understanding consumer preference and willingness to pay
TRANSCRIPT
FINAL REPORT
Understanding Consumer Preference and Willingness to Pay for Improved Cookstoves in Bangladesh
USAID WASHplus Project August 2013
WASHplus, a five-year (2010–2015) cooperative agreement implemented by FHI 360 with CARE and Winrock International as core partners, is funded through USAID’s Bureau for Global Health. WASHplus creates supportive environments for healthy households and communities by delivering interventions that lead to improvements in water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH) and indoor air pollution (IAP). WASHplus uses at-scale as well as integrated programming approaches globally to reduce diarrheal diseases and acute respiratory infections, the two top killers of children under 5 years of age. For information, visit www.washplus.org or email: [email protected].
Contact Information: USAID WASHplus Project FHI Development 360 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20009-5721 Authors: Julia Rosenbaum, Elisa Derby, Karabi Dutta, with inputs from Kirstie Jagoe and David Pennise Communication via: [email protected] and [email protected] Acknowledgments: The WASHplus team would like to acknowledge and thank our colleagues at USAID, both in Washington and Bangladesh: Merri Weinger, Pam Baldinger, Sharon Hsu, Richard Greene, Sher Khan, Ramona El Hamzaoui, and Helen Petach. We are also indebted to those who supported this study both in the field and back in Washington, DC, including Orlando Hernandez, A.K.M.Anowar Hossain Mollah, Kate Kennedy Freeman, Syeda Hosneara Akter, Shajahan Mia, Laila Ishrat Jahan Ruen, Nadia Rahman, Sultana Aziz, A.F.M. Iqbal, Nazmul Haque, Jibun Nessa Begum, Sarah Yagoda, Rachel Lenzi, Dana Charron, Kirstie Jagoe, Todd Wofchuck, David Pennise, Misti MacDonald, and Kathrin Tegenfeld.
TableofContents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................................................................5
STRATEGICAPPROACH.............................................................................................................................................................6
STUDYOBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................................................................................7
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................................................8
Procedure....................................................................................................................................................................................9
DescriptionofStudyGroup..............................................................................................................................................13
FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................................................................17
CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPS......................................................................................................................................41
AnnexA:NGO,Village,andHouseholdSelectionCriteriaAnnexB:WillingnesstoPayWorksheetsAnnexC:StoveProfileSheetsListofFigures
1. CookingFuels2. GatherorBuyWoodFuel3. NumberofPeopleNormallyCookedforinHome4. Husband’sMainOccupation/SourceofIncome5. Women’sOccupation6. PreferredStove7. NumberPreferringICSoverTraditionalStove8. NumberPreferringICS9. NumberPreferringICStoTraditionalStove10. ImprovedCookstoveisGood11. “WordCloud”representingattributesnamedbyallconsumerstryingICS12. CookingProblems13. ChangestoMakeStoveBetter14. EstimatedMonetaryValueasaProportionofAnticipatedSalesPrice(Aggregate)15. EstimatedMonetaryValueasaProportionofAnticipatedSalesPrice(bystovetype)16.StoveUsageDuringandFollowingtheKPTStudy17.Monitoredvs.ReportedStoveUsage18.Boxplotshowingfuelconsumptionbystovegroup19.PercentageofWomenRespondentsReportingIndependentDecisionMakingonHouseholdPurchases
Charts
1.DescriptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseICS2.ChangesinCookingPattern3.PerceptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseTheseNewStoves4.WillingnesstoPayforICS–Method15.WillingnesstoPayPricingScenarios–Methods1&26.ProportionofAllRecordedCookingEventsPerformedbytheInterventionStove7.MeanDailyFuelConsumptionEstimates8.Mean24‐hourAirPollutantConcentrationsintheKitchen
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 1
EXECUTIVESUMMARYAstheevidencebaselinkingimprovedcookstoves(ICS)withpositivehealthandenergyimpactsgrows,sodoesattentiontohowbesttoinfluencehouseholduptakeandconsistentandcorrectuse.Appropriately,attentionfocusesonboth“hardware”and“software”issues—howtoimprovethefieldperformanceofthestovesthemselvesandmakethemmoreaffordable,accessible,andappealingtotheneediestconsumers.ThisstudyusesqualitativeandquantitativemethodsthatdrawfromsocialmarketingandsocialsciencetoexploreconsumerperceptionsoffiveofthemostpromisingICSpotentiallyavailablefordistributioninBangladesh.Thestudycomplementsothereffortsbyarangeofstakeholderstostrengthenmarket‐basedapproachesandconsumerchoiceforimprovinghouseholdairqualityandreducingtheenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithdependenceonbiomassfuels.ThroughsupportfromUSAID/Bangladesh,theUSAIDAsiaRegionalBureau/Washington,andanadditionalgrantcontributionfromU.S.StateDepartment’sOfficeoftheSecretaryofState,GlobalPartnershipInitiative,WASHplusislayingafoundationfortheUSAID/BangladeshCatalyzingCleanEnergyinBangladesh(CCEB)programandotherkeyactorsbyconductingacomprehensiveassessmenttobetterunderstandconsumerneedsandpreferencesastheyrelatetoincreasingtheuptakeofICS,includinghouseholdtrialsofimprovedstovesnotcurrentlywidelyavailableinBangladesh.Toassessconsumerpreferences,researchersappliedaninnovativemethodologycalledTrialsofImprovedPractices,orTIPs.TheWASHplusapplicationoftheTIPsmethoduses“elicitationquestions,”whicharesemi‐structuredquestionsthathavebeendevelopedandvalidatedtosystematicallyidentifybarriersandmotivatorstochange,includingwhichfactorsaremostinfluentialinspurringtheperformanceornonperformanceofabehavior.ICSfuelefficiencywasmeasuredusingathree‐daykitchenperformancetest(KPT),widelyacknowledgedasthebestcurrentlyavailablemethodforaccuratelyestimatingdailyhouseholdfuelconsumption.TheKPTwascarriedoutusingacross‐sectionalstudydesignin116studyhouseholdsand24controlhouseholds.Twoapproacheswereusedtomeasuretheextenttowhichhouseholdsadoptedthenewstovesandthemannerinwhichtheyintegratedthemintotheircookingandkitchenmanagementpractices:self‐reporteduseofstovesattheendofeach24‐hourKPTmonitoringperiodandstoveusemonitoringsensors(SUMS).TheSUMSrecordedthestovetemperatureevery10minutesforatotalofapproximately10days;theresultingtemperatureprofileswerethenanalyzedtodeterminethefrequencyof“cookingevents”(i.e.,numberoftimesthestoveswerelit)perday.TheimpactoftheinterventionsonhouseholdairqualitywasexploredduringtheKPTmonitoring;illustrative(notstatisticallysignificant)resultswerecollectedfrommeasuresofminute‐by‐minutekitchenconcentrations(inalocationapproximatingthebreathingzoneofthecook)ofsmallparticles(PM2.5)andcarbonmonoxide(CO).Theimpactoftheinterventionsonwomenandchildren’sexposurewasexploredinthesamesubsetofhomesby
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 2
monitoringthe24‐hourexposuretoCOofboththecookandonechildundertheageof5inthehousehold.ProcedureFivedifferentimportedICSmodels1wereplacedinhomes,withthreeofeachstovetypepervillage,thustotaling15householdspervillageineightvillages,or120totalhouseholds.Eachhouseholdinthetrialwasonlyprovidedonetypeofstovetotest.Ineachhouseholddetailedcookstoveoperationandmaintenancetrainingwasprovided,andcookswereaskedtotryoutthestoveundernormalconditions.Eachhouseholdhadtheopportunitytotryanewimprovedstove(notcurrentlywidelyavailableinBangladesh)forthreeweeksandwasaskedtoofferitsfeedbackandopinions.Unlikeothersurveymethods,whereallfactorsareheldconstantandresearchersanalyzethefrequencyandrangeofresponse,thisqualitativemethodologyinviteshouseholdstoidentify,discuss,andresolvebarrierstousingthenewICS.HouseholdswerealsoaskedtocomparecookingontheICSwiththeirtraditionalorpreviousstoveonarangeofcriteria.Throughthesecomparisons,researcherswereabletoelicitcategoriesofattributesvaluedbythetargetconsumer.InterviewswereconductedatDay1,Day3,andDay21.SummaryFindingsThestudyclearlyshowedthatatleasttwostoveswereperceivedaspreferabletotraditionalcookstovesbymanyofthosewhotriedthem.Asiscommonamongmanyimprovedstoveinterventions,2however,noneascurrentlyproducedmetallconsumerneeds,andnonemetsufficientconsumerneedstocompletelyreplacetraditionalstoves.ConsumersmostappreciatedthePraktiandEco‐Chulastoves,withthepreferenceforeachstovevaryingbydistrict. OverallConsumerReactionstoNewStovesonKeyVariablesOverall,consumers“liked”thenewstoves,whichwasadistinctindicatorseparatefromwhetherornotthey“preferred”theICStothetraditionalstove.Thesegeneralreactionswerecommonacrossstovetypes.FemalecooksfeltthatthetasteoftheirfoodwasthesamewhencookedonanICSversusthetraditionalstove.Abouttwo‐thirdsofthestudyparticipantssaidfoodtastesthesame,withtheothersequallysplitbetweensayingitwasbetter(21)orworse(19).Respondentsoverwhelminglyfeltthestoveusedlessfuelthantheiroldstove,withthree‐fourthsofthegroupseeingfuelsavings.Someofthesecooksreportedthatthenewstovessavedupto60percentofthewoodtheywouldhaveusedinatraditionalwoodburningstovepercookingsession.Aboutafifth
1Ofnote,thestovestestedinthisstudywereallimportedfromelsewhereintheregionandwerenotdesignedfortheBangladeshmarket.Thesewerethesinglepot,built‐in‐place,rocketdesignstove(EnvirofitZ3000),asinglepot,portable,rocketdesignstove(EcoZoomDura),a2‐potportablemetalchimneystove(PraktiLeoChimney),asingle‐potportablefangasifierstove(Eco‐Chula),andasingle‐potportablenaturaldraftgasifierstove(Greenway).Onlyoneofthefive(Greenway)wasavailableforpurchaseinBangladeshatthetimeofthestudy. 2Ruiz‐MercadoI.etal.2013.QuantitativeMetricsofStoveAdoptionUsingStoveUseMonitors(SUMs).BiomassandBioenergy.URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.07.002PineK.etal.2012.AdoptionandUseofImprovedBiomassStovesinRuralMexico.EnergyforSustainedDevelopment.URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.04.001Ruiz‐Mercado,I.etal.2011.AdoptionandSustainedUseofImprovedCookstoves.EnergyPolicy,DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.028SchepersJ.andM.Wetzels.2007.AMeta‐AnalysisoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModel:InvestigatingSubjectiveNormandModerationEffects.Information&Management,44,90‐103.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 3
oftheparticipantsthoughtthestovesusedmorefuel,whichisinterpretedinthediscussionsection.Whenaskedaboutdifferencesinsmokeproduced,avastmajority(85)saidtheICSproducedlesssmokethantheirtraditionalstoves.HusbandspresentatthetimeofthesurveywhoansweredthequestionhadbasicallythesameimpressionsastheirwivesregardingthereductioninsmokefromthenewICS.WhenaskediftheICShadanyimpactoncookingpots,justoverhalftheusers(62)feltthenewstoveskepttheirpotscleaner,afewsawnoimpact(15),andathird(40)feltitmadethepotsdirtierthanthetraditionalstove.Again,thisfindingisdiscussedfurtherinthediscussionsection,butsomeusers“jammed”theICSwithwoodtomakeflamesvisiblymeetthecookingpot,whichwouldclearlyaffectimpressionsandcookstoveperformance.AmajorobstaclereportedisthatthecookingtimewasslowerusingtheICS.Three‐fourthsofrespondents(91)reportedslowercookingtime,afifth(24)reportedfaster,andjustafew(3)respondentssaidcookingtimewasthesame.Whenaskedtheopen‐endedquestion,“Whatdoyouthinkaboutthestove?”afterthreeweeks,manygavetheunpromptedresponsethattheyenjoycookingonthestove(49),andalmostafifth(21)saiditlooksnice.Womennotedthatchangeswererequiredtotheircookingstyle,includingtheneedtoprepareallingredientsbeforeinitiatingcookingandtositinfrontofthestovetendingthefire(asopposedtomulti‐tasking)whilecooking(seechartonpage29).Dislikesandsuggestionsforimprovementfellintotwogeneralcategories,thosethatcanbeaddressedthroughfairlysimplemodificationstothestovedesignandothersmoreappropriatelyaddressedthroughpoint‐of‐purchaseconsumereducationandfollowupfromserviceagentsorhealthoutreachworkers.Themostoverarchingcomplaintaboutallthecookstovesincludedinthetrialwastheirinabilitytocooklargevolumesoffoodinlargepots,especiallythePraktiandGreenwaycookstoves.Studyparticipantscompensatedforthisbyjammingthestovewithmorefuelandwrestlingwithlargepots,whichrenderedsomestoveslessstable.Asiscommonwithotherstovestudies,participantswereunaccustomedand/orunwillingtochopwoodintosmallpieces,thuscomplaintsweremadeaboutthesizeandangleofthewoodopening.Inaddition,traditionalstovesareconstructedsoastoallowa“naturalfeed”oflargewoodpiecesandotheragrofuelsanddungsticks;becausetheopeningintothecombustionchamberanglesdownward,thefuelnaturallyslidesfurtherintothecombustionchamberasitburns.Consumersmissedthisfeatureonthenewstoves;improvedstoveshaveahorizontalfuelentry,sofuelmustbemanuallypushedintothestoveasitburns.Lastly,consumersfoundexcessashcollectedinthestoveandsuggestedatrayforeasyemptying.Whilethislastitemcanbeconsidered,someoftheashbuildupwasduetoexcessiveamountsofwoodbeingburnedinthestoves(Figure12).IncaseofthePraktistovethemajorcomplaintwasthatthesecondpotwasnoteffectiveforcooking.FortheGreenwaystoveamajorcomplaintwasthatthestoveisnotstable.Besidesthesetwospecificconcerns,complaintsweresimilaracrossallstovetypes.Someoftheseproblemsandrelatedsuggestionsforimprovementcanbeappropriatelyaddressedbyimprovedconsumereducation,withoutwhichconsumerswillbelesssatisfiedbytheoverallperformanceoftheirstove,whichwillaffectuseandwordof
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 4
mouthrecommendationsforthenewstoves.Wesuggestrampingupeffortsinconsumereducationandbehaviorchangebecausesomestovefeaturesunderdiscussion(e.g.,sizeoffuelopeningandlackofvisibleflamesleapingfromthestove)arecriticaltoimprovedcombustionefficiencyandheattransfer;inotherwordstheyarekeyrequirementsoftheimprovedstove.PerceivedValueandWillingnesstoPayStudyparticipantsvaluedstovesforcertainfeatures,butdramaticallyundervaluedthemonetaryworthofthestove.Mostparticipantsestimatedthemonetaryvalueofthestovestobeonehalftoonequarteroftheiractualcalculatedvalue(whichalreadyincludesanassumedcarbonsubsidy)(Figures14and15).However,aswillbefurtherdiscussedinthefindingsanddiscussionsection,reportedvalueswerelikelyinfluencedbyashared(andperhapsdiscussed)perceptionthatparticipantsshouldbegiventhestovesasatokenofappreciationforparticipatinginthestudy.Ofthe120households,105studyparticipantsweregiventheoptiontopurchasethestovesatthemarketvalue.Onlyoneoptedtodoso,andasecondnonparticipantneighborpurchasedastove(seechartonpage33).Usingasecondmethodology,however,theremaining15householdswereofferedthestovesasgifts,andwerethengivenanoptionofacashbuyoutatmarketvalue.Surprisingly,onlythreeoptedforthe(relativelysignificantamountof)cash;theother12preferredtokeeptheirstove.SummaryKPTandSUMSFindingsICSfuelefficiencywasmeasuredusingaKPTin116studyhouseholdsand24controlhouseholds,andtemperature‐loggingsensors(SUMS)affixedtoallstovesinthehousecollecteddataonthefrequencyofcookingperiods.UsagepatternscapturedduringKPTmonitoringsuggesttheinterventionstoveswerecommonlyusedbythestudyhouseholds,butinallcases,didnotfullydisplacetheuseofthetraditionalstoves(seechartonpage35).Homesusingfouroutofthefiveimprovedstoveswerefoundtouseatleast16percentto30percentlessfuelthanthecontrolhomesoverthecourseoftheKPT,3arangethatmaybesomewhatartificiallylowduetounderreportedfuelmixingincontrolhomes(seechartonpage37).
