University of Kentucky UKnowledge eses and Dissertations--Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics 2014 Economic Analysis and Willingness to Pay for Alternative Charcoal and Clean Cook Stoves in Haiti Nicaise S. Sagbo University of Kentucky, [email protected]is Master's esis is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Economics at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in eses and Dissertations--Agricultural Economics by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sagbo, Nicaise S., "Economic Analysis and Willingness to Pay for Alternative Charcoal and Clean Cook Stoves in Haiti" (2014). eses and Dissertations--Agricultural Economics. Paper 28. hp://uknowledge.uky.edu/agecon_etds/28
78
Embed
Economic Analysis and Willingness to Pay for Alternative Charcoal
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
University of KentuckyUKnowledge
Theses and Dissertations--Agricultural Economics Agricultural Economics
2014
Economic Analysis and Willingness to Pay forAlternative Charcoal and Clean Cook Stoves inHaitiNicaise S. SagboUniversity of Kentucky, [email protected]
This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Economics at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion inTheses and Dissertations--Agricultural Economics by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationSagbo, Nicaise S., "Economic Analysis and Willingness to Pay for Alternative Charcoal and Clean Cook Stoves in Haiti" (2014). Thesesand Dissertations--Agricultural Economics. Paper 28.http://uknowledge.uky.edu/agecon_etds/28
I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has beengiven to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyrightpermissions. I have obtained and attached hereto needed written permission statement(s) from theowner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronicdistribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine).
I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now orhereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately forworldwide access unless a preapproved embargo applies. I retain all other ownership rights to thecopyright of my work. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or partof my work. I understand that I am free to register the copyright to my work.
REVIEW, APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student’s advisor, on behalf ofthe advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; weverify that this is the final, approved version of the student’s dissertation including all changes requiredby the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above.
Nicaise S. Sagbo, Student
Dr. Yoko Kusunose, Major Professor
Dr. Michael Reed, Director of Graduate Studies
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ALTERNATIVE CHARCOAL AND CLEAN COOK STOVES IN HAITI
THESIS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the College of Agriculture, Food & Environment
at the University of Kentucky
By
Nicaise S Sagbo
Lexington, Kentucky
Director: Yoko Kusunose, Professor of Agricultural Economics
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ALTERNATIVE CHARCOAL AND CLEAN COOK STOVES IN HAITI
Conventional charcoal and firewood are the main source of energy in Haiti. They provide up to 90% of the country’s energy for domestic and industrial use, resulting in severe environmental and health issues. The present study is initiated to better understand the reasons why two promising alternative technologies (improved cookstoves and alternative charcoal briquettes) have experienced low adoption in Haiti. The research was carried out in two districts in southern Haiti where the improved stoves and briquettes production units exist and where households benefited from a program distributing the improved stoves.
This project contributes to the literature by gauging interest in the improved stove and briquettes, as well as their specific characteristics. It helps understand factors that affect the adoption and dis-adoption of the technologies. Additionally, the research measures tangible benefits for households that adopted the improved stoves. The study reveals that the use of the improved stoves lowers fuel expenditures by 14.6 cents/day to 23.6 cents/day. Haitian consumers are interested in both the stove and briquettes, but their willingness-to-pay depends on their personal characteristics such as location and income. The study has revealed two surprising results as well: Unnecessary dis-adoption of the stoves occurs because the two technologies were needlessly marketed together. Despite the target audience, which is poor and rural consumers, the improved stove is perceived as a rich, urban user’s technology.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR ALTERNATIVE CHARCOAL AND CLEAN COOK STOVES IN HAITI
By
Nicaise S Sagbo
Dr. Yoko Kusunose Director of Thesis Dr. Michael Reed Director of Graduate Studies August 28, 2014
(Dedicated to my late mother Marguerite)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work would have not been achieved without the guidance of my advisor, and
my committee members, the help and support of friends and family. I would like to
extend my sincere and deepest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Yoko Kusunose, for her
guidance, patience, caring and encouragement throughout this work. Her mentorship and
support helped me get the funding to carry out the research. I sincerely thank Dr. Lee
Meyer who offered his support and shared his knowledge and advice for the
accomplishment of this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Ani Katchova for her advice
along the research especially for the econometric prospective.
