In Namibia, 90% of rural households prepare their meals by burning biomass indoors in unvented fires 1. The resulting indoor air pollution is responsible for chronic and fatal health concerns for Namibians 2–4, as well as for the 3 billion people around the globe who cook similarly 4,5. Cooking with biomass is also associated with economic hardship 6–8 and environmental degradation 9–11. Efficient cookstoves have been a popular solution for addressing these issues and have been a prominent piece of sustainable energy development efforts for several decades 12–14.
Efficient cookstoves, defined here to include those combust biomass more completely thereby requiring less fuel and producing fewer emissions, as well as electric, LPG, and solar stoves, have been less popular with their intended users 15. Unlike other technological advances that ostensibly seek to improve the quality or convenience of life (e.g., mobile phones, internet), widespread embrace and uptake of these devices have eluded the broader cookstove community 15,16. The challenges and barriers to efficient cookstove adoption, including the necessary behaviour changes to reduce or suspend biomass use, are many and extensively documented elsewhere 17–24.
Efforts to overcome these barriers at the household or community level are multipronged approaches that often include engaging the intended user via behaviour change communication strategies. These efforts largely target adult women because they are often the household’s primary cookstove user 25. However, energy use is a family affair 26,27 and recent research indicates improvements of stove uptake when youth, current and future users of cookstoves, are purposefully engaged 25,28–30.
Situated in Social Cognitive Theory, which in part states that a person’s behaviours are influenced by observing their peers and the environment in which the action is performed 31, the studies described herein are based on the premise that learning in a household is bi-directional, that is, parents and children learn from one another. Evidence from related fields such as sanitation, sustainable agriculture, and sexual health indicate that household attitudes and behaviours shift as a result of youth-oriented education around these topics across global contexts 32–37. While youth energy education is becoming an increasingly popular way of focusing conservation efforts in the United States, and there is some evidence of parent behaviour shifts as a result 26,38–41, there is limited evidence of the efficacy of this approach in resource-limited settings, or as a communication tool for residential cooking energy transitions 25.
To address this gap, a stratified survey of two rural communities in the Hardap Region of Namibia was undertaken alongside a longitudinal evaluation of learner and control group outcomes at a sustainability education camp for youth. Findings indicate that the community that sends a school group to the camp annually is more knowledgeable about, and receptive to, renewable energy. Further, households with direct experience with the camp have higher mean adoption rates of their electric stoves and are less committed to their open fires than similar households within their community and in the control town. At the same time, youth camp participants exhibit significant gains in energy knowledge and attitudes, are more receptive to solar energy and cooking, and prefer cleaner burning fuels after camp as compared to the control group. Some of the largest increases are attributed to students whose families primarily burn biomass in their homes. In a six-month follow-up, these gains persist.
Study Context
The Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust (NaDEET) Centre is a sustainability education camp located on the NamibRand Nature Reserve in the Hardap Region of Namibia. NaDEET primarily serves communities in the rural Hardap, where people are among the most economically disadvantaged, infrastructure lags, and education levels are amongst the lowest in the country 1. School groups visit NaDEET Centre for five days and as a part of regular camp activities prepare all meals using efficient biomass cookstoves and solar cookers and learn sustainable lifestyle behaviours including the use of bucket showers, long-drop composting toilets, recycling and composting, and monitoring of energy and water. Through its 16 years of operation in a sparsely populated region, NaDEET has engaged nearly all Hardap communities at least once through grants from the national government and private donors.
Stampriet and Gibeon, are both small, rural towns approximately 100 km apart and more than 150 km to NaDEET Centre. The Stampriet community has sent at least one school group of fifth or sixth grade learners to NaDEET nine years between 2010 – 2019. By contrast, the community of Gibeon has sent just one group ever, in 2011. Gibeon has a higher overall socioeconomic status (SES) but the two towns are similar across several demographic variables, making Gibeon an appropriate control group for this study (Supplementary Note 1). Across the towns, 200 households were surveyed. In Stampriet, 34 of 100 respondents had prior NaDEET experience, either personally or through a family member.
