–863,2010.

[97] NSSO,“HouseholdConsumptionofVariousGoodsandServicesinIndia2011-12,”2014.

[98] GovernmentofIndia,AgriculturalStatisticsataGlance2014,FirstEdit.NewDelhi:OxfordUniversityPress,2015.

[99] FAO, “Technical Conversion Factors for AgriculturalCommodities,”2000.

[100] FAO, “ESS: Nutritive Factors,” FAO . [Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/economic/the-statistics-division-ess/publications-studies/publications/nutritive-factors/en/.[Accessed:13-May-2018].

[101] P. P. Bhojvaid and P. Kant, “CDM Activities in Trees OutsideForests in North- West India with a Special Reference toEucalypts,” in Eucalyptus in India, Dehradun: Forest ResearchInstitute,2014,pp.267–279.

[102] K. H. Gautam and N. N. Devoe, “Ecological and anthropogenicnichesofsal (ShorearobustaGaertn. f.) forestandprospectsformultiple-product forest management - A review,” Forestry, vol.79,no.1SPEC.ISS.,pp.81–101,2006.

[103] T. Bhaduria and P. S. Ramakrishnan, “Population Dynamics ofEarthwormsandTheirActivityinForestEcosystemsofNorth-EastIndia,”J.Trop.Ecol.,vol.7,no.3,pp.305–318,1991.

[104] N. Giri, R. Kumar, L. Rawat, and P. Kumar, “Development ofBiomassExpansionFactor(BEF)andEstimationofCarbonPoolinAilanthus excelsa Roxb Plantation,” J. Chem. Eng. ProcessTechnol.,vol.5,no.6,pp.1–4,2014.

[105] J.Fang,T.Oikawa,T.Kato,W.Mo,andZ.Wang,“Biomasscarbonaccumulation by Japan’s forest from 1947 to 1995,” GlobalBiogeochem.Cycles,vol.19,no.2,pp.1–10,2005.

[106] H.Peterssonetal.,“Individualtreebiomassequationsorbiomass

REFERENCES

169

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

expansionfactorsforassessmentofcarbonstockchangesinlivingbiomass-Acomparativestudy,”For.Ecol.Manage.,vol.270,pp.78–84,2012.

[107] B. Tobin and M. Nieuwenhuis, “Biomass expansion factors forSitkaspruce(Piceasitchensis(Bong.)Carr.)inIreland,”Eur.J.For.Res.,vol.126,no.2,pp.189–196,2007.

[108] World Agroforestry Centre, “Wood Density Database,” WorldAgroforestry Centre, 2018. [Online]. Available:http://www.worldagroforestry.org/output/wood-density-database.[Accessed:13-Apr-2018].

[109] S. Brown, “Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropicalforests:APrimer(FAOForestrypaper-134),”FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations,Rome,1997.

[110] S. Brown, Estimating biomass and biomass change of tropicalforests : a primer. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnitedNations,1997.

[111] M. A. Sheikh, M. Kumar, R. W. Bussman, and N. P. Todaria,“ForestcarbonstocksandfluxesinphysiographiczonesofIndia,”CarbonBalanceManag.,vol.6,no.1,p.15,2011.

[112] J. Navar,Methods of Assessment of Aboveground Tree Biomass.InTech,2010.

[113] M.Ramesh,S.S.M.C.Naik,G.Kavitha,andB.R.P.Rao,“Carbonstocks of linear structures of trees out side forest in KurnoolDistrict,AndhraPradesh, India,”PlantSci.Res.,vol.37,no.1&2,pp.1–7,2015.

[114] W. T. Simpson, “SpecificGravity,Moisture Content, andDensityRelationshipforWood,”MadisonWI,1993.

[115] TheMinistryofEnvironmentandForests,“IndiaForestryOutlookStudy,”Bangkok,Thailand,APFSOSII/WP/2009/06,2009.

[116] M. Arnold, G. Köhlin, R. Persson, and G. Shepherd, “FuelwoodRevisited: What has changed in the last decade?,” Indonesia,CIFOROccasionalPaperNo.39,2003.

[117] FAO, “Forests and energy in developing countries,” For. EnergyWork.Pap.,p.32,2008.

[118] TheWorldBank,“Populationdensity (PerSq.Km.),”WorldBankGroup, 2018. [Online]. Available:https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST?locations=IN.[Accessed:28-Apr-2018].

[119] NITI Aayog, “Population Density (Per Sq. Km.),” NITI Aayog(NationalInstitutionforTransformingIndia),GovernmentofIndia,2017. [Online]. Available: http://niti.gov.in/content/population-

REFERENCES

170RE

FERE

NCE

S

density-sq-km.[Accessed:28-Apr-2018].[120] TheWorldBank,“Population,”WorldBankGroup,2018.[Online].

Available: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.[Accessed:09-Apr-2018].

[121] K.Das,M.Hiloidhari,D.C.Baruah, andS.Nonhebel, “Impactoftime expenditure on household preferences for cooking fuels,”Energy,vol.151,pp.309–316,2018.

[122] A. Y. Hoekstra, “Sustainable, efficient, and equitable water use:the three pillars under wise freshwater allocation,” WileyInterdiscip.Rev.Water,vol.1,no.1,pp.31–40,2013.

[123] A. Y. Hoekstra, Ed., Virtual water trade: Proceedings of theInternationalexpertmeetingonvirtualwatertrade,vol.ValueofW. Delft,theNetherlands,2003.

[124] A. Y. Hoekstra, A. K. Chapagain, M. M. Aldaya, and M. M.Mekonnen,TheWater FootprintAssessmentManual. Earthscan,2011.

[125] J.F.Schyns,A.Y.Hoekstra,M.J.Booij,R.J.Hogeboom,andM.M.Mekonnen,“Limitstotheworld’sgreenwaterresourcesforfood,feed,fiber,timber,andbioenergy,”Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.,vol.116,no.11,pp.4893–4898,2019.

[126] M.M.MekonnenandA.Y.Hoekstra, “Thegreen,blueandgreywater footprint of crops and derived crop products,” Hydrol.EarthSyst.Sci.,vol.15,no.5,pp.1577–1600,2011.

[127] D.Grigg,“Thepatternofworldproteinconsumption,”Geoforum,vol.26,no.1,pp.1–77,1995.

[128] P.WinnieGerbens-Leenes,“DietaryTransition:LongtermTrends,Animal Versus Plant Energy Intake, and Sustainability Issues,” inVegetarian and Plant-Based Diets in Health and DiseasePrevention,F.Mariotti,Ed.AcademicPress,2017,pp.117–134.

[129] FAO, “Staple foods: What do people eat?,” 2019. [Online].Available: http://www.fao.org/3/U8480E07.htm#Proportions offoodinaveragediets.[Accessed:07-Dec-2019].

[130] IEA,“WorldEnergyOutlook,” InternationalEnergyAgency,2016.[Online]. Available:http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessdatabase/.

[131] WHO,“TheWorldHealthReport,”Boston,MA,2002.[132] HealthEffectsInstitute,“HealthEffectsofOutdoorAirPollutionin

DevelopingCountriesofAsia:A LiteratureReview,”Boston,MA,2004.

REFERENCES

171

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

[133] J.E.M.Arnold,G.Köhlin,andR.Persson,“Woodfuels,livelihoods,andpolicyinterventions:Changingperspectives,”WorldDev.,vol.34,no.3,pp.596–611,2006.

[134] IEA, “WorldEnergyOutlook2010,” International EnergyAgency,2010. [Online].Available:https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2010.[Accessed:07-Dec-2019].

[135] M. Ezzatiet al., “Energymanagement and global health,”Annu.Rev.Environ.Resour.,vol.29,no.1,pp.383–419,Nov.2004.