I am also grateful to my colleague Didier Alia for his great support and help
throughout this project. Finally, I thank my family for their love and support.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii
List of tables ....................................................................................................................... vi
List of figures .................................................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1: introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Context ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Deforestation and charcoal production in Haiti ....................................................... 2 1.3. Reasons for promoting improved cookstoves .......................................................... 3 1.4. Description of the technologies ............................................................................... 4
1.4.1. The improved cookstove ............................................................................... 4 1.4.2. The alternative charcoal: the briquettes ........................................................ 5
1.5. Research questions and objectives ........................................................................... 7
Chapter 2: background and literature review ...................................................................... 8 2.1. Overview of Haiti .................................................................................................... 8 2.2. Emergence of stove program ................................................................................... 8 2.3. Improved fuel and cookstove adoption .................................................................... 9 2.4. Improved fuel and stove demand: consumer willingness-to-pay .......................... 11
Chapter 3: research methodology ..................................................................................... 12 3.1. Survey design and sampling framework ................................................................ 12 3.2. Choice experiment ................................................................................................. 13
4.1.1. Gender and age ........................................................................................... 18 4.1.2. Educational level ......................................................................................... 18 4.1.3. Household size and income ........................................................................ 18
4.2. Stoves and cooking characteristics ........................................................................ 19 4.2.1. Cooking practices........................................................................................ 19 4.2.2. Type of stove used ...................................................................................... 19
4.3. Cooking fuel characteristics ................................................................................... 21 4.3.1. Type of fuel used ........................................................................................ 21 4.3.2. Alternative charcoal in the study area ......................................................... 22 4.3.3. Fuel expenditure.......................................................................................... 23
5.1. Theoretical model .................................................................................................. 25 5.2. Empirical model ..................................................................................................... 25 5.3. Improved clean cookstove willingness-to-pay....................................................... 27
5.3.1. Results ......................................................................................................... 27 5.3.2. Conclusion and discussion .......................................................................... 34
5.4. Alternative charcoal (briquettes) willingness-to-pay ............................................. 36 5.4.1. Results ......................................................................................................... 36 5.4.2. Conclusion and discussion .......................................................................... 41
Chapter 6: impact of the use of the improved cookstove on households .......................... 43 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 43 6.2. Users’ perceptions of the improved cookstove ...................................................... 43 6.3. Estimating changes in fuel costs ............................................................................ 45 6.4. Data ........................................................................................................................ 47 6.5. Results .................................................................................................................... 49 6.6. Conclusion and discussion ..................................................................................... 51
Chapter 7: general conclusions and policy implications................................................... 52
Note: *** Significant at 1%; **significant at 5%, * significant at 10%
Average treatment effect on the treated estimation
Table 16 reports the average treatment effect on the treated using several matching
methods. After matching treated and control households, we estimate that using the improved
cookstove lowers the fuel expenditure by about 14.6 cents/day to 23.6 cents/day. In other words,
households that use the improved stove have lower fuel expenditure than households that did not
use one. Given the average fuel expenditure (97.9 Cents/day), this reduction is significant for
households in Haiti. However, this difference is not statistically significant for all matching
methods.
Table 16: Average treatment effect on the treated
Estimation method Differences in Fuel expenditure ($/day)
T-test - 0.161
ATE nearest neighbor - 0.253 ATE four nearest neighbor - 0.281* ATE radius matching - 0.146
ATE kernel - 0.236*
50
6.6. Conclusion and discussion
We use a propensity score matching to estimate the effects of the use of the improved
cookstove on households. The treated group consists of households that received the stoves
during the distribution and use them regularly, while the control group is the set of households
that did not use the stove. Results show that the use of the improved stove significantly reduces
household fuel expenditure by about 14.6 cents/day to 23.6 cents/day. During the interviews,
respondents acknowledge that the stove is efficient, cooks faster, and retains the heat of the fuel
longer than conventional or traditional stoves found in the community. However, they complain
about the fact the improved stove breaks easily and that the cost prevents them from buying a
replacement. Cash is an important constraint that limits the adoption of the stove. To address
this, solutions such as microcredit can be implemented by the promoters of the technology as
components to include in a marketing plan.
Also, the improved stove and the briquettes were needlessly marketed together, resulting
in unnecessary dis-adoption of the stoves, whereas they still offer improvements with
conventional charcoal. Households that received the improved stoves were told to use them with
the briquettes for better performance. As results, 14.29% of these households stopped using the
stoves when the accompanying briquettes ran out.
51
CHAPTER 7: GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This research gauges Haitian consumers’ interest in improved cookstoves and briquettes
and their specific characteristics. The research also helps identify factors that influence dis-
adoption and adoption of the technologies. Furthermore, this research measured tangible benefits
for the users of the improved stoves. By evaluating the dollar value consumers place on different
traits of the technologies and the effect of the use of the stoves on households, this research can
provide Konpay with information that will help it to design a better marketing plan to speed up
the adoption of the clean cookstove and the alternative charcoal.
In Haiti, cooking with charcoal accounts for approximately 75% of the energy use where
an estimated 40 million of trees are cut down and burnt every year (CDI, 2013). The study
confirms that cooking practices and technologies in Haiti are still traditional and charcoal
remains the main cooking fuel. Nevertheless, some efforts have been made to change this trend,
including the alternative fuel and clean cookstove program of Konpay in collaboration with
Community Development International. Through their program, the two organizations intend to
simultaneously address issues of energy, environmental protection, climate, health and gender.
However, despite many the potential benefits of the clean cookstove and the alternative charcoal,
the technologies have seen limited adoption.
The study results reveal that consumers are interested in the improved stoves as well as
the briquettes. However, significant portion of the sample ‘opt out’ in the choice experiment,
likely due to internalized cash constraints. This may be driving the high estimates of WTP values
for both stoves and briquettes, both with and without special features. The study also reveals that
Haitian consumers’ willingness-to-pay varies significantly, depending on personal characteristics
and other external factors. Richer households have higher willingness-to-pay than poorer ones;
52
consumers who had access to the stove and had some experience using it value it more than
consumers who did not. The study also finds that the value placed on the attributes of the
improved stove is higher in rural areas than in urban area.
In the case of the alternative charcoal, a consumer’s preference for the listed attributes
varies depending on whether he/she lives in an urban or a rural area. Urban consumers place
higher value on lower smoke and ash production. They have greater disutility from those traits
because of a greater tendency to cook indoors. Also, the research found that households living
below the poverty line care more about the material of the briquettes (i.e. the burning time) more
than households living above the poverty line. The main question that arises from the conjoint
analysis in both stove and briquettes cases is whether Haitian consumers will realistically pay as
much as they state they are willing to for the technologies.
The improved stove is designed to be used in association with the briquettes for higher
performance. During the distribution, households that received the stoves were advised to use the
two technologies together. This led 14.3% of the stoves recipients to stop using the stoves when
their briquettes ran out, despite the fact that the stoves could be used with conventional charcoal.
This finding illustrates the pitfall in paired technologies and shows how Konpay and other
organizations should pay attention to the marketing of its technologies.
Also noteworthy is that 14% of the households which received the stove gave it away to a
relative, typically a relative living in urban area or one who was wealthier. Such respondents
mentioned that the stove would be better valued by these new recipients in the city. This fact is
interesting in that it implies that the stove is perceived as a ‘‘rich people’’ or ‘‘urban’’
technology, despite the fact that it is developed for everyone and especially the poor.
53
Finally, further studies could evaluate the extent to which consumers are willing to buy
these technologies, in order to establish bounds to refine the WTP estimation. Also, studies on
the production side of these technologies may offer valuable insights to better match demand and
supply.
54
APPENDIX
Improved cooking stove and alternative charcoal (briquettes) adoption survey
Individual & Household Survey
Department : ……………………… District:……………………
Commune…………………. Communale section…………………………..
Date /__/__/ /__/__/ 2014
This research will help us understand Haitian attitudes towards clean cook stoves and an alternative fuel source.
This research is initiated by the University of Kentucky, USA in collaboration with two non-profit organizations: Community Development International (New York) and Konpay (Haiti).
If you agree to take part in this research, you will be asked detailed questions about your current cooking technology, who collects firewood, your household size and how much you would be willing to pay for these new technologies, if they existed on the market. The questionnaire will take about 45 minutes.
You will not be paid for taking part in the study.
There are no risks to participating in this study. All your answers will be confidential and no one outside this research could link your answers to you or your household.
Do you have any questions?
Are you willing to participate in the research? Yes :__: No:__:
Enumerator: Sign and date this oral consent form after reading it to the interviewee.
