The Importance of Time-Saving as a Factor in Transitioning from Woodfuel to Modern Cooking Energy Services: A Systematic Map

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of Petrokofsky submitted to Forests

The importance of time-saving as a factor in transitioning from woodfuel to modern cooking energy services: a systematic map

Summary

The paper is a systematic review of use of biomass combustion for indoor cooking operations and some of the associated downsides.  Most specifically, the time commitment for fuel collections and cooking time is reviewed (and the alternative uses of this time).  The study should be published after the following comments are addressed.

Technical Comments

The paper is a review and thus is relying on the results from the literature in synthesizing those.  It provides a unique insight by looking at the alternative uses of time for those who adopt modern energy cooking systems rather than the traditional biomass cookstoves.  This meta study provides a useful integration of extensive studies in the literature.

The characterization of the studies in Section 4 is important.  The sectioning of each attribute to a subsection I found to be excessive, where each subsection may be 1 or 2 sentences and a figure.  I think this could be integrated into one or two subsections with better flow and less choppiness.

Likewise, the presentation of each study’s key findings in a couple sentence paragraph was not the most effective manner.  Could a summary table with Study/Date/Location, Fuel Transition, and Key Findings give a better picture?  The text could discuss this in a more integrated way then.

The discussion of how time saved was alternately used is particularly useful, although only a subset of studies consider this question.

Did any studies examine the effects of time spent indoors vs. outdoors, increases in sedentary lifestyles associated with modern energy cooking systems vs. traditional fuel gathering?

Mechanics and Presentation

 The paper is generally well-written and comprehensible though suffers from some flow issues in parts.

P3, Line 129, “and THE private sector involved in modern energy systems”

I did not find a definition for LMIC in the paper.  Not all users may know Lower and Middle Income Countries which presumably it refers to.

The simplicity of the study types may make Figure 4 redundant.  Alternately the authors could state “the breakdown of study types shows journal articles as dominant (Figure 4).”

P8 Line 264 “A decrease in the number of studies”

Figure 10 would be better as a histogram rather than a smooth curve fit.

P13, Line 358, Awkward sentence, please rewrite for clarity.

P14, Line 386, spacing looks inconsistent between words, check throughout:

“program in rural Ghana that targeted 200 households.”

Author Response

1. The paper is a review and thus is relying on the results from the literature in synthesizing those.  It provides a unique insight by looking at the alternative uses of time for those who adopt modern energy cooking systems rather than the traditional biomass cookstoves.  This meta study provides a useful integration of extensive studies in the literature.

The authors thank the reviewer for their kind words on the utility of our review.

2. The characterization of the studies in Section 4 is important.  The sectioning of each attribute to a subsection I found to be excessive, where each subsection may be 1 or 2 sentences and a figure.  I think this could be integrated into one or two subsections with better flow and less choppiness.

We have re-arranged the section into results pertaining to the study area/site/population, the intervention, and the outcomes. We hope this improves the flow, though we argue to retain the individual results and short account of the result, as we followed ROSES Guidelines on reporting our evidence map (Haddaway et al, 2017).

3. Likewise, the presentation of each study’s key findings in a couple sentence paragraph was not the most effective manner.  Could a summary table with Study/Date/Location, Fuel Transition, and Key Findings give a better picture?  The text could discuss this in a more integrated way then.

We are not sure whether the reviewer had access to Supplementary material, where there is a full summary of each included paper, with details of the elements that the reviewer requests. We could certainly provide a data table to accompany the main text if this is required, but would like to check with Editors if this is indeed wanted, or if the Suppl file was simply not available which would make the comment from the Reviewer extremely valid.

4. The discussion of how time saved was alternately used is particularly useful, although only a subset of studies consider this question.

This is correct - only a very small subset of the evidence base actually say what the time saved is used for, and we have stressed that this is an important element to follow up in primary research.

5. Did any studies examine the effects of time spent indoors vs. outdoors, increases in sedentary lifestyles associated with modern energy cooking systems vs. traditional fuel gathering?

The fact is that none of the studies provided this level of evidence. We believe that this is an important area for further primary research and have stressed this point in our discussion.

