Household Energy Transition in Rural India in the Wake of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana

Household Energy Transition in Rural India in the Wake of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Household Energy Transition in Rural India in the Wake of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana Rahul Ranjan, Sudershan Singh, Abhishek Kumar Chintu This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted 15 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), which aims to provide and transition rural households towards LPG, a cleaner cooking fuel, has been heavily debated for its sustainability and efficacy. In this context, the study tries to examine the determinants of household energy consumption post implementation of the PMUY using the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Seventy-Sixth Round data - “Socio-Economic Survey: Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition”. The data reveals that nearly 48.3 percent of rural households use LPG as the primary cooking fuel. Further, it is also observed that the LPG use amongst the households belonging to the lowest quintile of consumption is as low as 29 percent. The study also finds that a Ujjwala beneficiary is nearly 20 percent more likely to use LPG. Moreover, ST and SC households are almost 14 percent and 7 percent less likely to use LPG in comparison to Upper caste Hindus, respectively. Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojna LPG Adoption Clean Energy Policy Income Classes Rural India Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction Everyday domestic duties like cooking need large amounts of energy, labour, and time, mostly devoted by women. International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that around 680 million people in India use traditional energy for cooking (IEA, 2018 and IEA, 2023 ). Although a major proportion of urban households have access to cleaner fuels such as LPG, electricity, PNG, etc. for cooking, rural India till very recently was dependent upon unclean fuel such as firewood, dung cake, etc. for cooking (Sharma & Dash, 2022 ; Mottaleb&Rahut, 2021; Ekholam et. al., 2010; Pandey &Chaubal, 2011 ). People spend about 1.5 hours each day on average collecting firewood, resulting in a loss of around 100 billion working hours in addition to the health hazards they are exposed to traditional fuels (IEA, 2017 & IEA, 2019 ). Traditional cooking fuel is also a significant source of indoor air pollution (Gould & Urpelainen, 2018 ; Ranjan & Bhadra, 2019; Jaiswal & Meshram, 2020). Indoor air pollution not only harms human productivity and health but also, indirectly, contributes to socioeconomic inequity (Pachauri et. al., 2013 ). These contaminants have caused major health problems, particularly in women and small children who cook with these fuels (Cecelski, 2000; UNDP, 2012 ; WHO, 2021 ; IEA, 2019 ; OECD, 2021 ; UNIDO, 2023 ). Every year, air pollution from inefficient solid fuel use for cooking kills about 3.2 million people prematurely, with approximately one million of these deaths occurring in India (WHO, 2022 ). Women’s empowerment and leadership, notably at home but also in business and policymaking, could be critical to the transition to clean energy (Allen, Lyons & Stephens, 2019; Martines & Stephens, 2016; Jonsson, 2011). Thus, lack of access to clean cooking energy hinders the well-being and economic prospects of women and girls, which resultantly has a significant impact on their living conditions and daily time use (Cecelski, 1995 ; Parikh, 1995; Parikh, 2011; Nelson & Kuriakose, 2017 ). These issues were considered by the Government of India and a step was taken in the form of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) in the year 2016 (CAG, 2019 ). The scheme was initially launched by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas to provide Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) connections to BPL households in rural areas (Aggarwal, Kumar & Tiwari, 2018; MPNG, 2019 ; Yelamanchi, Jayakumar & Samad, 2019). The program aimed to improve the health and quality of life of underprivileged families by providing them with LPG connections. PMUY, till date, has been implemented in 631 districts across the country, starting with Ballia, a district in Uttar Pradesh (Aggarwal, Kumar, and Tiwari, 2018). More than 8 crore LPG connections were given in the first phase of PMUY 4 . Following the successful conclusion of the first phase of PMUY, India’s government launched PMUY 2.0 on August 10, 2021. One-crore LPG connections were distributed to women applicants under PMUY 2.0 and it achieved the target on 31st January, 2023 (PIB, 2021 ). As a result, it was further decided to distribute 60 lakh additional LPG connections under PMUY 2.0 5 . Implementation of PMUY has piqued the interest of academics as the proliferation of clean cooking fuel in rural India has many positive aspects. Although the intentions of the scheme were well received, however, its sustainability and permanent transition of rural households towards cleaner LPG for cooking fuel, in the long run, was heavily debated. Dabadge, Josey, and Sreenivas ( 2016 ) argued that rural households continue fuel stacking with freely accessible conventional fuel being the primary component and thus challenge LPG adoption 6 . The persistence of fuel stacking with traditional fuels being part of the fuel mix remains a challenge in rural India. According to Yadav, Davies, & Sarkodie (2021) study, fuel stacking will continue to play an important part in the socio-cultural energy heritage that will affect the path of the low carbon and cleaner energy transition. They argue that include socio-cultural practises, particularly those related to cooking, necessitates targeted policy interventions, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and strong energy governance. New energy policy must be flexible in order to achieve the dual goals of assuring universal access to energy and decarbonizing energy systems (SCF, 2020 ). On the other hand, Baquie and Urpelainen ( 2017 ) highlight that access to modern cooking fuels that reduce indoor air pollution is highly valued in rural households. As a result, measures to reduce traditional cooking fuels go beyond paternalistic top-down interventions and significantly improve household satisfaction with their cooking setups. Swain and Mishra (2019) looked at the PMUY beneficiaries’ responses to real LPG use and identified a list of variables that influenced the adoption of cleaner cooking fuels in rural Odisha, India. For the analysis, the research employed a survey of five villages of Odisha’s Puri district and Census of India data and deduced that there is a positive association between the amount of subsidy, the education of household heads, and the usage of LPG, whereas family income does not affect LPG adoption.Ranjan and Singh ( 2020 ) examined the limitations of PMUY and found that the number of inactive LPG connections increased after the launch of PMUY. While the government spent nearly Rs. 128 billion in form of subsidies towards PMUY beneficiaries, still 25 percent of PMUY beneficiaries do not go for a single refilling, indicating that the PMUY framework required a relook. Furthermore, the study recommended that alternative energy sources should be encouraged but some permanent certain steps should also be taken which makes going back to existing traditional cooking fuel entails more opportunity cost, otherwise the transition from traditional fuel to LPG would be unsustainable. Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) performance audit report for 2019 pointed out that cylinder refills under the Ujjwala scheme were as low as 3.21 refills per year. Singh, Ranjan, and Gonsalves (2020) used the NSS 68th Consumption Expenditure Round to study rural Indian households’ cooking fuel choices and factors affecting the choice of cooking fuels. They used Fairlie decomposition to determine the likelihood of having access to LPG services among various socio-religious groups in comparison to upper-caste Hindus. Income is the primary factor that contributes to the difference, followed by education. The Scheduled Tribes (STs) have a difficultly for obtaining LPG, while other socio-religious groups, such as upper-caste Hindus, either face affordability or possess a taste of traditional fuel. Patnaik and Jha ( 2020 ) used data from the Availability to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity – Survey of States (ACCESS) from 2015 to 2018 to examine energy access by caste, class, and gender. They concluded that the PMUY scheme did not take into account India’s gender dynamics or social inclusion frameworks to help the country achieve its sustainable development goals. Jaiswal&Meshram (2020) conducted a study in rural Maharastra and reported that the Health Department and Local bodies are not involved in the PMUY scheme at any level. The health workers such as ASHA can be involved in the awareness and nudge campaign in the community targeting rural households and pregnant women during ANC registration to switch from traditional cooking fuel.Burke and Dundas (2015) did a study on 175 nations from 1990 to 2010, finding that women’s labour market participation reduces conventional cooking fuels and emphasises the use of clean fuel to improve women's livelihoods. According to Lee, Husain, and Dutta (2023), the use of clean cooking fuel has the potential to empower women. Using clean cooking fuels not only saves time but also improves health, allowing people to engage in both economic and non-economic activities such as accessing the media, finding work, and opening a bank account. Consequently, the lack of access to clean cooking energy affects the well-being and economic opportunities of women and girls, significantly impacting their living conditions and daily time use (Cecelski, 1995 ; Parikh, 1995; Parikh, 2011; Nelson &Kuriakose, 2017 ). Post the PMUY there have not been much studies which have been done using nation level government data sets. In this context, the paper aims to examine trends in household cooking energy use in rural India and explore the patterns of energy use following the implementation of PMUY. It also investigates the determinants of household cooking energy choices in India. Given this backdrop, the paper examines trend of households cooking energy use in rural India and investigate the patterns of households cooking energy use post the implementation of PMUY. The paper also looks into the determinants of household cooking energy use in India. The paper is categorised into five sections. Given the introductory section, section two captures the data source and methodology. Section three examines the trends and patterns of household cooking energy use in India. Section four investigates the determinants of household cooking energy use. Finally, section five concludes the paper. 2. Data and Methodology The study relies upon National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Seventy-Sixth Round Socio-Economic Survey: Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition which was conducted in July-December 2018. The survey covered 1,06,838 households (63,736 in rural areas and 43,102 in urban areas), across the whole geography of the Indian Union except for the villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands which were difficult to access. NSSO in these surveys follows a stratified sampling design and the weights or multiplier for the surveyed households is used in the calculations. NSSO defines a household as a group of persons normally living together and taking food from a common kitchen. Basic tabulations are used to have an overview of the status of LPG use in rural India. Logit model and margins have been used to determine the factors affecting LPG use in rural India. 3. Trends and Patterns for Cooking Energy The data reveals that nearly 48.3 percent of rural households use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. However, only 29 percent of households in the lowest consumption quintile use LPG (Figure-1), compared to nearly 70 percent in the highest quintile. Furthermore, approximately 53 percent of LPG-using households belong to the top two quintiles. This trend is concerning, given that PMUY specifically targets poorer households. The increased use of LPG among wealthier households can be attributed to both the expansion of LPG distribution infrastructure and a possible bandwagon effect, where affluent households adopt LPG after seeing their poorer peers access this superior fuel. Another explanation may be that some of the beneficiaries belong to the wealthier households or post the LPG adoption such households moved up in the quintiles. The data indicates that about 14 percent of households have benefitted from PMUY. 7 Although this figure may underestimate the actual number of beneficiaries, it still provides valuable insights into fuel usage patterns among PMUY beneficiaries. 