Town : 1. Jacmel :__ : 2. Cyvadier :__ : 3. Les Cayes :__ :
Age : :__:__: years
Sex: 1. Male :__: 0. Female :__: Marital Status: 1. Single :__: 2. Married :__: 3. Widow :__: 4. Divorced :__: Education level 0. Never been to school:__ : 1. Primary school:__ : 2. High school:__ : 3. College:__ : 4. Master:__ : 5. Higher :__ : Status in the household: 1. Household head:__ : 2. Head of household’s wife:__ : 3. Son or daughter:__ : 4. Other household member:__ : Profession/activity: ………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. Household characteristics
How many people live in the household? :__ : :__ : persons Number of Children:__ : :__ : Number of adults:__ : :__ :
How many people are currently employed in the household? :__ : :__ : persons
What are their occupations/professions? - ………………………………………………….. - …………………………………………………... - …………………………………………………...
What is the average monthly income of the household? :________ : GDS 3. Cooking stoves
56
Who cooks in the household? - ………………………………………. - ………………………………………. - ………………………………………
Where do you cook your meals? 1. Kitchen inside the house:__ : 2. Kitchen outside:__ : 3. Outside (not in a kitchen) :__ : 4. Other:__ :……………………………………
How many meals are cooked in the household or by the participant per day? :__ : meals/day
How many hours do you spend on average cooking per day? ………………………………Hours
Do you use the same type of stove for all meals? Yes:__ : No:__ :
If no, which type of stoves do you use and for which type of meal? Rice: 1. Traditional:__ : 2. Improved:__ : 3. Three stones :__ : 4. Propane:__ :
Do you use the same stove for house cooking? Yes:__ : No:__ :
Why do you use different types of stoves? 1. I cannot change suddenly:__ : 2. The traditional type is appropriate for certain meal:__ : 3. Some cook faster (specify which one……………………..) :__ : 4. Some are appropriate for larger pot (specify which one……………………………..):__ : 5 Other ………………………………………….:__ :
How much do you spend on average on food per week? .................................... Gds/Week On the fuel: ………… Gds/Week On the meal itself: …………… Gds/Week Other (precise): ……… Gds/Week
4. Improved cooking stove
Have you heard about Konpay’s improved cooking stove? Yes :__ : No:__ : (Show the stove) How/where did you hear about it? 1. Radio:__ : 2. Television:__ : 3. From a friend/parent:__ : 4. From Konpay agent:__ : 5. Focus Group:__ : 6. Other source :__ : (specify)…………………….. Are you currently using it? Yes:__ : No:__ : If yes, Since when? ………………… How did you acquire it? 1. Purchase:__ : 2. Gift:__ : 3. Distribution:__ : 4. Other:__ : (specify)………………...) If No, have you ever used one before? Yes:__ : No:__ :
57
If you used one before, why did you stop using it? 1. Does not match my pans:__ : 2. I did not like it:__ : (specify why), 3. Is broken:__ : 4. Require too much fuel (specify which type of fuel you use) :__ : 5. I gave it to someone else, 6. Other (specify) :__ :……………………………. Will you use it again if this is fixed? Yes:__ : No:__ : If no, why not? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Can you explain why you are still using the old stoves? Or will not adopt the new one? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. What difference do you see in the improved cooking stove (compared to other stoves)? 1. Cheaper:__ : 2. Easy to handle:__ : 3. Reduce cooking time:__ : 4. Less smoke:__ : 5. Less dirt:__ : 6. Safer:__ : 7. Keep fuel heat longer:__ : 8. Other (specify) :__ :…………………………………… What improvement did it bring in your household? 1. Meals ready earlier:__ : 2. Do not have to watch the fire:__ : 3. Fewer injuries:__ : 4. Fewer respiratory diseases:__ : 5. None:__ : 6. Reduce the food expenses:__ : 7. More time to do other activities:__ : 8. Other (specify)……………….. :__ : Do you believe that adoption of improved cookstove improve your health status? Yes:__ : No:__ : What are the inconveniences of the improved stove? 1. None:__ : 2. Breaks quickly:__ : 3. Slow to heat:__ : 4. Not suitable for large pot:__ : 5. Other……………………..:__ :
5. Improved cooking stove adoption
In the following choice situations, you will be presented with a series of options for types of stoves. Each choice situation contains three options described by their characteristics and you will be asked to indicate your preferred option but:
- Please choose ONLY ONE OPTION in each situation - Assume that the options in EACH situation are the ONLY ones available - Do NOT compare options in different situations
58
Situation 1 Stove A
Stove B
I do not prefer either stove
Small size Large size Clay covered with steel Steel only
High charcoal consumption Low charcoal consumption 1200 Gds 1500 Gds
Situation 2
Stove A
Stove B
I do not prefer either stove
Large size Small size Clay covered with steel Steel only
