Comparative analysis of two improved stove projects in Nigeria and Kenya. Interpretivist approach employed focuses on understanding, rather than explaining, social behaviour in particular cases. Qualitative research methods: Preliminary fieldwork: Telephone interviews and project visits to determine nature and scope of both projects Main fieldwork: 61 semi-structured in-depth interviews, participant observation sessions In-depth analysis of key project documents Local Priorities Outrank ‘Expert’ Priorities An estimated 2.4 billion people worldwide continue to depend on solid biomass fuels to meet their cooking energy needs. Local practices whereby biomass is burnt over open fires and traditional cooking devices are considered by global experts to be the largest source of indoor air pollution in developing countries. Improved stoves offer great health and environmental benefits to solid biomass users by reducing or completely eradicating smoke emissions. In addition, improved stove projects are often explicitly targeted at improving livelihoods and enhancing empowerment opportunities for local populations. However, since the promotion of improved stoves by local and international organisations since the 1950s, their rate of diffusion amongst target populations has been consistently low. Primary Household Fuel Average Annual Fuel Expenditure (US$) Low IncomeMiddle IncomeHigh Income Fuelwood Kerosene LPG Total How Can Improved Stoves Achieve Higher Diffusion Rates Amongst Households at the Bottom of the Energy Ladder? Introduction Fuel Use is Proportional to Income Level Results Conclusions Hypothesis Methodology Low rates of diffusion of improved stoves are a result of the top- down, market-based approaches commonly employed by project implementers. Higher diffusion rates are more likely to be produced with bottom-up, participatory approaches in which stove projects are designed to reflect local user priorities. Fuelwood Users Can Least Access Improved Stoves Acknowledgements Households at the bottom of the income and energy ladder are the least likely to adopt improved stoves because it is less cost-effective for them than the combination of energy sources that their incomes currently allow them to adopt Households with the least access to improved stoves coincide with those that use solid biomass as their primary fuel source The market route prescribed by implementers for scaling up diffusion of improved stoves is not sufficient to cater for the energy needs of the poorest, who sometimes cannot participate in formal markets Stove projects that are labelled ‘bottom-up’ – much like those which are explicitly top-down - often take the priorities of the project, rather than those of local energy users, as their starting point Uncritically engaging the ‘community’ in bottom-up stove projects means that the goal of empowerment is often not achieved amongst the most vulnerable groups The participatory methods employed in bottom-up stove projects can potentially deliver more sustainable outcomes than top-down approaches. However, the content of participation needs to be revised to allow for identification of local priorities The expressed priorities of local energy users may not be stove-related. Stove diffusion may be improved in the long term as a result of some other intervention that directly addresses an issue of immediate priority for users, e.g. income generation Market-based models may appear to be a relatively fast route to achieving scale in a sustainable way, but they are often ineffective with the poorest at whom smoke alleviation interventions were targeted in the first instance Temilade Sesan | Institute for Science and Society | University of Nottingham NG7 2RD UK | | Supervisors: Dr Sujatha Raman, Dr Ian Forbes, Dr Mike Clifford The author would like to thank the Petroleum Technology Development Fund of the Federal Government of Nigeria for providing funding for this research. Special thanks also go to Practical Action East Africa and Project Gaia International for facilitating project access. The Upesi Stove Project, KenyaThe CleanCook Stove and Fuel Project, Nigeria Proposed average annual expenditure on improved fuel (ethanol) = US$ 138 Fuel Type by Income Group Average Annual Fuel Expenditure (US$) Case Studies Average Annual Fuel Expenditure by Income Group. Adapted from Bailey et al. (2006) Baseline Data for 150 Homes in Delta State, Nigeria.