8 Despite its limitations, the survey captures the highest number of PMUY beneficiary household samples to date. Notably, nearly 45 percent of reported PMUY beneficiaries do not use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. This suggests that while PMUY has made significant inroads, there are still barriers to full adoption among targeted households. However, it is encouraging that the proportion of PMUY beneficiaries using LPG as their primary cooking fuel is higher than that of non-PMUY beneficiaries (Figure-2). Table-1: LPG/Non-LPG use across Status, Land ownership (In %) Non-LPG as the main fuel LPG as the main fuel UPA status of Head Own account worker 51.57 48.43 Employer 27.38 72.62 Unpaid family worker 57.89 42.11 RSWW 29.41 70.59 CWPW 55.31 44.69 CWNPW 60.75 39.25 Seeking Work 50.87 49.13 Education 73.52 26.48 Domestic Duties 42.44 57.56 Domestic Duties and Collection 61.07 38.93 Renters or Pension 43.31 56.69 Disabled 60.5 39.5 Others 51.32 48.68 Total 51.66 48.34 Land Ownership (Categorisation of Farmers) Marginal ( 4.00 hectare) 46.67 53.33 No land 49.44 50.56 Source: Author’s computation from NSS 76th Round. Our analysis shows significant variations in LPG adoption based on the employment status of the household head. Only 48 percent of the households whose heads were Self Employed used LPG as primary cooking fuel. If the head worked as a casual worker in non-Public Works, only 39 percent of such households used LPG as primary cooking fuel (Table-1). Around 70 percent of the households which were headed by Regular salaried and wage workers used LPG. This may be due to the reason that a continuous flow of income prompts the households to upgrade their lifestyle. If the head is involved in domestic duties such as the collection of fuel, etc. then only 39 percent of such households used LPG. In rural India, fuel collection is not considered a respectable task unless poverty is widespread in the community. Therefore, if the head of the household is engaged in such activities, it often indicates that the household is poor and may not be sufficiently aware of the benefits of using LPG or policies that may assist it in getting access to LPG. An interesting trend emerges if we examine LPG use and in relation to land ownership of households. While agricultural land is traditionally seen as a proxy for household wealth, it is unlikely that households would sell their land to afford a fuel switch. In addition to this, the availability of land, often acts as a source of free firewood. Further, the poor returns to agriculture alone do not seem to prompt a switch to cleaner expensive fuel. A smaller proportion of the households use LPG if it consumes home-grown stocks in comparison to those households which do not use such products (Table-2). Similar is the trend if the household received wages in kind, and had access to a free collection of goods or gifts. Both scenarios are common among households involved in agricultural activities, either as landowners or agricultural laborers, giving them access to cheaper or free firewood. Table-2: LPG/Non-LPG use across Homegrown stock and Access to gifts or Collection of goods users (In %) Non-LPG as the main fuel LPG as main fuel Home-grown stock users No access to home-grown stock 44.33 55.67 Access to home-grown stock 55.23 44.77 Access to gifts or Collection of goods users No access to wages in kind, free collection, gifts, etc. 41.25 58.75 Access to wages in kind, free collection gifts, etc. 59.38 40.62 Source: Author’s computation from NSS 76th Round. 4. Determinants of Household Cooking Energy Use in India Literature suggests that common cooking fuels in India, include LPG, kerosene, firewood, cow dung, crop residues, and electricity. Household income is a primary determinant of energy use, with higher-income households more likely to afford cleaner and more efficient cooking fuels like LPG (WHO, 2021 ; Ali & Khan, 2022 ). Socioeconomic status, education, and urban/rural residence also affect energy use (Bhattacharjee & Reichard, 2011 ; Perkins et. al., 2019; Yawale et. al., 2023 ). Pandey Chaubal (2011) found that possessing a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card, belonging to marginalized socio-religious group, having a large family, and owning a substantial piece of farmland all have a significant negative link with utilising clean cooking fuels. Mottaleb and Rahut (2021) highlighted that despite declining firewood use in recent times, a large proportion of households continue to rely on it, and the cost of firewood accounts for more than 15% of an Indian urban family's total energy expenditure. Their findings suggest that the education level of the household head and spouse, as well as economic standing, have the greatest influence on the choice and reliance on fuel options. They also highlight that clean energy policy should prioritise resource-constrained households to ensure that all households have access to clean energy by 2030. A short note on the Logit Model We classify LPG use as "1" if the responder claims to have used LPG as their principal source of cooking fuel, and "0" if they do not. We simulate a logit model with LPG use as the dependent variable. The marginal effects are then calculated and published. In situations where a decision must be made between two possibilities, like in our instance, where households must decide whether to utilise LPG as their major source of fuel for cooking or not, the logit model is used. The maximum likelihood estimation approach is used to estimate the logit model, which follows the logistic distribution. In our study, we are interested in determining the degree to which a change in an independent variable will affect the decision of LPG use. Since it is challenging to directly understand in the logit model, we can anticipate the marginal impact of X on the likelihood of selecting option 1 (evaluated at the mean of X). In our example, the marginal impact of a change in an independent variable on the chance of choosing LPG use corresponds to the marginal impact of X on that probability. This shows how much a slight increase in an independent variable will influence the choice of LPG. As an alternative, we can use Pr(Yi = 1) = exp (Xi)/ 1 + exp (Xi) to determine the likelihood that a person with specific traits will choose option 1. The odds ratio, which measures the likelihood of choosing one of the two options, can be calculated as follows: odds = pr (Yi = 1)/ pr (Yi = 0) = exp (Xi)/ 1 + exp(Xi)/ 1 /1 + exp(Xi) = exp (Xi). The odds ratio's log is known as the logit. So, odds = odds and Xi. The logit can be understood as a marginal effect in terms of the log odds ratio as it is just Xi. The odds ratio's log will change by units if we increase X by one unit. However, in this case, we determine the size of impact on the choice of LPG access using the marginal effects found by logit regression. Table-3 depicts the expected relationship between response and explanatory variable and table 4 displays the margin findings. Table-3: Expected Relation of Explanatory Variable Sl. No Explanatory Variables Hypothesis 1 Household Size The higher household size will lead to higher probability of LPG adoption 2 Ujjwala Beneficiary The beenficiaries will have higher probability of adopting the LPG 3 Socio-religious groups Uppercaste Hindus (Hindu others have highest possibility of using LPG 4 Gender of the head of the household Female headed households have higher probability of using LPG adoption as they are the ones bearing the responsibility of cooking 5 Education level of head of household) LPG adoption and education of head positively correlated 6 Maximum Male Education Record LPG adoption and education of head positively correlated however 7 Maximum Female Education Record LPG adoption and education of head positively correlated however 8 Usual Principal Activity Status of the head Jobs having regular source of permanent income increase LPG adoption 9 State Record The probability of LPG adoption should be similar in all states as PMUY supports poorer population 10 Age of the head Increase in head will be positively correlated with LPG adoption 11 Collected Gift Collected gift will have negative correlation with LPG adoption 12 Homegrown Households using homegrown stock will have negative correlation with LPG adoption 13 MPCE Quintile Higher quintiles have higher adoption 14 Land Possessed More land decreases the LPG adoption as free availability of traditional fuel Source: Author’s Computation Table-4: Margin Results Explanatory Variables dy/dx P > z Household Size 0.003 0.012** Ujjwala Beneficiary(No Ujjwala Beneficiary as benchmark category) 0.187 0.000*** Socio-Religious Groups (Benchmark Category Hindu Others) All ST -0.135 0.000*** All SC -0.045 0.000*** Hindu OBC -0.017 0.000*** Muslim OBC -0.041 0.001*** ORM OBC 0.029 0.289 Muslim others -0.100 0.000*** ORM others -0.078 0.000*** Gender of the Head of the Household (Benchmark Category Male) 0.030 0.009*** Education Recode (Head of household) (Benchmark Category Illiterate) Literate up to primary 0.008 0.290 Middle up to secondary 0.053 0.000*** Higher secondary and above 0.126 0.000*** Maximum Male Education Record (Benchmark Category Illiterate) Literate up to primary 0.015 0.150 Middle up to secondary 0.047 0.000*** Higher secondary and above 0.091 0.000*** Maximum Female Education Record (Benchmark Category Illiterate) Literate up to primary 0.028 0.000*** Middle up to secondary 0.061 0.000*** Higher secondary and above 0.108 0.000*** Usual Principal Activity Status of the head (Benchmark Category Own Account Worker) Employer 0.123 0.000*** Helper in household enterprise (unpaid family worker) (helper) -0.059 0.044** Regular salaried/ wage employee (RSWW) 0.055 0.000*** Casual wage labour in public works (CWPW) -0.021 0.796 Casual wage labour in other types of work (CW OW) -0.077 0.000*** Did not work but was seeking and/or available for work (Seeking work) -0.151 0.023** Attended educational institution -0.016 0.911 Attended domestic duties only 0.018 0.287 Attended domestic duties and was also engaged in free collection of goods (domestic duties) -0.072 0.001*** Renters, pensioners, remittance recipients (Pensioners) 0.014 0.263 Not able to work due to disability (Disabled) -0.098 0.006*** Others (including begging, prostitution, etc.) -0.015 0.365 State Recode 10 (Benchmark Category Least Developed) Less Developed 0.142 0.000*** Relatively Developed 0.213 0.000*** Union Territories 0.395 0.000*** Age of the head 0.001 0.000*** Collected Gift (Benchmark Category No gift collected) -0.104 0.000*** Homegrown (Benchmark Category Not access to homegrown stock) -0.097 0.000*** MPCE Quintile (Benchmark Category Quintile 1) Quintile-2 0.053 0.000*** Quintile-3 0.098 0.000*** Quintile-4 0.168 0.000*** Quintile-5 0.229 0.000*** Land Possessed (Benchmark Category More than 2.01 Hectares) Less than .005 Hectares 0.052 0.000*** 0.005–0.02 Hectare 0.034 0.001*** 0.02–0.21 Hectare 0.010 0.337 0.21–0.41 Hectare 0.025 0.013** 0.41–1.01 0.028 0.004*** 1.01–2.01 0.040 0.000*** No Land 0.036 0.442 Number of obs = 58618 Prob > chi2 = 0.000 Source: Author’s Computation. Note *, ** and *** mean significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level. Household Size and gender of the head of the household In many societies, gender roles play a significant role in determining who is responsible for cooking. In such societies, women are often the primary cooks, and their preferences may influence the choice of cooking energy. If the head of the household is a woman, she may have a greater say in the choice of cooking energy. Other research suggests that enabling female household heads to take use of greater economic opportunities than males do may enhance their chances of using clean energy (Pokul, Adams &Mantey, 2022). The study supports this argument. The results show that if the head of the household is female, then the household is nearly 3 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. On the other hand, research shows that the households have relatively large family sizes, which will have a substantial impact on the amount of energy required for cooking (Mwaura, Okoboi, &Ahaibwe, 2014 ). This is consistent with Makoneseet. al. ( 2018 ) result that the size of a household influences the type of energy source used. The study shows that as the household size increases the household is 0.3 percent more likely to use LPG. PMUY beneficiary A PMUY beneficiary is around 19 percent more likely to use LPG as a primary cooking fuel. This result should be taken cautiously as the survey does not capture all the Ujjwala beneficiary households as beneficiaries. It captures around 27 million households as beneficiaries, but by the time survey was completed around 58 million connections were distributed. Although the survey may not capture all the PMUY beneficiaries, the positive externalities created due to PMUY are evident through the increased LPG use. Several studies reported that the use of LPG consumption has increased due to PMUY (Asharaf, 2024; Ranjan& Singh, 2020 ). Asharaf (2024) 11 emphasized that PMUY implementation resulted in a 2.1 percentage point rise in LPG use, accompanied by a corresponding decline in firewood consumption. Socio-Religious Groups ST households are nearly 14 percent less likely to use LPG in comparison to Upper caste (UC) Hindus. It may be due to various reasons such as more proportion of households being poor, the households being located in remote areas with poorer access to roads and other amenities where providing the LPG distribution facilities is difficult for the OMCs, and more and easier access to free firewood to these households makes the switch to LPG difficult for these households. SC households are nearly 5 percent less likely to use LPG as the primary fuel in comparison to UC Hindu households. The SC community has been which has been historically discriminated against and as a result bound to live in poor conditions. Indian villages have pockets where different castes reside and these pockets have different level of development and access to public services and amenities such as roads and drainage. 