Electricity Access & Usage
Access to the electrical grid is widespread throughout much of Namibia (Supplementary Note 2). However, access is not synonymous with usage. More residents in Stampriet (97%) have access to electricity than in Gibeon (84%), but respondents in Stampriet use significantly less electricity than those in Gibeon (Table 1). In Stampriet grid connectivity is nearly universal, yet only 70% of those with access own an electric cookstove, and just 54% (n = 38) use it daily. Rates of electric stove ownership and daily use are significantly higher in Gibeon (Table 1).
Cookstove Commitment and Adoption Behaviours
Globally most households use multiple stoves for different purposes in a process known as stacking 15,42. In Stampriet and Gibeon the most common stack is a traditional, unvented fire and an electric hotplate-type stove. Since there is no standard definition for cookstove adoption in the literature 25, to better understand how a stove fits into a household’s kitchen, Adoption Indices 43 were calculated. This index provides a quantitative snapshot of the stove’s uptake and was used because it is designed to be flexible (see Methods). While the index was developed for efficient cookstoves, its flexibility was leveraged to calculate adoption indices for each stove used in a residence, including traditional cookstoves. At present, little attention is given to the factors that encourage a household to suspend or reduce solid fuel use44 and there is no recommended metric for understanding a traditional cookstove’s importance in relation to other devices in the household. As such, all cookstoves in the household were treated equally, and index scores were viewed as an indication of the household’s commitment to each device.
While nearly all respondents report usage of traditional stoves, more households in Stampriet use firewood as their primary cooking source (M = 0.64, SD = 0.67) than in Gibeon (M = 0.40, SD = 1.02), as measured by a two proportion z-test, z = 1.98, p = .047. In Stampriet, the proportion of NaDEET households that use traditional cookstoves is commensurate with that of the town, z = 0.60, p = .546, yet these households are significantly less committed to their fires than other households in their community, including non-NaDEET households with children, as shown by an independent samples t-test, t(90) = 2.74, p = .007, with a medium effect size45, Cohen’s d = 0.61. These NaDEET households were also less committed to traditional cookstoves than those who cook with them in Gibeon, t(143) = 2.56, p = .011, d = 0.45 (Figure 1).
Similarly, electric stove commitment was examined across towns and within Stampriet. Gibeon, with its higher SES and associated ability to afford electricity, was significantly more committed to electric stoves than respondents in Stampriet, as measured by an independent samples t-test, t(138) = 3.60, p < .001, d = 0.61. However, when NaDEET households in Stampriet were compared against Gibeon, the difference in electric stove commitment was nonsignificant, t(95) = 1.77, p = .080.
Multivariate regression analyses were performed to explain the value of stove commitment based on SES and the respondent’s highest level of education, variables previously shown to affect adoption46. Household NaDEET experience was added as a covariate. These analyses were done for both traditional and electric stoves, and both models were significant (Table 2). For electric stoves, SES was the only significant covariate indicating that poverty was the highest barrier to regular use of an efficient cookstove. Traditional cookstove commitment was negatively associated with all three.
An adoption index score equal to 70% of total adoption is considered “good” 43, interpreted here to mean a strong commitment to the device. As shown in Figure 1, NaDEET households in Stampriet were the least committed to their open fires. NaDEET households and those in the control group did not exhibit differences between rates of electric and traditional stove adoption, whereas non-NaDEET households with children were significantly more committed to open fires than their electric stoves.
The role of poverty in these two communities cannot be ignored. Respondents that can afford electric cookstoves, regardless of regularity of use, were significantly less committed to their traditional cookstoves (M = 0.76, SD = 0.35) than households without electric stoves (M = 0.95, SD = 0.13), as shown by an independent samples t-test t(193) = 4.02, p < .001, d = 0.63, meaning that access to an electric stove, even if it is rarely used, affects the user’s overall commitment to their open fire. Similarly, an examination of the poorest respondents, those who live in informal settlements and primarily cook with wood, revealed that NaDEET experience does not lessen traditional stove commitment, t(43) = 0.73, p = .472, which, as the analyses show and the literature supports, is a function of household economics.
Energy Attitudes
While poverty limits energy-switching behaviours in the kitchen, attitudes about renewable energy are not constrained by household economics. Households with NaDEET experience had significantly more favourable attitudes about sustainable cooking energy than households without such experience. For instance, all respondents were asked to identify their ideal cooking fuel, regardless of actual use. Given their familiarity with electricity, it follows that residents in Gibeon preferred efficient fuels such as electricity, LPG, and solar significantly more than residents in Stampriet, as shown by an independent samples t-test, t(197) = 2.89, p = .004, d = 0.41. However, NaDEET households in Stampriet responded similarly to Gibeon and the difference was nonsignificant, t(131) = 0.85, p = .067.
