STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MULTI-TIER

FRAMEWORK
Multidimensionality can allow sector players to keep track of sector progress using household-level data
and enable aggregation of households across geographic, social, economic, and gender categories. The
six-attribute MTF incorporates a broad set of data and encourages granular data collection through the
World Bank’s MTF household surveys, making it particularly useful on three fronts: (i) mainstreaming new
data-collection approaches for SDG 7.1; (ii) understanding contextual, household-level impacts; and (iii)
setting sectorwide aspirations for moving toward MECS or other measures of “good” cooking practices.

The MTF can help mainstream new and complementary data-collection approaches for meeting the SDG
7.1 target. The development of measurable indicators across attributes (some more granular and specific
than others) and the current ability to field multiple MTF surveys across 16 countries make it possible
today to measure progress toward SDG 7.1 in ways that bring household needs to the fore. As more
country surveys are completed, sector players will gain a holistic perspective of multinational progress
based on systematic comparisons of survey results. Moreover, the ability of the MTF team and its survey
fielding partners to continuously enhance the quality of data collection (e.g., by improving and/or
adding survey questions and developing increasingly effective approaches for adjusting to local
nuances) will provide the sector progressively higher-quality data.

The framework can also be used to elevate contextual household-level impacts. The MTF and its
underlying data sources capture and allow for new types of analyses of household data. For example,
the incorporation of questions within MTF surveys that measure stove-stacking behavior (i.e., the use of
multiple stoves and fuels in the same household) can give sector players a better view of the efficacy of
specific stove or fuel programs and campaigns. The collection of data on electricity access and use
(through a parallel electricity questionnaire), in combination with data on cooking fuel-plus-technology
access and use, allows for the unique assessment of household energy consumption and expenditure, as
well as the measurement of correlations between improvements in grid access and adoption of or
adherence to electric cooking products and services, among many other analyses.

Using the MTF, sectorwide aspirations can be set for moving toward “modern” or other measures of
“good.” By moving beyond binary measurements and instead considering a wide range of factors
related to cooking, the sector can now set goals and assess progress for each of the framework’s six
attributes. This can allow the sector to measure progress using underlying indicators and indicator-level
thresholds. In addition, by considering multiple attributes explicitly, sector actors can more transparently
evaluate real (and perceived) trade-offs across the attributes. For example, some stove or fuel
technologies may score favorably on metrics of affordability or exposure but less favorably in terms of
convenience or availability.

While the MTF gives the sector a more nuanced and contextual understanding of household cooking
activity and behavior, some caveats apply. The framework’s emphasis on the household as the ultimate
unit of analysis gives target framework audiences an ability to score households (and populations, once
aggregated) on critical energy-usage criteria. But aggregated assessments must also account for other
critical macro variables that the MTF does not explicitly include—notably, variables that capture climate
effects, macroeconomic impacts, and intervention costs. As a result, the framework should not be
positioned as a catchall instrument on which donors and policy makers should rely exclusively for the
design of complete interventions or policies.

The framework should not be employed as a comparative performance tool for assessing and classifying
specific technologies and fuels, given that its household-unit emphasis balances assessments of what
type of fuel or technology is used with how it is used. This forces the framework to strike a careful
balance. On the one hand, it should consider improvement in energy and cooking access as a continuum
of increasing levels of energy attributes across technologies and service-quality levels. On the other
hand, it must remain technology and fuel neutral. This is rooted in the reality that no one fuel or
technology is best-positioned for use in all contexts: Differences in the localized structure of energy
supply chains—and above all—variations in household behaviors and needs must inform least-cost, best-
fit solutions, with the framework as a guiding input. This approach allows households, as well as
countries, to move up the tiers of access by closely incorporating local conditions.

*For full list of references, please see Chapter 1 of The State of Access to Modern Energy Cooking
Services.