12 In the case of the Other Backward Class (OBC) community, which is classified as castes that are economically and socially disadvantaged, it is observed that OBCs belonging to the Hindu community are 2 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel in comparison to upper-caste Hindus. Muslim OBCs are nearly 5 percent while Upper Caste Muslims are nearly 10 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. There is no significant difference between Other religious minorities’ (ORM) and Upper Caste Hindus’ LPG use as primary cooking fuel. According to a study by Patnaik & Jha ( 2020 ), economic disparities lead to 32 percent of households in the Scheduled Caste (SC) and 21 percent of households in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) using LPG as their primary cooking fuel, compared to 49 percent of households in the general category. Education Education has been considered as it has twin effects firstly, more education implies more awareness and secondly, increment in education is also related to more wages.We have considered three education variables, the highest level of completed education of the head, and the most educated male and female members of the household as it is not only the head’s education and awareness but the overall awareness and educational level of the household leads to affordability and preference for better services and products (Menghwani, et.al., 2019).It is observed that if the members of the household are more educated then it is more likely to use LPG as the primary cooking fuel (Gould, 2018 ; Ranjan & Singh, 2023 ). The impact of the head of the household on the likelihood of using LPG is most at each level of education followed by the education of the most educated female. Usual Principal Activity Status of the Head of the Household It is observed that the usual principal status of employment (UPA status) of the head of the household does not has an impact on the likelihood of use of LPG as primary fuel in case of, and a majority of them are equally likely to use LPG as those households which are headed by self-employed heads.However, if the head is an employer, it is 12 percent more likely to use LPG as the primary cooking fuel. RSWW-headed households are 6 percent more likely and if the head of the household is a rentier or pensioner then such households are nearly 1.4 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. This indicates that if a household has a regular source of income or business which employs others then probability of them adopting LPG as primary fuel is more 13 .If the head is a casual wage worker in non-public works or is not able to work due to disability, then the household is nearly 8 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. This may be due to irregular nature of jobs of the casual workers. Further, in many cases the casual workers keep on moving around in search of work and thus prefer to keep minimal infrastructure. MPCE Quintile It is observed that as we move above the MPCE classes the likelihood of using LPG as the primary cooking fuel increases significantly (Ranjan& Singh,2023). Households belonging to third, fourth, and fifth quintiles are nearly 9, 16, and 22 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel respectively. This result is slightly surprising as, despite PMUY being in place,which aims to assist poor households in getting an LPG, this same model suggests that PMUY beneficiaries are more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel, but the poorest households’ lag. This is also indicative of the fact that many who should have benefitted from the program were either yet not covered or have not shifted to LPG as the primary fuel. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (2021) found no correlation between poverty and PMUY beneficiaries, while several authors noted that high LPG refill costs dissuade the poor (The Indian Express, 2023 ). The land possessed and Access to collection/Gift It is observed that the households receiving wages in kind or engaging in free collection of goods 14 are 10 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. Similarly, households that consume home-grown stock 15 are 9.7 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. Additionally, if a household possesses agricultural land, it is observed that as the area of possessed land increases the likelihood of use of LPG as primary cooking fuel decreases. This may be due to two factors, the returns to agriculture are not very high and the presence of agricultural land makes firewood, crop residue, and dung cakes readily available to the households. As it has been established in the literature also that if the household has access to free firewood either through possessed land or through collection/ gifts, they are reluctant to use LPG as the primary fuel. Interesting is the finding that if there is no land then the probability of using LPG is higher 16 .When considered alongside the MPCE (Monthly Per Capita Expenditure) class results, this suggests that households with no land and better income are more likely to use LPG. This indicates that the use of LPG is more closely linked to income rather than wealth. State/ UTs We have used the state categorization from Dr. RaghuramRajan Committee's report on "Evolving a Composite Development Index of States," which classifies states as least developed, less developed, relatively developed, and groups Union Territories together. Post-PMUY, it was expected that the probability of using LPG as the primary cooking fuel would be more uniform across different categories of states, given that the policy specifically targeted poorer households. However, significant disparities remain as households in less developed and relatively developed states are 14 percent and 23 percent more likely to use LPG as their primary cooking fuel compared to the households residing in least developed states. In Union Territories, households are nearly 39 percent more likely to use LPG as compared with least developed households.These findings highlight the need for more tailored interventions to ensure equitable access to clean cooking fuels across all regions. Reducing these disparities is crucial for the sustainable LPG adoption in rural India. 5. Conclusion & Discussion The use of LPG as a primary cooking fuel has significantly increased in rural India following the implementation of PMUY, despite rising petroleum prices. However, it is concerning that a large proportion of households in the lowest two income quintiles and more than half of those in the third quintile still rely on traditional fuels for cooking. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of PMUY, which primarily aimed to help poorer households adopt LPG as their primary cooking fuel. Additionally, the slower adoption of LPG among households in less developed states highlights the need for PMUY to adopt a broader perspective and provide further assistance beyond merely supplying LPG connections. The most significant increase in LPG use has been observed in the top two income quintiles, likely due to better availability and affordability of LPG for these households. This suggests that the positive externalities of the scheme are significant, as the distribution network for LPG cylinders has expanded to accommodate the growing number of consumers. This trend may also indicate a bandwagon effect, where relatively well-off households feel compelled to switch to LPG as their poorer peers gain access to this superior fuel. The paper also finds that as household awareness and education levels increase, so does the likelihood of adopting LPG. Additionally, households with a regular source of income are more inclined to use LPG. Therefore, improving employment opportunities and ensuring regular incomes are expected to boost LPG adoption in rural India. There should be policies that increase the women's work force participation rate (WFPR) as its impact will be particularly significant. Higher WFPR means that more women are engaged in paid work, which increases the opportunity cost of time, spent collecting traditional fuels. Then the households will find LPG adoption more desirable as the fuel choice will not only free up time for more economically productive activities but also reduce the physical burden on women. Additionally, women would prefer to spend less time using traditional fuels like firewood and dung cakes, as poor health will incur an economic cost on the household. Another interesting finding is that there is no positive correlation between a household’s landholding and LPG adoption. This could be due to several factors. Although landholding is often considered an indicator of wealth in rural areas, poor returns from agriculture may limit a household's ability to afford LPG. Additionally, households with land may use it to source traditional fuels like firewood, reducing their need to adopt LPG. This is also indicated by the fact that households with access to home-grown products are less likely to use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. Similarly, households that receive consumable gifts, often from wealthier households they assist, are also less likely to adopt LPG. These gifts frequently include traditional fuels such as firewood and dung cakes. Despite these challenges, the introduction of PMUY has undeniably led to a significant increase in LPG adoption in rural India. The results post-PMUY implementation suggests that the government should continue such programs long-term to ensure sustainable adoption and usage of LPG among rural households. To meet households' cooking fuel needs seamlessly, targeted subsidies, such as providing a certain number of LPG refills annually, should be considered. Income-linked and consumption-linked subsidy schemes could also be designed for lower-consuming households. Strengthening distribution and doorstep delivery networks in rural areas is essential for the successful adoption of LPG. Additionally, policies should aim to increase the opportunity cost of using biomass for cooking to reduce fuel stacking. Such actions are crucial to building on the initial success of PMUY and promoting the widespread use of LPG as a cooking fuel in rural areas. Declarations Funding Declaration: The paper did not receive any financial support from any Institutions Conflict of Interest: This is to inform you that there is no conflict of interest among the authors. Data Availability: The NSS Unit level data is publicly available and STATA do file will be shared as per the request. Clinical Trial Number: Not Applicable Consent to Publish declaration: Yes Consent to Participate Declaration: Yes Ethics Statement: Authors reports that experiments on humans and/or the use of human tissue samples was not performed in this paper. Author Contribution Rahul Ranjan conceptualized the concept and prepared the initial draft. Sudershan Singh has handled the editing and formatting.Abhishek Kumar Chintu edited the paper. References Ali, Jabir., & Khan, Waseem. (2022). Factors affecting access to clean cooking fuel among rural households in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Energy for Sustainable Development , Vol.67, pp.102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.01.006 Allen, Elizabeth., Lyons, Hannah., & Stephens, Jennie, C. (2019). Women’s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: Redistributing power. Energy Research & Social Science , Vol.57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233 Aggarwal, Shubham., Kumar, Sudhanshu., & Tiwari, Manoj, Kumar. (2018). Decision support system for Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. Energy Policy , Vol.118, pp.455-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.011 Baquie, Sandra., &Urpelainen, Johannes. (2017). Access to modern fuels and satisfaction with cooking arrangements: Survey evidence from rural India. Energy for Sustainable Development , Vol.38, pp.34-47. DOI:10.1016/j.esd.2017.02.003 Bhattacharjee, Suchismita., & Reichard, Georg. (2011). Socio-economic factors affecting individual household energy consumption: A systematic review. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Washington, DC, USA. DOI:10.1115/ES2011-54615 CAG. (2019). Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. Comptroller and Auditor General of India. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-report/details/55961 Cecelski, Elizabeth. (1995). From Rio to Beijing: Engendering the energy debate. Energy Policy, Vol.23, Issue.6, pp.561–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)91241-4 Cecelski, Elizabeth. (2020). The Role of Women in Sustainable Energy Development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26889.pdf Dabadge, Ashwini., Josey, Ann., & Sreenivas, Ashok. (2016). From LPG Connections to Use. Economic & Political Weekly . Vol.51, Issue.16. https://www.epw.in/journal/2016/16/budget-2016%E2%80%9317/lpg-connections-use.html Gould, C.F., Urpelainen, Johannes. (2018). LPG as a clean cooking fuel: Adoption, use, and impact in rural India. Energy Policy, Vol.122, pp.395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.042 Jaiswal, Vaishali, Bhole., Meshram, Pravin, U. (2020). Behavioral Change in Determinants of the Choice of Fuels amongst Rural Households after the Introduction of Clean Fuel Program: A District-Level Case Study. Global Challenges, Vol.5, Issue.2. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.2020000 Jonsson, Seema, Arora. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change , Vol.21, Issue.2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005 IEA. (2017). World Energy Outlook 2017. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4a50d774-5e8c-457e-bcc9-513357f9b2fb/World_Energy_Outlook_2017.pdf IEA. (2018). World Energy Outlook 2018. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/77ecf96c-5f4b-4d0d-9d93-d81b938217cb/World_Energy_Outlook_2018.pdf IEA. (2019). Women working in the rooftop solar sector: A look at India’s transition to clean energy. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/67e60726-8659-4c58-aefd-c86bdaa5fc10/Women_working_in_the_rooftop_solar_sector.pdf IEA. (2023). World Energy Outlook 2023. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/86ede39e-4436-42d7-ba2a-edf61467e070/WorldEnergyOutlook2023.pdf Makonese, Tafadzwa., Ifegbesan, Ayodeji, P., Rampedi, Isaac, T. (2018). Household cooking fuel use patterns and determinants across southern Africa. Energy & Environment , Vol.29, No.1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90018235 Martines, Rebecca, Pearl., Stephens, Jennie, C.(2016). Toward a gender diverse workforce in the renewable energy transition. Sustainability Science Practice and Policy , Vol.12(1). DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2016.11908149 Menghwani, Vikas. et.al. (2019). Determinants of Cookstoves and Fuel Choice Among Rural Households in India. EcoHealth, Vol.16, pp.21-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-018-1389-3 Mottaleb, Khondoker, Abdul., &Rahut, Dil, Bahadur. (2021). Clean energy choice and use by the urban households in India: Implications for sustainable energy for all. Environmental Challenges , Vol.5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100254 MPNG. (2019). The Ujjwala Saga-Unending Happiness & Health. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15741/1/Ujjwala%20Saga.pdf Mwaura, Francis., Okoboi, Geofrey., Ahaibwe, Gemma. (2014). Determinants of household’s choice of cooking energy in Uganda. AgEcon Search, Research Series No.114. Nelson, Sibyl., & Kuriakose, Anne T. (2017). Gender and renewable energy: entry points for women’s livelihoods and employment. Climate Investment Funds. https://www.cif.org/sites/cif_enc/files/knowledge-documents/gender_and_re_digital.pdf OECD. (2021). Gender and the Environment: Building the Evidence Base and Advancing Policy Actions to Achieve the SDGs. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd.org/env/gender-and-the-environment-3d32ca39-en.htm Pachauri, Shonali, et. al. (2013). Pathways to achieve universal household access to modern energy by 2030. Environmental Research Letters, Volume.8, Number.2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024015/pdf Pandey, Vijay, Laxmi., &Chaubal, Aditi. (2011). Comprehending household cooking energy choice in rural India. Biomass and Bioenergy , Vol.35, Issue.11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.09.020 Parikh, Jyoti, K., (1995). Gender issues in energy policy. Energy Policy , Vol.23, Issue.9, pp. 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)00056-O Parikh, Jyoti, K., (2011). Hardships and health impacts on women due to traditional cooking fuels: A case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. Energy Policy , Vol.39, Issue.12, pp. 7587-7594. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.055 Patnaik, Sasmita., &Jha, Shaily. (2020). Caste, Class and Gender in Determining Access to Energy: A Critical Review of LPG Adoption in India. Energy Research & Social Science , Vol.67. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101530. PIB. (2021). PM to launch Ujjwala 2.0 on 10 th August. Press Information Bureau, Posted on 8 th August, 2021. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1743813#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20Shri%20Narendra%20Modi,30%20PM%20via%20video%20conferencing. Perkins, Jessica, M. et. al. (2019). Changes in socio-economic patterns of energy consumption and insufficient energy intake across India from 1993–94 to 2011–12. Public Health Nutrition , Vol.23(2), pp.231-242. doi:10.1017/S1368980019001484 Pokul, Frank, Adusah., Adams, Samuel., Mantey, Kwame, Adjei. (2022). Does thegenderofthehousehold head affect household energy choice inGhana? Anempirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol.25, pp.6049-6070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02293-8 Ranjan., Rahul., &Kausik, K, Bhadra. (2019). Impacts of Traditional Cooking Fuels on the Prevalence of Ailments in India. Indian Journal of Human Development , Vol. 13(3), pages 294-307, December. DOI: 10.1177/0973703019900444 Ranjan, Rahul., & Singh, Sudershan. (2020). Household Cooking Fuel Patterns in Rural India: Pre- and Post-Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. Indian Journal of Human Development , Vol.14, Issue.3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703020975 Ranjan, Rahul., & Singh, Sudershan. (2023). Switching Towards LPG: Indian Household Perspectives. Journal of Quantitative Economics , Vol.21, pp.417-433. DOI:10.1007/s40953-023-00337-y SCF. (2020). India’s Community Kitchens and Clean Cooking Nexus. Smokeless Cookstove Foundation. https://smokelesscookstovefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/HRS_Indias-Community-Kitchens-and-Clean-Cooking-Nexus.pdf Sharma, Vikesh., & Dash, Madhusmita. (2022). Household energy use pattern in rural India: A pathtowards sustainable development. Environmental Challenges , Vol.6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100404 Singh, Sudershan., Ranjan, Rahul., & Gonsalves, Oliver, Nelson. (2020). Decomposing the Gaps in Access to LPG across Socio-Religious Groups in Rural India. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies , Vol.6, Issue.1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394481120944780 Swain,Swadhina, Shika., & Mishra, Pulak. (2019). Determinants of adoption of cleaner cooking energy: experience of the Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana in Rural Odisha, India. Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.248(10). DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119223 The Indian Express. (2023). High refill cost, lack of access deter the poor from using LPG: study. Dated 22 nd August 2023. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/high-refill-cost-lack-of-access-deter-the-poor-from-using-lpg-study-8903063/ UNDP. (2012). Gender and Energy. United Nations Development Programme, New York. https://www.undp.org/energy/our-work-areas/energy-and-gender-equality UNIDO. (2023). Gender equality in the sustainable energy transition. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/Gender-equality-in-the-sustainable-energy-transition-en.pdf WHO. (2021). Transitioning to cleaner cooking. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/transitioning-to-cleaner-cooking WHO. (2022). Household air pollution. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwzN-vBhAkEiwAYiO7oI5bzgpkcQONi1ike0MK8jcnT8k_yvo5rV9XHZOCUyvgz21MuYdAqxoCEwYQAvD_BwE Yadav, Prabhakar., Davies, Peter, J., &Sarkodie, Samuel, Asumadu. (2021). Fuel choice and tradition: Why fuel stacking and the energy ladder are out of step?. Solar Energy, Vol.214, pp.491-501. DOI:10.1016/j.solener.2020.11.077 Yawale, Satish, Kumar. et. al. (2023). End-use energy projections: Future regional disparity and energy poverty at the household level in rural and urban areas of India. Energy Policy , Vol.182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113772 Yelamanchi, Bala, Bharathi., Jayakumar, Vandana., & Samad, Syed, Abdul. (2019). Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana (PMUY): Brightening Lives by Bridging Barriers. ET Cases. https://www.etcases.com/pradhan-mantri-ujjwala-yojana-report.html#case-study Footnotes 4 Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas estimates that on 7th September 2019, 8 crore LPG connections have been distributed. https://www.pmuy.gov.in/about.html 5 According to Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. https://mopng.gov.in/en/page/46#:~:text=The%20target%20of%20releasing%20additional,2.0%20on%2031st%20Dec'22 . 6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314235 7 Report for the 76th Round states that there may be respondents bias while answering the questions pertaining to benefits received from the government schemes. Furthermore, because the survey was not designed to estimate the number of households that benefited from various government programmes, no second stage stratification of households was performed in the sample design to adequately capture the households that benefited from each of the government programmes for housing, drinking water, sanitation, electrification, and LPG connections. These factors must be considered when interpreting the data on the benefits gained from various government activities and access to the aforementioned facilities. However, no such caveat was used for LPG users, so we assume that the beneficiaries may be underestimated by the data, it correctly estimates the LPG users. 8 The data suggests that there were 27 million beneficiary households in the country and 24.88 million households in the rural India. By December 2018 the number of PMUY beneficiaries had crossed 58 million. (PMUY Wikipedia) 10 We have used Report of Dr.RaghuramRajan Committee for Evolving a Composite Development Index of states to categorise states. The report did not categorise Union Territories, hence we put them in a separate group. See Appendix B for details. 11 https://arxiv.org/html/2403.17112v1#:~:text=Using%20Propensity%20Score%20Matching%20and,parallel%20decrease%20in%20firewood%20consumption . 12 Shamsher Singh (2015), "Residential Segregation and Access to Basic Amenities: A Village-Level Case Study," Review of Agrarian Studies , vol. 5, no. 2, available at http://ras.org.in/residential_segregation_and_access_to_basic_amenities finds that there is segregation within village among SC and upper caste households, with SC populated areas having poorer access to services such as roads. 13 Umap, S., & Jain, N. (2023). Employment Characteristics of Regular Salaried Employees in Urban Maharashtra. Journal of Social Inclusion Studies , 9 (1), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/23944811231176988 finds that RSWW has tenurial security and other perks which makes it most favored job type in the labor market. 14 These households usually constitute casual and agriculture labourers. 15 These households are usually agricultural households. 16 Lack of land has been considered as a proxy for lack of wealth in the rural areas. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 23 Dec, 2025 Read the published version in Discover Sustainability → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 19 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Aug, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Aug, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Jul, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jul, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Jul, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 10 Jul, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 08 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 08 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6916485","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":488532401,"identity":"028da263-1d39-4da9-af63-c807aa8732d4","order_by":0,"name":"Rahul Ranjan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Council of Educational Research and Training","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rahul","middleName":"","lastName":"Ranjan","suffix":""},{"id":488532402,"identity":"acd96ab2-2fba-4ec3-a05c-134267e682f6","order_by":1,"name":"Sudershan Singh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sudershan","middleName":"","lastName":"Singh","suffix":""},{"id":488532403,"identity":"2c3a28d9-8328-4aad-8e26-386987e88fd3","order_by":2,"name":"Abhishek Kumar Chintu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jai Prakash University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abhishek","middleName":"Kumar","lastName":"Chintu","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-17 16:53:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02241-2","type":"published","date":"2025-12-23T15:58:17+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87280123,"identity":"32b38c78-2f50-4fc9-b0d5-eec408928ab1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-22 09:34:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15882,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProportion of Rural Household utilising LPG as a primary source of cooking fuel by quintile (In %)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s computation from NSS 76\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Round.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916485/v1/c49243627a224687b453b9e0.png"},{"id":87280124,"identity":"fc6d326c-e14c-4a78-a4b7-4e9fd4f3ce3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-22 09:34:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e% of Households having LPG and Non-LPG\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e as the main source of cooking fuel across Ujjwala/Non- Ujjwala Beneficiaries\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: Author’s computation from NSS 76\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e Round.