IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/esprep/320716.html

Clean fuel use, Political representation and Forest cover: Evidence from Rural India

Author

Listed:
  • Ghosh, Samarpita
  • Sarkhel, Prasenjit

Abstract

This paper examines how political representation for marginalized groups affects development outcomes and environmental choices by studying the adoption of clean cooking fuels under India's Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY). Focusing on political reservations for Scheduled Tribes (STs), we assess how these institutional arrangements influence household fuel use across ecologically diverse regions. Using village-level data from the 2020 Mission Antyodaya Survey and high-resolution forest cover data, we employ a spatial regression discontinuity design (SRD) to compare LPG adoption between Scheduled Areas (administratively designated tribal-majority regions) and non-Scheduled Areas. We find that ST political reservations at the assembly constituency level are associated with a significant reduction in PMUY uptake in Scheduled Areas. To explore variation within SAs, we employ Propensity Score Matching to assess the impact of the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA), which mandates ST representation in local governance. We find that PESA increases LPG adoption in villages located in open forest and scrubland, while it reduces uptake in regions with moderately dense forests. Additionally, our analysis reveals that higher forest cover displaces clean fuel use, and quantile regressions confirm that PESA implementation is linked to forest gains-suggesting that politically empowered ST leaders may promote conservation, inadvertently reinforcing biomass dependence. Our findings highlight a policy trade-off between environmental stewardship and the clean energy transition in ecologically sensitive tribal areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Ghosh, Samarpita & Sarkhel, Prasenjit, 2025. "Clean fuel use, Political representation and Forest cover: Evidence from Rural India," EconStor Preprints 320716, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:esprep:320716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/320716/1/LSE_PS_SG.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masera, Omar R. & Saatkamp, Barbara D. & Kammen, Daniel M., 2000. "From Linear Fuel Switching to Multiple Cooking Strategies: A Critique and Alternative to the Energy Ladder Model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(12), pages 2083-2103, December.
    2. Patel, Sameer & Khandelwal, Anish & Leavey, Anna & Biswas, Pratim, 2016. "A model for cost-benefit analysis of cooking fuel alternatives from a rural Indian household perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 291-302.
    3. Ma, Wanglin & Zheng, Hongyun & Gong, Binlei, 2022. "Rural income growth, ethnic differences, and household cooking fuel choice: Evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Farsi, Mehdi & Filippini, Massimo & Pachauri, Shonali, 2007. "Fuel choices in urban Indian households," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(6), pages 757-774, December.
    5. Kaczan, David J., 2020. "Can roads contribute to forest transitions?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Weiqiang Zhu & Yun Zhang, 2024. "Household Energy Clean Transition Mechanisms under Market Failures: A Government Financing Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Sharma, Krishan & Rahman, Nida, 2025. "Do cooking characteristics and household amenities matter for cooking fuel choice, clean fuel transition, and clean fuel consumption in India?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. MacCarty, Nordica A. & Bryden, Kenneth Mark, 2016. "An integrated systems model for energy services in rural developing communities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 536-557.
    4. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2013. "The energy ladder: Theoretical myth or empirical truth? Results from a meta-analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 504-513.
    5. Martina Zahno & Katharina Michaelowa & Purnamita Dasgupta & Ishita Sachdeva, 2020. "Health awareness and the transition towards clean cooking fuels: Evidence from Rajasthan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, April.
    6. Andadari, Roos Kities & Mulder, Peter & Rietveld, Piet, 2014. "Energy poverty reduction by fuel switching. Impact evaluation of the LPG conversion program in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 436-449.
    7. Malla, Sunil & Timilsina, Govinda R, 2014. "Household cooking fuel choice and adoption of improved cookstoves in developing countries : a review," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6903, The World Bank.
    8. van der Kroon, Bianca & Brouwer, Roy & van Beukering, Pieter J.H., 2014. "The impact of the household decision environment on fuel choice behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 236-247.
    9. Lay, Jann & Ondraczek, Janosch & Stoever, Jana, 2013. "Renewables in the energy transition: Evidence on solar home systems and lighting fuel choice in Kenya," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 350-359.
    10. Ekholm, Tommi & Krey, Volker & Pachauri, Shonali & Riahi, Keywan, 2010. "Determinants of household energy consumption in India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5696-5707, October.
    11. Harrington, Elise & Athavankar, Ameya & Hsu, David, 2020. "Variation in rural household energy transitions for basic lighting in India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Jack Gregory & David I. Stern, 2012. "Fuel Choices in Rural Maharashtra," CCEP Working Papers 1207, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    13. Zhang, Rui & Wei, Taoyuan & Glomsrød, Solveig & Shi, Qinghua, 2014. "Bioenergy consumption in rural China: Evidence from a survey in three provinces," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 136-145.
    14. Rui Xing & Tatsuya Hanaoka & Yuko Kanamori & Toshihiko Masui, 2017. "Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions of China’s Residential Sector: The Importance of Considering Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    15. Zi, Cao & Qian, Meng & Baozhong, Gao, 2021. "The consumption patterns and determining factors of rural household energy: A case study of Henan Province in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    16. Adusah-Poku, Frank & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2019. "Household energy expenditure in Ghana: A double-hurdle model approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 266-277.
    17. Rajesh Kalli & Pradyot Ranjan Jena & Shunsuke Managi, 2022. "Subsidized LPG Scheme and the Shift to Cleaner Household Energy Use: Evidence from a Tribal Community of Eastern India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Srinivasan, Suchita & Carattini, Stefano, 2020. "Adding fuel to fire? Social spillovers in the adoption of LPG in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Dongzagla, Alfred & Adams, Abdul-Moomin, 2022. "Determinants of urban household choice of cooking fuel in Ghana: Do socioeconomic and demographic factors matter?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    20. Ren, Junqiushi & Xiong, Deyin, 2023. "Do social assistance programs promote the use of clean cooking fuels? Evidence from China's new rural pension scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:esprep:320716. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.