[136] K.R.Smith, “Nationalburdenofdisease in India from indoorairpollution,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 97, no. 24, pp.13286–13293,2000.

[137] M. S. Alam, A. M. Z. Huq, and B. K. Bala, “An integrated ruralenergymodelforavillage inBangladesh,”Energy,vol.15,no.2,pp.131–139,1990.

[138] M.D.Miah,H.AlRashid,andM.Y.Shin, “Wood fueluse in thetraditional cooking stoves in the rural floodplain areas ofBangladesh: A socio-environmental perspective,” Biomass andBioenergy,vol.33,no.1,pp.70–78,2009.

[139] R. Bailis et al., “Performance testing for monitoring improvedbiomass stove interventions: experiences of the HouseholdEnergy andHealth Project,”Energy Sustain.Dev., vol. 11, no. 2,pp.57–70,2007.

[140] A.M.Mobarak,P.Dwivedi,R.Bailis,L.Hildemann,andG.Miller,“Low demand for nontraditional cookstove technologies,” Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.,vol.109,no.27,pp.10815–10820,2012.

[141] P. Jagger and G. Shively, “Land use change, fuel use andrespiratory health in Uganda,” Energy Policy, vol. 67, no. 1, pp.713–726,2014.

[142] K. Das and S. Nonhebel, “A comparative study of the landrequiredforfoodandcookingfuelinruralIndia,”Agric.Syst.,vol.176,no.102682,2019.

[143] P.R.vanOelandA.Y.Hoekstra, “TowardsQuantificationof theWater Footprint of Paper: A First Estimate of its ConsumptiveComponent,”WaterResour.Manag.,vol.26,no.3,pp.733–749,2012.

[144] J.F.Schyns,M.J.Booij,andA.Y.Hoekstra,“Thewaterfootprintofwoodforlumber,pulp,paper,fuelandfirewood,”Adv.WaterResour.,vol.107,pp.490–501,2017.

[145] J.F.Schyns,M.J.Booij,andA.Y.Hoekstra,“Thewaterfootprintofwoodforlumber,pulp,paper,fuelandfirewood,”Adv.WaterResour.,vol.107,pp.490–501,2017.

REFERENCES

172RE

FERE

NCE

S

[146] FAO, “AQUASTAT - FAO’s Information System on Water andAgriculture,” Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UnitedNations, 2016. [Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/countries_regions/IND/.[Accessed:23-Oct-2018].

[147] V.Dhawan,“WaterandAgricultureinIndiaBackgroundpaperfortheSouthAsiaexpertpanelduringtheGlobalForumforFoodandAgriculture,” Backgr. Pap. South Asia Expert panel Dur. Glob.ForumFoodAgric.,p.3,2017.

[148] A.Y.HoekstraandA.Chapagain,Globalizationofwater:Sharingtheplanetsfreshwaterresources.Oxford,UK:BlackwellPublishingLtd,2008.

[149] TheWorld Bank, “Rural population | Data,”World Bank Group,2017. [Online]. Available:http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL?locations=IN.[Accessed:10-Jul-2017].

[150] NIOS, “Agriculture in India,” in India: Natural Environment,Resources&Development,vol.90,no.2254,1913,p.528.

[151] C. Muller and H. Yan, “Household Fuel Use in DevelopingCountries :ReviewofTheoryandEvidence,”2016.

[152] B.Bošković,U.Chakravorty,M.Pelli,andA.Risch,“TheEffectofForestAccessontheMarketforFuelwoodinIndia,”2018.

[153] FAO,“SmallholderfarmersinIndia:Foodsecurityandagriculturalpolicy,”Bangkok,Thailand.

[154] N. Poole, Smallholder Agriculture and Market Participation.Rugby,UK:PracticalActionPublishing,2017.

[155] P. Wester, A. Mishra, A. Mukherji, and B. Shrestha, Arun, “TheHindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Mountains, Climate Change,SustainabilityandPeople,”HinduKushHImalayanMonitoringandAssessmentProgramme(HIMAP),2019..

[156] M.WadhwaandS.P.M.Bakshi,Utilizationoffruitandvegetablewastesaslivestockfeedandassubstratesforgenerationofothervalue-addedproducts.2013.

[157] U. Pica-Ciamarra, L. Tasciotti, J. Otte, and A. Zezza, “LivestockAssets , Livestock Income and Rural Households: Cross-CountryEvidencefromHouseholdSurveys,”2011.

[158] E.M.V.Bettencourtetal.,“TheLivestockRolesintheWellbeingofRuralCommunitiesofTimor-Leste,”Rev.Econ.eSociol.Rural,vol.53,no.suppl1,pp.63–80,Mar.2015.

[159] S.M.Devi,V.Balachandar,S.I.Lee,andI.H.Kim,“Anoutlineof

REFERENCES

173

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

meat consumption in the indian population-A pilot review,”Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 507–515,2014.

[160] N. K. Barik, “Potential in Improving Nutritional Security throughAquaculture Development in India: A Regional Level Analysis,”Agric.Econ.Res.Rev.,vol.29,p.99,2016.

[161] C.Alae-Carewetal.,“FuturedietsinIndia:Asystematicreviewoffood consumption projection studies,” Glob. Food Sec., vol. 23,no.August2018,pp.182–190,2019.

[162] A. Satija et al., “Association between milk and milk productconsumption and anthropometric measures in adult men andwomeninIndia:across-sectionalstudy.,”PLoSOne,vol.8,no.4,2013.

[163] K.MorandS.Sethia,“ChangingConsumptionBasketinRuralandUrbanAreas-AJourneyfromConventionalFoodtoConvenienceFood,”PacificBus.Rev.Int.,vol.10,no.10,pp.29–39,2018.

[164] U. Kanungsukkasem et al., “Fruit and vegetable consumption inrural adults population in INDEPTH HDSS sites in Asia,” Glob.HealthAction,vol.2,no.1,p.1988,2009.

[165] Central Bureau of Statistics Nepal, “National Population andHousingCensus2011,”Kathamndu,Nepal,2012.

[166] FAO,“SmallholderfarmersinIndia:Foodsecurityandagriculturalpolicy,” FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 2002.[Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/3/ac484e/ac484e00.htm#Contents.[Accessed:12-Nov-2019].

[167] V.L.PandeyandA.Chaubal,“ComprehendinghouseholdcookingenergychoiceinruralIndia,”BiomassandBioenergy,vol.35,no.11,pp.4724–4731,2011.

[168] S. Patel, A. Khandelwal, A. Leavey, and P. Biswas, “Amodel forcost-benefit analysis of cooking fuel alternatives from a ruralIndianhouseholdperspective,”Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev., vol.56,pp.291–302,2016.

[169] UN water, “Water, Food and Energy,” United Nations, 2019.[Online]. Available: https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/water-food-and-energy/.[Accessed:16-Nov-2019].

[170] Aquastat, “Geography, Climate and Population (Water Report37),”2012.

[171] R. F. Green et al., “Greenhouse gas emissions and waterfootprintsoftypicaldietarypatternsinIndia,”Sci.TotalEnviron.,vol.643,pp.1411–1418,2018.

REFERENCES

174RE

FERE

NCE

S

[172] M.M.MekonnenandA.Y.Hoekstra, “Thegreen,blueandgreywater footprint of crops and derived crop products,” Delft, TheNetherlands,2010.

[173] K.F.Davisetal.,“AlternativecerealscanimprovewateruseandnutrientsupplyinIndia,”Sci.Adv.,vol.4,no.7,pp.1–12,2018.

[174] M.M.MekonnenandA.Y.Hoekstra, “Thegreen,blueandgreywaterfootprintoffarmanimalsandanimalproducts,”2010.

