Facilitators and barriers to improved cookstove adoption: a community-based cross-sectional study in Northwest Ethiopia.
Adoption
Fuel
Household
Improved cookstove
Journal
Environmental health and preventive medicine
ISSN: 1347-4715
Titre abrégé: Environ Health Prev Med
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 9609642
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 May 2020
15 May 2020
Historique:
received:
12
12
2019
accepted:
23
04
2020
entrez:
17
5
2020
pubmed:
18
5
2020
medline:
20
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Among the environmental risk factors, household air pollution exposure from traditional cooking practices is one of the biggest killers globally, which mainly impacts developing countries where many families rely on traditional cooking practices. Although improved cookstove adoption is central to tackle this public health issue, the efforts to disseminate cookstove technologies have faced challenges, and the adoption rates are reported to be very low in many developing countries including Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the magnitude and identify potential factors that may act as facilitators or barriers to adoption from users' point of view. As part of the wider stove trial project, a cross-sectional study was conducted among a total of 5830 households under randomly selected clusters. The required data were collected through face-to-face interviews, and a backward stepwise logistic regression analysis technique was applied to evaluate the effect of potential predictor variables on adoption using adjusted odds ratio (AOR) as measures of effect. The prevalence of adoption was found to be 12.3% (95% CI 11.5-13.2), and households headed by females (AOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.24-3.10), private house ownership (AOR 4.58; 95% CI 3.89-6.19), separate cooking location (AOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.49-2.78), fuel purchasing (AOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.64-2.76), health benefit (AOR 1.76; 95% CI 1.15-2.70), optimistic social interaction (AOR 1.81; 95% CI 1.46-2.26), traditional suitability (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.28-1.95), stove use demonstration experience (AOR 2.47; 95% CI 1.98-3.07), cheap price (AOR 2.48; 95% CI 1.91-3.21), availability (AOR 1.81; 95% CI 1.5-1, 2.17), fuel-saving benefit (AOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.18-2.24), and more durable stove (AOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.30-2.26) of cookstove played a significant role as facilitators to adoption. In addition, lower educational level of head (AOR 0.31; 95% CI 0.23-0.42) and fuel processing requirement (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.70) of cookstove were found to be barriers for adoption. Extremely lower improved cookstove adoption was observed due to household- and setting-related, cookstove technology-related, user knowledge- and perception-related, and financial- and market development-related factors. Therefore, to gain successful adoption, implementers and policymakers should consider those important factors in the implementation of clean cooking solutions to the community.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Among the environmental risk factors, household air pollution exposure from traditional cooking practices is one of the biggest killers globally, which mainly impacts developing countries where many families rely on traditional cooking practices. Although improved cookstove adoption is central to tackle this public health issue, the efforts to disseminate cookstove technologies have faced challenges, and the adoption rates are reported to be very low in many developing countries including Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the magnitude and identify potential factors that may act as facilitators or barriers to adoption from users' point of view.
METHODS
METHODS
As part of the wider stove trial project, a cross-sectional study was conducted among a total of 5830 households under randomly selected clusters. The required data were collected through face-to-face interviews, and a backward stepwise logistic regression analysis technique was applied to evaluate the effect of potential predictor variables on adoption using adjusted odds ratio (AOR) as measures of effect.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prevalence of adoption was found to be 12.3% (95% CI 11.5-13.2), and households headed by females (AOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.24-3.10), private house ownership (AOR 4.58; 95% CI 3.89-6.19), separate cooking location (AOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.49-2.78), fuel purchasing (AOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.64-2.76), health benefit (AOR 1.76; 95% CI 1.15-2.70), optimistic social interaction (AOR 1.81; 95% CI 1.46-2.26), traditional suitability (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.28-1.95), stove use demonstration experience (AOR 2.47; 95% CI 1.98-3.07), cheap price (AOR 2.48; 95% CI 1.91-3.21), availability (AOR 1.81; 95% CI 1.5-1, 2.17), fuel-saving benefit (AOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.18-2.24), and more durable stove (AOR 1.71; 95% CI 1.30-2.26) of cookstove played a significant role as facilitators to adoption. In addition, lower educational level of head (AOR 0.31; 95% CI 0.23-0.42) and fuel processing requirement (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.44-0.70) of cookstove were found to be barriers for adoption.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Extremely lower improved cookstove adoption was observed due to household- and setting-related, cookstove technology-related, user knowledge- and perception-related, and financial- and market development-related factors. Therefore, to gain successful adoption, implementers and policymakers should consider those important factors in the implementation of clean cooking solutions to the community.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32414323
doi: 10.1186/s12199-020-00851-y
pii: 10.1186/s12199-020-00851-y
pmc: PMC7229589
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14Subventions
Organisme : Bahir Dar University, "Mecha" Health and Demographic Surveillance system research funding scheme
ID : RCS/253/09
Références
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Feb;122(2):120-30
pubmed: 24300100
Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:185-206
pubmed: 24641558
Lancet. 2017 Jan 14;389(10065):167-175
pubmed: 27939058
Soc Sci Med. 2019 May;228:30-40
pubmed: 30875542
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 20;13(11):e0206822
pubmed: 30458001
Energy Sustain Dev. 2018 Feb;42:152-159
pubmed: 29861575
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012 May;9(5):1566-80
pubmed: 22754457
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jul 5;50(13):7228-38
pubmed: 27253693
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 8;13(10):e0203775
pubmed: 30296300
Perspect Clin Res. 2017 Jul-Sep;8(3):148-151
pubmed: 28828311
Energy Sustain Dev. 2018 Oct;46:1-10
pubmed: 30886466
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 21;13(2):e0193238
pubmed: 29466464
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 May;120(5):637-45
pubmed: 22296719
Environ Sci Technol. 2013 May 7;47(9):3944-52
pubmed: 23551030
Int J Surg. 2014 Dec;12(12):1495-9
pubmed: 25046131
Am J Public Health. 2013 Apr;103(4):e67-72
pubmed: 23409891