Indoor Air Pollution: A Life Threatening Problem

in Siete de Abril

Presented by: Christine Exley and Katie MacEwen

Indoor Air Pollution Background

Sources Emissions Concentrations Exposure Dose Health Effects

• Indoor Air Pollution (IAP) is the fourth leading cause of death of children under the age of 5 in developing countries

Improved Stove Initiative

• Started in Fall of 2007

• Three Phase Study– Phase I: Preliminary Evaluation– Phase II: Monitoring and Evaluation of IAP

Emissions– Phase III: Evaluation of Entire Initiaitve

Initiative’s Population

According to Students Helping Honduras:

• Siete de Abril is "the largest squatter community in El Progreso, housing over 75 families including 200 children."

• Extreme Poverty

Phase I (January 6-13, 2008)

Phase I

• 53 surveys

1. Household observations/measurements

2. Health questionnaire

3. Peak flow meter respiratory health assessment

• Map of community of Siete de Abril

• Education about IAP

1. Households Observations/ Measurements

Fuel Type

3

6

2123

0

5

10

15

20

25

Gas GasWood WoodGas Wood

Fuel Type

Fre

qu

ency

of

Ho

use

ho

lds

Fuel Source

5

16

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Only Collects Fuel Collects/ Buys Fuel Only Buys Fuel

Fuel Source

Freq

uenc

y of

Hou

seho

lds

Kitchen and Stove Details

Characteristic Frequency Percentage

Kitchen Enclosure

Enclosed 14 28.57%

Semi-Open 19 38.77%

Open 16 32.65%

Kitchen Location

Part of Main Living Area 11 22.45%

Separate Room Attached to House

16 32.65%

Separate Building 22 44.90%

Chimney 9 18.37%

2. Health Questionnaire

Cough and Phlegm

# with "chronic problem"

% with "chronic problem"

% that cite smoke as

cause

Cough 31 58.49% 41.94%

Phlegm 22 41.51% 30%

Other SymptomsSymptom Number with

SymptomPercentage with

SymptomNumber of

NA

Wheezing 22 41.51% 0

Trouble Breathing

29 55.77% 1

Headaches 38 76.00% 3

Backaches 37 77.08% 5

Watery Eyes 34 72.34% 6

Burns 15 30.61% 4

3. Peak Flow Meter Health Assessment

Peak Flow Readings

7, 15%

33, 70%

7, 15%

red

yellow

green

Regression Results

PEAKFLOW = f (AGE ,Fuel Type, HHsize)

Symptoms = f (AGE, Chimney, Fuel Type, HHsize, Kitchen Location, Kitchen Enclosure)

WHERE:Symptoms = Cough, Phlegm, Wheezing, Breathing and

Headaches

AGE = Age of Head FemaleChimney = Stove Chimney (dummy variable)Fuel Type = GasWood (dummy variable)

Woodgas (dummy variable)Wood (dummy variable)Gas (measured by omission)

HHsize = # of Individuals living in HouseKitchen Location = Separate Building (dummy variable)

Separate Room (dummy variable)Part of Main Living Area (measured by omission)

Kitchen Enclosure = Enclosed (dummy variable)Semi-Open (dummy variable)Open (measured by omission)

Notes on ResultsMore data needed to be conclusive

Evidence of problems with-Phlegm - Wheezing-Cough -Trouble Breathing-Burns -Headaches-Watery Eyes-Respiratory Problems

Relatively Significant Results wrt: -Age- Household Size- Kitchen Location - Fuel Type

Phase 2 (Spring 2008)

Phase II

• Selected 25 Intervention Households (Sebastian Africano)– Measured IAP Emissions (UC Berkeley)– Installed New Stoves in Intervention

Househoulds (AHDESA/Josue from SHH)– Re-Measured IAP Emissions

Decrease in IAP Emissions

Phase III(January 3-10, 2009)

Phase III

53 surveys on:

1. Self-rated health of the women

2. Uptake of improved stoves

3. Sustainability of improved stoves

1.Self Rated Health

• No valid results between overall health results and health comparisons of intervention and control group

• In which way, for better or worse, has the improved stove changed your life, if there has been any change at all?

19/26 (73.08%) cited smoke

1. Self Rated Health with respect to Smoke

• Smoke reduction influence your health?

64.17% - health improved

• Smoke reduction influenced your kids health?

• 75% – health improved

2. Uptake Incentives: Benefits of Improved Stove

Actuality: With Improved

Stove (26)

Perception: Without Improved

Stove (26)

Total (53)

LessSmoke

24 (92.31%)

20 (76.92%)

45 (84.91%)

LessWood

23 (88.46%)

19 (73.08%)

43 (91.13%)

2. Uptake Incentives:Faster or Slower?Actuality: With Improved Stove

(26)

Perception: Without Improved

Stove (26)

Total (53)

Faster 13 (50.00%)

7 (26.92%)

20 (37.74%)

Slower 11 (42.31%)

6 (23.08%)

17 (32.08%)

Depends 4 (15.38%)

0 (0.00%)

4 (7.55%)

Did not cite 6

(23.08)13

(50.00%)20

(37.74%)

2. Uptake Disincentives: Costs of Improved Stoves

Actuality: With Improved Stove (26)

Perception: Without Improved

Stove (26)

Total (53)

Cost is too High

2 (7.69%)

13 (50.00%)

15 (28.30%)

Fuel Requirements Difficult

9 (34.62%)

4 (15.38%)

13 (24.53%)

2. Uptake Disincentives:Reasons did not buy Improved Stove

3. Sustainability

• More money needed in order to install any more stoves

Possible Solution to Uptake and Sustainability: Microfinance

Special Thanks to…

The People of Siete de AbrilStudents Helping HondurasThe Carter Foundation]The University of Mary WashingtonVolunteers