Ownership Is an Intermediate Step
Begin with the energy-service distinction. This explanation examines the gap between a device being present and being useful in everyday cooking. It does not assign a universal adoption rate or blame households for adapting equipment to their circumstances.
A distribution count answers "How many devices were handed over?" A use claim needs a definition of use, a period and evidence about which tasks the device serves. Even regular use is different from exclusive use, lower exposure or a health benefit.
Trace One Fictional Week
The fictional Vale household receives a cooking device intended to replace its previous stove. During a seven-day exercise, its cooking diary records the following. These are invented observations, not evaluation findings.
| Observation | Possible Explanation | What Would Distinguish It |
|---|---|---|
| Used for quick breakfast on five mornings | Device fits that task | Ask which meal sizes and foods it can handle |
| Not used for a large evening dish | Pot or cooking-method mismatch | Check the actual pot and cooking task with the user and specialist |
| Not used on two mornings | Fuel unavailable, unaffordable, or another reason | Separate supplier stock, purchase terms and household account |
| Previous stove remains in use | Different functions, backup, preference or unmet need | Ask about tasks and constraints without assuming one cause |
An officer initially proposes more demonstrations. The diary gives no basis for assuming knowledge is the main obstacle. Training cannot restore an absent fuel supply or change the physical capacity of a device. Conversely, reliable fuel alone will not explain unfamiliar operation.
Separate Four Kinds of Constraint
Compatibility concerns whether equipment fits food, pots, meal size, cooking method and available space. Supply concerns whether the right fuel or electricity can be obtained when needed. Affordability includes the amount and timing of payments, not just an average cost. Household constraints include who can buy fuel, who cooks, competing demands and acceptable routines.
These are hypotheses to check with people, not labels to impose on them. The same household can face several at once. Do not ask residents to demonstrate unsafe practices to prove a constraint; any technical or safety concern belongs with a responsible specialist.
Choose a Response That Matches the Evidence
Vale's resulting note keeps three questions open: whether a compatible larger vessel exists, what caused the two supply gaps, and whether the purchase size fits available cash. The program team pauses its claim of full replacement. It asks the supplier about supply and support, the household about practical fit, and a qualified specialist about the proposed configuration.
If equipment is damaged or suspected unsafe, persuasion to increase use is the wrong next step. Follow the relevant local safety process and obtain technical advice before further use. If households make a well-informed choice between workable options, a project preference alone does not establish that their choice is wrong.
Use the specialist question tutorial to prepare that discussion. This page supplies a diagnosis framework, not permission to modify equipment.
Sources and Limits
WFP, May 2022, printed pages 5, 7 and 17, discusses continued use, multiple cooking methods and contextual fit. UNHCR's Rwanda assessment, January 2024, pages 1-2, illustrates why local market and equipment conditions require scrutiny. Consulted October 29, 2026; its technology preferences and prices are not transferred here.