Economic benefits of improved biomass cookstoves – Mexico

September 9, 2010 · 0 comments

Ecological Economics, Sept 20010

Beyond fuelwood savings: Valuing the economic benefits of introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Purépecha region of Mexico

Eduardo García-Frapollia, , , Astrid Schilmannb, Victor M. Berruetaa, c, Horacio Riojas-Rodríguezb, Rufus D. Edwardsd, Michael Johnsond, e, Alejandro Guevara-Sanginésf, Cynthia Armendariza and Omar Maseraa, c

a Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, UNAM, Mexico
b Centro de Investigación en Salud Poblacional, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico
c Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural Apropiada, Mexico
d Department of Epidemiology, University of California Irvine, United States
e Berkeley Air Monitoring Group, United States
f Universidad Iberoamericana, Ciudad de México, México

Half of the world population relies on biomass for cooking, with very significant health as well as climate change impacts. Improved cookstoves have been disseminated as an alternative to reduce these impacts. However, few detailed studies about the economic benefits of improved cookstoves (ICS) interventions, including environmental and health co-benefits, exist to date.

In this paper we perform a comprehensive economic evaluation of a dissemination program of ICS in rural Mexico. The resulting cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of the Patsari improved cookstove is presented, utilizing estimation of direct costs and benefits, including fuelwood savings, income generation, health impacts, environmental conservation, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis is based on comprehensive data obtained through monitoring studies carried out in the Study Area from 2003 to the present.

Results show that Patsari cookstoves represent a viable economic option for improving living conditions of the poorest inhabitants of rural Mexico, with benefit/cost ratios estimated between 11.4:1 and 9:1. The largest contributors to economic benefits stemmed from fuelwood savings and reductions in health impacts, which constituted 53% and 28% of the overall benefit, respectively.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: