| Title | Kerosene Survey: Understanding the Preferences of Off-Grid Households in India |
|---|---|
| Post date | 08/07/2018 |
| C1 Background and Explanation of Rationale |
This is a pre-analysis plan that examines kerosene use in rural India. Specifi cally, we conduct a conjoint experiment to determine the factors that will incentivize o -grid households to move away from kerosene and toward a grid or solar connection. The use of kerosene is known to have signi ficant negative e ffects on households. It is associated with high particulate matter indoors (Lam et al., 2012) and there is also some evidence to suggest that kerosene lamps are more dangerous than other devices that generate indoor smoke (Bates et al., 2013). The use of kerosene lamps can increase the levels of indoor air pollution which, in turn, can increase the risk of disease (Lam et al., 2012). Despite these negative outcomes, kerosene use is very common in India, especially in rural areas. A partial reason revolves around the significant level of subsidies that the Indian government provides to the purchase of kerosene through the public distribution system. There have been some attempts to determine what would wean households away from kerosene use. For example, Barron and Torero (2017) show that grid electrifi cation signi ficantly reduces indoor air pollution. While the connection to the grid is ideal there are a signi ficant number of rural Indian households that do not use grid electri fication. For such populations, off -grid solutions in the form of solar lanterns can also assist in reducing kerosene use (Aklin et al., 2017) and lower indoor air pollution. To determine the factors that have the potential to wean rural households away from kerosene, we focus on four key facets in this study. First, we include information on the hours of electricity supply. This is important since both grid and solar home systems do not always constitute a continuous electricity source. Second, we provide information on the cost of the connection fee. Both grid and solar home systems have associated start-up fees, and this cost can become a signi ficant barrier to adoption. Third, we include information on monthly fees. As with the connection fee, both grid and solar home systems have monthly bills that the household will have to bear as part of their total expenditure. Lastly, we include information on the appliances that can be used with the sources. In addition to the provision of light, the appliances that can run on an electricity source is an important factor in adopting a grid or solar option. |
| C2 What are the hypotheses to be tested? |
We want to examine the e ffect of each of the connection profi le arms in the conjoint experiment on the preference and the likelihood of adoption. We expect households to prefer a higher number of hours of electricity per day, lower associated costs whether in terms of a connection fee or monthly fee, as well as the ability to run more appliances with an electricity source. Similarly, we expect households to be more likely adopt a connection that o ers them higher number of hours of electricty per day, lower associated costs and the ability to run more appliances. Speci fically, the hypotheses we test are: Similarly, we can test hypotheses about the likelihood of adoption for each of the connection profi le arms. |
| C3 How will these hypotheses be tested? * |
As part of the survey, we administer a conjoint experiment to every respondent. In each pro file set, we present the households with two options: grid and solar home system. The pro files consist of a picture of the grid/SHS, the average hours of electricity per day, one-time connection fee, monthly fee and the appliances that can be run with this option. With the exception of the picture, each of the profi le arms are randomized. The average electricity per day is chosen from 6,12,18 and 24 hrs; the connection fee is chosen from Rs.50, Rs.200 and Rs.300; the monthly fee is chosen from Rs.50, Rs.250 and Rs.500; and the appliances are chosen from fan, television or both. Each respondent is shown four di fferent profi le sets with randomly chosen entries for the arms. The template used to present information for the conjoint experiment is included in the Supplementary Appendix. |
| C4 Country | India |
| C5 Scale (# of Units) | 1000 |
| C6 Was a power analysis conducted prior to data collection? | Yes |
| C7 Has this research received Insitutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval? | Yes |
| C8 IRB Number | HIRB00007589 |
| C9 Date of IRB Approval | 14 JUN 2018 |
| C10 Will the intervention be implemented by the researcher or a third party? | MORSEL |
| C11 Did any of the research team receive remuneration from the implementing agency for taking part in this research? | No |
| C12 If relevant, is there an advance agreement with the implementation group that all results can be published? | not provided by authors |
| C13 JEL Classification(s) | 012, Q42, Q55, Q56 |