Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T07:58:34.537Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Unbelievable but improved cookstoves are not helpful in reducing firewood demand in Nepal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2010

MANI NEPAL
Affiliation:
South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) and the Central Department of Economics, Tribhuvan University, P.O. Box 8975, EPC-1056, Kathmandu, Nepal. Tel: +977-1-500-3222. Email: mani.nepal@bus.illinois.edu
APSARA NEPAL
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, MSC05 3060, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. Email: aknepal@unm.edu
KRISTINE GRIMSRUD
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, MSC05 3060, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. Email: grimsrud@unm.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the effect of different types of cookstoves on firewood demand at the household level. Using nationally representative household survey data from Nepal, we find that stove type significantly affects the firewood demand for household uses. Traditional mud-stove user households seem to use less firewood than the open-fire stove users. Surprisingly, households with the so-called ‘improved’ stoves seem to use more firewood than the households with mud stoves. Thus, converting traditional open-fire stoves to mud stoves may be a better conservation strategy in the short term rather than installing improved stoves, unless the technology improves. However, in the long run, making cleaner fuel more accessible to rural households is desirable to reduce indoor air pollution.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010
Figure 0

Figure 1. Box plot of firewood use by stove type.

Figure 1

Table 1. Variable definition and descriptive statistics

Figure 2

Table 2. Distribution of household level variables by stove type (N = 2606)

Figure 3

Table 3. Distribution of variables by stove type for the households hiring female farm workers (N = 756)

Figure 4

Table 4. Ordinary least-squared regression results

Figure 5

Table 5. Two-stage least-squared regression results

Figure 6

Table 6. OLS and 2SLS regression results (Dep Var: Log(FIREWOOD) where COLLECTIONTIME is replaced with FEMALEWAGE)

Figure 7

Table 7. Fixed effect regression (Dep Var: Log(FIREWOOD))