3Itisimportanttonotethatthisdoesnotmeanthattheimprovedstovesused16–30percentlesswoodthanthetraditionalstoves.Rather,homesusingtheimprovedstovesalongsidetheirtraditionalstoves(whichiswhathappenedinmostoftheinterventionhouseholds)used16–30percentlesswoodthanhomesusingonlythetraditionalstoves.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 5
BACKGROUNDConsumersinBangladeshtodatehavenotexperiencedanychoiceintheimprovedcookstovesmarketandhavenothadtheoptiontousehigh‐endimprovedmodels,includingimportedportablemodels.Thecurrentlydisseminated“improved”stovemodel,theBondhuChula,isabasicbuilt‐in‐placestovewithacementcombustionchamberandchimney,surroundedbyclay/mud(seephotobelowright).Thetraditionalstovesconsistofaholeinthegroundwitharaisedclayliponwhichtorestthepot,withaseparatefuelentryhole(seephotobelowleft).
USAID/Bangladesh’sEconomicGrowthOfficeprovidedfieldsupporttoWASHplustoconductanimprovedcookstove(ICS)consumerneeds,preferences,andwillingnesstopayassessmentinBangladesh(“Phase1”).TheUSAIDAsiaRegionalBureauprovidedcomplementaryfundingtoidentifykeybehaviorchangeelementsanddevelopamarketingplanandrelatedtools(“Phase2”)basedonthePhase1researchfindingsandotherregionallessons.UnderPhase1,WASHplusislayingafoundationfortheUSAID/BangladeshCatalyzingCleanEnergyinBangladesh(CCEB)programandotherkeystakeholdersbyconductingacomprehensiveassessmenttobetterunderstandconsumerneedsandpreferencesastheyrelatetoincreasingtheuptakeofICS,includinghouseholdtrialsofimprovedstovesnotcurrentlywidelyavailableinBangladesh.ThisBangladeshICSassessmentrepresentsUSAID’sfirstsignificantinvestmentinbehaviorchangeandimprovedcookstovesandwillformthebasisforitsfirstmajorinvestmentinimprovedcookstovesinBangladesh.Thecookstovesectorhasseenconsistentglobaltrendsofdrop‐offinimprovedstoveuseovertimeandparallelstoveuse(stovestacking)4inpartbecausetheimprovedstovedoesnotmeetalloftheusers’
4 Ibid.
Traditional sunken‐hole stove (two pot version)
Bondhu Chula built‐in‐place chimney stove; the
current model of “improved” stove most widely
disseminated in Bangladesh.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 6
needs;bypayingmoreattentiontoconsumerneedsandpreferences,thebenefitsofimprovedstovescanbemaximized,andattritionandparallelusereduced.Otherreasonsforlowadoptionandsustaineduseofimprovedcookstovesincludedeficienciesindistribution,consumereducation,financing,andafter‐salesservice.STRATEGICAPPROACHWASHplus,afive‐yearcooperativeagreement(2010–2015)managedbytheBureauforGlobalHealth’sMaternalandChildHealthDivision,isimplementedbyFHI360(formerlytheAcademyforEducationalDevelopment),andincludesWinrockInternationalasacorepartner,withprimaryresponsibilityforWASHplus’sindoorairpollution(IAP)activities.WASHplus’soverarchingmissionistoincreasetheavailabilityanduseofwater,sanitation,andhygiene(WASH)andIAPinterventions.WASHplusfocusesonimprovingthepracticeofkeyWASHandIAP‐relatedbehaviors,includingtheconsistentandcorrectuseofimprovedcookstoves.Tothisend,WASHplusincorporatesmethodologiesandapproachesthatfocusonincreasingtheperformanceofimprovedpractices,notmerelyincreasinglatrinecoverageorsalesofimprovedcookstoves.Planningandpromotionareundertakenfromtheconsumerpointofview,incorporatingdesiredbenefitsandconsequencesratherthanfocusingonpromoting“what’sgoodforyou”orwhatmakessensefromapublichealthandorenergyefficiencypointofview.Equalemphasisisplacedonimprovinghealth‐relatedproducts(andservices)thatmeetconsumerneedsandwants—changingtheproductifneededtobettersatisfyconsumersratherthanconvincingconsumerstobuyproductsthattheymaynotvalueorthatmaynotmeettheirexpectationsandneeds.Lastly,WASHplusalsofocusesonincreasinghouseholddemand,inthiscaseforICS,bycraftingpromotionalappealsthatofferdesiredbenefitsthroughcrediblechannelsasdescribedabove;increasingaffordableandaccessiblesupplythroughproductmodification,enhanceddistributionchannels,andfeasiblepaymentoptions;andshapinganenvironmentwithsupportivepolicyandadequatecapacitytoplan,manage,anddeliverproductsandservices.WASHplusoperatesusingtheUSAIDFrameworkforImpact,whichpositsthattoseeimprovedpractices,inthiscaseimprovedcookingpracticesinBangladesh,aprogram(whetherpilotorat‐scale)mustensurethateffectiveandappealingproductsandservicesareavailableandaccessibletoconsumers;thatinstitutionsandpoliciessupporttherelatedproductsorbehaviors;andthattheseproductsarepromotedinawaythatreachesconsumersthroughconvincingappealsandmultiplecrediblechannels.ThismeansthatamarketingplanforICSinBangladeshmusttakeintoaccountstovedesign,paymentoptions,andfuelavailability;assessifgovernmentpoliciesinhibitimport,distribution,orsales;andhighlightwaysforpublicandprivatesectorinstitutionstobuildneededcapacitiesandworkincoordination.Theactualimplementationanduptakeofthemarketingplanwouldoccurthroughabroadsectorsupportprogramorprivatesectorinstitutions;themarketingplanwillpresenttheanalysis,rationale,andoptions.WASHplusformativeresearchwillanswergapsininformationrequiredtodevelopacomprehensivemarketingapproachforincreasingtheuptakeofICSinBangladesh.WASHplusresearchwillcontributenotonlytopromotionalstrategies,butalsotoICSdesign,distribution,andpaymentoptions.Withincreasedunderstandingofwhatboth
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 7
womenandmenwantfromastove—theattributes,characteristicsandbenefits—stovescanbemademoreaccessible,affordable,andappealingtolowincomeconsumers.WASHpluswilldrawonlessonslearnedinbehaviorchange,demandcreation,andmarketingofsanitationandwatertreatmentproductstodevelopaneffectivemarketingandbehaviorchangestrategythatwillsuggestalimitednumberofevidence‐basedapproachestoincreasetheuptakeofstoves;concepttestkeyelementsoftheseapproaches;anddeveloppractical“how‐to”toolstocontributetothegoalsandresultsofUSAIDenergyandhealthobjectivesinBangladesh.
STUDYOBJECTIVESFormativeresearchreferstoagroupofresearchmethodologiesspecificallydevelopedtoguideorinforminterventiondesigns.Guidingallformativeresearchisonesimplequestiondevelopedbythe“grandfather”ofsocialmarketing,AlanAndreason,aspartofhisBackwardResearchModel5:Whatinformationisneededtomakedecisions?Inthiscase,thequestionwasframedas:WhatinformationdoweneedtodevelopasolidmarketingplantoincreasetheuptakeofimprovedcookstovesinBangladesh?Withthelargerguidingquestioninmind,theteamdevelopedasetofquestionsthatthisformativeresearchsoughttoanswer.Theseare:ConsumerPreferenceResearchQuestions
1. Whatarethedesiredattributesofacookstove?Thisincludescharacteristicslikesize,portability,stability,color,andfunction(e.g.,timetocook,highandlowpowercapabilities).Thisincludedexploringcurrentstoveattributesandcookingexperienceandinitialexperiencewithnewstoves.
2. WhataretheperceivedbarriersanddislikestothesefivemodelsofICSbasedonathree‐weektrial?Whatmakesastovehardtouse?Whoapprovesordisapprovesofthestove?AnsweringthesequestionsrequiredtheuseofSUMSmonitorstomeasuretheactualnumberoftimesanddurationthatstoveswereusedinhouses,whichcouldthenbecomparedwithself‐reporteduse.
3. Aretherefeasiblesolutionstothesebarriers,eitherbychanginghouseholdbehaviorsorthedesignofthestove?
4. Whatisgoodaboutthenewstove?WhatdocooksandtheirfamiliesperceiveasgoodthingsabouteachparticularICS?
5. Whatcharacteristics,attributes,likes,anddislikesaremostpersuasivetohouseholds?Besidessavingsinfuelcosts,whatotherattributeswillinfluencethepurchaseofanICS?Aretherecross‐cutting“aspirational”attributesorothermoreabstractbenefitspeopleaspireto?Forexample,beingseenasmodern,agoodprovider,agourmetcook—attributesthatresoundandmotivateconsumersfromdeepwithin.
5AndreasenA.1985.BackwardMarketResearch.HarvardBusinessReview.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 8
WillingnesstoPay6. Whatareconsumerswillingtopayforhigh‐endimprovedstoveswithfeatures
theydesire?7. Howdoesofferinginstallmentpaymentoptionsinfluencestovepurchase?
EffectivenessofVariousImprovedCookstoves
8. WhataretheactualfuelsavingsofthetrialstoveswhenusedundernormalhouseholdconditionsinBangladesh?ThefivestovemodelstestedhavealreadybeenshowntosignificantlyreducefueluseandIAPinlaboratorysettings,andinsomecasesfieldsettingselsewhere,andthroughthisactivitytheywillalsobefieldtestedforhouseholdeffectiveness.OnasmallerscaleIAPandsmokeexposurewillalsobemonitored.
METHODOLOGYToassessconsumerpreferences,researchersappliedaninnovativemethodologycalledTrialsofImprovedPractices,orTIPs.TheTIPsmethodologyisaqualitativemethodusedtodevelopandtestbehavioralandproductoptionswithtargetconsumers.IthasbeenappliedsuccessfullytointerventionsrelatedtoHIV,6nutrition,7waterfilters,8dengue,9sanitation,andarangeofothertechnicalareas.TheTIPsqualitativemethodologywasfirstdevelopedfornutritionprojectstorehabilitateundernourishedchildren.10Itdrawsfromassets‐basedmethodologiesthatlookforfeasibleandeffectivebehavioralimprovementsthatuseexistingorreadilyavailableresources.11TheWASHplusapplicationoftheTIPsmethoduses“elicitationquestions,”12whicharesemi‐structuredquestionsthathavebeendevelopedandvalidatedtosystematicallyidentifybarriersandmotivatorstochangeandwhichfactorsaremostinfluentialinspurringtheperformanceornonperformanceofabehavior.ThedatacollectedthroughthesemethodswillfillkeyinformationgapsessentialtodevelopingacomprehensivemarketingapproachforincreasingtheuptakeofICSin 6BeryR.andJ.Rosenbaum.2010.HowtoIntegrateWater,SanitationandHygieneImprovementintoHIV/AIDSProgrammes.WorldHealthOrganization(WHO)/USAID.7GriffithM.1992.ImprovingYoungChildFeedingPractices.USAID/TheWeaningProject.