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e Non-LPG as main fuel means households use traditional fuels as their primary source of cooking fuel. Traditional fuel includes firewood, coal and cow dung.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916485/v1/e2ef9329c277bf208a8077cb.png"},{"id":99172845,"identity":"0cf1d21e-8ab9-48f1-9081-dad68fbd0e77","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-29 16:11:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1448614,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916485/v1/6bc4a4a3-e81f-4e3a-8c78-478eff8d28ff.pdf"},{"id":87280125,"identity":"50793dd2-f9a3-4a09-bba2-d76536f6ca30","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-22 09:34:28","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":23664,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6916485/v1/e1dde17437e19be46e3537e5.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Household Energy Transition in Rural India in the Wake of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eEveryday domestic duties like cooking need large amounts of energy, labour, and time, mostly devoted by women. International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that around 680\u0026nbsp;million people in India use traditional energy for cooking (IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e and IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Although a major proportion of urban households have access to cleaner fuels such as LPG, electricity, PNG, etc. for cooking, rural India till very recently was dependent upon unclean fuel such as firewood, dung cake, etc. for cooking (Sharma \u0026amp; Dash, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mottaleb\u0026amp;Rahut, 2021; Ekholam et. al., 2010; Pandey \u0026amp;Chaubal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). People spend about 1.5 hours each day on average collecting firewood, resulting in a loss of around 100\u0026nbsp;billion working hours in addition to the health hazards they are exposed to traditional fuels (IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e \u0026amp; IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraditional cooking fuel is also a significant source of indoor air pollution (Gould \u0026amp; Urpelainen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ranjan \u0026amp; Bhadra, 2019; Jaiswal \u0026amp; Meshram, 2020). Indoor air pollution not only harms human productivity and health but also, indirectly, contributes to socioeconomic inequity (Pachauri et. al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). These contaminants have caused major health problems, particularly in women and small children who cook with these fuels (Cecelski, 2000; UNDP, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; WHO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; IEA, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; UNIDO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Every year, air pollution from inefficient solid fuel use for cooking kills about 3.2\u0026nbsp;million people prematurely, with approximately one million of these deaths occurring in India (WHO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Women\u0026rsquo;s empowerment and leadership, notably at home but also in business and policymaking, could be critical to the transition to clean energy (Allen, Lyons \u0026amp; Stephens, 2019; Martines \u0026amp; Stephens, 2016; Jonsson, 2011). Thus, lack of access to clean cooking energy hinders the well-being and economic prospects of women and girls, which resultantly has a significant impact on their living conditions and daily time use (Cecelski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Parikh, 1995; Parikh, 2011; Nelson \u0026amp; Kuriakose, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese issues were considered by the Government of India and a step was taken in the form of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) in the year 2016 (CAG, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The scheme was initially launched by the Ministry of Petroleum \u0026amp; Natural Gas to provide Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) connections to BPL households in rural areas (Aggarwal, Kumar \u0026amp; Tiwari, 2018; MPNG, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Yelamanchi, Jayakumar \u0026amp; Samad, 2019). The program aimed to improve the health and quality of life of underprivileged families by providing them with LPG connections. PMUY, till date, has been implemented in 631 districts across the country, starting with Ballia, a district in Uttar Pradesh (Aggarwal, Kumar, and Tiwari, 2018). More than 8 crore LPG connections were given in the first phase of PMUY\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e. Following the successful conclusion of the first phase of PMUY, India\u0026rsquo;s government launched PMUY 2.0 on August 10, 2021. One-crore LPG connections were distributed to women applicants under PMUY 2.0 and it achieved the target on 31st January, 2023 (PIB, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, it was further decided to distribute 60 lakh additional LPG connections under PMUY 2.0\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplementation of PMUY has piqued the interest of academics as the proliferation of clean cooking fuel in rural India has many positive aspects. Although the intentions of the scheme were well received, however, its sustainability and permanent transition of rural households towards cleaner LPG for cooking fuel, in the long run, was heavily debated. Dabadge, Josey, and Sreenivas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) argued that rural households continue fuel stacking with freely accessible conventional fuel being the primary component and thus challenge LPG adoption\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e. The persistence of fuel stacking with traditional fuels being part of the fuel mix remains a challenge in rural India. According to Yadav, Davies, \u0026amp; Sarkodie (2021) study, fuel stacking will continue to play an important part in the socio-cultural energy heritage that will affect the path of the low carbon and cleaner energy transition. They argue that include socio-cultural practises, particularly those related to cooking, necessitates targeted policy interventions, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and strong energy governance. New energy policy must be flexible in order to achieve the dual goals of assuring universal access to energy and decarbonizing energy systems (SCF, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, Baquie and Urpelainen (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) highlight that access to modern cooking fuels that reduce indoor air pollution is highly valued in rural households. As a result, measures to reduce traditional cooking fuels go beyond paternalistic top-down interventions and significantly improve household satisfaction with their cooking setups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwain and Mishra (2019) looked at the PMUY beneficiaries\u0026rsquo; responses to real LPG use and identified a list of variables that influenced the adoption of cleaner cooking fuels in rural Odisha, India. For the analysis, the research employed a survey of five villages of Odisha\u0026rsquo;s Puri district and Census of India data and deduced that there is a positive association between the amount of subsidy, the education of household heads, and the usage of LPG, whereas family income does not affect LPG adoption.Ranjan and Singh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) examined the limitations of PMUY and found that the number of inactive LPG connections increased after the launch of PMUY. While the government spent nearly Rs. 128\u0026nbsp;billion in form of subsidies towards PMUY beneficiaries, still 25 percent of PMUY beneficiaries do not go for a single refilling, indicating that the PMUY framework required a relook. Furthermore, the study recommended that alternative energy sources should be encouraged but some permanent certain steps should also be taken which makes going back to existing traditional cooking fuel entails more opportunity cost, otherwise the transition from traditional fuel to LPG would be unsustainable. Comptroller and Auditor General\u0026rsquo;s (CAG) performance audit report for 2019 pointed out that cylinder refills under the Ujjwala scheme were as low as 3.21 refills per year. Singh, Ranjan, and Gonsalves (2020) used the NSS 68th Consumption Expenditure Round to study rural Indian households\u0026rsquo; cooking fuel choices and factors affecting the choice of cooking fuels. They used Fairlie decomposition to determine the likelihood of having access to LPG services among various socio-religious groups in comparison to upper-caste Hindus. Income is the primary factor that contributes to the difference, followed by education. The Scheduled Tribes (STs) have a difficultly for obtaining LPG, while other socio-religious groups, such as upper-caste Hindus, either face affordability or possess a taste of traditional fuel. Patnaik and Jha (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) used data from the Availability to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity \u0026ndash; Survey of States (ACCESS) from 2015 to 2018 to examine energy access by caste, class, and gender. They concluded that the PMUY scheme did not take into account India\u0026rsquo;s gender dynamics or social inclusion frameworks to help the country achieve its sustainable development goals. Jaiswal\u0026amp;Meshram (2020) conducted a study in rural Maharastra and reported that the Health Department and Local bodies are not involved in the PMUY scheme at any level. The health workers such as ASHA can be involved in the awareness and nudge campaign in the community targeting rural households and pregnant women during ANC registration to switch from traditional cooking fuel.Burke and Dundas (2015) did a study on 175 nations from 1990 to 2010, finding that women\u0026rsquo;s labour market participation reduces conventional cooking fuels and emphasises the use of clean fuel to improve women's livelihoods. According to Lee, Husain, and Dutta (2023), the use of clean cooking fuel has the potential to empower women. Using clean cooking fuels not only saves time but also improves health, allowing people to engage in both economic and non-economic activities such as accessing the media, finding work, and opening a bank account. Consequently, the lack of access to clean cooking energy affects the well-being and economic opportunities of women and girls, significantly impacting their living conditions and daily time use (Cecelski, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Parikh, 1995; Parikh, 2011; Nelson \u0026amp;Kuriakose, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost the PMUY there have not been much studies which have been done using nation level government data sets. In this context, the paper aims to examine trends in household cooking energy use in rural India and explore the patterns of energy use following the implementation of PMUY. It also investigates the determinants of household cooking energy choices in India. Given this backdrop, the paper examines trend of households cooking energy use in rural India and investigate the patterns of households cooking energy use post the implementation of PMUY. The paper also looks into the determinants of household cooking energy use in India. The paper is categorised into five sections. Given the introductory section, section two captures the data source and methodology. Section three examines the trends and patterns of household cooking energy use in India. Section four investigates the determinants of household cooking energy use. Finally, section five concludes the paper.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Data and Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study relies upon National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Seventy-Sixth Round Socio-Economic Survey: Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition which was conducted in July-December 2018. The survey covered 1,06,838 households (63,736 in rural areas and 43,102 in urban areas), across the whole geography of the Indian Union except for the villages in Andaman and Nicobar Islands which were difficult to access. NSSO in these surveys follows a stratified sampling design and the weights or multiplier for the surveyed households is used in the calculations. NSSO defines a household as a group of persons normally living together and taking food from a common kitchen. Basic tabulations are used to have an overview of the status of LPG use in rural India. Logit model and margins have been used to determine the factors affecting LPG use in rural India.