Namibia has high solar irradiance47 and renewable energy accounts for approximately 15% of the country’s electrification48. Solar panels, even in rural areas, are becoming increasingly common. NaDEET Centre is powered by a small solar array and utilizes solar thermal cookers of the box and parabolic types. As such, respondents were asked a series of questions about solar energy, without specifying photovoltaics or thermal for cooking (Supplementary Note 3).
Despite pervasive use of biomass within the community, Stampriet respondents had more positive attitudes about solar energy than respondents in Gibeon, t(197) = 2.40, p = .018, d = 0.34, even when examining just the households in these towns that primarily cook with wood, t(108) = 3.64, p < .001, d = 0.71 (Figure 2). An effect is also detected when examining the impact of exposure to NaDEET’s programming. Within Stampriet, respondents with NaDEET experience had significantly more favourable attitudes (M = 4.14, SD = 0.59) than those without (M = 3.78, SD = 0.72), t(197) = 2.72, p = .006, d = 0.51. Parents of past NaDEET participants also exhibited significantly more positive attitudes than other parents in Stampriet or Gibeon, t(163) = 2.52, p = .013, d = 0.64. This difference holds for parents who primarily cook with wood t(98) = 2.91, p = .005, d = 0.76.
While NaDEET programming was not found to affect cookstove commitments for the poorest Stampriet respondents, it does appear to have shifted their knowledge and perceptions about solar energy. NaDEET households that primarily use traditional cookstoves scored significantly higher on this instrument than similar households in Stampriet without NaDEET exposure, t(64) = 2.03, p = .047, d = 0.56. A large effect size was detected when comparing these households against similar households in Gibeon, t(60) = 3.63, p < .001, d = 1.01.
While the solar energy instrument is meant to be a scale (Supplementary Note 2), and thus no single item is likely to measure a specific construct, there were two of particular interest in terms of their relevance to criticisms of the viability of solar cooking, and thus worth examining. The first item asked about the respondent’s understanding of solar energy for cooking, while the other inquired after their personal beliefs about a solar cooker’s utility to meet local energy needs. Because these items are Likert-type, nonparametric tests were used to test for significant differences 49.
Energy from the sun can be used for cooking. The majority of Stampriet respondents, 91%, understood that solar energy can be used for cooking, regardless of household NaDEET experience, c2(2) = 2.37, p = .124. In Gibeon, 70% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, significantly fewer than in Stampriet, c2(2) = 12.76, p < .001. This difference persists when examining different groups within the towns. For instance, amongst respondents who primarily cook with biomass, 91% in Stampriet and 61% in Gibeon agreed with this prompt, c2(2) = 13.94, p < .001. Excluding NaDEET households and comparing the towns again yielded a significant difference, c2(2) = 6.65, p = .010, indicating that these opinions are communitywide in Stampriet.
Solar cookers are accepted in my culture. Solar cookers are frequently criticized for their inability to meet the local cultural context into which they are introduced18. Thus if a respondent finds solar cookers to be culturally acceptable, then a more conventional cookstove, like an efficient biomass or electric stove, may be better accepted. The same series of comparisons made above were performed for this prompt. In Stampriet, 81% of all households agreed or strongly agreed that solar cookers are culturally acceptable, regardless of NaDEET experience, c2(2) = 0.67, p = .412. In Gibeon, 61% of respondents agreed with this prompt, significantly fewer than in Stampriet, c2(2) = 16.26, p < .001. Comparing Gibeon respondents to only the non-NaDEET households in Stampriet again yielded significant results, c2(2) = 10.84, p = .001.
More telling, however, is the comparison between households that cook primarily with firewood across both towns. In Stampriet, 80% of households who cook primarily with wood found solar cookers to be compatible with their culture as compared to 41% of similar respondents in Gibeon, c2(2) = 17.90, p < .001. These findings indicate that this view was held by the majority of the Stampriet community, even the most socioeconomically disadvantaged.
One might expect more positive attitudes toward solar cooking and energy to be correlated with greater sensitivity toward the environment or climate change in general, however no such significant differences were detected (Supplementary Note 4). This underscores that the differences in energy attitudes between the two towns is due to the presence of an external factor, exposure to sustainable energy programming at NaDEET, and that this programming influenced knowledge and attitudes at the household and community levels.
Youth Outcomes
Alongside the community survey, a longitudinal study of 852 students who attended NaDEET Centre in 2019, or were part of a control group, was conducted. This paper examines just the 448 students from 8 participating Hardap schools of which 272 (61%) attended NaDEET Centre and 176 (39%) were learners in the grade below from the same schools, serving as the control group (Table 3). Each student took a series of three surveys; pre-camp, post-camp, and a six-month follow-up (see Methods).
Youth As Energy Stakeholders
While most students stated that their mothers are the primary cooks in the household, 75% reported cooking at least once a week with no difference between the treatment and control groups, z = 1.88, p = .059. However, females in both groups reported cooking significantly more often than their male peers, z = 2.44, p = .015. Just 9% of respondents claimed no responsibility for cooking duties, establishing that youth are in fact cookstove stakeholders, and that Hardap energy use is a household affair.
Most students (93%) reported access to the electrical grid, and 76% reported an electric stove in the home. Just 56% of these respondents reported that it is the home’s primary stove, and 45% reported a stack of a traditional and an electric stove, confirming the findings in the community survey. Traditional fires, either as the primary stove or in combination with other devices, were reportedly used in 45% of respondents’ homes. Because the cookstove community seeks to change the attitudes and behaviours of traditional cookstove users, as before, special attention is paid to this subset of youth in the following analyses.
Ideal cooking fuel
As in the community survey, learners reported their ideal cooking fuel. Across both groups, 70% stated a preference for the fuel used most often in their household. No significant differences in preferences were detected between NaDEET learners and the control group on the pre-survey. However, after NaDEET programming, significant differences emerged. NaDEET learners indicated a preference for an efficient fuel (e.g., electricity, gas, solar) for indoor cooking at a significantly higher rate than the control group which exhibited no change, as shown by a two-proportions z-test, z = 2.56, p = .010.
NaDEET learners exhibited an 11-point gain in preference for an efficient fuel between the pre- and post-survey. This gain was seen for both students who primarily used electricity for cooking at home, as well as those who reported firewood as the household’s primary energy source. While the six-month follow-up survey is an incomplete data set due to school closures in early 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 global pandemic, for the 165 Hardap NaDEET learners whose responses were captured, this gain holds.
Energy Attitudes
Youth respondents answered a modified version of the solar energy knowledge and attitude inventory used in the community survey (Supplementary Note 3). There was no difference between NaDEET learners and the control group instrument scores on the pre-survey, as measured by an independent t-test, t(388) = 1.20 p = .229. However, paired t-tests revealed that NaDEET learners made significant gains between the pre- and post-survey, t(151) = 2.11, p = .036, d = 0.20, and that their attitudes were stable six-months later, t(71) = 0.27, p = .791. The control group exhibited no change over time.
Similar findings exist when we examine just those students who rely on firewood at home. Because the size of this subsample is small, and because of the limitations in collecting complete records as described earlier, an independent samples t-test was conducted at the group level rather than paired t-tests. This analysis revealed a significant and large effect on the post-survey between NaDEET and the control, t(31) = 3.46, p =.002, d = 1.23. No significant differences in scores between the second and third administrations of the survey were found, indicating a long-term shift in attitudes.
More telling is that significantly fewer NaDEET learners reported the presence of a traditional cookstove in their home on the post-survey than on the initial survey, as shown by independent samples t-test, t(404) = 5.14, p < .001, d = 0.53. There was no change between the second and third surveys, t(285) = 0.16, p = .876, indicating that this behaviour or attitude change persisted over time. The control group exhibited no changes across the three surveys. While there was no way to verify a behaviour change, a decrease in traditional cookstove usage, at a minimum this change represents a shift in attitudes or understanding. If, after attending NaDEET, participants understood the social, economic, and environmental issues associated with unvented biomass cookstoves, the change in their responses could be attributed to social desirability bias. Even so, this indicates a change in understanding.