8RosenbaumJ.2006.BringingtheConsumertotheTableResearchBrief:DevelopingaMarketingStrategyforImprovingHouseholdWaterQualityinNepal.USAID/HygieneImprovementProject.9RosenbaumJ.andE.Leontsini.2002.PlanningSocialMobilizationandCommunicationforDengueFeverPreventionandControl:AStep‐by‐StepGuide.SpecialProgrammeforResearchandTraininginTropicalDiseases,CommunicableDiseases.WHO.10DickinK.,M.Griffiths,andE.Piwoz.1997.TrialsofImprovedPractices(TIPs):GivingParticipantsaVoice,andDesigningbyDialogue:AProgramPlanners’GuidetoConsultativeResearchforImprovingYoungChildFeeding.USAID/SARAProject.11LappingK.,D.Marsh,andJ.Rosenbaum.2001.ComparisonofPositiveDevianceandOtherAsset‐BasedDevelopmentModels.SavetheChildren/AcademyforEducationalDevelopment.12MiddlestadtS.,K.Bhattacharyya,J.Rosenbaumetal.1996.TheUseofTheory‐BasedSemi‐StructuredElicitationQuestionnaires:FormativeResearchforCDC’sPreventionMarketingInitiative,PublicHealthReports.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 9
Bangladesh.Understandingperceivedbarriersandsolutions;desiredorexecutedmodificationstostovesduringthetrialperiod(e.g.,removaloffuelgrateoradditionofamakeshiftstove‐sideshelf,expressedcolorchange);andperceivedanddesiredbenefitsandattributeswillhelpprogramactivitiesgoingforwardtoidentifyappropriatestovesintargetareasand/ormodifystovesforincreasedeffectiveness,appeal,anduse.Thiswillalsoprovideinformationvitaltodevelopingamarketingandbehaviorchangestrategy.ICSfuelefficiency(reportedintermsofreductionsinfuelusage)wasmeasuredusingathree‐dayKPT(version3.0,www.pciaonline.org/testing),widelyacknowledgedasthebestcurrentlyavailablemethodforaccuratelyestimatingdailyhouseholdfuelconsumption13.TheKPTwascarriedoutusingacross‐sectionalstudydesignin116studyhouseholds(threehouseholdsdeclinedtoparticipateandafourthhadincompletedata)and24controlhouseholds.Twoapproacheswereusedtomeasuretheextenttowhichhouseholdsadoptedthenewstovesandthemannerinwhichtheyintegratedthemintotheircookingandkitchenmanagementpractices:self‐reporteduseofstovesattheendofeach24‐hourKPTmonitoringperiodandtheuseofSUMS.TheSUMStemperature‐loggingsensorswereaffixedtoallstovesinthehouse(includingbothtraditionalandinterventionstoves)tocollectdataonhowoftenthestoveswere“turnedon”(i.e.,lit).TheSUMSrecordedthestovetemperatureevery10minutesforatotalofapproximately10days;theresultingtemperatureprofileswerethenanalyzedtodeterminethefrequencyof“cookingevents”(i.e.,numberoftimesthestoveswerelit)perday.TheimpactoftheinterventionsonhouseholdairqualitywasexploredduringtheKPTmonitoringinasubsetofsevenhomes(twohouseholdsfromthetraditionalstovegroupandonehouseholdfromeachofthefiveinterventionstovegroups)tocollectillustrative(notstatisticallysignificant)results.Minute‐by‐minutekitchenconcentrations(inalocationapproximatingthebreathingzoneofthecook)ofsmallparticles(PM2.5)andcarbonmonoxide(CO)weremeasured.Environmentalandcontextualinformationthatmightimpactindoorairquality,suchaskitchenvolume,wasalsocollectedduringthestudies.Theimpactoftheinterventionsonwomen’sandchildren’sexposurewasexploredinthesamesubsetofhomesthroughthemonitoringof24‐hourexposuretoCOofboththecookandonechildundertheageof5inthehousehold.
ProcedureTheWASHplusteamselectedpartnerNGOsineachofthestudylocations,whothenhelpedthefieldteamidentifyhouseholdstoparticipateinthestovetrial,distributethestovesandcollectthemattheendofthestudy,andensurestoveuserscontinuedtousetheICSduringthestudyevenifsomefunctionalproblemoccurredwiththestove.BasedonthePartnerNGOSelectionCriteria(seeAnnexA),DESHGORIBangladeshinBarisalandInstituteofDevelopmentAffairs(IDEA)inSylhetwereselectedtoconductsitevisitstoeachlocation.
13 Bailisetal.2007;Smithetal.2007;WHO2008.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 10
WASHpluspurchased26modelsofeachstove(twoextraofeachmodelincaseofanyproblems)andhiredBangladeshNGOfieldpartnerVillageEducationResourceCenter(VERC)tocoordinatewithandtrainIDEAandDESHGORI,overseefieldlogistics,andsupportKPTwork.ThepartnerNGOs,alongwithWASHplusstaff,identifiedsixvillagesineachoftheirinterventionareas(foratotalof12villages),basedonasetCommunitySelectionCriteria(seeAnnexA).PartnerNGOsthenidentified20householdsineachvillage(foratotalof240households),usingHouseholdSelectionCriteria(seeAnnexA).Toavoidselectionbiasofanykind,WASHplusstafftogetherwithVERCconductedashortintensivefieldsurveytoensurevillagesandhousesmetallselectioncriteriaandwererepresentativeoftargetconsumers.FourprojectstaffmembersfromeachpartnerNGOweregivenatwo‐daytrainingonstoveinstallation,use,andmaintenanceinaworkshopconductedbyVERC.Praktisentarepresentativetoparticipateinthisworkshopsincemanufacturingandproperinstallationofmetalchimneysinhouseholdsisvitalfortheperformanceofthestove.Theotherstovemanufacturerssentdetailedtrainingmaterialsandstep‐by‐stepguidesforstoveinstallation,use,andmaintenance.WASHplusworkedwithalllocalpartnerstomakefinalhouseholdselections,distributestoves,andprovidetrainingontheirusetohouseholds.Stovesthenwererandomlyassignedto120ofthe240identifiedhouseholds.TheteamplacedoneofthefivedifferentICSmodels(seebelow)ineachofthehouseholdsforcookstouseandprovidefeedbackonthroughsemi‐structuredelicitationquestions.Basedonhighperforming14stovemodelsavailableinotherSouthAsiamarketsandbeyond,theWASHplusteamselectedthefollowingwood‐burningstovesforthisstudy,showninthephotobelow:
- Singlepot,built‐in‐place,rocketdesignstove(Envirofit)
- Singlepot,portable,rocketdesignstove(EcoZoom)
- Two‐potportablemetalchimneystove(Prakti)
- Single‐potportablefangasifierstove(Eco‐Chula)
- Single‐potportablenaturaldraftgasifierstove(Greenway)
Ofnote,allofthesestoveswereimportedfromelsewhereintheregionandwerenotdesignedfortheBangladeshmarket.EcoZoomstovesarenotcurrentlyavailableintheSouthAsianmarket,andonlyGreenwaystovesarecurrentlysoldinBangladesh.
14 The2012ISOInternationalWorkshopAgreementforcookstoveperformanceprovidesasystemforcategorizingstovesbasedonseveralperformancemetrics,includingtwometricsrelatedtoefficiency,fromtier0representingtraditionalstovestotier4representingaspirationalgastechnologies.TheIWAtiersonlyprovidecomparativeclassificationforstovesbasedonlabtests.Allofthestovesselectedforthisstudyhadachievedatier2orhigherratingfortheirefficiencymetricsinthelaboratory.
Trial stoves, clockwise from top left: Eco‐Chula, Prakti,
Envirofit, EcoZoom, and Greenway.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 11
ThestudyhadplannedtoincludetheBioLiteHomeStove,butbecauseBioLiteproductionwashaltedinlate2012toaddressafanissue,itwasnotincluded.ThestudyalsolookedatanimportedricehuskstovefromIndiathatmaybeagoodfitforasegmentofBangladeshiconsumers,butdidnotincludeitinthestudyduetologisticalandgeographicchallengesofdoingso,giventhedistinctusergroupsforwoodversusricehuskfuel.PhotosandmoredetaileddescriptionsofthefiveimprovedstovesincludedinthestudyareattachedhereinAnnexC.Thesefivedifferentstovemodelswereplacedinhomes,withthreeofeachstovetypepervillage,thustotaling15householdspervillageineightvillages,or120totalhouseholds.Eachhouseholdinthetrialwasprovidedwithonlyonetypeofstovetotest.Ineachhouseholddetailedcookstoveoperationandmaintenancetrainingwasprovided,andcookswereaskedtotryoutthestovesundernormalconditions.Eachhouseholdhadtheopportunitytotryanewimprovedstove(notpreviouslyavailableinBangladesh)forthreeweeksandwereaskedtooffertheirideasandopinions.Unlikeothersurveymethods,whereallfactorsareheldconstantandresearchersanalyzethefrequencyandrangeofresponse,thisqualitativemethodologyinviteshouseholdstoidentify,discuss,andresolvebarrierstousingthenewICS.HouseholdswerealsoaskedtocomparecookingontheICSwiththeirtraditionalorpreviousstove.Throughthesecomparisons,researcherswereabletoelicitcategoriesofattributesvaluedbythetargetconsumer.Interviewswereconductedondays1,3,and21. WASHplusrecruitedandselectedaDhaka‐basedteamofinterviewersandprovidedthemwithethicalandtechnicaltrainingtoconductthebaseline,Day3,andDay21questionnaires.OnDay1ofthetrial,thetrainedWASHplusenumeratorsvisitedeachcommunityand:
Explainedthestudytoeachofthe15participatinghouseholdsineachvillage(threehouseholdsforeachoffivestovemodels),usingascriptinBengalipreparedbytheWASHplusteam(Stove‐TrialIntroduction);thisscriptincludedallinstitutionalreviewboard(IRB)‐requiredconsents
Conductedthe“BaselineQuestionnaire”withthesehouseholdsOncethebaselinequestionnairewascompleted,projectstaffofDESHGORIandIDEA(overseenbyVERC)distributedtheimprovedcookstovestothesehouseholdsandtrainedcooksandheadsofhouseholdonthecorrectusageandmaintenanceofthestove.Closeattentionwaspaidtoqualitycontrolintrainingandapplication(bytheNGOs)ofthestandardtrainingprocedureoncorrectusageforhouseholds,giventheimpactthattrainingqualityandquantitycanhaveonimprovedstoveusageandperceptions.
OnDay3ofthetrial,trainedWASHplusenumeratorsreturnedtoeachofthevillagesandconductedthe“Day‐3Questionnaire”witheachoftheparticipanthouseholds.OnDay21(afterthreeweeksofstoveuse),trainedWASHplusenumeratorsreturnedtoeachofthevillagesandconductedthe“Week‐3Questionnaire”witheachoftheparticipanthouseholdsoveraperiodofsevendays.Intheprocessofdatacleaningandanalysis,recordsfromtwohouseholdsneededtobeexcludedfromDay3andDay21comparisonsbecauseofpossibleerror/overlapinthedatacollectionprocess.ThetwohouseholdsremovedfromtheDay3andDay21surveyanalysiswerebothinthe
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 12
Kunarchorvillage,resultingin58villagesfromtheSylhetdistrictand60fromBarisal.Thefullcomplementof120householdrecordsisrepresentedintheanalysisandreportingofbaselinefindings.Samplesizesforeachanalysisarenotedincharts.KPTswereundertakenatdifferentpointsbetweentheDay3andDay21questionnaires.Allhouseholdfuelstobeused(wood,cropresidues,charcoal,kerosene,etc.)wereweighedatthebeginningandendofeachofthethree24‐hourmonitoringperiodsusingdigitalhand‐heldscales.Woodmoisturewasmeasureddailyineachhouseholdusingadualpin,electricalresistance‐stylemoisturemeteratthreepointsonthreerandomlyselectedsticksinthewoodpile.Ashortquestionnairewasalsoadministereddailytorecordinformationaboutcookingstoveandfuelusage,thenumberandtypeofmealsprepared,andthenumberofpeoplecookedfor.Thehouseholdswereaskedtomaintaintheirtypicalcookingpatternsforthedurationofthesurvey.AttheonsetoftheKPTs,SUMStemperature‐sensingdataloggerswereplacedonallinterventionstoves,aswellasonthepre‐existingtraditionalstoves(whateverthefamilyhadbeencookingonpriortothetrial),sothatusageofboththenewstoveandtheoldstoveweremeasured.TheSUMStrackedactualcookingperiodsforeachimprovedandtraditionalstoveoverthecourseofthethree‐weektrial.SUMSdatawasdownloadedattheendofthethree‐weektrialandanalyzed,comparingactualtoreporteduse,whichhelpeddetermineanyunreportedproblemswithornonusageoftheimprovedstovestested.Thisactivityappliedthefollowingtools/scripts:Stove‐TrialIntroduction:Thisscriptwasreadtoeachoftheparticipatinghouseholdsbeforethetrialbegan.Itincludedafullexplanationofthetrial,explainedthefollow‐upquestionnairesandwhentheywouldhappen,explainedanypotentialrisks,andaskedpermissionforparticipation,asrequiredbytheIRB.Thisscriptwaspreparedbythecorestudyteam,translatedintoBengali,andreadbytheenumerators.BaselineQuestionnaire:Thisquestionnairewasconductedwiththeparticipatinghouseholdsonthefirstdayofthetrialbeforethehouseholdwasentrustedwithatrialstove.Thisquestionnairedeterminedthebaselinestovemodel,stovecost,stoveusagepatterns,feedbackonexistingstoves,fuelusepatterns,fuelexpenditure,andotherrelevantcharacteristicsofhouseholdsparticipatinginthestovetrials.Day3Questionnaire:Thisquestionnairewasconductedaftereachparticipatinghouseholdhadthechancetousethestoveforthreedays.Thiswasusedtodetermineinitialpreferences,usepatterns,andotherinitialreactionsafteronlythreedays.Examinationofthestoveitselfandquestionsprobedforanymodificationsalreadymadetothestoveand/oritsdesigned/correctuse(userswereNOTencouragedtomakemodificationstothestovedesignoruse,noradvisedaheadoftimethatthiswasallowed).InterviewersnotedanyproblemsandthenrelayedthesetopartnerNGOstaff,whothenvisitedthehouseholdtosolvetheproblems,whetherthroughretrainingtheusers,orservicingthestove.Commonproblemsincludedimproperusage,functionalproblemsofthestove(e.g.,thebatteryofEco‐Chularunningoutduringcooking),andusingpolytheneandplastictostartthefire,whichthencreatedthicksmoke.Boththe
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 13
problemsandacceptable/feasiblesolutionswerenotedasdataofinterest.NGOstaffensuredthatthestovewasinproperworkingorderbeforeleaving.Day21Questionnaire:ThisquestionnairewassimilartotheDay3questionnairebutwasconductedafterhouseholdshadtheopportunitytousethestovefor21days.Semi‐structuredinterviewquestionswereagainusedtodocumentpreferences,use/experiencewiththestove,qualitiesattributedtonewandoldstoves,fueluse,cooking,andotheroutcomes.
DescriptionofStudyGroupThefieldsurveywasconductedinJanuaryandFebruary2013,intwowood‐fuelburningareasofBangladesh—SylhetinthenorthwestandBarisalinthesouth.Bothareasusewoodastheprimaryfuel;thiswasconfirmedin105of120households.Aboutone‐thirdofthestudyparticipantsexclusivelygatheredtheirwoodandabouthalf“mostlypurchasedorexclusivelypurchased”wood.TheremainderusedsomecombinationofpurchasedandcollectedwoodasnotedinFigure2.Duringthestudyitwasfoundthatalthoughwoodwasthepreferredfuelthroughouttheyear,dryleafisusedasasupplementaryfuelinthewintermonthslastingfromDecemberuntiltheendFebruary(Figure1).Manyhouseholdsburnthisfreefuelinspecialleaf‐burningmudstoves,whichtheyconstructoutsideintheopencourtyardtoavoidtheheavysmokethatisemittedbythisfuel.