[175] I.C.M.FranckeandJ.F.W.Castro,“Carbonandwaterfootprintanalysis of a soap bar produced in Brazil by Natura Cosmetics,”WaterResour.Ind.,vol.1–2,pp.37–48,2013.

[176] R. Bosman, “Water footprint of widely used constructionmaterials–Steel ,CementandGlass,”UniversityofTwente,TheNetherlands,2016.

[177] J.L.Blanchez,“Asia-PacificForestrySectorOutlookStudy:ForestResources and Roundwood Supply in the Asia Pacific Countries:SituationandOutlooktotheYear2010,”Rome,APFSOS/WP/17,1997.

[178] B.P.Bhatt,S.K.Sarangi,andL.C.De,“Fuelwoodharacteristicsofsome firewood trees and shrubs of Eastern Himalaya, India,”EnergySources,PartARecover.Util. Environ.Eff., vol.32,no.5,pp.469–474,2010.

[179] R.Suhag,“OverviewofGroundWaterinIndia,”2016.[180] M.M.Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra, “National water footprint

accounts:Thegreen,blueandgreywaterfootprintofproductionandconsumption,”Delft,theNetherlands,2011.

[181] M.M.MekonnenandA.Y.Hoekstra,“AGlobalAssessmentoftheWater Footprint of FarmAnimal Products,”Ecosystems, vol. 15,no.3,pp.401–415,2012.

[182] D. Kampman, “The water footprint of India,” Value Water Res.Rep.Ser.,no.32,p.152,2007.

[183] J. F. Schyns and D. Vanham, “The water footprint of wood forenergy consumed in the European Union,”Water (Switzerland),vol.11,no.2,pp.1–11,2019.

[184] C.Ground,W. Board,M.Of, andW. Resources, “GroundWaterLevelScenarioinIndia,”2012.

[185] H. J. Schenk and R. B. Jackson, “Rooting depths, lateral rootspreadsandbelow-ground/above-groundallometriesofplantsinwater-limited ecosystems,” J. Ecol., vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 480–494,2002.

[186] W. T. Simpson, “Equilibrium Moisture Content of Wood in

REFERENCES

175

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

OutdoorLocationsintheUnitedStatesandWorldwide,”MadisonWI,1998.

[187] R. K. Jain, “Fuelwood characteristics of some tropical trees ofIndia,”BiomassandBioenergy,vol.4,no.6,pp.461–464,1993.

[188] J. I. Nirmal Kumar, K. Patel, R. N. Kumar, and R. K. Bhoi, “Anevaluation of fuelwood properties of some Aravally mountaintreeandshrubspeciesofWesternIndia,”BiomassandBioenergy,vol.35,no.1,pp.411–414,2011.

[189] MinistryofHomeAffairs,“CensusofIndiaWebsite,”Governmentof India , 2019. [Online]. Available: http://censusindia.gov.in/.[Accessed:14-Nov-2019].

[190] NationalInstituteofOpenSchooling,“HomeScience(Methodsofcooking food),” The National Institute of Open Schooling, 2012.[Online]. Available: https://nios.ac.in/online-course-material/secondary-courses/home-science-(216)-syllabus.aspx.[Accessed:22-Nov-2018].

[191] V. Greaves, “How to Cook Rice: Tips and Recipes | Allrecipes,”Allrecipes, 2017. [Online]. Available:http://dish.allrecipes.com/how-to-cook-rice/. [Accessed: 22-Nov-2018].

[192] S. Annals, M. Botanical, and N. Nov, “The Foods of an IndianVillage on North India,”Ann.Missouri Gard., vol. 42, no. 4, pp.303–412,1955.

[193] Swasthi’s recipe, “Jowar upma recipe | Jonna upma | Jowarrecipes,” 2019. [Online]. Available:https://www.indianhealthyrecipes.com/jowar-upma-jonna-upma-jowar-recipes/.[Accessed:06-Feb-2019].

[194] Swasthi’s recipes, “Dal fry recipe video |How tomakedal fry |Simple dal recipe,” 2019. [Online]. Available:https://www.indianhealthyrecipes.com/dal-fry-recipe/.[Accessed:06-Feb-2019].

[195] Allrecipes.com, “Indian Chapati Bread Recipe,” 2019. [Online].Available: https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/85469/indian-chapati-bread/.[Accessed:06-Feb-2019].

[196] J. Pallian, “Authentic Homemade Indian Chai Tea Recipe -Foodess,” foods, 2016. [Online]. Available:https://foodess.com/authentic-indian-chai-tea-recipe/.[Accessed:06-Feb-2019].

[197] M. Aravind Shanmuga Sundaram and B. Bhattacharya,“Earthenware Water Filter: A Double Edged Sustainable DesignConcept for India,” in ICoRD’13: Global Product Development,

REFERENCES

176RE

FERE

NCE

S

Springer,India,2013,pp.1421–1431.[198] O. Singhand S. Turkiya, “A surveyofhouseholddomesticwater

consumption patterns in rural semi-arid village, India,”GeoJournal,vol.78,no.5,pp.777–790,2013.

[199] R.K.Maikhuri,“Fuelwoodconsumptionpatternofdifferenttribalcommunities living in Arunachal Pradesh in North-East India,”Bioresour.Technol.,vol.35,no.3,pp.291–296,1991.

[200] F.Urban,R.M.J.Benders,andH.C.Moll,“EnergyforruralIndia,”Appl.Energy,vol.86,no.SUPPL.1,pp.S47–S57,2009.

[201] Y. S. C. Khuman, R. Pandey, and K. S. Rao, “Fuelwoodconsumption patterns in Fakot watershed, Garhwal Himalaya,Uttarakhand,”Energy,vol.36,no.8,pp.4769–4776,2011.

[202] S. H. Kulkarni and T. R. Anil, “Status of Rural Electrification inIndia, Energy Scenario and People’s Perception of RenewableEnergyTechnologies,”Strateg.Plan.EnergyEnviron.,vol.35,no.1,pp.41–72,2015.

[203] Centerfor InternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),“Forests,fuelwoodandcharcoal:Whatpolicymakersshouldknow,”2012.

[204] G.Arabatzis,K.Petridis,S.Galatsidas,andK.Ioannou,“Ademandscenario based fuelwood supply chain: A conceptual model,”Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.25,pp.687–697,2013.

[205] B.P.BhattandM.S.Sachan,“Firewoodconsumptionpatternofdifferent tribal communities in Northeast India,” Energy Policy,vol.32,pp.1–6,2004.

[206] A. Maithani, V. Kumar, and R. Kumar, “Optimal Rural EnergyManagement : A Case Study,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng.,vol.5,no.2,pp.351–356,2015.

[207] R. Heltberg, T. C. Arndt, and N. U. Sekhar, “FuelwoodConsumption and Forest Degradation: A Household Model forDomesticEnergySubstitutioninRuralIndia,”LandEcon.,vol.76,no.2,pp.213–232,2000.

[208] J.Parikh,K.Smith,andV.Laxmi,“Indoorairpollution:Areflectionon gender bias,” Econ. Polit.Wkly., vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 539–544,1999.

[209] J.ParikhandV.Laxmi,“Biofuels,PollutionandHealthLinkages:ASurveyofRuralTamilNadu,”Econ.Polit.Wkly.,vol.35,no.47,pp.4125–4137,2000.

[210] S.F.SiebertandJ.M.Belsky,“Managedfuelwoodharvestingforenergy, income and conservation: An opportunity for Bhutan,”BiomassandBioenergy,vol.74,pp.220–223,2015.

REFERENCES

177

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

[211] Census of India, “Ministry of Home Affairs,” 2011. [Online].Available: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/. [Accessed: 05-Jun-2017].

