Implications on Livelihoods and the Environment of Uptake of Gasifier Cook Stoves among Kenya’s Rural Households
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Work on the benefits of the TLUD stove have been carried out for many years. The most significant benefits for a cookstove intervention are less wood usage and improved air quality. This stove intervention does not demonstrate these benefits to any significant level. Although this study was well carried out, I don't think we need more publications about TLUD stoves and their minor abilities to alter wood usage.
The difference between 2-10 headloads of wood and 1-10 headloads of wood is not significant. And, the decreased PM emitted from a TLUD is still too high to have a significant impact on health.
Furthermore, research papers should not include diagrams with a list of SDGs. This is a research paper, not a backgrounder (same comment for the discussion of the many SDGs in the conclusion).
There is a discussion about how using crop residues in the TLUD would have an impact on the SDGs, however, there is no data about crop residues in this paper. And, previous findings suggest that crop residues do not burn well in a TLUD.
Section 3.6 is not appropriate for a research paper.
Section 3.5.3 is not accurate. These are not the expected health impacts, partly because we know that health impacts are not linear with PM concentrations (See the WHO publications and those of Burnett et al).
The paper includes a small amount of data collection about how many headloads of wood are burned and then extrapolates to many conclusions about emissions, health, climate change, etc. This is not appropriate for a research study.
There are not enough results here to write a research paper.
Author Response
We have addressed all the raised comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The paper deals with gasifier cook stove benefits and uptake in Kenya rural households.
Specific comments
- page 4 line 127, when you speak about charcoal use as a soil improver please consider the effect on water retention:
- table 2, please use KJ/kg as unit for calorific value
- table 3, control the format. The words "availability/access" should not be be written in two different lines
- Table 4: in the right columns please write: "Percent of households (%)".
Author Response
We have addressed all the raised comments in the word document attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and interesting. To strengthen the paper I suggest the following:
I recommend the authors to do a more thorough literature review of ‘gasifier’ use and its implications for livelihoods. Please focus on how previous studies relate to your current study and what is literature gap this current study may cover.
Section 2.4: Perhaps it would be interesting to see the questions as a separate appendix.
The 'gassifier' is not something new, however, there seem to be many economic, social, and environmental obstacles associated with its diffusion. I recommend the authors to discuss this area and offer relevant recommendations for policymakers and business to overcome these challenges.
I recommend the authors to emphasize more the trade-offs and negative aspects of the use of the gasifier.
I recommend the authors to discuss the limitations of their research.
I recommend the authors to discuss more future research avenues based on their results.
Author Response
We have address all comments raised
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is acceptable.
However, I do think a TLUD usability study is out of date based on the current thinking around how to improve health through the use of clean household fuels.
Reviewer 2 Report
All the required changes have been performed. Paper can be accepted on present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has improved and I recommend its publication.