Figure1
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 14
Figure2ThepartnerNGOs,DESHGORIfromBarisalandIDEAfromSylhet,selectedthestudyvillages.InBarisalthevillageswereBillobari,Bihangal,Ichakathi,andGonpara.InSylhetthevillagesselectedforthestudywereJangail,Kewa,Tilargaon,andKunarchor.InBarisalcookingusuallytakesplaceeitherinanopencourtyardinasemi‐permanentstructureorinaseparatekitchenawayfromthemainhouse.InSylhetthecookingtakesplaceinthemainlivingquarters;themajorityofthehouseholdscookontraditionalstovesplacedunderchimneyhoods(whichactaschimneys,pullingsmokeoutofthelivingquarters).Householdswereoriginallyselectedbecausetheyfitthebasiccriteriaofusingprimarilywoodforcooking,havingatleastfourpeopleinthehouseholdwithatleastonechildunder5,andbeingwillingtoparticipateinthestudy.Unfortunately,around20smallerhouseholdsmadeitpastthehouseholdselectionscreeningintothestudy,asthefamiliesincludedintheirreportednumbershouseholdmemberswhodonotlivefulltimeinthehouse.Mosthouseholdshadfourtofivefamilymembers,withtheaveragesize(5.3)fallingjustabovethenationalaverage(averagehouseholdsizeinBangladeshis4.4people).Insomecasestheyreportedthecorrectfamilysizebutfailedtoreportthatextrapeople(farmlaborers)atelunchandsnackswiththefamilysothatcookingwasperformedforalargernumberofpeople(Figure3).
n = 120
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 15
Figure3About98outofthe120participanthouseholdswereMuslim,16wereHindu,andsixwereChristian(allsixinBarisal).Themainoccupationofthehusbandwasbusiness(30.83percent),followedbyservice(22.5percent).Othercommonoccupationsweredriverofhiredvehicles,farmers,artisans,andabout5.83percentweredailylaborers(Figure4,representingfrequencies).Amongthewomen,46outof120wereengagedinincome‐generatingactivities.Poultryrearingandsewingwerethemostcommon(Figure5).Abouthalf(61/120)oftheparticipantsbelongtosomesortofwomen’sgroup(suchassavingscooperatives).
Figure4
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 16
NOTE ON PRESENTATION OF DATA AND
FINDINGS
This study included both qualitative and
quantitative methods. In depth, qualitative
questions were asked of smaller subsamples
trying particular stoves (where n is 118,
there were 24 each using Eco‐Chula,
Envirofit, and Greenway; 23 using EcoZoom
and Prakti) or small subsamples responding
to particular questions. Following standard
procedures for reporting qualitative data, we
are reporting on these data using words
(most, many, some, few) and numbers, and
only use percentages when reporting on the
entire study group of 120 for the baseline
data, 118 for the 21‐day group, and a few
other rare instances. For the most part,
results of each stove trial group are reported
as follows:
Most = 90% or above (at least 20 of 24) Many = 40% or more (at least 10) Some = 15‐39% (at least 4, less than 10) Few = less than 15% (2‐3)
Figure5Amongeligiblehouseholds,WASHplusdeliberatelyselectedhouseholdsthathadsomeregularincome(thosewhowerenotextremelypoor)andwouldbeabletobuythestovesattheendofthestudyiftheyreallylikedthem.Thisexcludedagriculturalsmallfarmersandfarmhands.Thestudyalsoexcludedrichfarmingfamilies,astheywerelikelytocookwithliquefiedpetroleumgas(LPG)orhavedomestichelpforcooking,ratherthanhavingthewife/motherofthehouseholdperformthattask.Alltheparticipantswerewithintheagegroupof16–65years;about60percentoftheparticipantswerecooksbelow35yearsofage.Some28percentofthewomenwere16–25yearsold,32percentwere26–35yearsold,23percentwere36–45,and13percentwere46–55.Only4percentwereabove55yearsold. ParticipantswererandomlyassignedoneoffiveICSandaskedtotryitoverathree‐weekperiod,providinginformationtointerviewersatbaseline,threedays,andthreeweeksasexplainedabove.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 17
FINDINGSOverallConsumerReactionstoNewStovesonKeyVariablesBasedontheirresponsestotheDay21survey,consumersfeltthatthetasteoftheirfoodwasthesamewhencookedonanICSversusatraditionalstove.Abouttwo‐thirdsofthestudyparticipantssaidfoodtastesthesame,withtheothersequallysplitbetweensayingitwasbetter(21/118)orworse(19/118).Respondentsoverwhelminglyfelttheimprovedstovesusedlessfuelthantheiroldstoves,withalmostthree‐fourthsofthegroupseeingfuelsavings(85/118).Afew(8/118)respondentssaidtheICSusedthesameamountoffuelasthetraditionalstoves.Interestingly,aboutafifthoftheparticipantsthoughtthenewstovesusedmorefuel.ManyPraktiusers(16/118)andmostEco‐Chulausers(21/118)reportedthattheirstovesusedlessfuelthanthetraditionalstove.HoweversomeusersofEcoZoom(6/118),Envirofit(6/118),andGreenway(6/118)reportedneedingmorefueltocookonthesestovesthanontheirtraditionalstoves.Thisisinterpretedinthediscussionsectionbelow,butacoupleofpointsareimportanttonotehere.First,someofthestoveuserstookfreeleaffuelintoaccountintheirmentalcalculations,whichinfluencedtheseimpressions,andsecondly,agroupofparticipantsjammedextrawoodintothefuelentry/combustionchamberstocreatelargerflamesfromthestoves.Bothofthesepointsshouldbetakenintoconsiderationintheresultsrelatedtofueluseforthenewstoves.Thesegeneralreactionswerecommonacrossstovetypes.WhenaskedaboutdifferencesinsmokeproducedbytheICSversusthetraditionalstove,avastmajority(85/118)saidtheICSproducedlesssmokethantheirtraditionalstove.Afewsaidnochange(13/118),andasmallgroup(19/118)reportedmoresmoke.HusbandspresentatthetimeofthesurveywhoansweredthequestionhadbasicallythesameimpressionsastheirwivesregardingthereductioninsmokefromthenewICS.WhenaskediftheICShadanyimpactoncookingpots,justoverhalftheusers(62/118)feltthenewstoveskepttheirpotscleaner,afewsawnoimpact(15/118),andathird(40/118)feltitmadethepotsdirtierthanthetraditionalstove.Again,thisfindingwasinpartduetosomeusers“jamming”theICSwithwoodtomakeflamesvisiblymeetthecookingpot,whichwouldclearlyaffectimpressionsandisdiscussedfurtherinthediscussionsection.AmajorobstaclereportedisthatthecookingtimewasslowerusingtheICS,especiallyforlong‐cookingfooditemslikericeanddaal.Morethanthree‐fourthsofrespondents(91/118)reportedslowercookingtimeusingthenewstovescomparedtotheirtraditionalstoves,afifth(24/118)reportedfastercooking,andjustafew(3/118)respondentssaidcookingtimewasthesame.Inresponsetoanopen‐endedquestion,“Whatdoyouthinkaboutthestove?”afterthreeweeks,aclearmajoritysaidit:wascleaner,releasinglesssootandsmokeintothehouseandkitchen;usedlessfirewood;andemittedlesssmoke.Manyoftheparticipantssaid—unprompted—thattheyenjoycookingonthestove,andalmostafifthsaiditlooksnice.Foreachofthesepositiveattributesnotedhere,asmallminority(lessthan20percentineachinstance)saidtheirstoveemittedmoresmoke(14/118),thatitusedmorewood(12/118),andthattheydidnotenjoycookingonthestove(21/118).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 18
ByDay3,themajorityofhouseholdspreferredtheirnewstovetotheiroldtraditionalcookstove.After21days,however,farfewerhouseholdspreferredthenewcookstovetotheirtraditionalstove,withratesfallingfrom56percentpreferringthenewstoveafter3daystoonly41percentpreferringthenewstoveafterusingitfor21days(Figure6).Thebreakdownbymodelofstove(Figures7&8)andbymodelanddistrict(Figure9)arebelow.Threestoves—theEco‐Chula,EnvirofitandPrakti—wereclearlymoreacceptabletoconsumersattheDay3survey.Morethanhalfofconsumerstryingthosestovespreferredthenewstovetotheirtraditionalstove.BytheDay21survey,however,userpreferencehaddroppedforallfivestovetypes,mostdramaticallyfortheEco‐Chula.Reportedreasonsbehindthisaredescribedinthediscussionsectionandprimarilyhavetodowithchangesrelatedtotheircookingpractices(Figures7,8,and9).
Figure6:HouseholdswereincludedinthiscomparisononlyiftheageoftherespondentatDay3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeingcompared.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 19
Figure7:HouseholdswereincludedinthiscomparisononlyiftheageoftherespondentatDay3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeingcompared.
Figure8:HouseholdswereincludedinthiscomparisononlyiftheageoftherespondentatDay3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeingcompared.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 20
Figure9:ThestovespreferredbytheusersinSylhetindecreasingorderare:Prakti,Eco‐Chula,EcoZoom,Greenway,andEnvirofit.InBarisalthedecreasingorderofpreferenceforstovesis:Eco‐Chula,equalpreferenceforEnvirofit,Greenway,EcoZoom,andthird,Prakti.Thedatapointsthatfollowexplainwhatconsumerslikedanddidnotlikeaboutthedifferentstovesbymodelofstove.Analysisoftheseresultsisincludedinthediscussionsection.Despitethedecreasedpreferenceforthenewstovesversustraditionalstoves,78percentofparticipantsoverallstillsaidtheirnewstovewasa“good”stoveafterthreeweeksofuse.PercentageperceptionbystovetypeisfoundbelowinFigure10.
Figure10:HouseholdswereincludedinthiscomparisononlyiftheageoftherespondentatDay3wasthesameasDay21tobecertainthatpreferencesofthesamepersonwerebeingcompared.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 21
Explorationofthequalitativeandquantitativedatashedslightontheseseeminglycontradictoryfindings(seediscussionsectionbelow).Householdsappearedto“like”and“value”thestovesbutstillfeltthestovesdidn’tsatisfyalltheirkitchenneedsinthewaytheirtraditionalstovesdid.Ourconclusionsonwhatitwouldtake(includingconsiderationofstovedesignmodifications)togetparticipantsinterestedinpurchasingandusinganICSareincludedinthediscussionsection.ProfilesofSpecificStovesEnvirofit–Morethanhalfofuserssaidituseslessfuelandemitslesssmoke,andsomelikedthelooksandsaidthattheirhousewascleaner.Lastly,somementionedthatitwaswellmanufactured.Prakti–Almosteveryonecommentedthatthestoveemitslesssmoke,andamajorityalsomentionedthePraktileavestheirhousecleaner,useslessfuel,andlooksnice.Greenway–Amajoritycommentedthatlessfuelwasneeded,thatitlooksnice,andtheylikedtheportability.Some(butnotamajority)mentioneditemitslesssmoke.Concernscooksnotedincludedthatitappeareddelicateandunstable,andtheyworriedthestovewouldtipover.EcoZoom–Comparedtotheirtraditionalstove,amajoritymentionedituseslessfuelandaroundhalfsaiditemitslesssmoke,itlooksnice,andtheyappreciateitsportability.Cooksnotedthattheylikedthatitlookedbig(indiameterandheight)yetportable,andhasabroadbasethatmakesitstable.Theyalsonotedthattheappearanceandweightofthestoveconvincedthemitwasdurable.Eco‐Chula–Comparedtotheirtraditionalstove,manymentionedituseslesswood,emitslesssmoke,andlooksnice.Abouthalfalsomentionedthehousewascleanerthanwhenusingthetraditionalstoveandmanymentioneditcooksfoodquicklyandisportable.Concernscooksnotedincludedthatitappeareddelicateandthereforemightnotbedurable.Theyreportedlikingthefan,andthegasstove‐likeflamethataidedcooking.Theylikedthatitisportable,andthatthecookingvesselsareplacedonaseparatemetal“quadrapod”frame,sotherewasnofearthatthestovemighttipoverduetotheweightofthepot.PeoplemostlikedtheICSoverallbecausetheyemitlesssmokeanduselessfuel.Rankingalmostashighwasthatthestoveslookednice.Thestoveswereperceivedtobecleanerandproducelesssoot.Lessfrequentbutstillstrongresponsesincludedthestoves’portability,andtoalesserextent,theiroverallqualityandabilitytocookfoodquickly.Otherresponsesincludedbothaspirationalbenefitssuchas:“impressesothersandbringspridetomyhouse,”featureslike“theflameislikethatofanLPGstove,”andthatitretainsheatandproducesmoreflameandheat(seewordcloudbelow).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 22
Figure11:ThewordcloudaboverepresentsattributesnamedbyallconsumerstryingtheICSinresponsetoaskingwhattheparticipantslikedaboutthenewstovescomparedtotheiroldprimarystoveafterthreeweeksofusage.Largertypesizereflectsthefrequencyofmentionoftheattribute.Answersweresimilarinresponsetoageneralquestionaboutwhysomeone(anyone)mightchoosethesestoves(asopposedtowhydoYOUlikethestove,whichcorrelateswiththewordcloudabove),withtheexceptionof“lookingnice”and“cooksfast,”whichwerementionedfarlessoften(seechartbelow).
Chart1:DescriptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseICSWhyWouldSomeone(Else)ChooseTheseStoves?