[212] GlobalAllianceForCleanCookstoves,“IndiaCookstovesandFuelsMarketAssessment,”2013.

[213] J. G. Agea, D. Kirangwa, D.Waiswa, and C. A.Okia, “HouseholdFirewood Consumption and its Dynamics in Kalisizo Sub-County,CentralUganda,”Ethnobot.Leafl.,vol.14,pp.841–855,2010.

[214] S.C.Bhattacharya,“WoodenergyinIndia:Statusandprospects,”Energy,vol.85,pp.310–316,2015.

[215] P.SinghandH.Gundimeda,“LifeCycleEnergyAnalysis(LCEA)ofCookingFuelSourcesUsedinIndiaHouseholds,”EnergyEnviron.Eng.,vol.2,no.1,pp.20–30,2014.

[216] T. N. Bhattarai, “Charcoal and its Socio-Economic Importance inAsia :ProspectsforPromotion,”1998.

[217] F. E. Ebe, “Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Use ofFuelwood in Urban Areas of Enugu State, Nigeria,” IOSR J. Bus.Manag.,vol.16,no.11,pp.147–151,2014.

[218] D. M. Kammen and D. J. Lew, “Review of Technologies for theProduction and Use of Charcoal,” Renew. Appropr. Energy Lab.Rep.,pp.1–19,2005.

[219] ESMAP, “Energy Strategies for Rural India: Evidence from SixStates,”WashingtonD.C.,2002.

[220] G. T. Tucho,H. C.Moll, A. J.M. S.Uiterkamp, and S.Nonhebel,“Problems with biogas implementation in developing countriesfromtheperspectiveoflaborrequirements,”Energies,vol.9,no.9,2016.

[221] N.Brooks,V.Bhojvaid,M.A.Jeuland,J.J.Lewis,O.Patange,andS. K. Pattanayak, “How much do alternative cookstoves reducebiomass fuel use? Evidence from North India,” Resour. EnergyEcon.,vol.43,pp.153–171,2016.

[222] T.S.Tembo,P.B.Mulenga,andN.Sitko,“CookingFuelChoiceinUrbanZambia :ImplicationsonForestCover,”Lusaka,Zambia,94,2015.

[223] S. Pachauri and D. Spreng, “Direct and indirect energyrequirementsofhouseholdsinIndia,”EnergyPolicy,vol.30,no.6,pp.511–523,2002.

[224] NSSO, “Energy Sources of Indian Households for Cooking andLighting,”2012.

[225] T. Chalico Arias, E. Riegelhaupt, R. Martinez Bravo, O. MaseraCerutti,D.Pandey,andA.Uhlig,“Woodfuelsandclimatechange

REFERENCES

178RE

FERE

NCE

S

mitigation:CasestudiesfromBrazil, IndiaandMexico,”Rome,6,2010.

[226] A. Deka, B. Goswami, and R. Anhal, “An Analysis of AgrarianStructureandItsImpactonEconomyofAssam,”J.Agroecol.Nat.Resour.Manag.,vol.2,no.1,pp.61–64,2015.

[227] G.G.S.N.Rao,A.V.M.S.Rao,M.Vanaja,V.U.M.Rao,andY.S.Ramakrishna, Climate Change and Agriculture Over India. NewDelhi:PHILearningPrivateLimited,2010.

[228] C.R. Lohri,H.M.Rajabu,D. J. Sweeney, andC. Zurbrügg, “Charfuel production in developing countries – A review of urbanbiowastecarbonization,”Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.59,pp.1514–1530,2016.

[229] B. VanDer Kroon, R. Brouwer, and P. J. H. VanBeukering, “Theenergy ladder:Theoreticalmythorempiricaltruth?Resultsfromameta-analysis,”Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 20, pp. 504–513,2013.

[230] O.R.Masera,B.D. Saatkamp,andD.M.Kammen, “From linearfuel switching to multiple cooking strategies: A critique andalternativetotheenergy laddermodel,”WorldDev.,vol.28,no.12,pp.2083–2103,2000.

[231] N.H.RavindranathandD.O.(DavidO.Hall,Biomass,energy,andenvironment : a developing country perspective from India.Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1995.

[232] F.O.Ogwumike,U.M.Ozughalu, andG.A.Abiona, “HouseholdEnergy Use and Determinants : Evidence from Nigeria,” Int. J.EnergyEcon.Policy,vol.4,no.2,pp.248–262,2014.

[233] N.SchlagandF.Zuzarte,“MarketBarrierstoCleanCookingFuelsinSub-SaharanAfrica:AReviewofLiterature,”8,2008.

[234] PachauriShonaliandS.Daniel,“EnergyUseandEnergyAccessinRelation to Poverty,”Econ. Polit.Wkly., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 271–278,2004.

[235] IEA,“WorldEnergyOutlook,”Int.EnergyAgency,p.533,2002.[236] R. Wang and Z. Jiang, “Energy consumption in China ’ s rural

areas : A study based on the village energy survey,” J. Clean.Prod.,vol.143,pp.452–461,2017.

[237] A.Singh,A.T.Strating,N.A.R.Herrera,H.W.VanDijk,andD.VKeyson,“TowardsanethnographyofelectrificationinruralIndia:Social relations and values in household energy exchanges,”EnergyRes.Soc.Sci.,2017.

[238] H.Habermehl,“Economicevaluationof the improvedhousehold

REFERENCES

179

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

cooking stove dissemination programme in Uganda,” Eschborn,2007.

[239] T. H. Mwampamba, A. Ghilardi, K. Sander, and K. J. Chaix,“Dispelling common misconceptions to improve attitudes andpolicy outlook on charcoal in developing countries,” EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.17,no.2,pp.75–85,2013.

[240] GIZ HERA, “Charcoal Production,” 2016. [Online]. Available:https://energypedia.info/wiki/Charcoal_Production#Earth_Pit_Kilns.[Accessed:22-Jun-2017].

[241] R. Burnette, “Charcoal Production In 200-Liter Horizonal DrumKilns,”76,2012.

[242] J. C. Adam, “Improved and more environmentally friendlycharcoal production system using a low-cost retort-kiln (Eco-charcoal),”Renew.Energy,vol.34,no.8,pp.1923–1925,2009.

[243] FAO, “Bioenergy and Food Security Rapid Appraisal (BEFS RA),”2014.

[244] S. R. Chetia, M. Hiloidhari, and D. C. Baruah, “Assessment ofenergy consumption pattern in rural system: a case study inselected villages of Sonitpur district of Assam,” in Nationalseminar on climate change and sustainable development withreferencetoIndia.,2010.

[245] Department of Energy, “Final Technical Report: DST-NRDMS(Govt. of India) funded research project on Agro-climatic zonebasedmapping of renewable energy resources in Assam (2008-2011),”Tezpur,2011.

[246] D. Das, “Transition of Cooking Fuel: A Case Study of Assam inIndia,”Int.J.Econ.Commer.Manag.,vol.2,no.3,pp.1–13,2014.

[247] R. K. Maikhuri and A. K. Gangwar, “Fuelwood use by differenttribal and non-tribal communities in north-east India,” Nat.Resour.Forum,vol.15,no.2,pp.162–165,1991.

[248] FoodandAgricultureOrganisationoftheUnitedNations,“Energyfor sustainable rural development projects - Vol. 1: A reader,”1991. [Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/docrep/u2246e/u2246e00.htm. [Accessed:05-Jun-2017].

[249] FAO, “Indian Improved cookstoves: A Compendium,” Bangkok,1993.

[250] Dalberg Global Development Advisors, “India Cookstoves andFuelsMarketAssessment,”2013.

