Waste Not: Can Household Biogas Deliver Sustainable Development?

Meeks, Robyn; Sims, Katharine R. E.; Thompson, Hope

doi:10.1007/s10640-018-0224-1

Cited by 35 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Collectively, the limited research so far suggests that a complex combination of factors interact with local contexts (such as tastes and preferences) to limit adoption (11). It also partially explains why demand for—and impacts of—ICS technologies in certain settings can be high (12–15), while efforts documented elsewhere are disappointing (8, 16). Unfortunately, much of this evidence is idiosyncratic and patchy, and rarely derived from projects and policies implemented by firms and governments (17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evidence on promotion of electric and improved biomass cookstoves

Pattanayak

Jeuland

Lewis

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improved cookstoves (ICS) can deliver “triple wins” by improving household health, local environments, and global climate. Yet their potential is in doubt because of low and slow diffusion, likely because of constraints imposed by differences in culture, geography, institutions, and missing markets. We offer insights about this challenge based on a multiyear, multiphase study with nearly 1,000 households in the Indian Himalayas. In phase I, we combined desk reviews, simulations, and focus groups to diagnose barriers to ICS adoption. In phase II, we implemented a set of pilots to simulate a mature market and designed an intervention that upgraded the supply chain (combining marketing and home delivery), provided rebates and financing to lower income and liquidity constraints, and allowed households a choice among ICS. In phase III, we used findings from these pilots to implement a field experiment to rigorously test whether this combination of upgraded supply and demand promotion stimulates adoption. The experiment showed that, compared with zero purchase in control villages, over half of intervention households bought an ICS, although demand was highly price-sensitive. Demand was at least twice as high for electric stoves relative to biomass ICS. Even among households that received a negligible price discount, the upgraded supply chain alone induced a 28 percentage-point increase in ICS ownership. Although the bundled intervention is resource-intensive, the full costs are lower than the social benefits of ICS promotion. Our findings suggest that market analysis, robust supply chains, and price discounts are critical for ICS diffusion.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evidence on promotion of electric and improved biomass cookstoves

Pattanayak

Jeuland

Lewis

et al. 2019

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Asia is the region with the highest number of studies (Central and Southern Asia [32][33][34][35][36][37], Eastern and South Eastern Asia [38][39][40][41][42][43]), covering six of these feedstocks. Sugarcane [44][45][46][47][48], oil palm [39,40,49,50] and biomass for biogas (manure and residues) [35][36][37][38]51,52] are the feedstocks that are assessed in the highest number of world regions. For example, social assessments of palm oil were performed in Eastern and South Eastern Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa.…”

Section: Social Aspects Assessed And/or Reported In the Literature Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies performed in Ethiopia and Vietnam also mentioned anticipated time savings [38,51]. A study in Nepal [35] found that the introduction of biogas led to women spending less time in wood or dung collection for combustion; however, they did not find significant evidence for a decrease in time spent on cooking. The time saved could be allocated to agricultural activities [35], work, or leisure [38] or to the education of women and children, thus contributing to the region's development by, for example, improving the literacy rate [36].…”

Section: Equal Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The time saved could be allocated to agricultural activities [35], work, or leisure [38] or to the education of women and children, thus contributing to the region's development by, for example, improving the literacy rate [36]. The contribution of biogas to long-term development could be facilitated by making complementary opportunities available [35], for instance educational programs or institutions for people who wish to allocate their time to this activity [35].…”

Section: Equal Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social Aspects in the Assessment of Biobased Value Chains

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social Life-Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) is under continuous development. The Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in S-LCA are a set of guidelines commonly used for the performance of such assessments. They cover a variety of stakeholders and subcategories for the social assessment of products in general. However, they may not necessarily be appropriate for the assessment of biobased value chains of agricultural and forestry origin. The aim of this study is the identification of social aspects relevant for the assessment of biobased value chains across various regions of the world, including those aspects possibly overlooked in the Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in S-LCA. For this purpose, a literature review of empirical studies was performed using the sheets as a reference. The results show that the Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in S-LCA provide good coverage of social topics relevant for biobased value chains, but that the stakeholders “smallholder” and “family farm” are not adequately addressed. Drawing on the empirical literature reviewed, the study emphasizes the relevance of these stakeholders in the analysis of biobased value chains of agricultural and forestry origin, and proposes criteria for consideration in the assessment of this stakeholder.

show abstract

“…For example, the biogas subsidy primarily benefited wealthy households [16]. The benefits of biogas to those with limited economic opportunities are often modest because the opportunity cost of saving their time is low [18], showing that the clean energy transition does not always generate net benefit for all households [19]. These are just some examples of the technoeconomic limitations of MCS in the diverse social context of Nepal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%