FrequencyN=118 %
Lesssmoke 80 68Savesfuel 80 68Portable 61 52Kitchen/potsstaycleaner 58 49Lookssmart/modern 4 3Looksnice 3 2.5Cooksfast 27 23
Noonewillliketouseit/nogoodreasontouse 4 3Other 6 5
Whethertheypreferredtheimprovedstoveovertheirtraditionalstoveornot,allusersencounteredsomeproblemsorbarrierstousingthenewstove.Therewaslittlevariationacrossstoves,withsomenotableexceptions,oftendirectlyattributabletothedesignofthatparticularstove.Someofthemajorproblemswerethatinallthestovemodelsittookalongertimetocooklargequantitiesoffoodin
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 23
largevessels.Usersfeltthatbigpotsdidnotworkwellwiththesesmallportablestovemodelsbecausetheflamedoesnotspreadtocoverenoughofthepotandthecookingpotmighttipover.InBangladeshthestaplefoodisrice,anditisconsumedinallthreemealsoftheday.Dependingonthefamilysize,thestoveusersfounditverydifficulttocooklargequantitiesofriceinthesestovemodels(Figure12).Thiswasanespeciallylargeobstacleduringthemonthinwhichthestovetrialstookplace,asfamiliestendedtocooklargerquantitiesofriceallinthemorningduringthecoolerDecember‐Februaryseason,ratherthanduringmultiplecookingperiodsspreadthroughoutthedayasismoretypicaltherestoftheyear.Userswhobelongedtosmallfamiliesofuptothreetofourmemberslikedthestovemodels.Stoveuserswereaskedaboutwhetheranythingabouttheimprovedstovewasn’tfunctioningproperlyduetothedesignofthestove.InthecaseofthePraktistove,themajorcomplaintwasthatthesecondpotwasnoteffectiveforcooking(13/23).Forallstovemodels,especiallyPraktiandGreenway,arecurringcomplaintwasthatthestovesizewastoosmallformosttasks(15/23and14/24).FortheGreenwaystoveanothermajorcomplaintwasthatthestovewasnotstable(13/24).WhenuserswerethenaskedaboutproblemscookingontheICS,usersfounditdifficulttochopwoodintosmallpiecesforthesestovetypes;thiswasnotedespeciallyfrequentlybyEco‐Chula(16/24)andEnvirofit(10/24)usersandtoalesserextentGreenway(7/24)andPrakti(8/23).SomeusersofthePraktistove(5/23)complainedtheycouldnotusethesecondpothole(thiswastheonlystovethathadthisissuebecauseitwastheonlystovewithtwopotholes).SomePrakti(3/23)andEcoZoom(5/23)usersreportedthatthefuelchamberwassmall.AfewusersofEco‐ChulaandGreenwayfounditdifficulttoignitethestoveevenafter21daysofregularuse.OtherproblemsforsomeGreenwaystoveuserswerethatashwouldbuildupquickly(10/24)andfuelwoodkeptfallingoffthetraywhilecooking(4/24).Beyondthesecomplaints,othercomplaintswerecommonacrossallstovetypes.Differencesbystovetypearehighlightedinthechartthatfollows(Figure12).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 24
Figure12:*Cookingproblemsdenotedwithanasteriskareissuesthatareopportunitiesforconsumerawarenessandeducation,ratherthanchangesthatshouldactuallybemadetostoves,sinceenlargingthecombustionchamberandincreasingflameheightaredetrimentaltostoveperformanceintermsoffuelsavingsandemissionreductions.Rather,consumerscanbeeducatedonhowtogetthebestperformanceoutoftheirstovesusingmethodsthatoptimizeitsdesign.Afterusingthestoveforthreeweekstheusersprovidedsomesolutionsthattheyperceivewillmakethesestovemodelsbetterandmoreacceptable.Morethan90ofthe118usersforallstovemodelssaidthatthestovesshouldbelargerinsize.Theyreportedthatthecombustionchambershouldbelargerforallstovemodelssothatmorewoodcanbefedintothestove.SomeGreenwaystoveusers(4/24)suggestedthatthestovecouldbemademorestablebymakingthetopplatethickerandsturdiersotobetterbeartheweightofthepotsandvesselsplacedonthem.SomePraktistoveuserswantedmoreheatinthesecondpotmouthandsuggestedplacingthecombustionchamberbetweenfirstandsecondpotsothatbothpotscanbeused
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 25
forcooking(8/24).Asmallpercentageofuserswantedthestovestohavevisibleflameswhichwouldreachthepots,particularlyforEnvirofitandGreenway.Althoughsomeofthesuggestionswereconstructiveandwouldrequiresomesimpledesignchanges,othersuggestionsarebetteraddressedthroughconsumereducationatthepointofsaleandduringaftersalesserviceforthesestovemodels(Figure13).
Figures13:*Suggestedchangesdenotedwithanasteriskareissuesthatareopportunitiesforconsumerawarenessandeducation,ratherthanchangesthatshouldactuallybemadetostoves,sinceenlargingthecombustionchamberandincreasingflameheightaredetrimentaltostoveperformanceintermsoffuelsavingsandemissionreductions.Rather,consumerscanbeeducatedonhowtogetthebestperformanceoutoftheirstovesusingmethodsthatoptimizeitsdesign.Inthisstovetrialamajorityoftheuserswereforcedtomodifytheircookinghabitstoaccommodatethedesignsofthenewstoves.Insteadofmulti‐taskingduringcooking,59percentofusershadtositinfrontofthestovefortheentirecookingsession,addingwoodpiecesatregularshortintervals.Some31percentofstoveuserssaidtheyhadtoplantheircookingandprepareeverythinglikechoppingthevegetablesandcleaningthedaalandriceinadvancebeforestartingtheactualcooking,sincethenewstovesaffordedlesstimeformulti‐tasking.Only29percentofuserssaidtheydidnotneedtomakeanychangeincookingstyletousethesestovemodels(seechartbelow).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 26
Chart2:ChangesinCookingPattern
ChangesinCookingPattern,ifAny,asAdaptedbytheUsersfortheNewStoves(AllStoves)
Frequency(n=118) %
Sitinfrontofthestovetocookeverything 70 59Prepareeverythingfirstandthencook 37 31
Nochange 34 29Perceptionsof“WhoistheStoveGoodfor?”and“WhatisitWorth?”Inadditiontoconductingarigorouswillingnesstopayexercise,stoveuserswerealsoaskedtodescribethekindofpersonthesestovesweregoodfor,aswellastoestimatehowmuchthestovewasworth.Thiswasdistinctfromwhethertheywantedtobuythestove,rathertheirestimateofitsvalue.Theusersreportedthatthestovemodelsweresmallinsize,andoverwhelminglysuggestedthatthesestovesaregoodforsmallfamilies.Tothedescriptionsofsmallfamilies,fewtosomeaddeddifferentotherdescriptions:“smallfamilieswhobuytheirwood,”“wholiveinurbanorperi‐urbanareas,”“whorentorlackspacetoinstallstovesoutdoors,”andafewsuggestedtheyarebestforbachelors!Anotherfewuserssaidthatsincethestovesareexpensive,thepeoplewhocanaffordthestoveswouldhavetobesalariedprofessionalpeopleorpeoplewhohaveagoodincome(seechartbelow).
Uponcompletionofthestudy,generalcommentsaboutthestovesincludedthattheyweregoodbuttoosmallfordailycookingsincetheaveragefamilysizefortheseruralhouseholdswasmorethanfive.Participantsreportedthattheywouldliketousethepresentsmallermodelsinthesummerandrainyseasonwhentheycannotcookoutside.Theynotedthattheyuseonlywoodfuel(gatheredandsavedduringwinter)duringthesemonthsandneedtosaveonfuelwood.Participantsrecommendedthatthesestoveswouldbeindemandwithsmallfamilies(57/118)and,toamuchlesserextent,mentionedtheyareappropriateinurbanandsemi‐urbanareas(9/118).Becauseofthelackofspaceinurbanareas,users(5/118)suggestedthosefamilieswouldwelcomeportablestovemodelsthatcanbeusedinsidetheapartment.Someparticipants(9/118)alsonotedthatwoodfuelisalmostexclusivelypurchasednotcollectedinurbanareas,andsincethesestovessavefuelthereshouldbeagooddemandforthesestoves(seechartbelow).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 27
Chart3:PerceptionofPeopleWhoWouldUseTheseNewStovesWhatKindofPeopleWouldUseThis(These)NewStove(s)?
Frequencyn=118
%
Smallfamilies 57 48Modernpeople 52 44Thriftypeople 25 21Poorerpeople 11 9Simple,ordinaryfamily 23 19Someonepeoplerespect 11 9People/familieslivinginurbanorperi‐urbanareas 9 8Smallfamilieswhobuywood 9 8Smartpeople 8 7Peoplelivinginrentedorlackspaceoutdoors 5 4Professionalpeopleorpeoplewithgoodincomes 4 3Middleclassfamilies 3 3Bachelors 3 3
Studyparticipants“valued”stovesforcertainfeatures,butdramatically“undervalued”the(anticipated)priceofthestove.Many(49/111,or44percent)estimatedthestoveat0to25percentofanticipatedsalesprice(whichalreadyincludesanassumedcarbonsubsidy);another35/111(32percent)estimatedthevaluetobebetween26and50percentoftheanticipatedsalesprice.Only13/111(12percent)estimatedbetween51and75percent,and6/111(5percent)between76percentandthesalesprice.Fewoverestimatedpricingacrossallmodels(Figure14).However,aswillbefurtherdiscussedinthefindingsanddiscussionsection,reportedvalueswerelikelyinfluencedbyashared(andperhapsdiscussed)perceptionthatparticipantsshouldbegiventhestovesasatokenofappreciationforparticipatinginthestudy.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 28
Figure14:Theseproportionsaregeneratedbydividingtheestimatedvaluebytheanticipatedsalesprice,thuscreatingavaluetocompareacrossstoves,whichrangedinprice.
Figure15:Studyparticipants’estimatesofstovepricesaredisplayedasaproportionofanticipatedsalesprice,bystovetype.Stoveswereforthemostpartundervaluedacrossallstovetypes,withtheexceptionofEcoZoom,whichconsumersthoughtwasworthmorethanotherstoves(thusitfellintothehigherratios),apparentlybecauseofitslargersizeandheavierweight;someconsumersmistakenlythoughttheentirestovewasmadeoutofcastiron,whichwoulddemandahigherprice.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 29
WILLINGNESSTOPAYTwodifferentinnovativewillingnesstopay(WTP)assessments(basedonareviewofregionalandotherIAPWTPmethodsusedtodateanddiscussionswithexpertsincludingTRActiongrantrecipients)markedthecompletionofthestovetrial.15FinalformatsarefoundasAppendixB. Insevenvillages,all105householdsweregiventheopportunitytopurchasethestudystovesinabargainingexercisethatincludedinstallmentpaymentoptions,andinonevillageall15householdsweregiventhestoveasagift,butofferedcashto“sell”itback.Ofthe105householdsofferedthechancetobuytheirstove,12enteredintonegotiations,butonlyonestudyhome(andonenon‐studyhome)eventuallypurchasedthestove.Thewillingnesstopayformswereusedonlyinthese12households;therestdidnotwishtoevenbargaingiventhehighstatedvalueofthestove.Theywantedthestovemodelstobegiventothemforfreeasatokenofappreciationforhavingparticipatedinthestudyforthreetofourweeks.SomeuserssaidtheyhadparticipatedinthestudytohelptheconcernedorganizationstobringinnewstovemodelsintoBangladesh.Tohelpthestudy,theyusedwoodfuel,whichtheyeitherbuyorgatherandkeepforthesummerandrainyseason.Duringthewintermonthstheygenerallyusedryleafybiomassasfuel,whichisavailableforfree,inspeciallydesignedmudstovesthattheythemselvesconstructoutsideintheopencourtyardtosavemoney.Theuserswereveryvocalinstatingthatalthoughtheyknewthecostofthestovevariedfrom1600–4000Taka,theywantedtobuyitatasubsidizedpricerangingfrom200–500Taka,dependingonstovemodel.Therewereclearsignsof“collusion”anddiscussionamongstudyparticipantswithinvillagesandperhapsacrossstudyvillages.Theydidnotthinktheywouldbemakingagooddecisioniftheyboughtthesesmallerstovesatthequotedpricebecausethesestovesalthoughgoodwouldnotreplacethetraditionalstovefortheirdailycookingneeds.Itwouldremainanadditional/supplementarystoveforthefamily.Themajoritywerenotwillingtobargainornegotiate.Belowisadescriptionofthe12householdswhowereinterestedinpurchaseandengagedinthewillingnesstopay“bargain”butdidnotpurchaseastove,alongwiththeonestudyparticipantandonenon‐studyparticipantwhodidpurchasestoves.Inallhouseholdsbothhusbandandwifeparticipatedinthenegotiations,withhusbandendingupbeingthemainrespondentforbargaining. 15AfterreviewingallavailableIAPstudiesandamid‐depthreviewofthewillingnesstopayliterature,aswellasafewdiscussionswithresearchers,noneoftheresearcherswereparticularlysatisfiedwithavailableWTPassessmentmethodologies.Essentially,mostmethodologiesconsistofASKINGpeopleiftheywouldWANTtobuyaconsumeritem,andthenaskingwhatpricetheywouldpay.Themostpopular/bestpracticeofengagingparticipantsinan“auction”turnsoutnottobeatrueauction,buta“stepDOWNoffering”betweenparticipantandinterviewer(wouldyoupayX?okaythen,wouldyoupayX–$10?).IntheendtheitemissoldfortheSECONDhighestbid,tothehighestbidder.Onlyonepersonisallowedtobuyastoveintheend.Theconcernwiththisapproachisthat1)itdoesn’ttakeintoaccounttheacceptedcustomofbargainingforANYpurchase,wherethepurchaserwouldbeina“losingposition”torevealhowmuchtheyarewillingtopayforanitem;and2)itdoesn’ttakeintoaccounttheimportanceoffinancingtotriggerandenableapurchase.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 30
Chart4:WillingnesstoPayforICS–Method1 WillingnesstoPay—BargainandFinancingOffered
DescriptionofThose12InterestedinBuying(2BoughtinEnd)
Village Stove LowestAcceptableOfferBasedonStoveValue(BDT)
InitialPriceOfferedbyParticipant(BDT)
FinalPrice/Resolution
SylhetDistrictKewa Prakti 3000 200 250
Finalpricedeclaredbythehusband[notpurchased,asfinalofferbelowthreshold]
Kewa EcoZoom 1600 300 Refusedtobargainbeyondthatpriceevenafterrepeatedpersuasion[notpurchased]
Kewa Greenway 2400 300 400afterlotofpersuasion[notpurchased,asfinalofferbelowthreshold]
Kunarchor EcoZoomalthoughusedGreenwayinstudy
1600 500 Husbandwasnotreadytonegotiate[notpurchased]
Kunarchor EcoZoom 1600 Wantedtoparticipatebutbackedoffafterhearingthestatedvalueofthestove[notpurchased]
Tilargaon Prakti 3000 5 installments 5 x 750
PURCHASED
Tilargaon Prakti 3000 3000 3000PURCHASEDLandladyofotherpurchaser
BarisalDistrictBillobari Prakti 3000 300 500afternegotiation[not
purchased,asfinalofferbelowthreshold]
Bihangal EcoZoom 1600 300 [notpurchased]Gonpara Eco‐Chula 4300 600 [notpurchased]Gonpara Greenway 2400 1200 Saidunabletopaymoreashe
waspoor[notpurchased]Gonpara Envirofit 2000 500 Refusedtonegotiatebeyond
thatprice[notpurchased]InonevillageinSylhethouseholdswereofferedtheirstudystovesasgifts,thengiventheoptionofsellingbackthestovesatthepricesdetailedbelow.In12ofthe15householdseveryfamilymemberoptedtoretainthestoves,irrespectiveofthestovemodel.Inonehouseholdthehusbandsaidthatalthoughhe,hiswife,andsonliketheEco‐Chulaandwouldliketokeepittheywerebeingforcedtosellsincehiswifehasaheartproblemandherequiresreadycashforhertreatment.Assuch,threeofthe15householdstradedtheirstovesforcash,andtheothersturneddownthemoneyinfavor
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 31
ofthestove.ThethreestovesthatwereexchangedforcashweretheGreenway(for2400Taka),theEco‐Chula(for4300Taka),andtheEnvirofit(for2000Taka).
