<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>List:<br><br> 1. This article (Dec. 2011 issue of <strong>Energy Policy) </strong>looks like it could be important - found at:<br> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873<br> <br> I haven't read but guess that char-making stoves were not discussed (give the early dates of the research) - but they should make the economics look even better.<br><br> 2. The title and authors are:<br><br style="font-weight: bold;"><div style="font-weight: bold;" class="articleTitle svTitle">"Applying global cost-benefit
analysis methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in
Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: Insights and challenges"</div><div class="svAuthor"><p><a name="b"></a><strong>Min Bikram Malla<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#aff1" name="baff1"><sup>a</sup></a><sup>, </sup><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#cor1" name="bcor1"></a><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#cor1" style="vertical-align: super;font-size: smaller;"><img src="http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REcor.gif" alt="Corresponding Author Contact Information" title="Corresponding Author Contact Information" style="vertical-align:top" border="0"></a><sup>, </sup><a href="mailto:min.malla@practicalaction.org.np"><sup><img src="http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REemail.gif" alt="E-mail The Corresponding Author" title="E-mail The Corresponding Author" border="0"></sup></a></strong><a name="b"></a><strong>, Nigel Bruce<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#aff2" name="baff2"><sup>b</sup></a><sup>, </sup><a href="mailto:ngb@liv.ac.uk"><sup><img src="http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REemail.gif" alt="E-mail The Corresponding Author" title="E-mail The Corresponding Author" border="0"></sup></a></strong><a name="b"></a><strong>, Elizabeth Bates<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#aff3" name="baff3"><sup>c</sup></a><sup>, </sup><a href="mailto:liz.bates@virgin.net"><sup><img src="http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REemail.gif" alt="E-mail The Corresponding Author" title="E-mail The Corresponding Author" border="0"></sup></a></strong><a name="b"></a><strong>, Eva Rehfuess<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421511004873#aff4" name="baff4"><sup>d</sup></a><sup>, </sup><a href="mailto:rehfuess@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de"><sup><img src="http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/entities/REemail.gif" alt="E-mail The Corresponding Author" title="E-mail The Corresponding Author" border="0"></sup></a></strong></p></div><div style="display: inline;" class="unentitledMSG"><div class="PPVContainer"><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ShoppingCartURL&_method=add&_eid=1-s2.0-S0301421511004873&_acct=C000228598&_version=1&_userid=10&_ts=1322674079&md5=19f3aecaaf7fec86328d47186e7a8b2a"><div class="PPV"><div class="leftPPV"><br></div></div></a></div></div> <br> 3. Not free, but be read for 99c. The abstract reads:<br><br><div class="svAbstract"><div style="display: inline;" class="articleText"><div><h3 class="h3">Abstract</h3><p id="sp0070">Indoor
air pollution from burning solid fuels for cooking is a major
environmental health problem in developing countries, predominantly
affecting children and women. Traditional household energy practices
also contribute to substantial time loss and drudgery among households.
While effective interventions exist, levels of investment to date have
been very low, in part due to lack of evidence on economic viability.
Between 2004 and 2007, different combinations of interventions –
improved stoves, smoke hoods and a switch to liquefied petroleum gas –
were implemented in poor communities in Nepal, Sudan and Kenya. The
impacts were extensively evaluated and provided the basis for a
household-level cost-benefit analysis, which essentially followed the
methodology proposed by the World Health Organization. The results
suggest that interventions are justified on economic grounds with
estimated internal rates of return of 19%, 429% and 62% in Nepal, Kenya
and Sudan, respectively. Time savings constituted by far the most
important benefit followed by fuel cost savings; direct health
improvements were a small component of the overall benefit. This paper
describes the methodology applied, discusses the findings and highlights
the methodological challenges that arise when a global approach is
applied to a local programme.</p></div></div></div><div class="svAbstract"><div style="display: inline;" class="articleText"><div><h4 class="h4">Highlights</h4><div id="sp0075"><p>►
A project to alleviate indoor smoke from cooking fires in Sudan, Kenya
and Nepal was evaluated. ► Investments for improving indoor air quality
are shown to be justifiable on economic grounds. ► Savings in time and
fuel costs, as well as health improvements are key benefits. ► The
challenges of applying a global cost-benefit approach to a local
programme are examined.</p><p><br></p></div></div></div></div><div style="display: inline;" class="articleText svKeywords"><p><strong>Keywords: </strong> Indoor air pollution; Household energy; Cost benefit analysis</p></div><br></div></body></html>