[251] K.Menemencioglu,“TraditionalwoodcharcoalproductionlabourinTurkishforestry (Çankırısample),”J.Food,Agric.Environ.,vol.

REFERENCES

180RE

FERE

NCE

S

11,no.2,pp.1136–1142,2013.[252] R.Sarmah,M.C.Bora,andD.J.Bhattacharjee,“Energyprofilesof

ruraldomesticsectorinsixun-electrifiedvillagesofJorhatdistrictofAssam,”Energy,vol.27,pp.17–24,2002.

[253] S.C.Bhattacharya,D.O.Albina,andP.A.Salam,“Emissionfactorsofwoodandcharcoal-firedcookstoves,”BiomassandBioenergy,vol.23,pp.453–469,2002.

[254] J. E. . Arnold and J. Jongma, “Wood for fuel- Fuelwood andCharcoal in developing countries,” Unasylva-29, FAO. [Online].Available:http://www.fao.org/docrep/l2015e/l2015e00.htm#Contents.[Accessed:05-Jun-2017].

[255] H. E. Smith, M. D. Hudson, and K. Schreckenberg, “Livelihooddiversification: The role of charcoal production in southernMalawi,”EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.36,pp.22–36,2017.

[256] R. Sehjpal, A. Ramji, A. Soni, and A. Kumar, “Going beyondincomes:DimensionsofcookingenergytransitionsinruralIndia,”Energy,vol.68,pp.470–477,2014.

[257] S.Show,“Natureof IncomeandExpenditureofRuralandUrbanHouseholds: A Micro Level Study in Bankura District of WestBengal,”Int.J.Agric.Sci.Vet.Med.,vol.4,no.1,pp.64–75,2016.

[258] T.Singh,S.Sharma,andS.Nagesh,“Socio-economicstatusscalesupdatedfor2017,” Int. J.Res.Med.Sci. IntJResMedSci,vol.5,no.7,pp.3264–3267,2017.

[259] TheWorld’sTrustedCurrencyAuthority,“XECurrencyConverter-Live Rates,” 2017. [Online]. Available:http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/. [Accessed: 17-Dec-2017].

[260] J.J.Lewisetal.,“BiogasStovesReduceFirewoodUse,HouseholdAir Pollution, and Hospital Visits in Odisha, India,” Environ. Sci.Technol.,vol.51,pp.560–569,2017.

[261] V.R.Putti,M.Tsan,S.Mehta,andS.Kammila,“TheStateoftheGlobalCleanandImprovedCookingSector,”Washington,2015.

[262] Gold Standard, “Gold Standard Improved Cookstove ActivitiesGuidebook Increasingcommitmentstoclean-cooking initiatives,”2016.

[263] M.Khandelwaletal.,“WhyHaveImprovedCook-StoveInitiativesinIndiaFailed?,”WorldDev.,vol.92,pp.13–27,2017.

[264] Practical Action, “Gender and Livelihoods Impacts of CleanCookstovesinSouthAsia,”2015.

REFERENCES

181

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

[265] M.ArnoldandR.Persson,“Reassessingthefuelwoodsituationindeveloping countries,” Int. For. Rev., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 379–383,2003.

[266] WinrockInternational,“FinalReportonBaselineStudytoDevelopaCleanDevelopmentMechanismorVoluntaryCarbonProjectforImprovedCookingStoveProject,”Kathmandu,2013.

[267] National Planning Commission Secretariat, Annual HouseholdSurvey2014/15, FirstEdit.Kathmandu,Nepal:CentralBureauofStatistics,GovernmentofNepal,2015.

[268] R. Shailaja, “Women, energy and sustainable development,”EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.4,no.1,pp.45–64,2000.

[269] GlobalAllianceforCleanCookstoves,“IgnitingChange:AStrategyfor Universal Adoption of Clean Cookstoves and Fuels,”WashingtonD.C.,2011.

[270] R. Heltberg, “Household fuel and energy use in DevelopingCountries-Amulticountrystudy,”2003.

[271] R.B.Held,Q.Zhang,andJ.R.Mihelcic,“Quantificationofhumanandembodiedenergyofimprovedwaterprovidedbysourceandhousehold interventions,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 60, pp. 83–92,2013.

[272] ENERGIA,“TheGenderFaceofEnergy,”2006.[273] N.Krajnc,“WoodFuelsHandbook,”Pristina,Finland,2015.[274] E.Boy,N.Bruce,K.R.Smith,andR.Hernandez,“Fuelefficiencyof

animprovedwood-burningstoveinruralGuatemala:implicationsforhealth,environmentanddevelopment,”EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.4,no.2,pp.23–31,2000.

[275] S. Steve, “Multiple-Household Fuel Use – a balanced choicebetweenfirewood,charcoalandLPG,”2014.

[276] S.Nienhys,“TheBeehiveCharcoalBriquetteStoveintheKhumbuRegion,Nepal,”Kathmandu,Nepal,2003.

[277] FAO,“BioenergyandFoodSecurityRapidAppraisal.UserManualBriquettes,”no.January2014,2014.

[278] S.PandeyandC.Regmi,“AnalysisandTestofBiomassBriquetteand Stoves,”Nepal J. Sci. Technol., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 115–120,2013.

[279] N. L. Panwar, “Design and performance evaluation of energyefficientbiomassgasifierbasedcookstoveonmulti fuels,”Mitig.Adapt.Strateg.Glob.Chang.,vol.14,no.7,pp.627–633,2009.

[280] The World Bank, “Nepal Overview,” World Bank Group, 2016.[Online]. Available:http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/nepal/overview.

REFERENCES

182RE

FERE

NCE

S

[Accessed:11-Apr-2017].[281] K.C.Surendra,S.K.Khanal,P.Shrestha,andB.Lamsal,“Current

status of renewable energy in Nepal: Opportunities andchallenges,”Renew.Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.15,no.8,pp.4107–4117,2011.

[282] R. Nepal, “Roles and potentials of renewable energy in less-developed economies: The case of Nepal,” Renew. Sustain.EnergyRev.,vol.16,no.4,pp.2200–2206,2012.

[283] R.BhandariandI.Stadler,“ElectrificationusingsolarphotovoltaicsystemsinNepal,”Appl.Energy,vol.88,no.2,pp.458–465,2011.

[284] B. B. Shrestha, “Fuelwood harvest, management andregenerationoftwocommunityforestsinCentralNepal,”Himal.J.Sci.,vol.3,no.5,pp.75–80,2007.

[285] M. Sharma and S. C. Bhattacharya, “A study of biomass as asourceofenergy:Nepal,”EnergySustain.Dev., vol.3,no.5,pp.40–45,1997.

[286] A. Gurung, O. P. Gurung, and S. E. Oh, “The potential of arenewableenergy technology for ruralelectrification inNepal:Acase study from Tangting,” Renew. Energy, vol. 36, no. 11, pp.3203–3210,2011.

[287] RahmanL.,“ImprovedCookingStoves inSouthAsia,” Islamabad,2010.

[288] M. J.HeringtonandY.Malakar,“Who isenergypoor?Revisitingenergy(in)securityinthecaseofNepal,”EnergyRes.Soc.Sci.,vol.21,pp.49–53,2016.

[289] C. F. Link, W. G. Axinn, and D. J. Ghimire, “Household EnergyConsumption:CommunityContextandtheFuelwoodTransition,”NIHPublicAccess,vol.41,no.3,pp.598–611,2012.

[290] Winrock International, “Promotion of Improved Cooking StoveUseinNepal,”2013.

[291] UNFCCC/CCNUCC,“GuidelinesforsamplingandsurveysforCDMprojectactivitiesandprogrammeofactivities,”2012.