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Trends and Patterns for Cooking Energy","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe data reveals that nearly 48.3 percent of rural households use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. However, only 29 percent of households in the lowest consumption quintile use LPG (Figure-1), compared to nearly 70 percent in the highest quintile. Furthermore, approximately 53 percent of LPG-using households belong to the top two quintiles. This trend is concerning, given that PMUY specifically targets poorer households. The increased use of LPG among wealthier households can be attributed to both the expansion of LPG distribution infrastructure and a possible bandwagon effect, where affluent households adopt LPG after seeing their poorer peers access this superior fuel. Another explanation may be that some of the beneficiaries belong to the wealthier households or post the LPG adoption such households moved up in the quintiles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data indicates that about 14 percent of households have benefitted from PMUY.\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003eAlthough this figure may underestimate the actual number of beneficiaries, it still provides valuable insights into fuel usage patterns among PMUY beneficiaries.\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e Despite its limitations, the survey captures the highest number of PMUY beneficiary household samples to date. Notably, nearly 45 percent of reported PMUY beneficiaries do not use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. This suggests that while PMUY has made significant inroads, there are still barriers to full adoption among targeted households. However, it is encouraging that the proportion of PMUY beneficiaries using LPG as their primary cooking fuel is higher than that of non-PMUY beneficiaries (Figure-2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable-1: LPG/Non-LPG use across Status, Land ownership (In %)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-LPG as the main fuel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPG as the main fuel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUPA status of Head\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOwn account worker\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e72.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnpaid family worker\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRSWW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e29.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.59\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCWPW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCWNPW\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeeking Work\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.87\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e73.52\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDomestic Duties\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDomestic Duties and Collection\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.93\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRenters or Pension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.69\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDisabled\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.32\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.68\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.66\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLand Ownership (Categorisation of Farmers)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMarginal (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;1.00 hectare)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.53\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.46\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSmall (1.00\u0026ndash;2.00 hectare)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.20\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSemi-Medium (2.00\u0026ndash;4.00 hectare)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52.26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium \u0026amp; Large (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4.00 hectare)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo land\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s computation from NSS 76th Round.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analysis shows significant variations in LPG adoption based on the employment status of the household head. Only 48 percent of the households whose heads were Self Employed used LPG as primary cooking fuel. If the head worked as a casual worker in non-Public Works, only 39 percent of such households used LPG as primary cooking fuel (Table-1). Around 70 percent of the households which were headed by Regular salaried and wage workers used LPG. This may be due to the reason that a continuous flow of income prompts the households to upgrade their lifestyle. If the head is involved in domestic duties such as the collection of fuel, etc. then only 39 percent of such households used LPG. In rural India, fuel collection is not considered a respectable task unless poverty is widespread in the community. Therefore, if the head of the household is engaged in such activities, it often indicates that the household is poor and may not be sufficiently aware of the benefits of using LPG or policies that may assist it in getting access to LPG.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn interesting trend emerges if we examine LPG use and in relation to land ownership of households. While agricultural land is traditionally seen as a proxy for household wealth, it is unlikely that households would sell their land to afford a fuel switch. In addition to this, the availability of land, often acts as a source of free firewood. Further, the poor returns to agriculture alone do not seem to prompt a switch to cleaner expensive fuel. A smaller proportion of the households use LPG if it consumes home-grown stocks in comparison to those households which do not use such products (Table-2). Similar is the trend if the household received wages in kind, and had access to a free collection of goods or gifts. Both scenarios are common among households involved in agricultural activities, either as landowners or agricultural laborers, giving them access to cheaper or free firewood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable-2: LPG/Non-LPG use across Homegrown stock and Access to gifts or Collection of goods users (In %)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-LPG as the main fuel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPG as main fuel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHome-grown stock users\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo access to home-grown stock\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to home-grown stock\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAccess to gifts or Collection of goods users\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo access to wages in kind, free collection, gifts, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.25\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccess to wages in kind, free collection gifts, etc.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59.38\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s computation from NSS 76th Round.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Determinants of Household Cooking Energy Use in India","content":"\u003cp\u003eLiterature suggests that common cooking fuels in India, include LPG, kerosene, firewood, cow dung, crop residues, and electricity. Household income is a primary determinant of energy use, with higher-income households more likely to afford cleaner and more efficient cooking fuels like LPG (WHO, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ali \u0026amp; Khan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Socioeconomic status, education, and urban/rural residence also affect energy use (Bhattacharjee \u0026amp; Reichard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Perkins et. al., 2019; Yawale et. al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR89\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Pandey Chaubal (2011) found that possessing a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card, belonging to marginalized socio-religious group, having a large family, and owning a substantial piece of farmland all have a significant negative link with utilising clean cooking fuels. Mottaleb and Rahut (2021) highlighted that despite declining firewood use in recent times, a large proportion of households continue to rely on it, and the cost of firewood accounts for more than 15% of an Indian urban family's total energy expenditure. Their findings suggest that the education level of the household head and spouse, as well as economic standing, have the greatest influence on the choice and reliance on fuel options. They also highlight that clean energy policy should prioritise resource-constrained households to ensure that all households have access to clean energy by 2030.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eA short note on the Logit Model\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe classify LPG use as \"1\" if the responder claims to have used LPG as their principal source of cooking fuel, and \"0\" if they do not. We simulate a logit model with LPG use as the dependent variable. The marginal effects are then calculated and published.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn situations where a decision must be made between two possibilities, like in our instance, where households must decide whether to utilise LPG as their major source of fuel for cooking or not, the logit model is used. The maximum likelihood estimation approach is used to estimate the logit model, which follows the logistic distribution. In our study, we are interested in determining the degree to which a change in an independent variable will affect the decision of LPG use. Since it is challenging to directly understand in the logit model, we can anticipate the marginal impact of X on the likelihood of selecting option 1 (evaluated at the mean of X).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\" width=\"321\" height=\"71\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our example, the marginal impact of a change in an independent variable on the chance of choosing LPG use corresponds to the marginal impact of X on that probability. This shows how much a slight increase in an independent variable will influence the choice of LPG.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs an alternative, we can use Pr(Yi\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;exp (Xi)/ 1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exp (Xi) to determine the likelihood that a person with specific traits will choose option 1. The odds ratio, which measures the likelihood of choosing one of the two options, can be calculated as follows: odds\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;pr (Yi\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1)/ pr (Yi\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;exp (Xi)/ 1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exp(Xi)/ 1 /1\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;exp(Xi)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;exp (Xi). The odds ratio's log is known as the logit. So, odds\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;odds and Xi. The logit can be understood as a marginal effect in terms of the log odds ratio as it is just Xi. The odds ratio's log will change by units if we increase X by one unit. However, in this case, we determine the size of impact on the choice of LPG access using the marginal effects found by logit regression. Table-3 depicts the expected relationship between response and explanatory variable and table 4 displays the margin findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable-3: Expected Relation of Explanatory Variable\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabc\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSl. No\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplanatory Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHousehold Size\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe higher household size will lead to higher probability of LPG adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUjjwala Beneficiary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe beenficiaries will have higher probability of adopting the LPG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocio-religious groups\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUppercaste Hindus (Hindu others have highest possibility of using LPG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender of the head of the household\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale headed households have higher probability of using LPG adoption as they are the ones bearing the responsibility of cooking\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation level of head of household)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPG adoption and education of head positively correlated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaximum Male Education Record\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPG adoption and education of head positively correlated however\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaximum Female Education Record\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLPG adoption and education of head positively correlated however\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsual Principal Activity Status