Advertisement

EcoHealth

pp 1–9 | Cite as

A Low-Cost Stove Use Monitor to Enable Conditional Cash Transfers

  • Ajay Pillarisetti
  • Manpreet Gill
  • Tracy Allen
  • Sathish Madhavan
  • Arun Dhongade
  • Makarand Ghorpade
  • Sudipto Roy
  • Kalpana Balakrishnan
  • Sanjay Juvekar
  • Kirk R. Smith
Original Contribution
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Conditional cash transfers (CCTs)—cash payments provided to households or specific household members who meet defined conditions or fulfill certain behaviors—have been extensively used in India to encourage antenatal care, institutional delivery, and vaccination. This paper describes the social design and technical development of a low-cost, meal-counting stove use monitor (the Pink Key) that enables a CCT based on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) usage and presents pilot data from its testing and the initial deployment. The system consists of a sensing harness attached to a two-burner LPG stove and an easily removable datalogger. For each cooking event with LPG, households receive 2 rupees—less than the cost of fuel, but enough to partially defray LPG refill costs. The system could enable innovative “self-monitoring” at a large scale—participants initiate the CCT by bringing their Pink Key to antenatal clinic visits, where care providers download data and initiate payments, and participants return the sensor to their stove at home. The system aligns with existing Indian programs to improve health among poor, pregnant women, and contributes a new method to encourage the use of clean cooking technologies.

Keywords

Household air pollution Biomass cooking Liquefied petroleum gas LPG India Solid fuel use Temperature sensors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating households in and around Junnar for their generosity, time, and patience. We also thank the extended KEM field team for their dedicated and thorough work, especially Avinash Mhaske and Vrishali Meher, who managed CCT field operations. We acknowledge important contributions from and discussions with colleagues at University of California, Berkeley, and at the Implementation Science Network.