[292] W. James and E. Schofield, “Human Energy Requirements. AManual for Planners and Nutritionists,” Oxford MedicalPublications.OxfordMedicalPublications,Oxford,1990.

[293] FAO Food and Nutrition Technical Report Series 1, “HumanenergyrequirementsReportofaJointFAO/WHO/UNUExpertConsultation,”pp.2–4,2004.

[294] S.C.Walpole,D.Prieto-Merino,P.Edwards,J.Cleland,G.Stevens,and I. Roberts, “The weight of nations: an estimation of adult

REFERENCES

183

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

humanbiomass,”BMCPublicHealth,vol.12,no.1,p.439,2012.[295] D. B. K. Dovie, E. T. F. Witkowski, and C. M. Shackleton, “The

fuelwood crisis in southern Africa - Relating fuelwood use tolivelihoodsinaruralvillage,”GeoJournal,vol.60,no.2,pp.123–133,2004.

[296] Y.S.Rawat,S.C.R.Vishvakarma,andN.P.Todaria, “Fuelwoodconsumptionpatternof tribal communities in colddesertof theLahaul valley, North-Western Himalaya, India,” Biomass andBioenergy,vol.33,no.11,pp.1547–1557,2009.

[297] B. N. Onchieku, J M, Chikamai and M. S. Rao, “OptimumParameters for the Formulation of Charcoal Briquettes UsingBagasseandClayasBinder,”Eur.J.Sustain.Dev.,vol.1,no.3,pp.477–492,2012.

[298] Z.Fang,“Amodeloftheenergy-supplyanddemandsystematthevillagelevel,”Energy,vol.18,no.4,pp.365–369,1993.

[299] M. Vaz, N. Karaolis, A. Draper, and P. Shetty, “A compilation ofenergycostsofphysicalactivities,”PublicHealthNutr.,vol.8,no.7a,pp.1153–1183,2005.

[300] S. Rao, M. Gokhale, and A. Kanade, “Energy costs of dailyactivities forwomen in rural India,”PublicHealthNutr., vol. 11,no.2,pp.142–150,2008.

[301] W.ChikavaandH.Annegarn,“HumanandPhysicalEnergyCyclesin a SubsistenceVillage in SouthAfrica,” J. Energy South.Africa,vol.24,no.2,pp.67–75,2013.

[302] H. Alemán-Mateo, G. Salazar, M. Hernández-Triana, and M. E.Valencia, “Total energy expenditure, resting metabolic rate andphysicalactivity level in free-livingruralelderlymenandwomenfromCuba,ChileandMéxico.,”Eur.J.Clin.Nutr.,vol.60,no.11,pp.1258–1265,2006.

[303] B.Attigah,“CookingEnergyInterventions,”2008.[304] V. Pilco et al., “Impacts on household fuel consumption from

biomass stove programs in India, Nepal, and Peru,” EnergySustain.Dev.,vol.17,no.5,pp.403–411,2013.

[305] F. Ellis, “Rural Livelihood Diversity in Developing Countries :EvidenceandPolicyImplications,”ODINat.Resour.Perspect.No.40,no.40,pp.1–10,1999.

[306] K. M. Preston, “Fuelwood Collection and Consumption: A CaseStudyinLupeta,Tanzania,”2012.

[307] A. Kumar, M. Prasad, and K. P. Mishra, “Comparative Study ofEffect of Different Parameters on Performance and Emission ofBiomassCookStoves,” Int.J.Res.Eng.Technol.,vol.1,no.3,pp.

REFERENCES

184RE

FERE

NCE

S

121–126,2013.[308] FAO,“BioenergyandFoodSecurityRapidAppraisal:UserManual

Charcoal,”2014.[309] FAO, “Industrial Charcoal making,” Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, 1985. [Online]. Available:http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5555e/x5555e00.htm.

[310] D. Ahuja and M. Tatsutani, “Sustainable energy for developingcountries,”Surv.Perspect. Integr.Environ.Soc., vol.5,no.1,pp.1–10,Apr.2012.

[311] C. F. Gould and J. Urpelainen, “LPG as a clean cooking fuel:Adoption,use,andimpactinruralIndia,”EnergyPolicy,vol.122,no.March,pp.395–408,2018.

[312] FAO, “‘Energy-Smart’ food for people and climate-Issue paper,”Rome,2011.

[313] WorldPopulationReview,“WesternCountriesPopulation,”WorldPopulation Review, 2019. [Online]. Available:http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/western-countries/.[Accessed:03-Oct-2019].

[314] M.M.Mekonnen,P.W.Gerbens-Leenes,andA.Y.Hoekstra,“Theconsumptive water footprint of electricity and heat: a globalassessment,”Environ. Sci.WaterRes. Technol., vol. 1, no. 3, pp.285–297,May2015.

[315] G. T. Tuchoand S.Nonhebel, “Alternativeenergy supply systemtoaruralvillageinEthiopia,”Energy.Sustain.Soc.,vol.7,no.33,pp.1–14,2017.

[316] T. J. Hager and R. Morawicki, “Energy consumption duringcookingintheresidentialsectorofdevelopednations:Areview,”FoodPolicy,vol.40,pp.54–63,2013.

[317] C. E. Dutilh and K. J. Kramer, “Energy Consumption in the FoodChain: Comparing Alternative Options in Food Production andConsumptionEnergyConsumptionintheFoodChain,”R.SwedishAcad.Sci.,vol.29,no.2,pp.98–101,2000.

[318] FAO,“Assessingforestdegradation:Towardsthedevelopmentofgloballyapplicableguidlines,”Rome,177,2011.

185

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

SSUUMMMMAARRYY

Water,energyand foodare thebasic resources required forhumansustenance. Growing population and changing economies are puttingmore pressure on the demand for these resources. The complicatedinteractionsbetweenwater(W),energy(E)andfood(F),whichistermedasaWEFnexusapproachisdevelopedtoensurewaterandfoodsecurityas well as affordable and easy accessibility to energy. This approachstudies the interactions between the resources and understands thesynergiesandthetrade-offsthatarisefromit.

Presently,3billionpeopleareresidinginruralareaslivinganagrarianlife;bydoingsubsistencefarmingandusingtraditionalcookingfuelslikefuelwood for cooking. Other than fuelwood, rural people also use asubstantial amount of charcoal, briquette or fossil based fuel likekeroseneandLPG.Theseruralpeoplearesurroundedbyanecosystem,whichprovidesall thenecessary resources likewater, landandenergy.However, theecosystem isvery localizedwith limitedresourcesand itsavailabilityvariesfromregiontoregion.Theseruralpeoplemostlyworkson agricultural land andmostly produce their own cooking fuel,whichrequires ample amount of labour (i.e. time and human energy). Apartfromusing traditional cooking fuel, the rural population still usesopenfire traditional cookstove for cooking, which is the most inefficientcookstove. The growing demand on food and fuel will increase thepressureontheresources.Hence,aclearunderstandingoftheongoingdynamics among the resources from a consumption perspective isrequired. Thisthesisdevelopedanexusframeworktounderstandthelinkagesamongwater,energy,food,landandlabourcomponents.Themainaimistoassesstheimpactoffoodandfuelconsumptionbyanindividualinthe use of water, energy and labour, taking into account the regionalvariations of consumption and resource availability. Chapter 1 showedthe possible interactions among the components in the rural world.Chapters 2 to 5 quantified the interactions among the components atregional level.Themainfindingsofthesechaptersprovideaninsighttothemagnitudeof the resourcedemand for food and fuel consumptionanditsregionalvariations. The interactions among the water, energy, land and food areanalyzedinchapter2andchapter3.ConsideringIndiaasthecasestudy,itshowedthatanaverageruralindividualrequiresabout1000m2/cap/yroflandforitsfoodconsumption,butthevaluesrangebetween800-1300m2/cap/yr. Similarly, the water requirement for food consumption is

186

REFE

REN

CES

about 800 m3/cap/yr (450-1300 m3/cap/yr). However, in case offuelwood the land footprint canbeas largeas2500m2/cap/yr (1200–5000 m2/cap/yr) and the WF is about 1600 m3/cap/yr (2-4000m3/cap/yr).Thevaluesoflandandwaterfootprintforfuelwoodconcernwood collected from forest. Interestingly, the values for fuelwoodcollected from trees outside forest (TOF) can be twice as high as thevalues fromthe forest,as theyield is lower incaseof formerone.Thisimplies that there is an option for undervaluing the land and waterrequirement.