Chart5:WillingnesstoPayPricingScenarios–Methods1&2Stovemodel Stove
value(US$)
Buy‐backoffer,lowestsaleprice(US$)
Stovevalue(BDtaka)
Buy‐backoffer,lowestsaleprice(BDtaka)
Prakti 70 38 5000 3000Greenway 45 29 3300 2400Envirofit 40 24 3000 2000Eco‐Chula 70 54 5000 4300EcoZoom 35 19 2600 1600
The“stovevalue”isbasedontheactualcostWASHpluspaidforthestove(notincludingshippingandhandling),plus$5/stoveforshipping(assumingbulkshippinginafuturemarketscenario),plusa10percentmark‐upforanationaldistributer,$4fortransportoutofDhaka,and10percentmark‐upforrural/localdistributer(upto$5).The“buy‐backoffer,lowestsalesprice”takesthathighendandsubtractspossiblecarbonrevenuefromit(assumingafour‐yearlifespanforthePraktistoveandtwoyearsforallothers,and$8/ton/stove/yearforcarbonpricing)toreacharealisticvaluethatthesestovescouldsellforintheBangladeshimarketoncemorewidelypromoted.Ofnote,theselifespansareconservativeestimates;accordingtomanufacturerspecifications,expectedlifespansforthesestovemodelscancommonlyreachfiveyears.SUMSSemi‐structuredsurveyinstrumentswerecomplementedbySUMS,temperature‐sensingdataloggersplacedonallinterventionstoves,alltraditionalstovesinthecontrolgroup,andonthetraditionalstovesin51percentoftheinterventionhomestotrackactualstoveuse.WithadditionalfundingfromtheU.S.StateDepartment’sOfficeoftheGlobalPartnershipInitiative,BerkeleyAirMonitoringGrouptrainedagroupof10fieldworkersinkitchenperformancetestprotocolandprocedures.TogetherwithaBerkeleyAirsupervisor,thisteamundertookkitchenperformancetestsinallbutfourstudyhouseholds,aswellas24controlhouseholds,totrackchangesinfueluse.BerkeleyAiralsooversawlimitedindoorairpollutionmonitoringandpersonalexposuremonitoring.SUMS‐measuredusageratesforallinterventionstoveswerebetween2.1(Envirofit)and3.3(Eco‐Chula)usesperdayduringtheKPTmonitoring,withallgroupsincludingthetraditionalstoveintheircookingsystemsbetween1.3and1.9timesperday.TheseusagepatternsduringKPTmonitoringsuggesttheinterventionstoveswerecommonlyusedbythestudyhouseholds,butinallcases,didnotfullydisplacetheuseofthetraditionalstoves.ThefollowingchartshowsthepercentageofcookingtasksperformedintheinterventionhomesthathadSUMSonbothinterventionandtraditionalstoves,bothduringandaftertheKPT.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 32
Chart6:ProportionofAllRecordedCookingEventsPerformedbytheInterventionStove(bystovegroup)
%CookingperformedonICS:DuringKPT
%CookingperformedonICS:PostKPT
EcoZoom(n=9) 65% 34%
Prakti(n=11) 72% 43%
Eco‐Chula(n=11) 73% 46%
Envirofit(n=16) 60% 29%
Greenway(n=9) 69% 30%
Interestingly,oncethefieldteamsstoppedvisitingthetesthomesdailytotakefuelmeasurements,allstovegroups,includingthetraditionalstovecontrolhomes,showedamarkedreductionintheuseofanystoves,bothinterventionandtraditional.Thelargestdeclinewasseenintheuseoftheinterventionstoves(Figure16).
Figure16ThestoveuseratesreportedattheendofeachdayofKPTmonitoringwerecomparedtotheSUMSdatafromthesameperiod.Cookswithaninterventionstovewerelikelytounder‐reportuseofthetraditionalstovebutreporteduseoftheinterventionstovewithrelativeaccuracy(Figure17).
Stove Usage During and Following the KPT Study
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 33
Figure17 KitchenPerformanceTestingTheKPTwascarriedoutin140households.Afterremovalofinaccurateormissingdata,thefinalsamplesizewas134(Barisal:65andSylhet:69households).Allhouseholdsineachstovegroupusedwoodastheirmaincookingfuelduringthemonitoringperiod,withasmallnumberofhomesinBarisalreportingusingcropresidue(intheformofdriedleaves)asasecondaryfuel(9percent,n=12).TheKPTdatasuggestthatallinterventionstovegroupsexceptoneused16to30percentlessfuelperhouseholdperdaycomparedtothetraditionalstove‐usinghomes.16
16Itisimportanttonotethatthisdoesnotmeanthattheimprovedstovesused16–30percentlesswoodthanthetraditionalstoves.Rather,homesusingtheimprovedstovesalongsidetheirtraditionalstoves(whichiswhathappenedinmostoftheinterventionhouseholds)used16–30percentlesswoodthanhomesusingonlythetraditionalstoves.
Monitored vs. Reported Stove Usage
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 34
Chart7:MeanDailyFuelConsumptionEstimates(reportedaskgperstandardadult(SA)perdayandbyhousehold(HH)perday.±represents1standard
deviation)
Wood(kg/HH/day)
%savingscomparedtotradstove
Wood(kg/SA/day)
%savingscomparedtotradstove
Pvalue*
Traditionalstove(n=23)
3.09±1.69 ‐ 0.73±0.30 ‐ ‐
EcoZoom(n=22) 2.39±0.77 22.7 0.60±0.19 17.8 0.106
Prakti(n=22) 2.58±1.16 16.5 0.69±0.41 5.5 0.746
Eco‐Chula(n=22) 2.19±0.79 29.1 0.63±0.23 13.7 0.223
Envirofit(n=24) 3.63±1.24 ‐17.4 0.87±0.47 ‐19.2 0.214
Greenway(n=21) 2.32±0.94 24.9 0.62±0.22 15.1 0.217
* Comparing intervention stove with traditional stove for (kg/SA/day value). Equal variances assumed in all cases.
Aboxplotofthekgwood/standardadult/daybystovegroupwasexaminedforthepresenceofoutliersthatmighthaveanimpactonthesamplemean.Figure18belowidentifiesoneoutlier17(denotedascircles)inthePraktistovegroupandtwointheEnvirofitgroup.
Figure18
17Outlierisdefinedas1.5timestheinter‐quartilerangefromthethird(75th)quartile.
Box Plot Showing Fuel Consumption by Stove Group (Kg/SA/Day)
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 35
Althoughthesedatapointswerefoundtobevalid,theirremovalwasexplored,whichchangesthemeanwoodfuelconsumptionforthePraktistoveto0.63kg/SA/day(SD0.28n=21).Thisestimateis13.7percentlowerthanthewoodfuelconsumptioninthetraditionalstovehouseholds(versusa5.5percentreductionwhenthedatapointisincluded).RemovalofthetwooutliersintheEnvirofitstovegroupwouldreducethefuelconsumptionto0.77kg/SA/day(SD0.34n=22),anincreaseof5.5percentcomparedtothetraditionalstoveestimates(versusa19.2percentincreasewhentheoutliersareincluded).Ofnote,itwasexpectedthatallofthesestoveswouldachieveatleasta35percentreductioninfueluse,basedontheirlaboratoryperformance.18Ourresultsdonotshowthepercentreductionthateachstoveachieved,butratherthepercentreductioninfueluseinthehousehold.Giventhatweknowthatthehouseholdswereusingtheinterventionstovesandtraditionalstovesinparallel,wecannotsaywhethertheinterventionstoveswereperformingasexpected,intermsofefficiency,inthefield.Wedoknowthattheyweren’tmeetingcooks’needs,basedonthisparalleluse.TheoneexceptionistheEnvirofitstovegroup,whichwasfoundtouseMOREfuelthanthetraditionalstovegroup.Basedonthisstove’sperformanceinthelaboratory,itislikelythatthestudystoveswereinstalledorusedincorrectly,whichhighlightsthegraveimportanceofpropertrainingforbothstoveinstallersandstoveusers.Itisalsopossiblethatwoodsavingsfortheimprovedstoveswasactuallyhigherthanthedatasuggestduetounderreportedleaflitteruse,asfurtherexploredinthediscussionsection.Inaverylimitedsnapshotofindoorairpollution,alloftheinterventionstoveswereseentoreducekitchenconcentrationsofcarbonmonoxideandparticulates,althoughnottothehealth‐protectivelevelofWHOorEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyguidelines.Thepilotmeasurementsof24‐hourexposuretocarbonmonoxiderevealedlowexposurelevelsthatwerenothealththreatening,eveninhomeswithtraditionalstoves.ThekitchenconcentrationsofPM2.5andCOarereportedinthechartbelow.Thisexploratorydatashouldbeseenonlyasanindicativepilot,however,sincethereisonlyonehouseholdperstovetype(twointhetraditionalstovegroup).Withoutalargersamplesize,thecomparisonofhouseholdairpollutionlevelscanbemisleading,sincemanyofthefactorsthataffectpollutionlevelsvaryfromhometohome.Factorsincludeventilationrates,thesizeandtypeofkitchen,themixofstovesandfuelsused,thenumberofpeoplecookedfor,lighting,andotherindoorsourcesofpollution,suchasincenseandcigarettes.
18The2012ISOInternationalWorkshopAgreementforcookstoveperformanceprovidesasystemforcategorizingstovesbasedonseveralperformancemetrics,includingtwometricsrelatedtoefficiency,fromtier0representingtraditionalstovestotier4representingaspirationalgastechnologies.TheIWAtiersonlyprovidecomparativeclassificationforstovesbasedonlabtests.Allofthestovesselectedforthisstudyhadachievedatier2orhigherratingfortheirefficiencymetricsinthelaboratory.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 36
Chart8:Mean24‐hourAirPollutantConcentrationsintheKitchen
PM2.5
(g/m3)
CO
(ppm)
TraditionalstoveHH1
11,017 31.5
TraditionalstoveHH2
2,737 14.1
EcoZoom 1,744 2.8
Prakti 626 9.1
Eco‐Chula 2,587 7.8
Envirofit 1,343 0.9
Greenway 1,472 3.2
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 37
DISCUSSIONLimitationsoftheStudyIdeally,astovetrialwouldbelongenoughforuserstotryoutastoveforseveralmonths,ratherthanseveralweeks,sinceitcantakethatlongtogetusedtoanewcookingapparatusandanewstyleofcooking,andusersmaynotsettleintonewusepatternsforanumberofmonths.Givenbudgetandtimingconstraints,wewerenotabletoextendthetrialbeyondthreeweeks.Forthecurrentstudy,WASHplusselectedfivepromisingimprovedstovemodelsbasedontheirlaboratoryperformancetestingresultsandtheiracceptanceelsewhereintheregionandbeyond.WewerenotabletoincludeinthestudythetrulyaspirationalBioLiteHomeStove,whichmayhavebeenverypopularinBangladesh,givencellphonepenetrationratesandthestove’sabilitytorechargecellphones.TheBioLiteisnowbackinproduction,andwerecommenditsinclusioninafuturestovetrial.Inaddition,giventhemixedreceptionoftheimprovedstovestrialedinthisstudy,andclearunwillingnesstopayfortheimprovedstoves,WASHplusrecommendsthattheseimprovedstovesbecomparedwithBondhuChulamodelstoassessrelativepreferencesandperformance,sinceourpolicy‐makingandprogramimplementingaudiencemayinterpretfromthefindingsofthisreportthattheyshouldcontinuetopromoteBonduChulastovesgoingforward,despitetheirmediocrefieldperformance.Furthermore,WASHplusrecommendsthatlargerandhigherfirepowertwo‐potstovesbetrialedinBangladesh.Althoughwedidincludeatwo‐potstoveinthetrial,userscomplainedthatthesecondburnerdidnotburnhotenoughtoboilwaterorcookrice.Becauseofdependenceonfreeagrofuels,trialingofaricehuskand/ormixedfuelstoveissuggested.Lastly,whilethestudywasdesignedtogenerallyapplytoallwood‐burningstoveusers,theresultsofthisstudyintwosmalldistrictsofBangladeshcannotnecessarilybeextrapolatedtotheentirecountry;furthertrialsshouldbeundertakeninotherpartsofthecountrytoaddmoredatapoints.FuelUse/SeasonalityOverall,studyparticipantsfeltthattheimprovedstovestrialedwerenotbigenough(intermsofbothphysicalsizeandfirepower)tocookthemealsneeded.Thiswasinpartbecauseduringtheseasoninwhichthestudytookplace,whentheweatherisrelativelycoolerandfoodthereforekeepslonger,householdsprefertocookriceforthewholedayallatonceinthemorning,ratherthanateachmealtime,asiscustomaryduringtherestoftheyear.Noneofthestudystovesweredesignedtocook1.5kgofriceatonetimeanddidnotmeetusersatisfactionforthattask.Assuch,mosthouseholdsendedupusingthestudystovesforsidedishes,whilecontinuingtocookriceintheirtraditionalstoves.