Funding

This project received funding through NIH/Fogarty’s Clean Cooking Implementation Science Network with support from the NIH Common Fund. The content within does not necessarily represent the view of the funders.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alderman J (2017) Envirofit announces groundbreaking SmartGas™ program offering pay-as-you-cook LPG service for emerging markets [Internet]. Retrieved from: https://envirofit.org/envirofit-announces-groundbreaking-smartgas-program/
  2. Amegah AK, Quansah R, Jaakkola JJK (2014) Household air pollution from solid fuel use and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. PLoS ONE 9:e113920–e113923.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113920 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan K, Sambandam S, Ghosh S, Mukhopadhyay K, Vaswani M, Arora NK, et al. (2015) Household air pollution exposures of pregnant women receiving advanced combustion cookstoves in India: implications for intervention. Annals of Global Health 81(3):375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Commissioner OOTRGC (2011) India Population and Housing Census 2011. New Delhi, India: Office of the Registrar General & Census CommissionerGoogle Scholar
  5. Fernald LC, Gertler PJ, Neufeld LM (2008) Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: an analysis of Mexico’s Oportunidades. The Lancet 371(9615):828–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernald LC, Gertler PJ, Neufeld LM (2009) 10-year effect of Oportunidades, Mexico’s conditional cash transfer programme, on child growth, cognition, language, and behaviour: a longitudinal follow-up study. The Lancet 374(9706):1997–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson MA, Chiang RA (2015) Quantitative guidance for stove usage and performance to achieve health and environmental targets. Environ Health Perspect Google Scholar
  8. Lagarde M, Haines A, Library NPTC (2009) The impact of conditional cash transfers on health outcomes and use of health services in low and middle income countries. Wiley Online LibraryGoogle Scholar
  9. Lim SS, Dandona L, Hoisington JA, James SL, Hogan MC, Gakidou E (2010) India’s Janani Suraksha Yojana, a conditional cash transfer programme to increase births in health facilities: an impact evaluation. The Lancet 375(9730):2009–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lindert K, Linder A, Hobbs J, la Brière De B (2007) The nuts and bolts of Brazil’s Bolsa Família Program: implementing conditional cash transfers in a decentralized contextGoogle Scholar
  11. Lozier MJ, Sircar K, Christensen B, Pillarisetti A, Pennise D, Bruce N, et al. (2016) Use of temperature sensors to determine exclusivity of improved stove use and associated household air pollution reductions in Kenya. Environmental Science and Technology 50(8):4564–4571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mittal N, Mukherjee A, Gelb A (2017) Fuel Subsidy Reform in Developing Countries: Direct Benefit Transfer of LPG Cooking Gas Subsidy in India. CGD Policy Paper. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/fuel-subsidy-reform-developing-countries-india
  13. Mortimer K, Ndamala CB, Naunje AW, Malava J, Katundu C, Weston W, et al. (2017) A cleaner burning biomass-fuelled cookstove intervention to prevent pneumonia in children under 5 years old in rural Malawi (the Cooking and Pneumonia Study): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 389(10065):167–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paul VK (2010) India: conditional cash transfers for in-facility deliveries. The Lancet 375(9730):1943–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Piedrahita R, Dickinson KL, Kanyomse E, Coffey E, Alirigia R, Hagar Y, et al. (2016) Assessment of cookstove stacking in Northern Ghana using surveys and stove use monitors. Energy for Sustainable Development 34:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pillarisetti A, Vaswani M, Jack D, Balakrishnan K, Bates MN, Arora NK, et al. (2014) Patterns of stove usage after introduction of an advanced cookstove: the long-term application of household sensors. Environmental Science and Technology 48(24):14525–14533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Powell-Jackson T, Morrison J, Tiwari S, Neupane BD, Costello AM (2009) The experiences of districts in implementing a national incentive programme to promote safe delivery in Nepal. BMC Health Services Research 9(1):97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ramanathan T, Ramanathan N, Mohanty J, Rehman IH, Graham E, Ramanathan V (2016) Wireless sensors linked to climate financing for globally affordable clean cooking. Nature Climate Change 7(1):44–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosenthal J, Balakrishnan K, Bruce N, Chambers D, Graham J, Jack D, et al. Implementation science to accelerate clean cooking for public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 125(1):A3–A7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruiz-Mercado I, Canuz E, Walker JL, Smith KR (2013) Quantitative metrics of stove adoption using Stove Use Monitors (SUMs). Biomass and Bioenergy 57:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ruiz-Mercado I, Lam NL, Canuz E, Davila G, Smith KR (2008) Low-cost temperature loggers as stove use monitors (SUMs). Boiling Point (55)Google Scholar
  22. Ruiz-Mercado I, Masera O (2015) Patterns of stove use in the context of fuel–device stacking: rationale and implications. Ecohealth 1–15Google Scholar
  23. Ruiz-Mercado I, Masera O, Zamora H, Smith KR (2011) Adoption and sustained use of improved cookstoves. Energy Policy 39(12):7557–7566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sambandam S, Balakrishnan K, Ghosh S, Sadasivam A, Madhav S, Ramasamy R, et al. (2014) Can currently available advanced combustion biomass cook-stoves provide health relevant exposure reductions? Results from initial assessment of select commercial models in India. Ecohealth 12(1):1–17Google Scholar
  25. Smith KR (2017) Why both gas and biomass are needed today to address the solid fuel cooking problem in India: a challenge to the biomass stove community. Energy for Sustainable Development 38:102–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith KR, Sagar AD (2015) Making the clean available: escaping India’s Chula Trap. Energy Policy 75:410–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tripathi A, Sagar AD, Smith KR (2015) Promoting clean and affordable cooking. Economic Political Weekly 50(48):81–84Google Scholar
  28. Wilson DL, Coyle J, Kirk A, Rosa J, Abbas O, Adam MI, et al. (2016) Measuring and increasing adoption rates of cookstoves in a humanitarian crisis. Environmental Science and Technology 50(15):8393–8399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EcoHealth Alliance 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajay Pillarisetti
    • 1
  • Manpreet Gill
    • 2
  • Tracy Allen
    • 2
  • Sathish Madhavan
    • 3
  • Arun Dhongade
    • 4
  • Makarand Ghorpade
    • 4
  • Sudipto Roy
    • 4
  • Kalpana Balakrishnan
    • 3
  • Sanjay Juvekar
    • 4
  • Kirk R. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Electronically Monitored Ecosystems, LLCBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute (Deemed to be University)ChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Vadu Rural Health ProgramKEM Hospital Research CentrePuneIndia

Personalised recommendations