List: 1. This article (Dec. 2011 issue of Energy Policy) looks like it could be important - found at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873
I haven't read but guess that char-making stoves were not discussed (give the early dates of the research) - but they should make the economics look even better. 2. The title and authors are: "Applying global cost-benefit analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: Insights and challenges" Min Bikram Malla a , Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Nigel Bruce b , E-mail The Corresponding Author, Elizabeth Bates c , E-mail The Corresponding Author, Eva Rehfuess d , E-mail The Corresponding Author 3. Not free, but be read for 99c. The abstract reads: Abstract Indoor air pollution from burning solid fuels for cooking is a major environmental health problem in developing countries, predominantly affecting children and women. Traditional household energy practices also contribute to substantial time loss and drudgery among households. While effective interventions exist, levels of investment to date have been very low, in part due to lack of evidence on economic viability. Between 2004 and 2007, different combinations of interventions – improved stoves, smoke hoods and a switch to liquefied petroleum gas – were implemented in poor communities in Nepal, Sudan and Kenya. The impacts were extensively evaluated and provided the basis for a household-level cost-benefit analysis, which essentially followed the methodology proposed by the World Health Organization. The results suggest that interventions are justified on economic grounds with estimated internal rates of return of 19%, 429% and 62% in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan, respectively. Time savings constituted by far the most important benefit followed by fuel cost savings; direct health improvements were a small component of the overall benefit. This paper describes the methodology applied, discusses the findings and highlights the methodological challenges that arise when a global approach is applied to a local programme. Highlights ► A project to alleviate indoor smoke from cooking fires in Sudan, Kenya and Nepal was evaluated. ► Investments for improving indoor air quality are shown to be justifiable on economic grounds. ► Savings in time and fuel costs, as well as health improvements are key benefits. ► The challenges of applying a global cost-benefit approach to a local programme are examined. Keywords: Indoor air pollution; Household energy; Cost benefit analysis
_______________________________________________ Stoves mailing list to Send a Message to the list, use the email address [email protected] to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org for more Biomass Cooking Stoves, News and Information see our web site: http://www.bioenergylists.org/