of the head\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJobs having regular source of permanent income increase LPG adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eState Record\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe probability of LPG adoption should be similar in all states as PMUY supports poorer population\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge of the head\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncrease in head will be positively correlated with LPG adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollected Gift\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollected gift will have negative correlation with LPG adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHomegrown\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHouseholds using homegrown stock will have negative correlation with LPG adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMPCE Quintile\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher quintiles have higher adoption\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLand Possessed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore land decreases the LPG adoption as free availability of traditional fuel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s Computation\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTable-4: Margin Results\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Tabd\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplanatory Variables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003edy/dx\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;z\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousehold Size\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.003\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.012**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUjjwala Beneficiary(No Ujjwala Beneficiary as benchmark category)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.187\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocio-Religious Groups (Benchmark Category Hindu Others)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll ST\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.135\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll SC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.045\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHindu OBC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.017\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMuslim OBC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eORM OBC\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.289\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMuslim others\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eORM others\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender of the Head of the Household (Benchmark Category Male)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.009***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducation Recode (Head of household) (Benchmark Category Illiterate)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterate up to primary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.008\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.290\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMiddle up to secondary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher secondary and above\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.126\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaximum Male Education Record (Benchmark Category Illiterate)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterate up to primary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.150\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMiddle up to secondary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher secondary and above\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.091\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMaximum Female Education Record (Benchmark Category Illiterate)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiterate up to primary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMiddle up to secondary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher secondary and above\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.108\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsual Principal Activity Status of the head (Benchmark Category Own Account Worker)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmployer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHelper in household enterprise (unpaid family worker)\u003cb\u003e(helper)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.044**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegular salaried/ wage employee\u003cb\u003e(RSWW)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCasual wage labour in public works\u003cb\u003e(CWPW)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.796\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCasual wage labour in other types of work\u003cb\u003e(CW OW)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.077\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDid not work but was seeking and/or available for work\u003cb\u003e(Seeking work)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.151\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.023**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAttended educational institution\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.016\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.911\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAttended domestic duties only\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.287\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAttended domestic duties and was also engaged in free collection of goods\u003cb\u003e(domestic duties)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.072\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRenters, pensioners, remittance recipients\u003cb\u003e(Pensioners)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.014\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.263\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot able to work due to disability\u003cb\u003e(Disabled)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.098\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.006***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOthers (including begging, prostitution, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.015\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.365\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eState Recode\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cb\u003e(Benchmark Category Least Developed)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLess Developed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelatively Developed\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.213\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnion Territories\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.395\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge of the head\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCollected Gift (Benchmark Category No gift collected)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.104\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHomegrown (Benchmark Category Not access to homegrown stock)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.097\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMPCE Quintile (Benchmark Category Quintile 1)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuintile-2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.053\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuintile-3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.098\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuintile-4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.168\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuintile-5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.229\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLand Possessed (Benchmark Category More than 2.01 Hectares)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLess than .005 Hectares\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.005\u0026ndash;0.02 Hectare\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.001***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.02\u0026ndash;0.21 Hectare\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.337\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.21\u0026ndash;0.41 Hectare\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.025\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.013**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.41\u0026ndash;1.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.004***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.01\u0026ndash;2.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.040\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.000***\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo Land\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.442\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of obs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;58618\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProb\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;chi2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource: Author\u0026rsquo;s Computation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNote\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e*, ** and *** mean significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% significance level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHousehold Size and gender of the head of the household\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn many societies, gender roles play a significant role in determining who is responsible for cooking. In such societies, women are often the primary cooks, and their preferences may influence the choice of cooking energy. If the head of the household is a woman, she may have a greater say in the choice of cooking energy. Other research suggests that enabling female household heads to take use of greater economic opportunities than males do may enhance their chances of using clean energy (Pokul, Adams \u0026amp;Mantey, 2022). The study supports this argument. The results show that if the head of the household is female, then the household is nearly 3 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. On the other hand, research shows that the households have relatively large family sizes, which will have a substantial impact on the amount of energy required for cooking (Mwaura, Okoboi, \u0026amp;Ahaibwe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). This is consistent with Makoneseet. al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) result that the size of a household influences the type of energy source used. The study shows that as the household size increases the household is 0.3 percent more likely to use LPG.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePMUY beneficiary\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA PMUY beneficiary is around 19 percent more likely to use LPG as a primary cooking fuel. This result should be taken cautiously as the survey does not capture all the Ujjwala beneficiary households as beneficiaries. It captures around 27\u0026nbsp;million households as beneficiaries, but by the time survey was completed around 58\u0026nbsp;million connections were distributed. Although the survey may not capture all the PMUY beneficiaries, the positive externalities created due to PMUY are evident through the increased LPG use. Several studies reported that the use of LPG consumption has increased due to PMUY (Asharaf, 2024; Ranjan\u0026amp; Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Asharaf (2024)\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e emphasized that PMUY implementation resulted in a 2.1 percentage point rise in LPG use, accompanied by a corresponding decline in firewood consumption.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocio-Religious Groups\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eST households are nearly 14 percent less likely to use LPG in comparison to Upper caste (UC) Hindus. It may be due to various reasons such as more proportion of households being poor, the households being located in remote areas with poorer access to roads and other amenities where providing the LPG distribution facilities is difficult for the OMCs, and more and easier access to free firewood to these households makes the switch to LPG difficult for these households. SC households are nearly 5 percent less likely to use LPG as the primary fuel in comparison to UC Hindu households. The SC community has been which has been historically discriminated against and as a result bound to live in poor conditions. Indian villages have pockets where different castes reside and these pockets have different level of development and access to public services and amenities such as roads and drainage.