The rural diet consistsmainly rice andwheat as staple foodswithasubstantial amount ofmilk consumption,which has amajor impact onthe land and water requirement. Chapter 2 and 3 showed the largeregionalvariationintheconsumptionforfoodandfuelanditsimpactonthe land, water and energy requirement. It can be concluded thatfuelwood is a water and land intensive cooking fuel, however, fossilbased fuel can be considered as a better option because of its lessresource intensive quality. Taking the outcome from chapter 2 and 3,hence cooking fuel (like fuelwood and charcoal) demand and theassociated time investment in its production is studied in the nextchapter. In chapter 4 a hypothetical framework has been developed toquantify the amount of time required when efficient cooking fuel andcookstovesareintroducedtothepresentcookingsystem.Itshowedthatenergyintensivecookingfuel(i.e.charcoal)requiresmorelabourtimeinits production, however, using improved cookstove (ICS) decreases thefuelwood requirement,which instinctively decreases the timedemand.Chapter4concludedthatreplacingopenfirecookstovewithICSismuchbetter than switching from fuelwood to charcoal. Production offuelwood or other solid traditional cooking fuel like charcoal andbriquette requires physical energy. Hence in Chapter 5 the physicalenergyisquantified.

Chapter5usesthesamehypotheticalmodeltoassessthemetabolicenergyandtimeintheproductionoffuelwood,charcoalandbriquette.It showed that the metabolic energy required in the production ofcharcoalandbriquettesaremuchhigherthanthefuelwoodproduction.It showed that ICS could save ample amount of time and metabolicenergyofanindividual.However,thecombinationofICSandfuelwoodisthe best option so far, as it can save 60% of the time and metabolicenergyincomparisontothepresentsituation.ThecasestudyinChapter5 gives an indication of the intensity of human energy demand in theproductionofcookingfuel.Laboursavingtechnologiesisrequiredtobe

187

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

implementedtosavewomen’stimeandenergy,sothattheycanallocatetheir time for other economics benefits. It can be concluded thatapplication of improved technology reduces the fuelwood demand,whicheventuallydecreasesthelandandwaterdemand. Chapter2to5showedtheintenseinteractionsamongwater,energy,food, landand labour. It showed that3billionpeoplewho falls on thelower level of the economic division has a very large land and waterfootprintduetoitscookingfuel.Itshowedthatswitchingfromopenfirecookstove to ICS could decrease the land andwater footprint to greatextent.However, switching from fuelwood to fossil based fuel ismuchbetter option from resource perspective. The global alarm on peopleoptingformoreaffluencedietisnotaconcernforthese3billionpeople,astheyhavemuchlargerproblemwiththefuelwood.Incomingfuture,ifthese rural people change to affluent diet by consuming more meat,then switching to fossil based fuel will compensate the large land andwaterfootprints. This thesis showed an integrative method to assess the resourcedemandforindividualconsumptionbyconsideringtheregionalvariationandresourceavailability.Thisnexusapproachprovidesaninsighttotheruralworldconsumptiondynamicsandtheresourceslinkedwithit.

188

REFE

REN

CES

SSAAMMEENNVVAATTTTIINNGG

Water, energie en voedsel behoren tot de basis behoeften van eenmens. De groeiende wereldbevolking en de veranderendeconsumptiepatronen maken dat vraag naar deze hulpbronnen steedsgroterwordt.Water,energieenvoedselzijnmetelkaarverbonden.Eriswater nodig om gewassen te verbouwen en energie nodig in dewatervoorziening (pompen). De ingewikkelde relatie tussen dezegroothedenwordtdeWEFnexus (WaterEnergyFood)genoemd. Voorhetontwikkelenvaneenvoedsel-,energie-enwatervoorzieningdieookindetoekomstaandevraagvandewereldbevolkingkanvoldoenishetessentieel dat de onderlinge relaties tussen deze grootheden in kaartgebrachtworden.Op ditmomentwonen er 3miljardmensen in de rurale gebieden vanontwikkelingslanden.Dezemensenzijnsterkafhankelijkvanhundirecteomgeving:waterkomtuiteenbron,energievanhethoutvanbomenenze verbouwen zelf hun voedsel.Daarnaastwordt er nauwelijks gebruikgemaakt van machines, zodat de meeste arbeid door de mensen zelfverrichtwordt.IndezesituatieverschiltdeWEFnexussterkvandievandegeurbaniseerdesituatieindegeindustrialiseerdelanden.Daarkomenvoedsel en energie vaak niet uit de regio. Sojabonen, bijvoorbeeld,komenuitBraziliëenkolenvoordeenergiecentralesuitAustralie.DitproefschriftanalyseertdeWEFnexusvoorderuralegebieden indeontwikkelingslanden. Er wordt nagegaan wat mensen eten en hoeveelenergie ze gebruiken, vervolgenswordt er berekend hoeveel water enlandernodigwasomditvoedselteproducerenmaarookhoeveel landenwaterernodigwasomdeenergiedienodigwasomditetenklaartemaken (brandhout om te koken). Zoals al eerder genoemdwordt eengrootdeelvanhetwerkmetdehandgedaan,daaromiserookgekekennaar de arbeidsinzet van het verzamelen van het brandhout voor hetkoken. In de rurale gebieden wordt nog steeds veel gekookt op openvuur en is brandhout de belangrijkste energiedrager. Er zijnalternatieven: efficiente kooktoestellen die gebruik maken van hout,houtskool of LPG en kerosine. Voor water, land en arbeid is ervervolgensgekekeninhoeverredealternatievenvoorhetkokenopopenvuurinvloedhaddenophetgebruikvanhulpbronnen.Inhoofdstuk1wordt eenbeschijving vanhet systeemendemogelijkeinteraktiesgegeven.Indevolgendehoofdstukkenwordendeinteraktiesgekwantificeerd. Het laatste hoofdstuk bediscussieert hoe debevindingenvanditproefschriftvoorderuralegebiedenafwijkenvande

