↓ Skip to main content

Benefits and Costs of Improved Cookstoves: Assessing the Implications of Variability in Health, Forest and Climate Impacts

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
5 policy sources
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
340 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Benefits and Costs of Improved Cookstoves: Assessing the Implications of Variability in Health, Forest and Climate Impacts
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030338
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc A. Jeuland, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak

Abstract

Current attention to improved cook stoves (ICS) focuses on the "triple benefits" they provide, in improved health and time savings for households, in preservation of forests and associated ecosystem services, and in reducing emissions that contribute to global climate change. Despite the purported economic benefits of such technologies, however, progress in achieving large-scale adoption and use has been remarkably slow. This paper uses Monte Carlo simulation analysis to evaluate the claim that households will always reap positive and large benefits from the use of such technologies. Our analysis allows for better understanding of the variability in economic costs and benefits of ICS use in developing countries, which depend on unknown combinations of numerous uncertain parameters. The model results suggest that the private net benefits of ICS will sometimes be negative, and in many instances highly so. Moreover, carbon financing and social subsidies may help enhance incentives to adopt, but will not always be appropriate. The costs and benefits of these technologies are most affected by their relative fuel costs, time and fuel use efficiencies, the incidence and cost-of-illness of acute respiratory illness, and the cost of household cooking time. Combining these results with the fact that households often find these technologies to be inconvenient or culturally inappropriate leads us to understand why uptake has been disappointing. Given the current attention to the scale up of ICS, this analysis is timely and important for highlighting some of the challenges for global efforts to promote ICS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 340 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 330 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 18%
Researcher 59 17%
Other 19 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 57 17%
Unknown 62 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 64 19%
Engineering 33 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 30 9%
Social Sciences 26 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 7%
Other 80 24%
Unknown 82 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2023.
All research outputs
#741,663
of 24,397,980 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,064
of 210,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,627
of 258,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#135
of 3,451 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,397,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,451 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.