... 22appropriateplace for HWTSneedstobefound,within the widerframework of water and sanitationinterventions.Regionalfactors(e.g.water and culture),sourcewaterquality,localburden of disease(i.e.whetherdrinkingwateris the majorcause of diarrhoeainaparticularlocation)areexamples of variablestobestudied.Furtherworkisalsoneededtosupportsustained and correctuse of treatmenttechnologies,includingresearch on implementationmodels and technologyperformanceevaluation.1.5.2Effectiveness of improvedsolidfuelstoves The assessment of stoveeffectivenessrequiresconsiderationnotonlywhether the improveddelivers on HAPreduction and otherpotentialbenefitssuchasfuelsavings,butalsowhetheritisacceptabletousers,ismaintained and remainsineverydayuse.Itisusefultodistinguishefficacy(whatan intervention deliversinidealcircumstances)fromeffectiveness(whatitdoesinrealisticsituations) and efficiency(whetheritdoessocost‐effectively).Thesefactorsareconsideredin the overallreport,but the focusinthissectionis on howeffective the interventionsareinpracticeinreducinglevels of HAPin the home, and for personalexposures. Impact of interventions on household pollution and personalexposure On waytoreduceemissions and henceHAPlevels and personalexposureistoimprove the completeness of combustion.InEastAfricacheapimprovedstoveswithoutflues,burningeitherwood(e.g. the Upesi)orcharcoal,arepopular and arereportedtoreducekitchen pollution byimprovingcombustion,althoughfew(ifany)measurementsareavailabletosupportthis. The currentKenyanstudydoesincludemeasurement of PM2.5(Section3).Flue‐lesswoodstoves of the Rockettype,whichusean'elbow'combustionchambertoimprovecombustion,arebeingintroducedinanumber of Africancountries.Theseareclaimedtodeliverlargeremissionreductions,butformalevaluationisawaited and theyaremoreexpensivethan the Upesi. The mostencouragingnewdevelopmentinbiomasscombustiontechnologyis the gasifierstove,whichusessecondarycombustion,withorwithout the aid of forcedventilationusingasmallfan.Varioustype of thesestoves,whicharerapidlygainingpopularityinChina and India,canburneither(finelychopped)'raw'biomass,orprocessed(pelletized)biomass, and deliveremissionlevels of PM2.5closetothose of LPGstoves(KirkRSmith,personalcommunication).Theyarehoweverquiteexpensive(US$40‐75), and thereistodateverylimitedexperiencewithuseinverypoor,ruralcommunities. The secondapproachtoreducingemissionsinto the homeistoattachaflue,orarrangeahoodwithachimney.ImprovedstoveswithflueshavebeenpromotedextensivelyinseveralAsiancountries,althoughmanyhavebeenfoundtobeinpoorconditionafterafewyears.SomestudiesfromIndiahaveshownvariable and sometimesmodestorminimalreductionsin pollution. For example,LaxmichimneystovesinhomeslocatedinMaharasthra,Indiaresultedina24%reduction of PM2.5 and a39%reduction of CO,whileasukhadchimneystovein the Bundelkhandregion of Indiareducedkitchenconcentrations of PM2.5 and COby44% and 70%respectively(Chengappaetal.,2007).SimilarexperiencewithfluedstoveshasbeenreportedfromLatinAmerica.PlanchastovesinGuatemala(made of cementblocks,withametalplate and flue)canreducePMby60to70%, and byasmuchas90%whenwellmaintained.Typical24‐hourPMlevels(PM10,PM3.5, and PM2.5havebeenreported)withopenfires of 1,000–2,000g/m3havebeenreducedto300–500g/m3, and insomecaseslessthan100g/m3.(Alabalaketal.,2001). ... 14project,however,thesestovesappeartobewell‐liked and well‐used, and arereportedtosavewood,reducesmoke and the consequentirritation,cough,headaches,etc.,aswellas the level of sootin the kitchen.Womenhavere‐organisedtheirkitchensinresponsetothis,bringingpots and otherutensilsmuchcloserto the stove. The reasons for thisinconsistencybetweenfieldexperience(reportedreductionsinsmoke and irritation) and testfindings (for PM2.5)arenotclear,asreductionsinambientkitchenPM2.5 of somewherearound40‐50%(atleast)mightbeexpectedgiven the reportedimprovementsin the kitchenenvironment. The projectteamusedanestablishedprotocol and equipment for making the measurements.Information on the numbers of stovesadoptedineachcommunity, and hencelevel(%) of uptake,wasnotreportedacross