Mechanics and Presentation

6.  The paper is generally well-written and comprehensible though suffers from some flow issues in parts.

P3, Line 129, “and THE private sector involved in modern energy systems”

 We have amended as recommended.

7. I did not find a definition for LMIC in the paper.  Not all users may know Lower and Middle Income Countries which presumably it refers to.

Thank you for pointing out this oversight. LMIC written in full at line 198, with footnote to the World Bank note of current status for all countries,  and there\after the acronym is used.

8. The simplicity of the study types may make Figure 4 redundant.  Alternately the authors could state “the breakdown of study types shows journal articles as dominant (Figure 4).”

 We are happy with the suggested change of wording. We prefer to retain the figure as it shows slightly larger than usual (for systematic reviews and evidence maps) non-journal article sources.

9. P8 Line 264 “A decrease in the number of studies”

Corrected.

10. Figure 10 would be better as a histogram rather than a smooth curve fit.

Amended to bar histogram.

11. P13, Line 358, Awkward sentence, please rewrite for clarity.

Rewritten and broken into two shorter sentences.

 12. P14, Line 386, spacing looks inconsistent between words, check throughout:

“program in rural Ghana that targeted 200 households.”

This has been amended. We have tried to spot other examples of spacing problems. I hope we have corrected them all. However, we would appreciate the help of the sub-editors as the automatic pdf generator appears to introduce odd spacings (possibly owing to our version of Word?). Thank you for any help.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript submitted by the authors is still relevant in 2021, as quite a large number of the world's population still cooks food by burning fuel.
In general, it is not entirely clear what was meant by alternative, more advanced slabs, since their use is different in different countries.
The analysis of the literature has been carried out quite deeply, which indicates the quality work on the manuscript.
Based on the results of the work, I expected some kind of model for improving the life of the population. Or the rationale that such improved cookers would be effective in such a region, using them would cut 10% of women's time spent on self-development or teaching children. For Mexico, for example, other cooking methods would be more efficient.
I believe that the authors write about the need for further research, and this is true, but it seems to me that the hypothesis of effective promotion can be turned into a kind of formula for effectiveness.
I think the work is relevant, but I propose to slightly improve the conclusions in the form of the dependence of the use of improved plates, which help to save time for each separate area of ​​their potential use.

Author Response

1.The manuscript submitted by the authors is still relevant in 2021, as quite a large number of the world's population still cooks food by burning fuel.

The authors thank the reviewer for their positive comments.

2. In general, it is not entirely clear what was meant by alternative, more advanced slabs, since their use is different in different countries.

The authors are not clear what this comment means.We have deliberately not used the term ‘more advanced’ to describe any of the transitions from a former cooking technology to a different technology. We have documented all instances of transitions from one tech to another tech as a result of a deliberate program/intervention aimed at large-scale adoption. We have not therefore made any changes to the text in response to this comment.

3. The analysis of the literature has been carried out quite deeply, which indicates the quality work on the manuscript.

The authors thank the reviewer for their positive comment.

4. Based on the results of the work, I expected some kind of model for improving the life of the population. Or the rationale that such improved cookers would be effective in such a region, using them would cut 10% of women's time spent on self-development or teaching children. For Mexico, for example, other cooking methods would be more efficient.

I believe that the authors write about the need for further research, and this is true, but it seems to me that the hypothesis of effective promotion can be turned into a kind of formula for effectiveness.

I think the work is relevant, but I propose to slightly improve the conclusions in the form of the dependence of the use of improved plates, which help to save time for each separate area of ​​their potential use.

5. The authors think this is a really interesting future project that could take the evidence base we have compiled and use it as the basis for community engagement in what works best in a given context or setting. We have added the ideas expressed by the reviewer into our text about future developments as a really useful addition and thank the reviewer for this valuable contribution.  Developing such a model itself, however,  cannot be an output of the current evidence map, as we did not undertake meta-analysis that would enable a robust ‘what works’ assessment, and in fact did not find sufficient articles that could be subject to such meta-analysis. It could be a really interesting future piece of primary research, however.