Duringthestudyperiod,householdswerealsoaccustomedtosupplementingtheirwoodusewithfreegatheredleaflitterforfuel,enablingthemtosaveupfuelwoodforthesummerrainyseasonduringApril–August/September,whendrywoodoragrowasteishardertocomeby.Soalthoughmoststudyparticipantsreportedthattheimprovedstovesusedlesswoodthentheirtraditionalstoves,theywouldhave
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 38
preferredtobeusingleaflitter,andinfactdidsointheirtraditionalstoves.Theabilitytoburnleaflitterintraditionalstovesmayhavebeenasecondarycontributingfactortohighertraditionalstoveusageandlowerimprovedstoveacceptance,preference,andusageduringthestudyperiod.Weonlydiscoveredduringthecourseofthestudythatmanyhouseholdsbuiltspecialleaf‐burningstovesforuseduringDecember–February.Thesestoveswerebuiltawayfromthehousesinanopencourtyardand/orsemi‐enclosedspacebecauseofthethicksmokethatburningleavescancreate.Inaddition,resultsfromtheDay3andDay21qualitativesurveyssuggestthatleaveswereusedextensivelyforcookingfuelduringthetimetheKPTswereconducted.Thiscouldhavepotentiallyinfluencedtheextentandnatureofwoodfuelconsumptioninboththecontrolandinterventionstovehouseholds.Thatsaid,theKPTteamdidnotseemanyhousesusingleaves.Theteamweighedtheleaveswheneverthehouseholdreportedusingthem,whetherusedintheiroutsidestoveorinthetraditionalstoveintheirhouse.Some12ofthe134totalhouseholdshadleavesweighedduringtheKPT,andall12ofthesehouseholdswereinBarisal.ThisfactisinlinewiththefieldteamreportsthatleavesareusedasacookingfuelinadditiontowoodinBarisalduetotheabundanceoftreesthere,whileinSylhet,wheretreesarelessabundant,leafuseislesscommon.Onlyoneofthese12householdswasacontrolhousehold.Itispossiblethatsomeunreported,andthereforeunmeasured,leafusetookplaceduringtheKPT.TheKPTteamdidnothaveanystrongevidencetoindicatethatthisoccurred,orthatitoccurredmoreforleavesthanforwood(e.g.,smallsticksandtwigs).Alsothis“leakage”inthemeasurementofleaflitterislikelytohavehadasimilarimpactacrossallstovegroups,includingthecontrolhouseholds,sothatanybiasisspreadoutacrossthestudypopulation.Thereisalsothepossibilitythattheprocessofmonitoringinfluencedthewaythehouseholdusedtheirstovesandfuels.IfthehouseholdsperceivedthemainfocusoftheKPTtobewoodfuel(eventhoughtheyhadbeenaskedtoshowallfuelstobeweighed),theycouldhavealteredtheirhabitstousemorewoodandlessleavesfortheperiodoftheKPT.TheSUMSdatasupportthishypothesisinthattherewasareductioninstoveuse(includingbothtraditionalandimprovedstoves)inallhouseholdsaftertheendoftheKPTmonitoring.Thissuggeststhattheymayhavemovedfromtheimprovedandtraditionalwoodburningstoves,whichhadSUMSunitsplacedonthem,totheleafburningstove,whichwasnotmonitored(duetofearstheymightbestolenasthestovewaslocatedoutside).Theextenttowhichleafusereduceswooduseisnotclear.AsdemonstratedinFigure8,thetwodistrictshaddifferentstovepreferences.InSylhethouseholdsoftenhavechimneyhoodsunderwhichtheyusetheirtraditionalstovesinkitchensattachedtothemainhousehold.Becausetheywereaccustomedtocookingindoorswithoutheavysmokeemissions,thePraktistovewasthebestmatchforthem(asithasachimney,socanbeusedinsidewithverylittleindoorsmoke).Thesehouseholdsthoughttheotherstovestoosmoky,especiallyduringthelightingprocess.InBarisalhouseholdsusuallycookoutsideinsemi‐enclosedspaces,orseparaterooms,ratherthaninthemainhouse/livingspace.SinceitrainsalotinBarisal,andthey’reaccustomedtocookingoutofthelivingarea,theyliketheportabilityoftheEco‐Chula.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 39
OnesurprisingfindingfromthestudywasthedramaticdecreaseinacceptanceofALLtheimprovedstovesbetweentheDay3andDay21surveys.ThiswasespeciallypronouncedfortheEco‐Chulastove.OurreportingindicatedthatpeopleinitiallylikedtheEco‐Chulabecauseitwasportableandcleanburningwithlittlesmoke(especiallyvaluableinBarisalwherepeoplecookinsemi‐enclosedareas),butthatovertimetheygrewtoresenthavingtochopwoodintosmallpieces,asrequiredbythestove,andhavingtositbythestovecontinuouslyaddingwoodpieces,ratherthanbeingabletomulti‐taskastheywereaccustomedtodoingwiththeirtraditionalstove.WillingnesstoPayAninitialinterpretationofthewillingnesstopayfindingssuggeststhatwhenacquisitionbarriersareremoved(asmodeledinthesecondWTP“buy‐back”scenario,wherehouseholdswere“given”thestoveandthenofferedasumofmoneyto“buyitback”),householdsvaluedthestoveshighly.Priceswereidenticalinbothcases;thelowestpricetheteamwouldacceptforsellingthestoveinscenariooneequaledtheofferedpriceforwhichtheteamwouldbuybackthestoveinscenariotwo,asperthetablefoundintheWTPfindingssection.Peoplesawbenefitsandpositiveattributestothestoves.Some,butnotamajority,preferredtheICStotraditionalstoves.Buteveryoneunderestimatedthemonetaryvalueofthestove,andfewwerewillingtopayanythingclosetomarketvalueforthestove,evenwhenofferedinstallmentoptions(thatincludedinterestof20percentoverfiveinstallmentpayments).Thiswassurprising,astheauthorshypothesizedthatfinanceoptionsnotoftenavailableforstoveswouldincreasetheirappealandacquisition.Accordingtothestoveusers,theylikethestovesandwouldhavelikedtokeepthemifgivenforfreeoratanominalcost.Improvedstoveswouldnotreplacetraditionalstoves,rathercomplementtheiruseundervariousconditions.Householdersrealizedthatthesemetalstovesareexpensive,buttheywerenotreadytobuythematmarketprice.Thevariousreasonsputforwardbythemwere,asfollows:
a. Thestovemodelissmallandcannotcompletelyreplacetheprimarystove.Itwillbeasupplementarystovethatwillbeveryusefulinthesummerandrainyseasonwhenwoodistheonlyfuelandcookingneedstobedoneindoors.
b. Theyhadparticipatedinthestudy,sothestoveshouldbegiventothematanominalpriceorfree.
c. Theycouldnotriskpayingsomuchmoneyforanexperimentalmodelsinceafterthestudytherewillbenoaftersalesservice.
d. Theydonotwanttobuythestovesoninstallments(oratleastontheinstallmentplanoffered)sincetheydidpaymentcalculationsintheirheadsandrealizedtheywouldenduppayingmuchmoreforthestoveonceinterestand/orservicefeefortheloanwasincorporated.
Fundamentally,studyparticipantsviewedtheWASHplusstudyfieldteamasNGOstaff,andinruralBangladeshthereisastrongculture/backgroundofNGOsgivingawayoratleastsubsidizinggoodsandservices.Assuch,studyparticipantsstronglyfeltthattheyshouldbegiventheimprovedstovesfreeorataheavilydiscountedrate.Thiswasespeciallytrueincaseswheretheyfelttheimprovedstovewouldonlybeusedforspecifictasks,andwasnotatotalcookingsolution.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 40
Oursecondwillingnesstopayassessment(thebuy‐backexercise),however,demonstratedthatconsumersDIDtremendouslyvaluetheimprovedstoves,oncetheyownedthem.Giventhelowpurchaserateofthestoves,theteamwassurprisedtofindthatsomanyfamiliesoptedtokeeptheirgiftedstoves,ratherthanexchangingthemforcash.Thisleadtheteamtoobservethattheparticipantsvaluedthestoveandpreferreditoveritscashequivalentwhentheydidnothavetomakesacrificestotheirhouseholdeconomytokeepitandwhentheydidnothavetocomeupwithfundsfromwhatwasanalreadytighthouseholdbudgetinmostcases.Ofnote,participationinawomen’sgrouphadaslightbutnotsignificantpositivecorrelationwithexpressedinterestinpurchasingastove(independentofwhethertheyultimatelydidpurchaseastove).Almosthalf(55/120)oftheparticipantsbelongtosomesortofwomen’sgroup(suchassavingscooperatives).Ofthiswomen’sgroupsubset,60percentexpressedinterestinpurchasingastove,comparedto55.4percentofthe65womenwhodidnotbelongtoawomen’sgroup.Withsuchasmallsamplesize,it’sverydifficulttosaywhetherwomen’sgroupparticipationhadanyrealinfluenceonstovepurchasedecisions.Thesewomen’sgroupsarestillbeingconsideredasapotential“vehicle”forpromotionanddistributionofstoves.Thebaselinesurveyalsoaskedwhetherrespondentswereabletoindependentlymakethedecisionwhetherornottopurchaseastove.Thegraphbelowshowstheresultsbyagebrackets.Womenparticipantswithinthe16–25agebracketwereprobablynewlymarriedorunmarrieddaughterswhodidnotyethaveauthoritytomakedecisionsforthefamily.Thegraphshowsagradualriseindecisionmakingpowersasageincreasesandthenaslightdipwhentheolderwomenlikelybegintohandoverhouseholdresponsibilitiestothedaughter‐in‐law(Figure19).Outof120studyparticipants,113answeredthequestion“Areyouthepersonthatwouldmakethedecisiontopurchase[theimprovedstove]?”Outof31womenrespondentswithinthe16–25agebracket,onlyaboutaquartersaidyes.Outof38respondentswithinthe26–35agebracket,themajoritysaidyes.Outof26respondentswithinthe36–45agebracket,almostallsaidyes.Outof14respondentswithinthe46–55agebracket,mostsaidyes.Outoffourrespondentswithinthe56–65agebracket,mostallconfirmedtheywereabletoindependentlymakethedecisionwhetherornottopurchaseastove(Figure19).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 41
Percentage of Women Respondents Reporting Independent Decision Making on Household Purchases, by Age Group
Figure19CONCLUSIONSANDNEXTSTEPSAstheevidencebaselinkingimprovedcookstoveswithimprovedhealthandenergyimpactsgrows,sodoesattentiononhowbesttoinfluencehouseholduptakeandconsistentandcorrectuseofstoves.Appropriately,attentionfocusesonhowtoimprovestovesandmakethemmoreaffordableandappealingtotheneediestconsumers.Importantworkhasstarted,includinginSouthAsia,toidentifythe“drivers”ofcookstoveadoption.UnderPhase2ofWASHplusactivities,WASHpluswilldevelopagenericmarketingandbehaviorchangestrategy;suggestalimitednumberofevidence‐basedapproachestoincreasetheuptakeofstoves;concepttestkeyelementsoftheseapproaches;anddeveloppractical“how‐to”toolstocontributetothegoalsandresultsofUSAIDenergyandhealthobjectivesinBangladesh.ThiswilldrawonlessonslearnedinBangladeshandothercountriesintheSouthAsiaregioninbehaviorchange,demandcreation,andmarketingofsanitation,watertreatmentproducts,andcookstoves.Amarketingstrategyaddresseswhatisclassicallyreferredtoasthe4Psofmarketing—product,place,price,andpromotion—tosuggestavibrant“marketingmix”ofelementsthatwillmakeimprovedcookstovesappealingandaffordabletothemostvulnerableBangladeshimarket.Tohighlightthewayforwardandhowthesefindingswillbeapplied,we“preview”someapplicationsinthefollowparagraphs.Thestudyhasshedlightonsomeessentialchangestoallfivestovesbeforetheyareappealingenoughtoconsumersforthemtoopentheirpursestopurchasethem,andbeforetheyareabletousethemconsistentlyandcorrectly.
n=31 n=38 n=26 n=15 n=4
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 42
Thestovemanyconsumers“want”islargeandstable,yetportable,withamodern,well‐madedesign.Itcookslargevolumesoffoodandhastwoactiveburners.Flamesarehotandleaptotouchthepots,butdonotmakethemblack.Thestovecanusemultiplefuels,whichcanbefedinrelativelyunprocessed.Woodinparticularcanbestuffedinlargepieces,andlefttofeedalmostautomatically.
Thestovedescribedabovewouldbeconsideredthe“ideal”formanyinthestudy,butnotwhatiscurrentlyavailablenornecessarilywhatweareaimingfor.Someofthecriteriaarecontradictory(leapingflamesandcleanpots),thermo‐dynamicallyimpossible,undesirablefromafuel‐efficiencystandpoint,andfarfromwhatiscurrentlyavailableinthemarket.Thefivestovestestedbyconsumersoverthethree‐weektrialperiodmetsomeofthedesiredattributesdescribed,butusersexpressedmanyproblemswiththecurrentICSmodels.Someoftheproblemsandsuggestedchangescanbeaddressedbymanufacturerswithoutmucheffortor“R&D”(researchanddevelopment),suchasstabilizingthestoveand/orenlargingtheburnertoaccommodatelargerpots,oraddinganashtrytocatchburntashes.However,otherproblemsandsuggestedchangesrevealconsumerpreferencebutarenotrecommendedchanges,becausetheywillclearlyaffecttheefficiencyandemissionsofthestoves.Thisdoesnotmeantheyshouldbedismissed;however,theyclearlyindicatearangeofeducationandinformationthatshouldbedeliveredtoconsumersthroughpointofpurchasesalesmaterialsandinteractionwithdistributorsandsalespeople,inpromotionalmaterial,andthroughhealthorotheroutreachactivities.AddressingsuchissueswillbeessentialforconsistentandcorrectuseofICS,forconsumersatisfaction,andrelatedword‐of‐mouthrecommendations.Understandingthepreferenceandobstaclestopurchaseandconsistentandcorrectuseofstovesfeedsdirectlyintopromotionstrategies,aswell.Althoughthestudydidnotrevealmuchaboutthedriversofstoveuptake(becausethestoveswerenotparticularlywellreceived),whentakenincontextwithwhatisalreadyknownaboutdriversofadoption19wehaveidentifiedkeyissuesaroundseasonalityofcookingpatternsandoffreefuelavailabilitysuchasleaves;ofthevisualappealofthemetalstovesas“wellmade,nicelooking,andmodern”;andanumberofotherfeaturesthatwerelikedordislikedandcanserveasthefoundationofpromotionalappeals.Thisstudyhasalsoidentifiedconsumergroupsmostlikelytobeinterestedandempoweredtopurchaseimprovedcookstoves,andpromotionalstrategiesshouldtargetthesepotentialearlyadopters:smallfamilies,especiallypoorbutnotdestituteperi‐urbanfamilies,headedby30‐to55‐year‐oldwomen.Thestudyhasalsorevealedthelowwillingnesstopayforstoves(price),atleastforcurrentmodels.Financingoptionswereexploredbutinconclusivebecauseconsumerswerenotparticularlyinterestedinbuyingsucha(relatively)highpriceditemthatdidn’tdeliverdesiredbenefits.Thefewinterestedinbuyingvaluedthestoveshigherthantheywerewillingtopay,expectingsomesortofsubsidyfromtheNGOsbringingthemtotestformarket.Overalltheyrejectedinstallmentswithanysignificantinterestorloanservicecostsattachedtotheloans.
19 LewisandPattanayak.2012.EnvironHealthPerspectives.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 43
Placereferstotheplaceofsalesanddistribution.AgainthestudyshowsthatNGOsmayhaveanunintendedeffectonpoorhouseholds’willingnesstopay.AlthoughconsumersinthisstudytrustedNGOs,theyputtheminacategoryof“do‐goodersforthepeople”andnotsalespersons.Inthemindoftheparticipantsofthisstudy,NGOsgivethingsaway;theydonotfinanceorsellthem.Itispredictablethatallresearchpresentationsendwiththecallformoreresearch,andthisstudyisnodifferent,sinceitgeneratesanothersetofquestionsandareastoinvestigate.WASHplusoffersthefindingsofthisfinalreporttoarangeofstakeholdersinBangladesh,includingUSAID’sCatalyzingCleanEnergyforBangladeshprojectandplanstodiscussthefindingsinvariousforumswiththehopesofapplyinglessonsanddeepeninglearning.Andwhilesomestakeholderstakestockofthesefindingsandotherinputstodate,andmoveforwardwithevidence‐basedinterventions,otherscanfurthertheappliedresearchagendainacoordinated,paralleltracktoadvanceoursystematicunderstandingofthemarketdriversandconsumercontextthatwillopentheimprovedcookstovemarketinBangladeshandsupportuptakeanduse.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 44
AnnexA
SelectionCriteriaPartnerNGOSelectionCriteria- TheNGOmustworkinoneofthethreedivisionswherewoodismostprominently
usedasaprimaryfuelsourceforcooking(Sylhetdivision,Chittagongdivision,Barisaldivision,datafrom2011DHSsurvey)
- TheNGOmusthaveanofficeoron‐the‐groundstaffinoneofthethreedivisionswherewoodismostprominentlyusedasaprimaryfuelsourceforcooking
- NGOmusthavepreviousexperiencewithworkingatthehouseholdlevelandgoodcommunityrelationships.