High charcoal consumption High charcoal consumption 2000 Gds 600 Gds
Situation 3
Stove A
Stove B
I do not prefer either stove
Large size Small size Clay covered with steel Clay covered with steel
High charcoal consumption Low charcoal consumption 1000 Gds 700 Gds
59
Supposed that Konpay recalculated his production cost and this is how much the stove will cost: - 1.500 Gds for the small size, will you buy it (in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__: - (If no to the previous question) If the cooking stove is sold at 1200 Gds for the small size, will
you buy it (in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__: - (If yes to the first question) If the cooking stove is sold at 1700 Gds for the small size, will you
buy it (in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__:
6. Fuel used
Which type of fuel do you use to cook? 1. Charcoal:__ : 2. Wood:__ : 3. Husk:__ : 4. Animal dung:__ :
5. Kerosene:__ : 6.Propane:__ :7. Other:__ :
Do you use the same type of fuel for all meals? Yes:__ : No:__ : If no, Which type of fuel do you use for which type of meal? Rice: 1. Charcoal:__ : 2. Wood:__ : 3. Propane:__ :
Sauce 1. Charcoal:__ : 2. Wood:__ : 3. Propane:__ : Why do you use this (these) fuel(s)? ............................................................................................................................ …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. For the past year have you been injured or burnt while cooking? Yes :__: No:__: Have you ever experience any health related issues to cooking with your current fuel and stove, such as respiratory problems or physical burns: Yes :__: No:__: If yes, specify…………………………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………............................................. ……………………………………………………………………………………………............................................. How many times did it happen over the past year? ……………………………………………………….
7. Alternative fuel (briquette) attitudes
Have you heard about the briquettes? Yes :__: No:__: How/where did you hear about it? 1. Radio:__ : 2. Television, :__ : 3. From a friend/parent:__ : 4. From Konpay agent:__ : 5. Other source (specify) :__ : Are you currently using it? Yes:__: No:__:. If yes, Since when? ……………………………… How many briquette do you use (or did you use) per day? ………………………………. How did you acquire it? 1. Purchase:__ : 2. Gift:__ : 3. Distribution:__ : 4. Other (specify) :__ :………………… If No, have you ever used it before? Yes:__: No:__: If you used it before, why did you stop using it? 1. Takes too much time to ignite:__ : 2. I did not like it
60
(specify why) :__ : 3. Is not available on the market:__ : 4. Require too much kerosene to ignite:__ : 5. Is not dry enough:__ : 6. Do not burn well:__ : 7. Other (specify) :__ : Will you use it again if this changes? Yes:__: No:__: If no, why not? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… What difference do you see in the briquette (compared to other fuels)? 1. Cheaper:__ : 2. Easy to handle:__ : 3. Reduce cooking time:__ : 4. Less smoke:__ : 5. Less dirt:__ : 6. Safer:__ : 7. Last longer:__ : 8. Les ashes:__ : 9. Other (specify) :__ :……………………………….. What improvement did it bring in your household? 1. Meals ready earlier:__ : 2. Do not have to watch the fire:__ : 3. Fewer injuries:__ : 4. Fewer respiratory diseases:__ : 5. None:__ : 6. Reduce the food expenses:__ : 7. More time to do other activities:__ : 8. Other (specify)) :__ : What are the inconveniences of the briquettes? 1. None:__ : 2. Breaks quickly:__ : 3. Slow to heat:__ : 4. Produce too much ash:__ : , 5. Other:__ : Do you believe that using charcoal, husk or wood is harmful to the Haitian environment? Yes :__: No:__: How? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Do you think that there is any environmental benefit related to the use of briquette? Yes:__: No:__: What do you know? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Alternative fuel (briquette) willingness to pay
In the following choice situations, you will be presented with a series of options for types of briquettes. Each choice situation contains three options described by their characteristics and you will be asked to indicate your preferred option but:
- Please choose ONLY ONE OPTION in each situation - Assume that the options in EACH situation are the ONLY ones available - Do NOT compare options in different situations
61
Situation 1 Briquette A
Briquette B
I do not prefer either briquette
Made with coconut husk Made with paper Smoke emission No smoke emission
Less ashes Important ashes 3briquettes for 5 Gds 1briquette for 1 Gds
Situation 2
Briquette A
Briquette B
I do not prefer either briquette
Made with paper Made with coconut husk No smoke emission No smoke emission
