This document provides a market analysis for implementing improved cookstoves called ecostoves in Bluefields, Nicaragua. It describes conducting 159 surveys of families in 5 neighborhoods to understand cooking needs and preferences. Based on the survey results, 4 ecostove models were selected for testing with families. The testing evaluated the stoves' functionality, efficiency and social acceptance. Key findings included that families prioritize low price and ability to use wood or charcoal fuel. The document concludes with recommendations for next steps in a potential ecostove implementation project.

1. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
1
Global
Leadership
Program
Market
Analysis
for
Ecostoves
in
Bluefields,
Nicaragua
Date:
June
23,
2014
-­‐
September
12,
2014
Authors:
Raga
Ayyagari,
Maweel
Sabrie
and
Matthew
Burke
Reviewed
by
Mathias
Craig
on
September
9th,
2014
Project
Description:
This
project
focused
on
creating
a
market
analysis
for
the
future
implementation
of
ecostoves
in
Bluefields,
Nicaragua.
In
addition
to
researching
technical
aspects
of
ecostoves
in
Nicaragua,
we
designed
and
conducted
159
surveys
to
understand
the
customs
and
needs
of
families
in
5
neighborhoods
of
Bluefields.
Using
this
data,
we
chose
4
models
of
ecostoves
to
test
with
the
families.
The
second
phase
of
the
study,
continued
by
Maweel
Sabrie,
Matthew
Burke
and
the
Energy
Team
involved
testing
the
ecostoves
with
5
families.
This
was
done
in
order
to
process
their
feedback
on
the
functionality
and
social
acceptance
of
the
models,
as
well
as
select
one
model
for
future
implementation
by
blueEnergy.

2. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
2
Contents
0.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.....................................................................................................................
4
1.
BACKGROUND
....................................................................................................................................
5
1.1
CONTEXT
AND
JUSTIFICATION
OF
PROJECT
........................................................................................
5
1.2
LITERATURE
REVIEW
..........................................................................................................................
5
1.3
PREVIOUS
BLUEENERGY
WORK
OR
BACKGROUND
CONTEXT
............................................................
6
2.
OBJECTIVES
&
IMPACT
....................................................................................................................
7
2.1
GENERAL
OBJECTIVE/
OUTCOMES
......................................................................................................
7
2.2
SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVES
/
OUTCOMES
....................................................................................................
7
2.3
IMPACT
.................................................................................................................................................
7
3.
ACTIVITIES
..........................................................................................................................................
8
3.1.
DESIGN
OF
THE
SURVEY
...................................................................................................................
9
3.1.2
MODIFICATIONS
MADE
...................................................................................................................
10
3.2
SELECTION
OF
FAMILIES
....................................................................................................................
10
3.3
FOUR
SELECTED
STOVE
MODELS
....................................................................................................
11
4.
TIMELINE
...........................................................................................................................................
12
5.
BUDGET
..............................................................................................................................................
14
6.
RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS
...............................................................................................................
14
6.1
DESCRIPTION
OF
IMPORTANT
FACTORS
TO
CONSIDER
....................................................................
14
6.2
TRENDS
OBSERVED
............................................................................................................................
16
6.2.1
PRICE
...............................................................................................................................................
16
6.2.2
TYPE
OF
FUEL
.................................................................................................................................
17
6.3
IMPACTS
ON
HEALTH
......................................................................................................................
19
6.3.1
IMPACTS
ON
THE
ENVIRONMENT
...................................................................................................
20
6.3.2
IMPACTS
ON
THE
ECONOMY
...........................................................................................................
20
6.4
STOVE
EFFICIENCY
.............................................................................................................................
24
6.5
LIMITATIONS
OF
DATA
COLLECTED
...................................................................................................
26
7.
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
..............................................................................
27
7.1
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
..........................................................................................
27
7.2
NEXT
STEPS
........................................................................................................................................
27
X.1
APPENDIX
A
–
WEEKLY
REPORTS
...........................................................................................
29
WEEK
5
.....................................................................................................................................................
33
WEEK
8
.....................................................................................................................................................
38
WEEK
9
.....................................................................................................................................................
39
WEEK
10
...................................................................................................................................................
40
WEEK
11
...................................................................................................................................................
41
X.2
APPENDIX
–
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
...........................................................................
42

3. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
3
X.3
APPENDIX
–
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(REFERENCES)
......................................................................
43
X.4
PICTURES
........................................................................................................................................
43

4. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
4
0.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
many
of
the
rural
and
urban
communities
in
the
South
Atlantic
Autonomous
Region
of
Nicaragua,
wood
and
charcoal
burning
stoves
are
common.
These
methods
of
cooking
are
extremely
inefficient
and
cause
severe
harm
to
the
environment
in
more
than
one
way.
Take
for
example
a
family
that
cooks
indoors
with
a
wood
burning
stove.
Families
often
spend
hours,
multiple
days
a
week
gathering
firewood,
which
is
inefficient
and
contributes
to
deforestation.
The
family
then
burns
the
wood,
increasing
carbon
dioxide
emissions
and
most
importantly
damaging
their
health.
Other
risks
of
cooking
with
wood
and
coal
include
house
fires,
smoke
inhalation,
and
severe
burns.
blueEnergy
has
provided
a
vision
to
combat
the
negative
aspects
of
traditional
cooking
with
wood
or
charcoal,
without
changing
the
fuel
source
used.
Ecostoves
have
long
been
used
throughout
Central
America
and
have
shown
positive
health,
environmental,
and
economic
benefits.
Ecostoves
come
in
various
shapes
and
sizes,
with
the
point
being
to
decrease
the
amount
of
smoke
produced,
amount
of
wood
or
charcoal
used
and
heat
emitted
that
does
not
directly
contribute
to
cooking.
Our
project
led
us
in
selecting
four
different
ecostove
designs,
through
the
combination
of
field-­‐
surveys
and
feedback
heard
from
families
currently
using
gas,
wood
and
charcoal
stoves,
with
an
emphasis
on
coal
and
wood.
After
finding
these
statistics
we
crunched
the
numbers
in
the
statistical
data
software
known
as
SPSS,
to
view
some
of
the
long-­‐term
effects
an
implementation
of
ecostoves
would
have
on
a
family’s
lives.
Through
these
surveys
we
tested
two
of
the
four
total
selected
models
chosen.
We
tested
these
ecostoves
in
the
Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio
neighborhoods
of
Bluefields,
Nicaragua,
to
process
the
immediate
effect
of
these
ecostoves
in
the
communities.
This
was
done
during
the
second
phase
of
this
study.
The
report
below
depicts
the
process
of
choosing
of
four
models
of
the
ecostoves,
a
market
to
study
on
the
need
and
the
acceptance
of
ecostoves
here
in
Bluefields
and
the
process
of
testing
a
selected
two
of
the
four
ecostove
models
within
the
Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio
communities.
Ultimately
the
goal
of
the
project
is
to
provide
the
socioeconomic
background
to
pave
the
way
for
blueEnergy’s
goal
to
implement
one
eco-­‐stove
that
will
best
serve
the
specific
needs
and
customs
of
Bluefields.
This
model
was
chosen
based
on
social,
technical,
and
economic
data
collected
from
surveys.
The
market
analysis
also
includes
an
evaluation
of
the
families’
economic
situation
and
willingness
to
pay
for
ecostoves,
paving
the
way
for
a
future
market-­‐driven
blueEnergy
ecostove
project.
The
combination
of
health,
economic,
and
environmental
harm
caused
by
cooking
with
charcoal
and
open
flame
stoves
has
gone
on
long
enough
and
the
data
collected
through
this
study
can
serve
as
a
basis
for
future
projects
of
implementing
ecostoves
in
Bluefields.

5. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
5
1.
BACKGROUND
1.1
Context
and
Justification
of
Project
Cooking
with
open
fires
and
furnaces
is
a
global
issue
that
affects
human
health,
environmental
pollution,
and
economic
opportunity.
Smoke
and
heat
from
indoor
cooking
open
fires
is
one
of
the
leading
causes
of
child
mortality,
equivalent
to
mothers
and
children
smoking
three
packs
of
cigarettes
a
day
(StoveTeam
International).
Furthermore,
deforestation
for
firewood
and
carbon
emissions
from
burning
charcoal
damages
the
environment.
The
health
and
environmental
impacts
of
open
fire
cooking
also
has
negative
economic
externalities,
as
loss
of
productivity
and
the
cost
of
fuel
exacerbates
poverty
in
families
that
cannot
afford
improved
cookstoves
or
gas
stoves.
Studying
and
implementing
ecostoves
that
use
less
coal
and
wood
and
produce
less
smoke
has
the
potential
to
improve
health
(especially
of
women
and
children),
environmental
sustainability,
and
economic
empowerment
for
families
in
Bluefields.
While
blueEnergy
has
conducted
significant
research
and
projects
regarding
ecostoves
in
the
communities
surrounding
Bluefields,
the
potential
for
ecostoves
in
the
city
of
Bluefields
was
previously
not
examined
at
a
large
scale.
This
project
is
needed
to
understand
the
health,
environmental,
and
economic
consequences
of
current
urban
cooking
practices
in
Bluefields.
Furthermore,
in
alignment
with
blueEnergy’s
approach
of
“not
giving
things
away,”
the
study
of
ecostoves
from
a
market
perspective
has
potential
to
benefit
both
the
beneficiaries
and
blueEnergy.
Financial
participation
in
an
ecostove
can
help
ensure
beneficiary
engagement
and
commitment
to
maintaining
and
using
the
stoves.
Furthermore,
the
proceeds
generated
from
the
ecostoves
can
help
blueEnergy’s
financial
sustainability,
providing
an
additional
stream
of
revenue
that
can
be
reinvested
in
creating
more
program
impact.
This
study
will
form
the
basis
of
information
and
analysis
that
will
inform
future
market-­‐related
blueEnergy
projects
in
ecostoves.
1.2
Literature
Review
Nicaragua
relies
on
three
main
sources
of
fuel
for
cooking:
gas,
which
is
usually
used
by
the
wealthy,
wood
and
charcoal.
Nicaragua
is
the
second
poorest
country
in
the
Western
Hemisphere
behind
Haiti.
Due
to
high
rates
of
poverty,
a
large
portion
of
the
country
cooks
with
wood
and
charcoal,
either
on
an
open
flame
stove
or
a
small
charcoal
cook
stove.
The
smoke
from
open
fires
leads
to
risks
to
health
and
safety
such
as
respiratory
illness
and
house
fires.
Because
of
the
incorporation
of
features
such
as
an
internal
combustion
chamber,
chimney,
and,
efficient
materials,
ecostoves
produce
less
smoke,
burn
fuel
more
efficiently,
and
over
time
save
families
money,
health,
and
environment.
During
the
opening
stages
of
our
research,
we
studied
various
organizations
and
the
features
and
characteristics
of
the
ecostoves
they
provided.
We
took
a
look
at
organizations
such
as
Proleña,
Coci-­‐Nica,
Stove-­‐

6. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
6
Team
International
and
CHICA.
Our
reasons
for
choosing
these
organizations
included
locale
of
the
organizations,
efficiency
of
each
stove
provided,
as
well
as
overall
cost
of
each
stove.
Due
to
our
work
in
Bluefields,
Nicaragua
we
needed
access
to
quick
and
affordable
shipping,
making
sure
the
stoves
where
either
built
in
Nicaragua
or
in
a
neighboring
country
was
one
of
the
top
priorities
in
the
beginning
of
our
research.
We
then
researched
each
of
the
models’
advantages
and
disadvantages
and
organized
the
features
into
a
database.
Characteristics
considered
included
specific
features
such
as
chimneys,
grills,
and
burners,
physical
characteristics
such
as
size
and
materials,
and
functional
considerations
such
as
efficiency
and
types
of
food
prepared.
http://www.stoveteam.org
http://www.cleancookstoves.org/resources/fact-­‐sheets/igniting-­‐change.pdf
http://www.prolenaecofogon.org/pdf/guia_tecnica.pdf
http://nicafund.org/initiatives/nica-­‐communities/laguna-­‐apoyo#pane4
1.3
Previous
blueEnergy
work
or
Background
Context
Because
of
the
ability
of
ecostoves
to
improve
health,
the
environment,
and
the
economy,
the
blueEnergy
Energy
Team
has
conducted
many
projects
in
the
past
designing
and
implementing
ecostoves.
Most
of
these
projects
have
been
in
the
communities
surrounding
Bluefields.
For
example,
past
GLP
projects
have
included
installing
INKAWASI
stoves
in
communities
and
designing
the
stove’s
blocks
with
eco-­‐brick.
In
addition,
a
few
preliminary
studies
of
ecostoves
in
Bluefields
and
the
surrounding
regions
have
been
conducted
by
volunteers
including
Gabriella
LaRocca,
who
studied
portable
ecostoves
in
Bluefields,
and
Benjamin
Loiseau,
who
studied
and
designed
ecostoves
in
Wawashang
and
Kukra
Hill.

7. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
7
2.
OBJECTIVES
&
IMPACT
2.1
General
Objective/
Outcomes
This
research
study
consists
of
two
phases.
The
first
phase
is
a
technical
and
social
evaluation
of
ecostoves
in
Bluefields.
The
technical
evaluation
consists
of
reading
technical
reports
on
various
ecostoves
produced
in
Nicaragua
and
classifying
the
information
in
a
database.
The
social
evaluation
consists
of
creating
and
implementing
a
survey
of
families
in
Bluefields
to
understand
family
demographics,
their
cooking
behavior,
their
economic
situation
and
willingness
to
pay
for
ecostoves.
The
goal
of
the
first
phase
is
to
identify
3-­‐4
models
of
ecostoves
that
are
most
compatible
with
the
expressed
needs
and
customs
of
the
families.
The
second
phase
of
the
study
involves
field
testing
of
the
chosen
models
with
families
to
gain
feedback
on
the
design,
functionality,
and
economics
of
the
stoves.
This
phase
involves
purchasing
the
stoves,
selecting
families
for
testing,
delivering
the
stoves
to
the
families,
and
analyzing
the
feedback.
The
goal
of
this
phase
is
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
these
models
and
to
characterize
the
potential
of
the
ecostove
to
benefit
the
families
and
blueEnergy
economically.
2.2
Specific
Objectives
/
Outcomes
Conducting
a
technical
and
socioeconomic
investigation
about
the
use
and
access
to
fuel,
the
needs,
and
the
customs
of
people
in
regard
to
future
implementations
of
ecostoves.
Evaluation
of
the
social
acceptance
of
4
different
models
Develop
a
market
analysis
of
the
potential
of
ecostoves
in
urban
and
peri-­‐urban
areas
in
Bluefields
Test
the
different
models
both
at
blueEnergy
and
through
a
select
amount
of
families
chosen
from
the
Estufas
Mejoradas
surveys.
2.3
Impact
The
ultimate
goal
of
this
project
is
two-­‐fold.
The
primary
goal
is
to
improve
the
health
of
families
and
the
environment
by
reducing
carbon
monoxide
and
particulate
pollution
from
smoke
exposure
while
saving
money,
time,
and
fuel.
This
study
will
have
an
impact
on
this
goal
by
providing
the
information
on
the
customs
and
needs
of
the
people
to
form
the
basis
of
a
future
blueEnergy
ecostove
project
in
Bluefields.
The
second
goal
is
to
provide
a
market-­‐based
model
of
revenue
for
blueEnergy
to
improve
its
sustainability
as
an
organization
and
contribute
to
future

8. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
8
program
impact.
This
project
will
have
an
impact
on
this
goal
by
providing
a
framework
for
understanding
beneficiaries’
economic
situations
and
willingness
to
pay
for
ecostoves
that
can
be
translated
to
other
blueEnergy
market
initiatives.
3.
ACTIVITIES
Specific
Objective
Activity
Conducting
a
technical
and
socioeconomic
investigation
about
the
use
and
access
to
fuel,
the
needs,
and
the
customs
of
people
in
regard
to
future
implementations
of
ecostoves.
-­‐Create
a
database
organizing
features
and
characteristics
of
the
various
models
-­‐Call
and
email
NICA,
CHICA,
Proleña,
Tropitec,
Mifogon,
and
ONIL
to
ask
for
details
on
the
models
-­‐Design
a
survey
and
response
sheet
-­‐Conduct
159
surveys
in
the
barrios
of
Loma
Fresca,
19
de
Julio,
San
Pedro/Trocha,
Santa
Rosa,
and
Canal
Evaluation
of
the
social
acceptance
of
4
different
models
-­‐Organize
the
data
collected
from
the
surveys
into
SPSS
(Statistical
Package
for
the
Social
Sciences)
software
-­‐Analyze
the
data
using
statistical
tests
-­‐Use
the
data
to
select
four
models
-­‐Contact
the
companies
and
purchase
models
to
try
in
the
barrios
-­‐Select
families
for
the
second
phase
of
the
study
Develop
a
market
analysis
of
the
potential
of
ecostoves
in
urban
and
peri-­‐
urban
areas
in
Bluefields
-­‐Research
other
related
market
studies
and
willingness
to
pay
literature
for
water
and
energy
projects
-­‐Analyze
the
willingness
to
pay
data
from
the
surveys
Assess
and
evaluate
opinions
and
observations
from
families
who
have
used
eco
stoves
to
determine
which
of
the
two
eco
stoves
(Prolena
Rapidita
and
Coci-­‐Nica)
better
suits
the
families
in
peri-­‐urban
communities
around
Bluefields
-­‐
Check
with
the
families
who
have
our
test
stoves
for
the
first
week
and
do
a
follow-­‐up
survey
each
time
they
test
a
stove.
-­‐
Proceed
to
switch
the
stoves
from
Coci-­‐
Nica
to
Prolena
Rapidita
and
vice-­‐versa.
-­‐
Create
the
“Stove
usage”
template
or
families
to
fill
out
while
they
have
the
test-­‐
stoves
-­‐Receive
insight
from
families
about
the
test-­‐stoves,
proceed
to
bring
our
test
stoves
to
the
next
two
families
on
our
list.

9. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
9
-­‐Create
a
test
template
to
compare
and
contrast
the
qualities
of
traditionally
used
stoves
and
ecostoves.
-­‐Go
to
4
families
homes
and
test
their
traditional
stoves
as
well
as
the
two
ecostoves
to
compare
and
contrast
the
traditionally
used
charcoal
and
wood
stoves
with
our
ecostoves.
In
addition
our
goal
is
to
give
the
families
first-­‐hand
visual
perspective
of
the
benefits
of
the
eco
stove
3.1.
Design
of
the
survey
Throughout
the
process
of
our
research
we
designed
2
surveys.
The
purpose
of
the
first
being
to
understand
the
technical,
cultural
and
socioeconomic
barriers
causing
the
prolonged
use
of
traditional
wood
and
charcoal
stoves.
The
second
study
is
a
follow
up
survey,
done
after
the
chosen
families
for
testing
have
had
a
chance
to
test
the
ecostoves
we
provide.
The
first
survey
contains
four
sections.
The
first
section
is
the
general
demographic
information
about
the
family.
This
information
includes
the
number
of
people
living
in
the
house,
the
age,
gender,
ethnicity,
and
education
level
of
each
person.
The
second
part
of
the
survey
includes
a
series
of
observations
of
the
current
stove
and
living
conditions.
This
includes
observations
about
the
dimensions
and
features
of
the
stove.
This
information
was
relevant
because
the
type
of
stove
used
provided
insight
into
the
interest
and
economic
conditions
of
the
family.
The
third
section
is
an
evaluation
of
the
families’
cooking
habits
and
customs.
Knowing
information
on
the
fuel
used,
the
frequency
and
nature
of
the
stove’s
use
and
the
family’s
perception
of
the
stove
are
relevant
to
choosing
a
model
that
aligns
with
the
family’s
current
needs
and
customs.
The
fourth
section
includes
an
evaluation
of
the
family’s
current
economic
situation
and
willingness
to
pay
for
an
ecostove.
This
is
relevant
to
identify
a
reasonable
price
range
for
the
ecostove
models
and
identify
families’
priorities
regarding
purchasing
a
stove.
The
second
survey
contains
only
one
section,
made
of
questions
used
to
receive
feedback
from
the
families
on
how
the
stoves
work
and
if
they
are
an
improvement
from
their
traditional
stoves.
The
goal
is
twofold:
The
first
goal
is
to
recognize
the
improvement,
if
any
at
all,
the
ecostoves
provide
compared
to
traditionally
used
stoves
in
Bluefields;
the
second
is
to
determine
the
stoves’
worth
in
both
health
and
efficiency
from
the
families’
perspectives.
In
essence
we
want
to
find
out
if
the
families
find
the
stoves
as
an
improvement
and
an
investment
they
may
want
to
make
for
the
future.

10. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
10
3.1.2
Modifications
made
Through
the
process
of
applying
the
surveys,
we
omitted
questions
that
were
not
relevant
to
the
goal
including
questions
20,
30
and
31
and
changed
the
wording
of
question
32,
42,
and
43
to
make
the
questions
more
clear
and
accessible
to
the
families.
Both
the
original
and
the
modified
surveys
are
attached
in
Appendix
2.
3.2
Selection
of
Families
Our
selection
of
which
families
to
survey
began
with
a
list
of
previous
blueEnergy
WASH
(Water,
Sanitation,
and
Hygiene)
project
beneficiaries.
These
recipients
were
to
be
surveyed
to
also
contribute
to
blueEnergy’s
Prepared
Family
(“Familias
Preparada”)
Initiatives.
Prepared
Families
is
a
climate
change
adaptation
plan
that
includes
a
package
of
blueEnergy
services
including
water
filters,
bio-­‐intensive
gardens,
and
ecostoves.
This
demographic
information
in
the
survey
would
help
identify
a
target
audience
of
poor
single
mothers
who
had
previously
worked
with
blueEnergy
and
have
children
attending
schools.
The
cooking
habits
and
economic
evaluation
sections
of
the
survey
provide
information
about
what
models
of
ecostoves
are
best
suited
for
the
beneficiaries
of
the
Prepared
Families
project.
While
conducting
surveys
from
the
ASH
list,
we
realized
that
76%
of
the
68
families
interviewed
used
gas
stoves.
Families
using
gas
stoves
are
not
a
good
target
audience
for
ecostoves
from
a
socioeconomic
perspective.
Gas
is
the
preferred
fuel
type
because
gas
cooks
rapidly
and
produces
less
smoke.
Because
the
families
from
the
ASH
list
were
affluent
enough
to
afford
a
gas
stove
and
gas,
many
families
were
not
interested
in
stoves
that
used
coal
or
wood.
Because
we
wanted
to
find
the
communities
in
which
the
ecostoves
would
benefit
more
people,
we
decided
to
change
the
process
of
which
families
to
interview,
consulting
local
staff
on
which
areas
in
Bluefields
would
benefit
most
from
eco-­‐stoves.
Based
on
the
feedback
of
the
local
staff,
we
decided
to
expand
the
study
to
El
Canal,
La
Trocha,
San
Pedro,
and
Santa
Rosa
as
well
as
different
sectors
in
Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio.
Doing
surveys
in
these
areas
provided
us
with
results
better
suited
to
continue
our
project
as
we
only
chose
families
that
used
wood,
charcoal
or
a
combination
of
the
two.
This
group
of
91
respondents
will
be
referred
to
as
the
“Equipo
de
Energia
group”
throughout
the
report.
After
choosing
the
stoves
designated
for
familial
use
throughout
Bluefields,
we
decided
to
select
a
total
of
seven
families
from
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
to
test
the
“Coci-­‐Nica”
and
“Proleña
Rapidita”
stoves
we
ordered
from
Coci-­‐Nica
and
Proleña,
the
makers
of
the
respective
stoves.
Out
of
the
seven
families,
five
were
selected
to
test
each
stove
for
a
week,
while
the
remaining
two
families
were
selected
in
case
some
of
the
original
five
did
not
want
to
be
a
part
of
the
testing
process.
Deciding
on
7
out
of
the
91
families
interviewed
proved
to
be
a
difficult
task;
however
we
narrowed
the
search
down
by
only
choosing
families
in
the
Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio
neighborhoods,
in
order
to
contribute
to
the
Prepared
Families
research
(even
though
the
families
were
not
from
the
ASH
list).
This
left
us
with
30
families
to
choose
from.
We
then
selected
the
families
based
on
criteria
we
thought
would
benefit
them
economically,
while

11. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
11
benefitting
blueEnergy
from
a
research
standpoint.
Family
size,
type
of
fuel
used
to
cook
with
and
the
families’
incomes
were
defined
as
the
main
criteria
by
which
we
would
choose
the
families.
With
the
number
of
families
now
down
to
seven
we
began
making
phone
calls
to
the
selected
families,
thankfully
four
out
of
the
five
originally
chosen
families
quickly
agreed
to
assist
us
in
the
research
process,
which
allowed
us
to
find
a
replacement
family
without
losing
time
on
the
testing
front.
*Excel
chart
of
the
families
chosen
can
be
found
in
Appendix
2.
3.3
Four
selected
stove
models
Figure
1:
Characteristics
of
four
chosen
models
Model
Company
Price
(USD)
Price
(C$)
Fuel
type
Durability
Advantages
Disadvantages
Picture
Coci-­‐
Nica
NICA
10
250
Wood,
coal
2
years+
Price,
Portability,
Ease
of
use,
Uses
wood
and
coal,
NICA
is
very
excited
about
collaboratin
g
on
the
project.
Delivery
from
the
Pacific
takes
additional
time
and
money,
size
may
be
too
small
for
large
families,
also
Rapidita
Proleña
30
573.65
Coal
4
years
Portability,
material,
price
No
option
for
delivery,
small
size,
only
uses
coal.

12. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
12
Sema-­‐
Docilar
Tropitec
20
521
Wood,
Coal,
Sawdust,
Coffee
beans,
rice
husk,
corn
husk,
peanut
shell
2-­‐4
years
Portability,
materials,
price,
uses
many
sources
of
fuel
Delivery
from
Honduras
takes
time
and
money
Crucita
Sencilla
CHICA
30
782.25
Wood
3
years
Price,
efficiency,
durability,
has
a
burner
and
a
grill
Only
uses
wood,
assembly
required
from
Managua
team,
not
portable,
large
size
4.
TIMELINE
Junio
Julio
Agosto
Septiembre
Resultados
Actividades
sem
2
sem
3
sem
4
sem
5
sem
6
sem
7
sem
8
Sem
9
Sem
10
Sem
11
Sem
12
R
1.
Carry
out
a
technical
and
socio-­‐economic
investigation
on
the
use
and
access
to
fuel,
as
well
as
the
needs
of
the
population
for
future
installation
of
eco-­‐
stoves
A
1.1.
Introduction
and
presentation
of
the
framework
for
project:
“Familias
Preparadas”
initiative,
new
energy
program
strategy,
objectives
and
critiques,
bE
with
the
eco-­‐stoves,
reading
of
basic
technology
information,
and
advantages
of
improved
stoves
A
1.2.
Implementation
of
a
database
on
the
different
models
available
in
Nicaragua
that
could
be
implemented
in
the
peri-­‐urban
zones
of
R.A.C.C.S.:
costs,
technical
characteristics,
social
considerations

13. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
13
A
1.3
Drafting
of
the
questionnaire
for
interviews
A
1.4
Implementation
of
interviews
R.2.
Evaluate
the
social
acceptance
of
4
different
models
of
improved
stoves
A.2.1.
Auto
training
in
management
of
SPSS
software
A.2.2.
Creation
of
a
database
for
interview
results
A.2.3.
Analysis
of
results,
definition
of
techno-­‐social
criteria
and
selection
of
4
stove
models
for
testing
A.2.4.
Writing
of
intermediary
report:
survey
findings
and
justification
of
the
4
selected
models
A.2.5.
Development
of
methodology
to
define
family
selection
process,
message
of
communication
and
process
of
follow-­‐up
study
A.2.6.
Purchase,
give
out
and
monitoring
of
stove
models
for
different
families
(using
rotation
of
stoves
for
best
comparison)
A.2.7.
Drafting
of
final
report:
Conclusion
of
study
of
social
acceptance
of
selected
models,
selection
of
models
for
future
implementation
R.3.
Development
of
a
market
study
simplified
on
eco-­‐
stove
potential
in
peri-­‐urban
zones
of
Bluefields
A.3.1.
General
investigation
of
market
study:
concept,
methodology,
etc
A.
3.2
Drafting
of
the
questionnaire
surveys
A.
3.3
Implementation
of
surveys
A.
3.4
Simplified
draft
of
market
study:
conclusions
of
social
acceptance
of
selected
models,
selection
of
models
for
future
implementation
A.
3.5
Presentation
of
results
and
recommendations
for
strategy
on
implantation
of
stoves

14. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
14
5.
BUDGET
Activity Materials Transport Other Subtotal
Taxi
Rides
to
the
barrios
for
the
interviews
and
stove
tests5$
78$
83$
Paying
for
Lorene's
assistance
on
the
encuestas 76$
76$
Coci-­‐Nica
stoves
(2) 20$
14$
34$
Proleña
estufa
rapidita 30$
7$
37$
-­‐$
-­‐$
-­‐$
-­‐$
Total 55$
99$
76$
230$
6.
RESULTS
AND
ANALYSIS
6.1
Description
of
important
factors
to
consider
The
primary
factors
considered
in
this
decision
making
process
were
the
price,
type
of
fuel
used,
durability,
portability,
size,
and
design.
In
addition,
we
considered
the
intention
of
use
for
the
stove
(i.e
private,
commercial,
or
a
combination).
We
also
considered
the
families’
willingness
to
participate
in
giving
us
their
thoughts
on
the
price
of
the
stoves
by
showing
the
families
pictures
of
various
models
and
asking
them
what
a
realistic
price
would
be
for
the
families.
We
conducted
159
surveys
in
total-­‐
68
in
the
Prepared
Families
group
(the
group
from
the
list
of
blueEnergy
Water,
Sanitation,
and
Hygiene
past
beneficiaries)
and
91
surveys
in
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group.
This
group
consisted
of
the
group
of
respondents
in
Loma
Fresca
(29
families),
Santa
Rosa
(20),
El
Canal
(20),
y
La
Trocha
(22)
that
used
coal
and
wood.
We
chose
these
barrios
based
on
the
feedback
of
local
staff,
who
identified
these
communities
based
of
poverty
level
and
observations
of
their
cooking
practices.
In
addition
we
had
to
decide
on
which
families
to
choose
for
testing
during
phase
two
of
the
research
project,
input
from
the
Prepared
Families
team
helped
in
focusing
our
target
audience
to
two
barrios
(Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio),
while
Family
size,
type
of
fuel
used
to
cook
with
and
the
families’
incomes
were
the
focal
points
in
finding
our
seven
test
families.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
surveys,
we
chose
2
models
that
were
the
most
compatible
with
the
needs
and
the
customs
of
the
respondents.
The
factor
that
we
considered
first
was
the
price.
Because
the
majority
of
the
families
reported
a
price
between
0
and
1000
cordobas,
we
chose
models
whose
prices
ranged
below
30
USD.

15. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
15
Next,
we
considered
size
and
design.
Because
the
majority
of
the
families
interviewed
used
their
stove
just
for
cooking
for
the
families,
we
opted
for
smaller,
more
economical
stoves
with
a
furnace-­‐type
design.
In
addition,
because
the
testing
period
for
the
stoves
will
be
relatively
short,
it
is
not
feasible
to
try
to
transport
materials
and
install
a
larger
stove
such
as
the
Modelo
Emelda
or
INKAWASI
with
the
concrete
blocks
and
chimneys.
Many
families
indicated
that
portability
was
a
priority
when
choosing
a
stove,
so
we
focused
on
stoves
that
are
small
in
size
and
light
enough
to
move.
The
Coci-­‐Nica,
Rapidita,
and
Sema-­‐Domiciliar
are
small,
portable,
and
require
no
installation,
making
them
easier
to
implement
than
the
Crucita
Sencilla
model,
which
requires
the
transport
of
heavy
materials
and
installation
on
site,
thus
we
had
to
exclude
the
model
from
the
testing
phase.
Unfortunately
due
to
difficulties
in
communication
with
Tropitec,
the
makers
of
the
Sema-­‐Domiciliar
model
the
project
deadline
fast
approaching
combined
with
the
amount
of
time
the
testing
phase
would
take
we
were
also
forced
to
put
a
hold
on
bringing
the
Sema-­‐Domiciliar
model
to
Bluefields
for
testing.
Next
we
considered
fuel
type.
As
shown
by
Figure
3,
44%
of
the
respondents
use
wood,
39%
use
coal,
and
14%
used
both
coal
and
wood.
Since
there
is
such
a
small
margin
of
difference
between
the
percentage
using
wood
and
coal,
we
decided
that
the
models
that
use
both
fuels
have
the
best
potential
for
diffusion.
The
Coci-­‐Nica
and
Sema-­‐Domiciliar
Models
utilize
both
fuels,
making
them
accessible
to
the
widest
group
of
users.
The
Rapidita
and
Crucita
Sencilla
models
only
use
coal
and
wood,
respectively,
so
these
stoves
could
only
be
used
by
approximately
half
of
the
sample.
Based
on
these
criteria,
we
predicted
that
the
Coci-­‐Nica
model
had
the
greatest
potential
for
diffusion
due
to
its
low
cost
of
$10,
its
portability,
its
social
acceptance
from
the
surveys,
and
its
ability
to
use
both
coal
and
wood
for
cooking.
After
testing
both
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
the
Proleña
Rapidita
it
appears
that
our
initial
prediction
was
slightly
off.
While
the
Coci-­‐Nica
does
boast
a
lower
cost
than
the
Rapidita
and
is
in
fact
more
efficient
than
a
traditional
wood
stove,
the
overall
response
from
families
that
tested
both
the
Rapidita
and
the
Coci-­‐Nica
was
that
they
preferred
the
fuel
usage
rate
of
the
Rapidita
and
its
efficiency
in
cooking
food
as
well.
With
that
said
we
only
had
two
families
test
both
stoves,
while
having
five
families
test
the
Rapidita
and
a
total
of
3
families
test
the
Coci-­‐Nica.
The
shortage
of
families
who
tested
the
Coci-­‐Nica
was
due
to
one
of
the
Coci-­‐Nica’s
splitting
apart,
rendering
it
inoperable.
We
believe
that
this
problem
originally
occurred
during
the
shipping
of
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
once
put
through
tests
could
not
handle
what
it
was
supposed
to.
The
break
was
an
unnatural
occurance,
as
the
other
Coci-­‐Nica
is
operable
and
went
through
the
same
shipping
process
(granted
it
too
took
some
damage).
Fortunately,
in
the
end
positive
signs
were
shown
during
the
testing
phase.
Families
agreed
that
the
ecostoves
brought
to
them
were
in
fact
more
efficient
than
their
current
means
for
cooking
food
and
understood
both
the
health
and
economic
benefits
in
using
an
ecostove
such
as
the
Proleña
Rapidita
and
the
Coci-­‐Nica.

16. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
16
6.2
Trends
observed
6.2.1
Price
Figure
1:
Reported
willingness
to
pay
for
an
ecostove
for
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
Figure
2:
Reported
willingness
to
pay
for
an
ecostove
for
the
Prepared
Families
group
In
the
graph,
the
term
“No
Sabe”
equates
to
families
who
did
not
give
us
an
answer
as
to
how
much
they
were
willing
to
pay
for
an
ecostove.
7
28
34
11
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
NO
SABE
0
-­‐
500
500
-­‐
1000
<
1000
1000
+
%
Cordobas
Willingness
to
pay
for
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
of
respondents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
<1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
No
Sabe
Price
(cordobas)
Price
families
are
willing
to
pay
for
an
ecostove
(Familias
Preparadas
groups)

17. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
17
The
first
factor
considered
was
price.
In
question
42
of
the
survey,
we
asked
families
how
much
they
would
be
willing
to
pay
for
an
ecostove.
We
presented
4
models
in
total:
2
small
models
(Coci-­‐Nica
and
Modelo
Apoyo)
and
2
larger
models
(Modelo
Emelda
and
Modelo
Plancha
Onil).
We
listened
to
the
families’
reactions
to
seeing
the
picture
and
asked
them
how
much
they
would
be
willing
to
pay
for
an
ecostove.
Many
were
initially
drawn
to
the
Modelo
Emelda
because
of
the
large
size
and
two
burners.
However,
after
considering
the
price
and
learning
that
the
larger
model
was
generally
used
for
businesses,
many
chose
the
smallest
model-­‐
the
Coci-­‐Nica.
In
the
second
version
of
the
survey
we
changed
the
wording
of
question
42.
Rather
than
providing
the
range
of
stove
prices
to
the
families
we
asked
them
to
develop
a
realistic
price,
considering
what
they
were
willing
to
pay
and
what
they
could
afford.
When
asked
for
a
price
they
would
be
willing
to
pay,
34%
of
people
mentioned
a
price
from
500-­‐1000
cordobas.
7%
of
the
families
expressed
interest
in
the
stove,
but
claimed
that
they
could
not
give
a
price
that
they
are
willing
to
pay.
There
were
a
few
reasons
for
this
including
financial
insecurity,
lack
of
fixed
incomes,
lack
of
knowledge
or
power
of
the
respondent
to
make
financial
decisions.
The
inconsistency
in
economic
situation,
especially
among
families
that
rely
on
chamba,
or
day-­‐labor,
for
work,
could
be
a
challenge
in
developing
a
business
plan
with
regular
payments
for
the
ecostove.
6.2.2
Type
of
Fuel
Figure
3:
Type
of
fuel
used
by
families
in
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group.
Prior
to
each
interview
we
asked
what
type
of
fuel
families
used
and
interviewed
families
that
used
primarily
wood
or
coal.
Leña
44%
Carbón
39%
Leña
y
carbón
14%
Gas
3%
Type
of
fuel
used
by
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
Leña
Carbón
Leña
y
carbón
Gas

18. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
18
Figure
4:
Type
of
fuel
used
by
the
families
in
the
Prepared
Families
group.
Because
76%
of
the
families
used
gas
primarily,
we
found
that
the
families
on
the
ASH
list
were
not
ideal
target
families
for
the
ecostove
project,
as
we
were
searching
for
those
who
only
use
wood
and
coal
for
fuel.
The
second
result
we
took
into
account
is
the
type
of
fuel.
Families
that
used
gas
were
less
likely
to
demonstrate
interest
in
purchasing
a
coal
or
wood
stove,
making
them
a
less
ideal
target
group
for
the
ecostove
project.
74%
of
the
Prepared
Families
group
used
gas
stoves
regularly,
but
most
used
coal
2-­‐4
times
a
week
to
cook
beans
and
soups.
In
contrast,
only
3%
of
the
families
interviewed
for
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
used
gas.
In
this
group,
wood
was
used
in
a
slightly
higher
rate
than
coal,
but
there
is
a
small
margin
of
difference.
Because
of
the
almost
equal
rate
of
coal
and
wood
usage,
we
concluded
that
models
using
both
fuels
would
be
best
for
widespread
diffusion
of
the
technology
in
the
neighborhoods.

19. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
19
6.3
Impacts
on
Health
Figure
5:
Health
effects:
percent
of
respondents
who
claimed
that
the
heat
produced
from
their
stove
bothered
them
Figure
6:
Health
effects:
percent
of
respondents
who
claimed
that
the
smoke
produced
from
their
stove
bothered
them
Many
respondents
indicated
the
negative
health
impacts
of
the
smoke
and
heat
produced
by
their
current
stoves.
82%
of
families
using
coal
and
wood
to
cook
reported
that
the
smoke
from
their
stoves
bothered
them.
Many
families
described
that
the
smoke,
especially
using
wood,
caused
respiratory
illness
and
eye
irritation.
Furthermore,
91%
of
families
using
coal
and
wood
reported
that
the
heat
from
the
stoves
bothered
them,
causing
burns
and
discoloration
of
their
skin.
Using
models
that
produce
less
smoke
and
heat
through
more
efficient
combustion
could
help
reduce
these
health
impacts,
especially
for
women
and
children
who
suffer
the
highest
exposure.
90%
10%
Si
No
Percentaje
de
personas
que
dicen
que
le
molestan
el
calor
de
la
estufa

20. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
20
6.3.1
Impacts
on
the
Environment
Furthermore,
the
implementation
of
ecostoves
could
have
a
positive
impact
on
the
environment
of
Bluefields
by
reducing
pollution
and
preserving
wood.
This
study
examined
the
type,
amount,
and
source
of
fuel
used.
While
many
of
the
families
using
coal
and
gas
purchased
their
fuel
at
local
“pulperias”
or
small
stores
10-­‐15
minutes
from
their
homes,
the
behavior
surrounding
wood
collection
differed.
The
time,
money,
and
distance
taken
to
collect
wood
varied
greatly.
While
some
families
collected
wood
from
their
neighborhoods,
others
made
trips
to
the
farms
and
mountains
to
chop
down
trees
for
firewood.
Likewise,
while
some
families
got
wood
delivered
to
their
home,
others
took
up
to
12
hours
collecting
wood
twice
a
month.
The
time
spent
collecting
wood
is
both
an
economic
loss
due
to
lost
productivity
and
an
environmental
loss
due
to
deforestation.
By
reducing
the
amount
of
fuel
used
by
50%,
implementing
ecostoves
in
Bluefields
would
help
save
time,
money,
and
forest
resources.
6.3.2
Impacts
on
the
economy
Ecostoves
also
have
great
potential
in
Bluefields
because
of
their
economic
advantages
for
families.
When
asked
what
fuel
type
families
prefer,
the
majority
expressed
that
they
would
like
to
cook
with
gas
because
it
cooks
rapidly
and
is
better
for
health.
The
families
that
use
wood
and
coal
said
that
they
do
so
because
they
are
unable
to
afford
gas
stoves
or
tanks
of
gas,
which
range
from
340-­‐400
cordobas.
Coal
is
less
expensive
than
gas
at
12-­‐25
cordoba
per
bag
(one
bag
is
equivalent
to
a
large
bag
of
potato
chips).
While
this
is
less
expensive
per
unit
than
gas,
it
also
is
less
efficient,
so
many
larger
families
use
3
or
4
sacks
monthly,
making
the
price
comparable
to
a
tank
of
gas.
Using
an
ecostove
such
as
the
Coci-­‐Nica
can
make
combustion
more
efficient,
82%
18%
Percentaje de personas que dicen que le molestan el
humo
Si
No

21. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
21
cutting
the
amount
of
fuel
needed
and
price.
Furthermore,
families
cooking
with
coal
used
fogoneros,
metal
furnaces.
These
furnaces
cost
between
80-­‐120
cordobas,
but
depending
on
use
only
lasted
from
2
months-­‐
1
year.
Although
the
ecostoves
cost
significantly
more
than
a
fogonero,
they
have
a
better
durability,
so
families
may
spend
less
money
over
a
period
of
2-­‐3
years
on
one
stove
than
by
replacing
their
fogoneros
every
2-­‐3
months.
The
economic
advantages
for
families
that
cooked
with
wood
are
harder
to
quantify.
Many
families
that
cooked
with
wood
did
not
pay
for
the
wood,
but
rather
collected
it.
In
addition,
all
families
with
open
fire
stoves
constructed
their
stoves
rather
than
purchasing
them.
However,
as
mentioned
above,
the
negative
externalities
of
health
issues,
deforestation,
and
lost
productivity
accumulate
into
economic
costs
that
could
be
reduced
with
the
use
of
an
ecostove.
Another
factor
to
consider
are
the
environmental
and
economic
costs
of
delivering
the
stoves
from
Managua.
The
cost
of
delivering
the
stoves
from
Managua
to
Bluefields
is
C$
180
in
addition
to
the
carbon
cost
of
fuel
used
for
ground
transportation.
One
way
to
off-­‐set
this
cost
would
be
to
produce
ecostoves
in
Bluefields,
in
cooperation
with
the
producers
of
the
stoves.
Finally
we
must
also
consider
the
businesses
and
vendors
who
sell
and
create
traditional
pequeño
(charcoal)
stoves.
How
will
the
widespread
implementation
of
eco-­‐
stoves
affect
their
business?
Will
they
be
able
to
adapt?
Unfortunately
time
was
not
on
our
side
for
this
aspect
of
the
research
process,
it
is
however
important
to
mention
for
further
research
on
ecostoves
in
Bluefields.
In
order
to
assess
whether
the
investment
in
ecostoves
is
valuable
for
families
and
blueEnergy,
we
calculated
the
“payback
time”
or
the
time
when
the
price
paid
per
month
with
the
ecostove
and
fuel
equals
the
monthly
price
paid
with
the
family’s
current
stove
and
fuel
costs.
We
conducted
this
analysis
with
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
data,
eliminating
families
with
missing
data
for
a
total
sample
of
60
families.
We
calculated
the
total
expenditure
of
the
family
on
fuel
and
ecostoves
using
the
following
formula:
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 ∗ 12 +
!"
!"!"#$%$&' !" !"#$% !" !"#$!!
∗ 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑣𝑒=
annual
expenditure
We
then
sorted
the
60
families
by
their
annual
expenditure
and
divided
them
into
3
groups:
families
that
spend
250
cordobas
annually
(32%
of
the
families
represented),
families
that
spend
between
250-­‐1000
cordobas
annually
(48%
of
the
families
represented),
and
families
that
spend
more
than
1000
cordobas
annually
(20%
of
the
families
represented).
For
each
of
these
groups,
we
calculated
the
cumulative
price
throughout
the
course
of
a
year
and
used
a
monthly
schedule
to
show
the
families
the
average
expenditure
over
time.
We
also
projected
how
much
a
family
would
pay
monthly
with
an
ecostove,
assuming
a
40%
decrease
in
fuel
costs
(based
on
the
efficiency
ratings
of
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
Proleña
Rapidita).
We
then
graphed
these
values,
using
500
cordobas
as
the
y-­‐intercept
of
the
price
a
family
would
have
to
pay
the
first
month
to
obtain
the
stove.
We
chose
this
value
because
it
is
a
middle
price
between
the

22. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
22
price
of
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
the
Rapidita
Stoves
and
also
represented
a
price
that
many
families
were
willing
to
pay.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
shown
below:
Figure
7:
Pay-­‐back
time
for
families
that
currently
pay
less
than
250
cordobas/month
for
fuel
and
cooking
stoves.
The
pay-­‐back
time
graphs
indicate
that
at
the
intersection
of
“price
paid
for
current
stove”
(blue)
line
and
the
“price
paid
with
ecostove”
(red)
line,
the
cumulative
amounts
for
the
“price
paid
with
current
stove”
and
“price
paid
with
ecostove”
is
equal
nine
months.
This
indicates
that
families
paying
less
than
250
cordobas
a
month
on
an
ecostove
will
have
a
high
monthly
expenditure
rate
up
until
9
months,
or
the
“pay-­‐back
month”
when
the
stove
has
paid
for
itself
through
saving
the
family
money
on
fuel
and
the
repurchasing
of
new
“traditional”
models.
Each
graph
concerning
the
“pay-­‐back
times”
are
the
same
with
the
exception
of
the
amount
families
are
paying
per
month.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
Cordobas
Months
Price
paid
with
current
stove
vs.
projection
of
price
paid
with
ecostove:
Families
that
pay
less
than
250
cordobas/month
Price
paid
with
current
stove
Price
paid
with
ecostove

23. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
23
Figure
8:
Pay-­‐back
time
for
families
that
currently
pay
between
250-­‐1000
cordobas/month
for
fuel
and
cooking
stoves.
Figure
9:
Pay-­‐back
time
for
families
that
currently
pay
more
than
1000
cordobas/month
for
fuel
and
cooking
stoves.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
Cordobas
Months
Price
paid
with
current
stove
vs.
projection
of
price
paid
with
ecostove:
Families
that
pay
250-­‐1000
cordobas/month
Price
paid
with
current
stove
Price
paid
with
ecostove

24. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
24
As
shown
by
Figure
7,
the
initial
investment
of
500
cordobas
for
an
ecostove
would
cause
the
monthly
expenditure
of
families
that
spend
less
than
250
cordobas
per
month
on
fuel
and
stoves
to
be
significantly
greater
within
the
first
few
months,
than
what
the
family
pays
currently
for
fuel
and
for
their
stove.
However,
based
on
the
prediction
that
families
will
spend
40%
less
on
fuel
monthly
and
not
have
to
pay
to
replace
their
stoves
or
furnaces,
the
investment
will
break
even
between
9
and
10
months.
After
this
period,
the
family
will
be
spending
less
with
the
ecostove
than
they
would
have
spent
cumulatively
with
their
current
stove.
This
period
is
much
smaller
for
families
that
spend
between
250-­‐1000
(using
an
average
of
448
cordobas/month)
as
the
ecostove
would
be
paid
off
and
start
saving
money
between
the
second
and
third
months.
The
investment
would
be
saving
money
from
the
beginning
for
families
that
spend
more
than
1000
cordoba
per
month
on
their
stove
and
fuel.
Limitations
of
these
projections
include
that
the
models
use
averages
across
the
three
groups,
assume
that
expenditure
over
time
is
constant,
and
assume
that
the
entire
cost
of
the
stove
would
be
paid
in
one
month
instead
of
paid
in
installments.
Nevertheless,
this
model
can
be
applied
to
ecostoves
of
different
prices
to
highlight
the
point
that
the
costs
saved
in
fuel
and
stoves
over
the
course
of
a
year.
Make
ecostoves
a
viable
option
for
families
from
different
economic
backgrounds.
6.4
Stove
Efficiency
Our
goal
in
testing
the
ecostoves
was
to
receive
information
first-­‐hand
by
those
who
would
benefit
directly
by
having
them.
With
that
said
blueEnergy
also
wanted
to
be
a
part
of
the
stove
testing
process
in
the
field,
thus
leading
us
to
initiate
a
joint-­‐testing
method
between
ourselves
and
the
selected
families
for
testing.
Once
the
families
were
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11
M12
Cordobas
Months
Price
paid
with
current
stove
vs.
projection
of
price
paid
with
ecostove:
Families
that
pay
more
than
1000
cordobas/month
Price
paid
with
current
stove
Price
paid
with
ecostove

25. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
25
chosen
and
willing
to
participate,
we
set
dates
in
which
the
test
families
cooked
a
commonly
consumed
meal
(rice,
beans,
banana,
etc.)
on
their
traditional
stove.
We
then
noted
some
aspects
of
the
cooking
process,
such
as
“amount
of
fuel
used
to
cook
each
food,
amount
of
time
to
cook
each
food,
size
of
the
pot
cooked
in,
etc.”
The
following
days
thereafter
we
brought
either
the
Coci-­‐Nica
or
the
Proleña
Rapidita
(depending
on
which
type
of
fuel
they
used),
repeating
the
testing
process.
This
allowed
us
to
interact
with
the
families,
develop
inter-­‐personal
relationships,
explaining
the
health,
safety
and
economic
benefits
of
the
ecostoves
as
compared
to
most
traditional
stoves.
In
addition
the
families
got
to
see
first-­‐hand
what
can
be
considered
an
affordable
improvement
over
traditional
wood
and
charcoal
stoves.
The
only
minor
drawback
to
the
testing
procedure
was
variations
in
that
due
to
the
difference
in
each
of
the
meals
the
families
cooked,
so
we
were
unable
to
replicate
the
exact
same
cooking
conditions
from
one
day
to
another.
Luckily,
every
family
cooked
rice
each
day,
and
most
cooked
banana
as
well
which
greatly
aided
our
study.
However,
with
other
food
items
such
as
the
frijoles
(which
take
hours
to
cook);
we
were
unable
to
compare
the
process
between
the
stoves
every
time
as
it
was
unreasonable
to
ask
the
families.
Because
of
this,
we
decided
to
represent
the
data
provided
by
all
of
the
families
with
whom
we
tested
the
stoves
with,
as
well
which
is
also
reflected
below.
Figure
9:
Analysis
of
stove
efficiency
by
measuring
the
weight
of
fuel
and
food
used,
as
well
as
the
time
it
took
to
burn
(fuel)
and
cook
the
food.
This
chart
analyzes
the
overall
efficiency
of
the
two
eco
stoves
as
compared
to
the
traditional
stoves.
The
data
displayed
represents
the
average
cooking
time
it
took
to
burn
through
1
lb.
of
fuel,
as
well
as
the
average
cooking
time
it
took
to
produce
1
lb.
of
food.
The
data
shows
that
that
the
Proleña
Rapidita
exceeds
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
the
Traditional
stove
in
both
categories.
Average
amount
of
time
necessary
to
use
1lb.
of
fuel
Average
amount
of
time
necessary
to
cook
1lb.
of
food

26. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
26
4.9
2.5
0
2
4
6
Tradicional
Prolena
Rapidita
Total
lbs.
of
fuel
used
Figure
10:
Comparison
between
traditional
stoves
and
the
Proleña
Rapidita
on
rice
cooking
efficiency
The
following
three
charts
represent
the
overall
results
from
cooking
rice
with
the
three
families
that
used
the
Prolena
Rapidita.
The
graphs
compare
these
results
with
the
families’
own
traditional
stoves.
The
charts
compare
fuel
usage,
rice
cooked,
and
time
spent
cooking
between
the
two
stoves.
We
chose
rice
as
it
is
one
of
most
common
food
items
cooked
by
these
stoves
and
unlike
beans,
most
families
will
cook
it
every
day.
1
6.5
Limitations
of
data
collected
While
the
information
collected
from
the
study
was
valuable,
there
are
some
important
limitations
and
imprecisions
to
consider.
First,
the
selection
of
the
families
for
the
study
was
a
sample
of
convenience,
based
on
what
families
were
available
at
the
time
of
the
visit
rather
than
a
statistically
random
sample.
In
addition,
difficulties
in
•
1
The
Coci-­‐Nica
was
only
tested
with
one
family
• The
data
represented
for
the
Prolena
Rapidita
is
even
lower
than
it
could
be
as
it
is
the
only
stove
in
which
Frijoles
were
cooked,
which
usually
take
3-­‐4
hours
to
cook,
however
were
cooked
in
under
two.
This
implies
that
this
stove
should
be
even
more
efficient
than
the
data
shows.
2.9
5.3
0
5
10
Tradicional
Prolena
Rapidita
Total
lbs.
of
rice
cooked
91
71
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tradicional
Prolena
Rapidita
Total
time
spent
cooking

27. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
27
communication
and
wording
of
questions
may
have
led
to
less
viable
information.
For
example,
when
we
reworded
the
last
question
to
represent
a
reasonable
price
for
the
family
as
opposed
to
choosing
from
a
range
of
prices,
we
received
more
realistic
answers
consistent
with
the
family’s
reported
economic
situation.
Another
issue
that
could
have
affected
the
viability
of
the
results
was
that
many
of
the
women
in
charge
of
cooking
were
not
in
charge
of
economic
decision-­‐making,
and
therefore
were
unable
to
answer
questions
about
family
income
and
willingness
to
pay.
During
the
testing
phase
a
total
of
4
stoves
were
ordered,
two
Coci-­‐Nica’s
for
families
who
cooked
with
wood
and
two
Proleña
Rapidita’s
for
those
who
cooked
with
charcoal.
Unfortunately
during
the
second
week
of
testing
one
of
the
Coci-­‐Nica’s
became
detached
at
the
bottom,
leaving
it
unusable
for
the
test
family
after
only
one
day
of
use,
in
turn
this
caused
a
loss
of
a
week’s
worth
of
research
on
the
Coci-­‐Nica.
7.
CONCLUSIONS
and
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
Based
on
the
results
of
the
study,
there
is
a
significant
market
for
ecostoves
in
Bluefields.
At
an
estimate
of
10,000
families,
combined
with
the
ecostoves
penetrating
the
market
at
an
estimated
60%,
due
to
the
decent
split
we
saw
between
gas,
carbon
and
charcoal
users,
we
approximate
that
the
total
market
size
for
this
product
in
Bluefields
is
around
6,000
families.
Being
that
this
is
an
estimate,
the
numbers
aren’t
fullproof,
however
if
6,000
families
were
to
benefit
from
ecostoves
then
a
plan
of
action
must
soon
be
followed.
With
that
said
a
widespread
identification
of
families
that
solely
use
coal
and
wood
helps
to
better
find
the
target
group
of
families
that
would
benefit
from
and
are
interested
in
ecostoves,
solidifying
the
numbers.
The
survey
reinforced
the
need
for
ecostoves
as
evidenced
by
the
respondents’
feedback
on
the
detrimental
health
and
environmental
impacts
of
open
fire
and
furnace
cooking
with
coal
and
wood.
In
addition,
the
data
suggests
that
there
are
significant
benefits
of
ecostoves
economically
for
the
beneficiaries
and
for
blueEnergy.
54%
of
the
respondents
from
the
Equipo
de
Energia
group
and
53%
of
the
respondents
from
the
Prepared
Families
groups
claimed
that
they
would
be
willing
to
pay
500
cordobas
or
more
for
an
ecostove,
allowing
us
to
choose
models
from
the
250-­‐750
cordoba
price
range.
In
addition,
as
shown
by
the
return
on
investment
projection
graphs,
a
stove
priced
at
500
cordobas
will
pay
itself
off
and
save
the
average
family
money
within
a
window
of
0-­‐9
months,
depending
on
the
baseline
expenditure
of
the
family.
Based
on
these
economic
considerations,
models
with
low
costs
such
as
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
the
Proleña
Estufa
Rapidita
make
economic
sense
for
families
both
in
the
short
term
and
the
long
term.
7.2
Next
Steps
The
next
phase
of
the
study
involves
the
continuation
of
testing
the
Coci-­‐Nica
and
the
Proleña
Rapdita
as
well
as
the
Crucita
Sencilla
and
the
Sema-­‐Domiciliar
with

28. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
28
various
families
throughout
different
barrios
in
Bluefields.
Because
our
sample
size
was
so
small,
further
testing,
especially
throughout
more
barrios
in
Bluefields
would
further
cement
the
results
brought
on
during
the
testing
phase.
If
positive
signs
continue
to
show,
then
a
possibility
for
officially
implementing
the
stoves
in
Bluefields
may
arise.
Which
overall
is
not
only
the
hope
but
the
goal
for
us.
1. Continue
further
ecostove
testing
with
beneficiaries
from
“Las
Mujeres
de
la
Cooperativa
de
la
Luz” or “Women
of
the
Cooperative
Light”.
The
purpose
of
this
is
to
work
further
with
these
beneficiaries
and
to
build
upon
the
original
results
of
the
ecostove
testing
process.
2. Through
additional
surveys
and
further
investigative
research,
we
plan
to
gain
insight
on
how
the
implementation
of
these
ecostoves
in
communities
throughout
Bluefields
may
affect
the
vendors
and
businesses
that
sell
and
make
small
traditional
charcoal
stoves.
3. Create
a
business
plan,
citing
the
effects
on
health,
the
environment
and
the
economy
concerning
traditional
stove
use
in
Nicaragua.
Transition
into
a
business
plan
explaining
how
a
financially
viable,
culturally
and
economically
significant
ecostove
project
could
be
implemented
in
Bluefields
by
blueEnergy.

29. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
29
X.1
APPENDIX
A
–
WEEKLY
REPORTS
Week
1
Actions
taken
this
week
Description
Introduction
meeting
with
Franklin
Met
with
Franklin
about
Estufas
Mejoradas,
discussed
overall
goals
and
beginning
phase
of
the
project.
Eco-­‐stove
research
Created
a
small
database
of
eco-­‐stoves
in
the
Central
American
region.
Included
information
such
characteristics,
cost,
social
acceptance,
etc.
Key
learnings
Grasped
the
potential
for
an
eco-­‐stove
market
in
Bluefields.
Understood
the
positives
and
negative
effects
eco-­‐stoves
Learned
about
the
commonality
of
smoke
inhalation
and
the
demographics
affected
by
it.
Decisions
taken
Rationale
Create
an
eco-­‐
stove
database
Build
knowledge
of
eco-­‐stoves,
gain
insight
on
which
eco-­‐stoves
work
best
in
rural
and
urban
situations
and
create
a
point
of
reference.
Planned
actions
for
next
week
Description
Beginning
of
survey
process
Create
a
rough
draft
questionnaire
to
present
to
Franklin

30. GLP:
Ayyagari,
Burke,
Sabrie
Summer
2014
Page
30
SPSS
Discuss
using
SPSS
with
Florian
and
how
that
process
works
Additional
comments
Week
2
Actions
taken
this
week
Description
Continued/finished
up
eco-­‐stove
database
Prepared
Families
Meeting
with
Clementine,
Franklin
and
Vincent
on
Prepared
Families
and
its
tie
to
Estufas
Mejoradas
Meeting
with
Florian
SPSS
database
introduction/tutorial
Draft
Encuesta
Prepare
a
survey
that
would
benefit
both
Estufas
Mejoradas
and
Prepared
Families,
on
top
of
giving
us
relevant
information
conducive
to
our
main
objective
Key
learnings
Creating/
designing
a
survey
to
develop
helpful
results
Gained
knowledge
on
understanding
and
using
SPSS
Learned
about
Prepared
Families
and
the
“3
year
adaptation
to
climate
change
in
the
barrios
of
Loma
Fresca
and
19
de
Julio”.
Currently
in
the
beginning
phase
of
the
project,
survey
is
vital,
as
it
will
help
blueEnergy
get
an
understanding
of
living
conditions,
income,
current
fuel
used,
etc.
Decisions
taken
Rationale
Start
a
database
for
collecting
survey
info
on
SPSS
Keep
survey
answers
organized,
view
answer
trends
so
that
we
can
better
the
survey
once
we’ve
started
doing
surveys.
Create
graphs
and
charts
showing
general
trends
to
backour
findings/facts
Survey
creation
Generated
a
survey
that
provides
insight
on
family
lifestyle,
income,
current
stove/fuel
used.
Also
created
a
brief
introduction
to
the
survey
informing
families
of
the
basis
of
the
survey
and
ensuring
privacy
of
their
responses
Meet
with
Lorene
Lorene
a
local
college
student
was
to
help
the
survey
process
move
along
smoothly
due
to
her
knowledge
of
Bluefields
and