IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v150y2021ics0301421520308181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the willingness-to-pay for exclusive use of LPG for cooking among rural households in India

Author

Listed:
  • Chindarkar, Namrata
  • Jain, Abhishek
  • Mani, Sunil

Abstract

Using unique household-level data from rural areas of six energy-access-deprived states in India, we examine the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for exclusive use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking. We find that awareness about LPG's health benefits and diffusion of LPG within the community are the strongest determinants of WTP for exclusive use of LPG. Among demographic characteristics, only household size is correlated with WTP. Importantly, households exhibit significant price elasticity with regards to exclusive use of LPG. Households with irregular cash flows are less likely to pay for exclusive use of LPG. We find limited evidence supporting a negative association between availability of free biomass and the WTP for exclusive use of LPG. In contrast, higher household expenditure on purchased biomass is positively associated with WTP. Our estimates of mean WTP suggest that they are higher than the current effective monthly cost of subsidized LPG across households. However, they mask variation, and disaggregated estimates suggest that about 40–45 per cent of the households not using LPG as their primary fuel have a lower WTP than the current effective monthly cost of subsidized LPG and hence would need additional support to enable their cooking energy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Chindarkar, Namrata & Jain, Abhishek & Mani, Sunil, 2021. "Examining the willingness-to-pay for exclusive use of LPG for cooking among rural households in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:150:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520308181
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112107
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520308181
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.112107?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    2. Kimemia, David & Annegarn, Harold, 2016. "Domestic LPG interventions in South Africa: Challenges and lessons," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 150-156.
    3. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    4. Johnston, Robert J., 2006. "Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 469-481, July.
    5. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    6. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    8. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    9. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    10. Gould, Carlos F. & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2018. "LPG as a clean cooking fuel: Adoption, use, and impact in rural India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 395-408.
    11. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Poe, Gregory L. & Ethier, Robert G. & Schulze, William D., 2002. "Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 391-425, November.
    12. Sunil Mani & Abhishek Jain & Saurabh Tripathi & Carlos F. Gould, 2020. "The drivers of sustained use of liquified petroleum gas in India," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 450-457, June.
    13. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    14. Cheng, Chao-yo & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2014. "Fuel stacking in India: Changes in the cooking and lighting mix, 1987–2010," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 306-317.
    15. Kumar, Praveen & Kaushalendra Rao, R. & Reddy, N. Hemalatha, 2016. "Sustained uptake of LPG as cleaner cooking fuel in rural India: Role of affordability, accessibility, and awareness," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-37.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hsu, Eric & Forougi, Noah & Gan, Meixi & Muchiri, Elizabeth & Pope, Dan & Puzzolo, Elisa, 2021. "Microfinance for clean cooking: What lessons can be learned for scaling up LPG adoption in Kenya through managed loans?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Han, Jiashi & Zhang, Lei & Li, Yang, 2022. "Spatiotemporal analysis of rural energy transition and upgrading in developing countries: The case of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    3. Jeuland, Marc & Desai, Manish A. & Bair, Elizabeth F. & Mohideen Abdul Cader, Nafeesa & Natesan, Durairaj & Isaac, Wilson Jayakaran & Sambandam, Sankar & Balakrishnan, Kalpana & Thangavel, Gurusamy & , 2023. "A randomized trial of price subsidies for liquefied petroleum cooking gas among low-income households in rural India," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 30(C).
    4. Bigerna, Simona & Choudhary, Piyush & Kumar Jain, Nikunj & Micheli, Silvia & Polinori, Paolo, 2022. "Avoiding unanticipated power outages: households’ willingness to pay in India," MPRA Paper 114160, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Adjei-Mantey, Kwame & Takeuchi, Kenji & Quartey, Peter, 2021. "Impact of LPG promotion program in Ghana: The role of distance to refill," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Tan, Yang & Fukuda, Hiroatsu & Li, Zhang & Wang, Shuai & Gao, Weijun & Liu, Zhonghui, 2022. "Does the public support the construction of battery swapping station for battery electric vehicles? - Data from Hangzhou, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    7. Liu, Pihui & Han, Chuanfeng & Teng, Minmin, 2022. "Does clean cooking energy improve mental health? Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    8. Ashok Kumar Sar, 2023. "Price estimation for Amazon Prime video in India," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 312-318, August.
    9. Gill-Wiehl, Annelise & Brown, Timothy & Smith, Kirk, 2022. "The need to prioritize consumption: A difference-in-differences approach to analyze the total effect of India's below-the-poverty-line policies on LPG use," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schlapfer, Felix, 2008. "Contingent valuation: A new perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 729-740, February.
    2. Poe, Gregory L. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Consequentiality and contingent values: an emerging paradigm," MPRA Paper 38864, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    6. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    7. Lars Hultkrantz & Gunnar Lindberg & Camilla Andersson, 2006. "The value of improved road safety," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 151-170, March.
    8. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    9. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    10. Karen Blumenschein & GlennC. Blomquist & Magnus Johannesson & Nancy Horn & Patricia Freeman, 2008. "Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 114-137, January.
    11. Svensson, Mikael, 2006. "The Value of a Statistical Life in Sweden Estimates from Two Studies using the "Certainty Approach" Calibration," Working Papers 2006:6, Örebro University, School of Business, revised 12 May 2009.
    12. Gould, Carlos F. & Jha, Shaily & Patnaik, Sasmita & Agrawal, Shalu & Zhang, Alice Tianbo & Saluja, Sonakshi & Nandan, Vagisha & Mani, Sunil & Urpelainen, Johannes, 2022. "Variability in the household use of cooking fuels: The importance of dishes cooked, non-cooking end uses, and seasonality in understanding fuel stacking in rural and urban slum communities in six nort," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    13. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    14. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    16. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    17. Felix Munoz-Garcia & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2014. "Firm Preferences for Environmental Policy: Industry Uniform or Firm Specific?," Working Papers 2014-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    18. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    19. Veisten, Knut, 2007. "Contingent valuation controversies: Philosophic debates about economic theory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 204-232, April.
    20. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:150:y:2021:i:c:s0301421520308181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.