the studyareaoravailabletous(althoughthesedatashouldbeavailableto the project).Itisthereforenotpossibletocomment on whetheradoptionhasmet the targetsetin the projectobjectives.Whileeffectiveness of the stovesremainsopentoquestion and willbefurtherassessedonce the newmeasurementresultsareavailable, the model of promotion and sale of acook‐stoveproductthatiswell‐liked and usedisanimportantachievement and of value for the future of the project.Synergies The approach of combining the promotion and delivery of HWTS and HHEproductsmetwithacross the boardpositiveresponses.Itappearsmorecost‐effectivethanif the sameproductswerepromotedthroughseparateprogrammes.Combineddeliverymayalsoachievehighercompliance,butthisdoesneedfurtheranalysis.Therewerenosubstantiveconcernswithany of the criteriaidentifiedfrom the backgroundreviewpaper. Impact on health outcomesAnalysis of the results of the impacts of the interventions on diarrhoea and pneumoniaincidenceisawaited.Itcanbeexpectedthat the reportedlevel of compliancewithwatertreatmentwouldhavesome impact on diarrhoea,particularlywhere the higherlevelshavebeenreached. On the otherhand, the verymodestreductioninPM2.5levelsrecorded for the Upesistovewouldnot(ifconfirmed)beexpectedtoleadtosubstantialreductionsinrisk of pneumonia.Sustainability and scalingupWithrespectto the twolinkedissues of sustainability and scaling‐up the outcome of the evaluationalsoispositive,althoughbothdependtosomedegreeatleast on the existence and modusoperandi of SWAP. The vendorsspokentosaidthattheywerecommittedtocontinuingtheirwork,evenifSWAPceasedoperations,butonlyiftheycouldstillobtain the products.From the perspective of the SWAPmanagement, the vendorsarestilldependent on SWAP’ssupportwithtraining,followupvisits,supply of products,motivatingthemwithincentives and so on. SWAPitselfisalsostilldonordependent, and hasrecentlydevelopedabusinessplantoraiseitsownincome.However,given the factthatSWAPoperatesasimilarmethodologyacrossitswholearea of operations for delivering the watertreatment,ITNs and other(original)set of products,itdoesseemreasonabletoassumethatdelivery of theseplus the stoveswouldalsobepossibleacrossthismuchlargerarea.Todate,scalingup of the improvedstovesacrossthiswiderareahasbeenveryslow,dueto the needtoscaleupproduction, and also for training of installers.Considerationalsoneeds ... %)(i)Efficacy The efficacy of WGhasbeenestablishedinscientificliterature, and willnotbefurtherdiscussedhere(Latagne,2007).However, the fieldefficacyissuediscussedinSection2.2isimportant. The breakableWGbottle‐topshastened the expiry of the productleadingto the onlyimporters of WGhaltingtheirservicestoACMS.(InFebruary2010,WHOwasinformedthatACMSwaslooking for newpartnerstoobtainfreshsupplies). The subsequentreturn of bottlesaffected the databyreducing the availabletimetotest the effect of the jointinterventions, and alsoinfluencing the intervention population’sview of the product and health impacts.(ii)EffectivenessEffectivenessdepends on how the productsareusedinpractice, for which'usercompliance'iscritical.Belowisasummary of keycomplianceinformation,obtainedfrom the GTZfinalreport and internalevaluation.Awareness and adoptionAsdemonstratedinFigure2.3 on the followingpage,awareness of WGgrewfromapproximately3%to35% of intervention households, and actualusageincreasedfromapproximately1%to34% of householdsover the course of the project.Furthermore,accordingtoGTZapproximately90% of productawarenesswascreatedthrough the project,suggesting the awarenesscampaignhadaconsiderableeffect.Figure2.3Awareness and adoptionfigures for WaterGuard,firelesscooker and MMS(ExtractedfromGTZ,2009)LegendTranslationHorizontalaxis:(Yellowbox‐Sensitisation):Awareness of WG;Awareness of MMS and firelesscooker;(Graybox‐Adoption):Reportedusage of WG;Reportedusage of MMS;Reportedusage of firelesscooker;Goodpractices of woodstorage;Goodpractices of household waterstorage.Verticalaxis:proportion of respondents(%).Legend:1st,2nd, and 3rdphasesofassessment(asexplainedat the beginningofSection2.4)...