189

Engl

ish

Sum

mar

y

inzichten met betrekking tot de WEF nexus in de geïndustrialiseerdewereld.Inhoofdstuk2en3wordtuigerekendhoeveellandenwaterernodigisvoor de productie van voedsel en brandhout om te koken. Er wordteerste bepaald wat mensen eten. Met behulp van de land- enwaterfootprintmethodologiewordtuitgerekendhoeveel landenwaterernodigwasomditvoedselteproduceren.InditgevalzijngegevensvanIndiagebruikt.Het landgebruikvarieerdevan800-1300m2perpersoonperjaar.Hetwatergebruikvoorvoedselvarieerdetussende450en1300m3 per persoon per jaar. De hoeveelheid land die nodig was voor debrandhoutvoorzieningbleekechter3keerzogroot.(1200-5000m2). Erisdus3maal zoveel landnodigomdeenergie voorhet kokenvanheteten te producerendandeoppervlaktedie nodig is omhet voedsel teverbouwen.Voorwaterishetverschilietskleiner,daaris2maalzoveelwaternodigvoorhetbrandhoutalsvoorhetvoedsel.Dezegetallenzijngebaseerdopdeproductievaneenbos.Indepraktijkwordterookveelhoutverzameldvanalleenstaandebomen. Indatgeval isdebenodigdeoppervlakteveelgroter.Als we kijken naar mogelijkheden om het gebruik van hulpbronnen indeze gebieden te verkleinen, valt opdat er binnenhet voedselpatroonnietveelveranderingmogelijk is.Hetetenbestaatvoornamelijkuitrijsten tarwemet wat zuivel. Uit ander onderzoek is bekend dat dit soortvoedselpatronen een laag hulpbrongebruik hebben. Wat betreft deenergievoorzieningzijnerwelmogelijkheden.In hoofdstuk 4 is dit nader geanalyseerd. Er worden verschillendeenergiedragers (hout, houtskool, briketten, LPG en kerosineonderscheiden en verschillende kooktoestellen (open vuur, efficiëntkooktoestelmethout,methoutskooleneenvoorLPG).Vervolgensisereen model ontwikkeld waarmee de hoeveelheid energie voor kokenuitgerekend kon worden. Voor houtskool en briketten geldt dat zeafkomstigzijnvanhout.Voordezeenergiedragersisuitgerekendhoeveelhout er nodig was om deze drager te maken. Uiteindelijk zijn dezegegevens gebruikt om het aantal arbeidsuren uit te rekenen die nodigwaren voor de productie van kookbrandstof. De resultaten laten ziendat de energiedichtheid van houtskool groter is dan van hout, er isminder van nodig om te koken. Als het vervolgens ook nog wordtgebruikt ineenefficientkooktoestel isernogmindervannodig.Alleenvoordeproductievanhoutskoolisveelhoutnodig.Alswedeheleketenmeerekenen komt er een ander beeld tevoorschijn. Dan blijkt dat deproductievanhoutskoolergarbeidsintensief is (er isveel tijdnodigomhet te maken). Deze tijdsinvestering weegt niet op tegen de hoger

190

REFE

REN

CES

efficiëntie vanhet verbrandingsproces.De conclusie vanhoofdstuk4 isdanookdatvanuiteenarbeidsurenperspectiefhetgebruikvanhoutineenefficientkooktoestelbeterisdanhetgebruikvanhoutskool.In hoofdstuk 5 is er verder ingegaan op demenselijke arbeid. Van allehandelingen die verrichtmoetenworden om het brandhout/houtskoolte verkrijgen is de metabolische-energie uitgerekend, met anderewoordenhoezwaarisdearbeiddieverrichtwordt.Ookdaarkomtnaarvorendathetmakenvanhoutkoolenbrikettennietallenveeltijdkost,maar ook dat het om zware arbeid gaat. Het gebruik van hout in eenefficiëntkooktoestelisinditgevalookdebesteoplossingvoorhetruralegebied.De WEF nexus analyse voor de rurale gebieden in deontwikkelingslanden in dit proefschrift maakt duidelijk dat de relatiesanders zijn dan voor de geurbaniseerde geindustrialieerde landen. Demogelijkheden om het hulpbrongebruik te verminderen zijn duidelijkanders. In de westerse landen is er bijvoorbeeld veel aandacht voorveranderingen in het voedselconsumptiepatroon om bijvoorbeeldenergieenwatergebruik teverminderen (mindervlees). Ditgeldtnietvoor dat deel van de wereldbevolking die in dit proefschrift wordtbestudeerd, zij consumeren nauwelijks dierlijke producten en hunvoedsel patroon heeft al een lage footprint. In de westerse gebiedenwordt biomassa vaak gezien als een duurzaam alternatief voor defossielebrandstoffen, inditproefschriftwordtduidelijkdathetgebruikvanbrandhoutineenopenvuuromtekokenenormbeslaglegtopland,water en beschikbare arbeid. In deze gebieden is het zelfs zo dat hetgebruik van fossiele brandstoffen om te koken een enorme besparingvandebeschikbarehulpbronnenkanleveren.

ARTICLES

1) KarabeeDas,S.Nonhebel,AComparativeStudyofTheLandRequiredForFoodAndCookingFuelInRuralIndia.AgriculturalSystems(2019)176, 102682, 1-8 (I.F.: 4.131)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102682

2) Karabee Das, Greeshma Pradhan, Sanderine Nonhebel, Humanenergyandtimespentbywomenusingcookingenergysystem:Acasestudy of Nepal, Energy (2019), 182, 453-501https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.074(I.F.:5.537)

3) Karabee Das, Moonmoon Hiloidhari, D.C. Baruah, SanderineNonhebel, ImpactofTimeExpenditureonHouseholdPreferences forCooking Fuels, Energy (2018), 151, 309-316doi:10.1016/j.Energy.2018.03.048(I.F.:5.537)

4) MoonmoonHiloidhari,H.Medhi,KarabeeDas, I.S. Thakur, andD.C.Baruah, Bioenergy and carbon sequestration potential from energytree plantation in ruralwasteland ofNorth-Eastern India. Journal ofEnergyandEnvironmentalSustainability,2017,2,13-18

CONFERENCEPROCEEDINGS

1) Karabee Das, G. Pradhan, M. Hiloidhari, D.C. Baruah, S. Nonhebel,Household time requirements for producing cooking fuels in ruralareas in developing nations, 25th Conference on European BiomassConferenceandExhibitionProceedings(EUBCE2017).178-184(2017)

2) Karabee Das, P.A. Salam, S. Nonhebel, Biofuel From Microalgae:Mapping The Developments In Industry, Proceedings of the 11thConference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water andEnvironmentSystems,SDEWES2016.0503,1-17(2016)

3) Karabee Das,M. Hiloidhari, D. C. Baruah, S. Nonhebel,AlternativesFor Renewable Energy In Rural India: The Napaam Case Study,Proceedingsof the11thConferenceon SustainableDevelopmentofEnergy, Water and Environment Systems, SDEWES 2016. 0502,1-15(2016)

SSCCIIEENNTTIIFFIICC CCOONNTTRRIIBBUUTTIIOONNSS

134

ORALPAPERPRESENTATIONS:

1) Karabee Das,M. Hiloidhari, D. C. Baruah, S. Nonhebel,AlternativesFor Renewable Energy In Rural India: The Napaam Case Study,Proceedingsof the11thConferenceon SustainableDevelopmentofEnergy, Water and Environment Systems, SDEWES 2016 (4-9 Sep,2016),Lisbon,Portugal

2) Karabee Das, S. Nonhebel (2018). “Land Footprint of Rural Diet inIndia”. 2018 Asia GLP Conference (Transitioning to SustainableDevelopment of Land Systems through Teleconnections andTelecouplings),(3-5Sep,2018),Taipei,Taiwan

POSTERPRESENTATION:

1) Karabee Das, Greeshma Pradhan, Sanderine Nonhebel,QuantifyingHuman Energy Expenditure in cooking systems in rural areas indeveloping countries. Proceedings in 10th Biennial InternationalWorkshopAdvancesinEnergyStudies(BIWAES),2018

2) K. Das, G. Pradhan, M. Hiloidhari, D.C. Baruah, S. Nonhebel,Household time requirements for producing cooking fuels in ruralareas in developing nations. 25th Conference on European BiomassConferenceandExhibitionProceedings(EUBCE2017)

Ned

erla

ndse

Sam

enva

ttin

g

University of Groningen Nexus in the rural system Das, Karabee · 2.2. Food and cooking fuel in...

Documents

Transcript of University of Groningen Nexus in the rural system Das, Karabee · 2.2. Food and cooking fuel in...