Yeah! Your beloved energypedia has a new look and design. We have updated the software so that the new energypedia is responsive and more user-friendly. Have a look at the platform and if you encounter any bugs or page distortions, please send them to us at info@energypedia.info.

World Bank Reasons for Success and Failure of Stove Projects

From energypedia
Revision as of 10:13, 19 December 2016 by ***** (***** | *****) (→‎Further Information)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Overview

The main justifications for improved stove programs are economic, social, and environmental. The stoves save money and time for householders; help alleviate the environmental problems and economic externalities of overharvesting of trees; and have social and health benefits, especially for women and children.

Each program will face a distinctive set of challenges and benefits, depending on local conditions. Planners thus should strive to anticipate the particular circumstances of each program so that it can be tailored to increase the probability of stove adoption. Even though each program is distinctive and none universal, there are some common elements that provide some general lessons for maximizing the success of a program.[1]


Reasons for Success / Failure[1]

Reasons for Success

Reasons for Failure

  • Program targets region where traditional fuel and stove are purchased of fuel is hard to collect
  • People cook in environments where smoke causes health problems and is annoying.
  • Market surveys are undertaken to assess potential market for improved stoves.
  • Stoves are designed according to consumer preferences, including testing under actual use.
  • Stoves are designed with assistance from local artisans.
  • Local or crap materials are used in production, making it relatively inexpensive.
  • The production of the stove by artisans or manufacturers is not subsidized.
  • Stove or critical components are mass produced.
  • Similar to traditional stove.
  • The stove is easy to light and accepts different sized wood.
  • Power output of stove can be adjusted.
  • The government assists only in dissemination, technical advice, and quality control.
  • The stove saves fuel, time, and effort.
  • Donor or government support extended over at least 5 years and designed to build local institutions and to develop local expertise.
  • Monitoring and evaluation criteria and responsibilities chosen during planning stages according to specific goals of project.
  • Consumer payback of 1 to 3 months.
  • Program targets region where traditional fuel and stove are not purchased or fuel is easy to collect
  • People cook in the open and smoke is not really a problem
  • Outside “experts” determine that improved stoves are required.
  • Stove is designed as a technical package in the laboratory, ignoring customers’ preferences.
  • Local artisans are told or even contracted to build stoves according to specifications.
  • Imported materials are used in the production of the stove, making it expensive.
  • The production of the stove by artisans or manufacturers is subsidized.
  • Critical stove components are custom built.
  • Dissimilar to traditional stove.
  • The stove is difficult to light and requires the use of small pieces of wood.
  • Power output cannot be easily controlled.
  • The government is involved in production.
  • The stove does not live up to promised economy or convenience under real cooking conditions.
  • Major achievements expected in less than 3 years, all analysis, planning, and management done by outsiders.
  • Monitoring and evaluation needs are not planned and budgeted or criteria are taken uncritically from other projects or not explicitly expressed.
  • Consumer payback of more than 1 year.



Further Information



References