Accounting for affordability constrains in geospatial modelling of clean cooking access

Background

In 2015 the UN general assembly agreed on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at achieving peace and prosperity for people and the planet. Amongst them, SDG 7 focuses on reaching universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, including both electrification and clean cooking access targets. The latter, has been seen as the forgotten target of SDG7, as efforts towards clean cooking have been arguably fewer than its sister goal on electricity access. As of 2020, 2.4 billion people worldwide remain without access to clean cooking which leads to 3.2 million premature deaths yearly. These effects are attributed to diseases caused by household air pollution (HAP) generated by the use of inefficient and polluting fuels and technologies. Moreover, the lack of clean cooking access has large implications on gender equality (as women and children often carry the burden of firewood collection and exposure to HAP) and environmental quality goals.

Previous research has identified strong barriers to the adoption and long-term use of clean cooking technologies. Affordability stands out as one of the most salient barriers (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021; Ray & Smith, 2021). High costs often makes it impossible for the poorest households to even consider using an improved cookstove (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021). Affordability can be defined as “the capacity to pay for a minimum level of service”(Bartl, 2010). This capacity is often also undermined by aspects such as present or short-term bias (preventing the adoption of technologies that have high upfront fixed costs i.e., high discount rates); lack of salience of non-monetary benefits (e.g., time savings from reduced fuel collection, or health benefits in the form of reduced risk of illness and mortality); and inability to overcome tight liquidity constraints, due to lack of credit options for many of the global poor as well as a lack of viable saving options.

There is no accepted consensus on how to measure affordability (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021); however, several attempts have been made to develop sensible metrics. These metrics range from cost and price indicators, indices, ratios, thresholds, per unit metrics, proxies, and social and opportunity costs (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021). However, affordability should not be oversimplified to be purely based on technology cost comparisons, nor should it only be related to income differences between households (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2021).

In a recent study led by KTH researchers, the first open-source geospatial model for clean cooking access assessment (OnStove) was developed and applied to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Khavari et al., 2023). OnStove determines the benefits of adopting cleaner cooking solutions (in the form of reduced morbidity and mortality, time saved from fuel collection and more efficient cooking, and emissions avoided) and the costs of doing so (investment, operation and maintenance and fuel costs). The costs and benefits are calculated as the relative difference between the fuel-stove mix currently used in each settlement and each analysed stove. Once the costs and benefits of all stoves are determined throughout the study area the net-benefit is determined (combined benefits minus combined costs). The stove with the highest net-benefit is the stove selected. The tool produces the spatial distribution of different stoves as well as the combined costs and benefits of adopting the stove mix suggested. Outputs of the analysis enable decision-makers to understand what are the impacts of achieving clean cooking access in the region such as deaths avoided, average time saved per household, GHG emissions avoided, health and GHG emissions costs avoided, total costs and affordability factors.

The sub-Saharan OnStove study presents household-level average levelised cost-of-cooking maps for each cooking technology included in the model, and an affordability ratio metric is calculated as the fraction of the costs and the minimum wages of each country (see Fig. 1). However, affordability metrics are not part of the tool’s core outputs, nor a part of the decision parameters.

Task description

The student(s) (up to 2) will first conduct a literature review on affordability issues related to clean cooking access, identifying which are the behavioural and context-specific factors that make a clean cooking solutions unaffordable. Then the student(s) will research and compile current metrics used to account for affordability, listing their strengths and weaknesses (as data availability). The student(s) will then develop affordability metrics with a spatial-explicit approach and test them using the OnStove model . Finally, the outputs of the metrics will be analysed and discussed, and one metric will be incorporated to the model as a decision factor for the optimal technology mix.

If the work is of good quality and the student(s) are interested, the research project will be designed to be suitable for a peer-reviewed publication in a high-quality journal.

Learning outcomes

• Understanding the challenges and constrains of clean cooking access, and its importance for sustainable development.

• Using GIS-based models to produce sensible Affordability metrics to the clean cooking access issue.

• Using Affordability metrics as decision factors in GIS-based clean cooking assessment models.

• Basic knowledge of GIS modelling.

• Basic knowledge of python programing.

Criteria for evaluation

Critical criteria in the complete work, method development and metric for the final assessment are:

• Fulfilment of the ILOs for Master Thesis at KTH's ITM School;

• The student's initiative and independence in developing the overall research design;

• A critical discussion of the assumptions and results;

• Consideration of the literature.

• The ability to communicate the results of scientific work clearly and coherently.

Prerequisites

This project is a fit for students that are comfortable working with multidisciplinary subject. Basic previous knowledge on how to conduct a literature review is required. OnStove is developed in Python and run through a Jupyter Notebook, thus basic knowledge of (or the desire to learn) Python, Jupyter Notebooks and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is advised.

Specialization track

Transformation of Energy System (TES)

Division/Department

Division of Energy Systems  – Department of Energy Technology

Research areas:

• Energy Access and Development

Duration

5-6 months, start January 2025.

How to apply

Send an email expressing your interest in the topic to Camilo Ramirez (camilorg@kth.se) and Manuel Enrique Salas (mess@kth.se).

Supervision

Examiner

Key literature

• Bartl, M. (2010). The Affordability of Energy: How Much Protection for the Vulnerable Consumers? Journal of Consumer Policy, 33(3), 225–245. doi.org/10.1007/s10603-009-9122-9
• Gill-Wiehl, A., Ray, I., & Kammen, D. (2021). Is clean cooking affordable? A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 151, 111537. doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111537
• Khavari, B., Ramirez, C., Jeuland, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2023). A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Sustainability. www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1650097/v1
• Ray, I., & Smith, K. R. (2021). Towards safe drinking water and clean cooking for all. The Lancet Global Health, 9(3), e361–e365. doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30476-9