Less ashes Important ashes 1briquette for 1 Gds 3briquettes for 5 Gds
Situation 3
Briquette A
Briquette B
I do not prefer either briquette
Made with coconut husk Made with paper No smoke emission Smoke emission
Less ashes Less ashes 3briquettes for 5 Gds 2briquettes for 1 Gds
Situation 4
Briquette A
Briquette B
I do not prefer either briquette
Made with coconut husk Made with paper Smoke emission No smoke emission Important ashes Important ashes
3briquettes for 5 Gds 2briquettes for 1 Gds
62
How much did you pay for the briquettes that you use (d)? …………………………(per briquette) Suppose Konpay recalculated the cost to make it and this is how it will cost:
- 3briquettes for 6 Gds, will you buy it (in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__: - (If no to the previous question) If the briquettes are sold for 3briquettes for 5 Gds, will you buy
it (in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__: - (If yes to the first question) If the briquettes are sold for 3briquettes for 9 Gds, will you buy it
(in your current economic situation)? Yes:__: No:__:
9. Clean cook stove and briquette association
Will you consider using both clean cook stove and briquette in association? Yes:__: No:__: Why? .…………………………………………………………………………………………………….... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Have you used this combination before? Yes:__: No:__: How do you rate the combination of the clean stove and the briquettes compare to other systems? (on a 1 to 10 scale …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
63
REFERENCES
Barnes, D. F., Openshaw, K., Smith, K. R., & van der Plas, R. (1994). What Makes People Cook
with Improved Biomass Stoves? A Comparative International Review of Stove Programs
(World Bank Technical Paper) (p. 44). Washington D.C.: World Bank.
Bates, J. (1988). Econometric Issues in Stated Preference Analysis. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy, 22(1), 59–69.
D-Lab. (2003). Fuel from the fields: Charcoal background (p. 5). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Retrieved from http://d-lab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Charcoal_BG.pdf
Doss, C. R. (2006). Analyzing technology adoption using microstudies: limitations, challenges,
and opportunities for improvement, 34(3), 207–219. doi:10.1111/j.1574-
0864.2006.00119.x
FAOSTAT. (2013). FAOSTAT. Retrieved September 3, 2013, from
EDUCATION Master Degree in Agricultural Economics University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Expected: December 2014
Agricultural Engineering Degree University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin
February 2011
Certificate of General Agronomic Studies University of Abomey-Calavi, Benin
November 2009
SKILLS Database design SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) STATA SAS
Public speaking Team management Bilingual: French writing and speaking
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Kentucky Farm Business Management Program (KFBM) Intern
May – August 2013
Agri-Hub Benin/Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) Coordinator Assistant
November 2011 - July 2012
Joint Learning about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture (JOLISAA) research Program Research Assistant
June 2011–December 2011
Millet and Sorghum Project Coordinator Assistant
March – May 2011
Benin Centre for Environment and Economic and Social Development Research Assistant
August 2009–February 2010
66
Benin Centre for Environment and Economic and Social Development Intern in Food security, and food quality improvement
September – October 2008
National Agricultural Researches Institute (INRAB) Intern
August – September 2007:
HONORS Fulbright Program Awards US Department of State
April 2012
ACHIEVEMENTS Student Sustainability Council Grant University of Kentucky Student Sustainability Council
December 2013
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS Economic analysis and Willingness to pay for alternative charcoal and clean cook stoves in Haiti Master Thesis
Factors contributing to farm management returns in Kentucky Paper accepted for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association
Inventaire rapide des entreprises agricoles et agro-industrielles du Bénin (Quick inventory of agricultural and agro-businesses in Benin) Working paper, SNV (Unpublished) Large adoption et développement de produits de grande consommation dérivés du soja (Wide adoption and development of consumer products derived from soya) Working paper, JOLISAA (Unpublished) Systèmes agro-pastoraux et chaînes de valeurs ajoutées du fromage peuhl dans les départements de l’Atacora et de la Donga au nord Bénin (Agro-pastoral Systems and Fulbe Cheese Value Chains in Atacora and Donga Departments in Northern Benin) Agricultural Engineering Thesis