CommunitySelectionCriteria- Thevillagesmustbelocatedinoneofthethreedivisionswherewoodismost
prominentlyusedasaprimaryfuelsource- Mustbewithingeographicrangeofpartnerorganization- MustbeaccessiblebyroadinOct/Nov- Atleastoneofthevillageschosenmustnothavehadanyformerstoveinterventions.
AtleastoneofthevillageschosenmusthavehadaBCSIR/bondhuchulhainterventioninthepast
- Villageswillbeselectedreflectingthereligiousmake‐upofBangladesh(primarilyMuslimwithsomeHindu)
HouseholdSelectionCriteria- Primarycookingfuelmustbewood- Musthaveatleastfourpeopleinthehousehold(averageHHsizeinBangladesh=
4.4people)w/childunder5- Themajorityofthehouseholdsselectedshouldhavenopriorexperiencewithor
ownershipofICS;approximately10percentofthetotalsamplewillbepurposivelyselectedforhavingusedanICSpreviously,forpurposesofcomparison.Note:WecouldnotfindbondhuchulaorotherICSprevioususerstorecruit.
- IswillingtoparticipateintrialsCookstoveSelectionCriteria- FollowthecriteriaoftheInternationalStandardsOrganization(ISO)International
WorkshoponCleanandEfficientCookstovesInternationalWorkshopAgreement(ISO–IWA)—theinternationallyagreeduponcookstovestandardsandprotocols:http://pciaonline.org/files/ISO‐IWA‐Cookstoves.pdf
- ThestovesmustmeeteithertheTIER2orTIER3requirementsinISO‐IWA- Maybeeitherportablestovesthatmaybemetalandcapableofcookingmealsforat
least4‐6personsorfixedstoveswithchimneysthatareeasytoinstall(maybein2/3piecesforeasycleaning.)
- Woodstovesbutmayalsobemulti‐fuel
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 45
AnnexB
Allsurveyinstrumentsandquestionnairesavailableonrequestandinfullreport.
COST/WILLINGNESS TO PAY SECTION House # Village #
Interviewer: Unique ID# ______________
Select the ROW of the stove being used by your respondent. Begin by repeating that they have the opportunity to buy the stove, but are under no
obligation at all.
Then say:
1. This stove is worth [insert the value in column A] 2. But because you’ve participated in the study, and because there is only limited
servicing available on the stove at this point, we can offer it to you for ________ [insert the value in column labeled B]
3. Would you like to buy the stove? Record in column C [check X if yes, make – if no and proceed if no]
4. We can offer installment payments if easier. Are you interested in the stove if you could buy it for [say the amount in column D] __________ RECORD response in column E [check X if yes, make – if no and proceed if no]
5. You know, here in Barisol/Sylhet, we never buy for the asking price, of course we bargain. So please, I invite you to bargain with me and tell me what you are wanting to pay.
6. Note amount in column F, then accept if above the minimum, or bargain using columns G and H.
7. Note if they accept that price in column I. 8. Give last chance to counter-bargain. Note in J. 9. If still no, go back to the thank you and close the questionnaire. 10. If yes, make the financing/payment arrangement.
A B C D E F G H I J K L
STOVE
TYPE
Value
(BDT)
.
Offering
price
(BDT)
2.
1.
A
c
c
e
p
t?
Offer
payments
(calculate
at 20%
interest)
2.
2.
A
c
c
e
p
t?
Invite
bargaining.
Note below
the price
they offer
IF they
offer …
(circle
which)
(BDT)
Your
counter
offer
(BDT)
2.3.
They
agree
Offered
price
(BDT)
2.4.
They
make final
offer?
(note)
IF NO,
PUT ‘X’
Agree to
anything
this
amount
or above
(BDT)
2.7. They
request
installment
payments
for your
counter
offer? Note
and accept
if above
min
Stove 1:
Prakti
5600 5000 5x1200 4000
3500
4500
4000
3000
Or
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 46
3000 okay 5x750
Stove 2:
Greenway
3700 3300 5x800 2500
2200
2000
3000
2600
2500
2400
Or
5x600
Stove 3:
Envirofit
3300 3000 5x700 2500
2200
2000
2800
2500
okay
2000
Or
5x500
Stove 4:
Eco‐Chula
5600 5000 5x 1200 4500
4000
3500
5000
4500
okay
4300
Or
5x1050
Stove 5:
EcoZoom
2900 2600 5x 600 2000
1800
1500
2500
2100
1600
1600
Or
5x400
A B C D E F G H I J K L
Interviewer: House # Village #
Unique ID# ______________
Before beginning, please find the row that corresponds to the stove given to the respondent. Then
say:
1. We thank you for your participation in this survey, and as part of our thank you, we’re giving you this stove. It’s actually valued at [pick from column B] _________
A B C
Value Buy
Back*
Prakti 5000 3000
Greenway 3300 2400
Envirofit 3000 2000
Eco‐Chula 5000 4300
EcoZoom 2600 1600 Buy back value considers potential but realistic carbon credit subsidy in pricing.
2. Note any reaction. Wait a little bit, like one minute, before offering the buy back. __________________________________________________________________
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 47
__________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
3. Now say: As an alternative, if you don’t want to keep the stove, we can buy it back from you and give you cash. The amount is a bit lower because the stove is now used of course, so it’s not worth as much. It’s completely your choice. Would you prefer the stove, or XX [select the corresponding amount from column C]. Note choice, and any reaction. [ ] Chooses stove [ ] Chooses cash
Reactions:
[ ] Asks for a different stove [ ] Tries to demand full pricing [ ] Other __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 48
AnnexC
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY ECOZOOM
USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER
TRADITIONAL STOVE: When comparing
EcoZoom to their traditional stove, a
majority mentioned it uses less fuel,
over half said it emits less smoke and
they appreciate its portability, and
some said it looks nice.
PREFERENCE RATES: Just under half
(9/19) preferred the EcoZoom to their
traditional stove after three days; this
slipped to 8/19 after three weeks. Of
note, the EcoZoom and the Prakti had
the smallest decrease in preference
rates out of the five stoves.
PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the EcoZoom to their traditional stove or not, many
experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulty of cooking
large quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove. Specifically, 15/23 said it takes longer to cook
(on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food. Ash buildup was a big
problem for EcoZoom users (9/23). Less often than with other ICSs, some users (8/23) said that big
pots cannot be used as the flame does not spread. Related to this same issue, a few (4/23) also said
they had problems cooking rice in large quantities. Lastly, some (5/23) mentioned problems of wood
slipping out due to the slant of the opening. Just a few users found chopping wood into small pieces
(3/23) and the small fuel chamber (4/23) to be a problem.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: The majority (17/23) said the stove should be larger to accommodate
bigger pots and bigger families. They suggested addressing wood falling out and not self‐feeding;
specifically, they suggested the place for entering the wood in the stove should be slanting inwards
to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (10/23), and also an ash tray to make it
easier to remove the ash (4/23).
As with other stoves, users wanted to have a larger combustion chamber to add wider and bigger
wood (16/23). A few said the flame should reach the vessel bottom and spread (4/23). These final
suggestions fall into the category of suggestions that will be taken into account and addressed
through sales and education efforts, but not implemented because it would diminish the
effectiveness of the stove.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 49
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY PRAKTI
USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER
TRADITIONAL STOVE: Everyone
commented that the Prakti stove
emits less smoke, and a majority
also mentioned that it leaves the
house cleaner. Half said it looks nice
and just under half said it uses less
fuel.
PREFERENCE RATES: At three days,
just over half of those trying the
Prakti said they preferred the stove
compared to their traditional stove.
After three weeks, this slipped
slightly to just under half (10/21) of the users.
PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Prakti to their traditional stove or not, many experienced
some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking large
quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove. Specifically 17/23 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS
than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food and that big pots cannot be
used as the flame does not spread (15/23). Related to this same issue, some (7/23) specifically
addressed problems cooking rice in large quantities. Users of the Prakti stove complained that they
could not use the second pot for cooking (5/23), and also that they needed to chop the wood (5/23)
and could not use large wood pieces. Some mentioned problems of ash buildup (6/23) and wood
pieces slipping out (6/23) due to the slant of the opening. Lastly, some (3/23) complained that the
fuel chamber was too small and that they wanted to add more wood than the existing chamber
allowed.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: Most users (18/23) said the stove should be larger to accommodate
the cooking needs of big families. As mentioned above as a problem, many (15/23) wanted the
chamber to be bigger/wider to allow for larger pieces of wood (this suggestion falls into the category
of suggestions that will be taken into account but not implemented because it would diminish the
efficiency of the stove). Many suggested addressing the problem of wood “falling out” of the entry;
specifically, they wanted a slanted entry to hold the wood and have it “self‐feed” (10/23). Many had
suggestions about changing the stove to make the second pot more functional. Related to this, some
suggested that the combustion chamber should be between the first and second pot so that both
pots can be used for cooking, and an equal number said that the second pot should have more heat
for cooking (8/23). A few suggested adding an ash tray to make it easier to remove the ash (2/23).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 50
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY GREENWAY
USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER
TRADITIONAL STOVE: Regarding the
Greenway, a majority commented
that less fuel was needed, that it
looks nice, and half said they liked
the portability. Some, but not a
majority, mentioned that it emits less
smoke.
PREFERENCE RATES: Just under half
(10/21) preferred the Greenway to
their traditional stove after three
days, and this fell slightly after three
weeks to 7/21.
PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Greenway to their traditional stove or not, many
experienced some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking
large quantities of food in bigger pots on the stove, more than with all other stoves. Specifically,
19/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large
amounts of food, and almost everyone complained that big pots cannot be used as the flame does
not spread (22/24). Almost half (10/24) mentioned problems of ash buildup (most probably due to
overfeeding), more than any other stove. The most critical complaint, not as much for user
satisfaction as for safety concerns, was the large number (9/24) (far more than any other stove)
saying the stove was not stable when stirring pots, requiring pots to be held when stirring to avoid
the pot falling from the burner. Some (3/24) complained that wood or embers fall off the tray, and
6/24 users found it difficult to chop the wood into small pieces and complained that they could not
use large pieces of wood. A small group of users (2/24) said that pots become black.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: More than any other stove, the vast majority (21/24) said the stove
should be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. They suggested addressing the
problem of wood pieces falling out of the chamber by slanting the place for introducing wood into
the stove (13/24). As with the other stoves, many (16/24) wanted the chamber to be bigger/wider to
allow for larger pieces of wood (this suggestion falls into the category of suggestions that will be
taken into account and addressed through sales and/or education efforts, but not implemented
because it would diminish the efficiency of the stove). A few (4/24) suggested adding an ash tray to
make it easier to remove the ash, and a few also said the flame should reach the vessel bottom and
spread (5/24). A few strongly suggested dealing with the stability issue by making the plate with
“stands” on top thicker to prevent vessels from sliding and tipping over (4/24).
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 51
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY ECO‐CHULA
USERS WHO PREFERRED ICS OVER
TRADITIONAL STOVE: The popular
Eco‐Chula was preferred over the
traditional stove because it uses less
wood, emits less smoke, and looks
nice. Over half also mentioned the
house was cleaner than when using
the traditional stove, and that it
cooks food quickly.
PREFERENCE RATES: Many (16/20)
preferred the Eco‐Chula to their
traditional stove after three days,
and although it was the most
popular of all the stoves, it fell
dramatically in preference after
three weeks, to 10/20.
PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Eco‐Chula to their traditional stove or not, many
experienced some problems with the stove. Many Eco‐Chula users (16/24) found chopping the wood
into small pieces very difficult, and 3/24 users found it difficult to ignite the stove, even after using it
for 21 days. Still an issue but less so than with other stoves, users were bothered by the difficulties in
cooking large quantities of food in bigger pots. Specifically, 11/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS
than traditional stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food, and some said that big pots
cannot be used as the flame does not spread (8/24), but again less than with other ICS. Unlike other
ICS, few other problems were mentioned.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: As with other stoves, the vast majority (20/24) said the stove should
be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. Related to the cooking capacity, many
(15/24) wanted the fuel chamber to be bigger/wider to accommodate more and bigger wood,
something that needs to be addressed but not by making the chamber bigger (which would
negatively affect the stove’s efficiency).
Less than other stove users, only a few suggested the opening for entering the wood in the stove be
changed (slanted) to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (4/24), and ash and
flame size were not particularly problematic with the Eco‐Chula.
UnderstandingConsumerPreferenceandWillingnesstoPay*USAIDWASHplusProject*August2013 52
ATTRIBUTES NAMED BY
ENVIROFIT USERS WHO
PREFERRED ICS OVER
TRADITIONAL STOVE: More than
half of users said the Envirofit
stove uses less fuel, looks nice
and keeps the house cleaner.
Some, but not a majority,
mentioned that it emits less
smoke and is well manufactured.
PREFERENCE RATES: More than
half (11/20) preferred the
Envirofit to their traditional stove
after three days, but this dropped
to less than half after three weeks, to 6/20.
PROBLEMS: Whether they preferred the Envirofit to their traditional stove or not, many experienced
some problems with the stove. Users were most bothered by the difficulties in cooking large
quantities on the stove. Specifically, 16/24 said it takes longer to cook (on ICS than traditional
stoves) with large vessels and large amounts of food, and that big pots cannot be used as the flame
does not spread (12/24). Related to this same issue, a few (4/24) specifically addressed problems
cooking rice in large quantities. Some (9/24) mentioned chopping wood as a problem. Lastly, some
(6/24) mentioned problems of ash buildup and wood pieces slipping out (4/24) due to the slant of
the opening. Just 2/24 mentioned problems with stability of the stove when stirring pots.
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: As with the other stoves, the majority (15/24) said the stove should
be larger to accommodate bigger pots and bigger families. Related to the cooking capacity, many
(17/24) wanted the fuel chamber to be bigger/wider to accommodate more and bigger wood,
something that needs to be addressed but not by making the chamber bigger (which would
negatively affect the stove’s efficiency).
Some suggested the place for entering the wood in the stove should be modified (specifically,
slanting inwards) to prevent the wood pieces from falling out of the chamber (9/24), but fewer than
most other stove users. Ash and tipping were not of particular concern to Envirofit users due to the
stove design, but flame size was perceived to be too small and users suggested the flame should
reach the vessel bottom and spread (7/24).