\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003eIn the case of the Other Backward Class (OBC) community, which is classified as castes that are economically and socially disadvantaged, it is observed that OBCs belonging to the Hindu community are 2 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel in comparison to upper-caste Hindus. Muslim OBCs are nearly 5 percent while Upper Caste Muslims are nearly 10 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. There is no significant difference between Other religious minorities\u0026rsquo; (ORM) and Upper Caste Hindus\u0026rsquo; LPG use as primary cooking fuel. According to a study by Patnaik \u0026amp; Jha (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), economic disparities lead to 32 percent of households in the Scheduled Caste (SC) and 21 percent of households in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) using LPG as their primary cooking fuel, compared to 49 percent of households in the general category.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEducation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation has been considered as it has twin effects firstly, more education implies more awareness and secondly, increment in education is also related to more wages.We have considered three education variables, the highest level of completed education of the head, and the most educated male and female members of the household as it is not only the head\u0026rsquo;s education and awareness but the overall awareness and educational level of the household leads to affordability and preference for better services and products (Menghwani, et.al., 2019).It is observed that if the members of the household are more educated then it is more likely to use LPG as the primary cooking fuel (Gould, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Ranjan \u0026amp; Singh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The impact of the head of the household on the likelihood of using LPG is most at each level of education followed by the education of the most educated female.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eUsual Principal Activity Status of the Head of the Household\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is observed that the usual principal status of employment (UPA status) of the head of the household does not has an impact on the likelihood of use of LPG as primary fuel in case of, and a majority of them are equally likely to use LPG as those households which are headed by self-employed heads.However, if the head is an employer, it is 12 percent more likely to use LPG as the primary cooking fuel. RSWW-headed households are 6 percent more likely and if the head of the household is a rentier or pensioner then such households are nearly 1.4 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. This indicates that if a household has a regular source of income or business which employs others then probability of them adopting LPG as primary fuel is more\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e.If the head is a casual wage worker in non-public works or is not able to work due to disability, then the household is nearly 8 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. This may be due to irregular nature of jobs of the casual workers. Further, in many cases the casual workers keep on moving around in search of work and thus prefer to keep minimal infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMPCE Quintile\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is observed that as we move above the MPCE classes the likelihood of using LPG as the primary cooking fuel increases significantly (Ranjan\u0026amp; Singh,2023). Households belonging to third, fourth, and fifth quintiles are nearly 9, 16, and 22 percent more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel respectively. This result is slightly surprising as, despite PMUY being in place,which aims to assist poor households in getting an LPG, this same model suggests that PMUY beneficiaries are more likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel, but the poorest households\u0026rsquo; lag. This is also indicative of the fact that many who should have benefitted from the program were either yet not covered or have not shifted to LPG as the primary fuel. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (2021) found no correlation between poverty and PMUY beneficiaries, while several authors noted that high LPG refill costs dissuade the poor (The Indian Express, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe land possessed and Access to collection/Gift\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is observed that the households receiving wages in kind or engaging in free collection of goods\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e are 10 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. Similarly, households that consume home-grown stock\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e are 9.7 percent less likely to use LPG as primary cooking fuel. Additionally, if a household possesses agricultural land, it is observed that as the area of possessed land increases the likelihood of use of LPG as primary cooking fuel decreases. This may be due to two factors, the returns to agriculture are not very high and the presence of agricultural land makes firewood, crop residue, and dung cakes readily available to the households. As it has been established in the literature also that if the household has access to free firewood either through possessed land or through collection/ gifts, they are reluctant to use LPG as the primary fuel. Interesting is the finding that if there is no land then the probability of using LPG is higher\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e.When considered alongside the MPCE (Monthly Per Capita Expenditure) class results, this suggests that households with no land and better income are more likely to use LPG. This indicates that the use of LPG is more closely linked to income rather than wealth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eState/ UTs\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe have used the state categorization from Dr. RaghuramRajan Committee's report on \"Evolving a Composite Development Index of States,\" which classifies states as least developed, less developed, relatively developed, and groups Union Territories together. Post-PMUY, it was expected that the probability of using LPG as the primary cooking fuel would be more uniform across different categories of states, given that the policy specifically targeted poorer households. However, significant disparities remain as households in less developed and relatively developed states are 14 percent and 23 percent more likely to use LPG as their primary cooking fuel compared to the households residing in least developed states. In Union Territories, households are nearly 39 percent more likely to use LPG as compared with least developed households.These findings highlight the need for more tailored interventions to ensure equitable access to clean cooking fuels across all regions. Reducing these disparities is crucial for the sustainable LPG adoption in rural India.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion \u0026 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe use of LPG as a primary cooking fuel has significantly increased in rural India following the implementation of PMUY, despite rising petroleum prices. However, it is concerning that a large proportion of households in the lowest two income quintiles and more than half of those in the third quintile still rely on traditional fuels for cooking. This issue needs to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of PMUY, which primarily aimed to help poorer households adopt LPG as their primary cooking fuel. Additionally, the slower adoption of LPG among households in less developed states highlights the need for PMUY to adopt a broader perspective and provide further assistance beyond merely supplying LPG connections. The most significant increase in LPG use has been observed in the top two income quintiles, likely due to better availability and affordability of LPG for these households. This suggests that the positive externalities of the scheme are significant, as the distribution network for LPG cylinders has expanded to accommodate the growing number of consumers. This trend may also indicate a bandwagon effect, where relatively well-off households feel compelled to switch to LPG as their poorer peers gain access to this superior fuel.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe paper also finds that as household awareness and education levels increase, so does the likelihood of adopting LPG. Additionally, households with a regular source of income are more inclined to use LPG. Therefore, improving employment opportunities and ensuring regular incomes are expected to boost LPG adoption in rural India. There should be policies that increase the women's work force participation rate (WFPR) as its impact will be particularly significant. Higher WFPR means that more women are engaged in paid work, which increases the opportunity cost of time, spent collecting traditional fuels. Then the households will find LPG adoption more desirable as the fuel choice will not only free up time for more economically productive activities but also reduce the physical burden on women. Additionally, women would prefer to spend less time using traditional fuels like firewood and dung cakes, as poor health will incur an economic cost on the household.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting finding is that there is no positive correlation between a household\u0026rsquo;s landholding and LPG adoption. This could be due to several factors. Although landholding is often considered an indicator of wealth in rural areas, poor returns from agriculture may limit a household's ability to afford LPG. Additionally, households with land may use it to source traditional fuels like firewood, reducing their need to adopt LPG. This is also indicated by the fact that households with access to home-grown products are less likely to use LPG as their primary cooking fuel. Similarly, households that receive consumable gifts, often from wealthier households they assist, are also less likely to adopt LPG. These gifts frequently include traditional fuels such as firewood and dung cakes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these challenges, the introduction of PMUY has undeniably led to a significant increase in LPG adoption in rural India. The results post-PMUY implementation suggests that the government should continue such programs long-term to ensure sustainable adoption and usage of LPG among rural households. To meet households' cooking fuel needs seamlessly, targeted subsidies, such as providing a certain number of LPG refills annually, should be considered. Income-linked and consumption-linked subsidy schemes could also be designed for lower-consuming households. Strengthening distribution and doorstep delivery networks in rural areas is essential for the successful adoption of LPG. Additionally, policies should aim to increase the opportunity cost of using biomass for cooking to reduce fuel stacking. Such actions are crucial to building on the initial success of PMUY and promoting the widespread use of LPG as a cooking fuel in rural areas.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe paper did not receive any financial support from any Institutions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e This is to inform you that there is no conflict of interest among the authors. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe NSS Unit level data is publicly available and STATA do file will be shared as per the request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish declaration:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate Declaration:\u003c/strong\u003e Yes\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e Authors reports that experiments on humans and/or the use of human tissue samples was not performed in this paper. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRahul Ranjan conceptualized the concept and prepared the initial draft. Sudershan Singh has handled the editing and formatting.Abhishek Kumar Chintu edited the paper.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, Jabir., \u0026amp; Khan, Waseem. (2022). Factors affecting access to clean cooking fuel among rural households in India during COVID-19 pandemic. \u003cem\u003eEnergy for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.67, pp.102-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2022.01.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, Elizabeth., Lyons, Hannah., \u0026amp; Stephens, Jennie, C. (2019). Women\u0026rsquo;s leadership in renewable transformation, energy justice and energy democracy: Redistributing power. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101233\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAggarwal, Shubham., Kumar, Sudhanshu., \u0026amp; Tiwari, Manoj, Kumar. (2018). Decision support system for Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.118, pp.455-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaquie, Sandra., \u0026amp;Urpelainen, Johannes. (2017). Access to modern fuels and satisfaction with cooking arrangements: Survey evidence from rural India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.38, pp.34-47. DOI:10.1016/j.esd.2017.02.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhattacharjee, Suchismita., \u0026amp; Reichard, Georg. (2011). Socio-economic factors affecting individual household energy consumption: A systematic review. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Washington, DC, USA. DOI:10.1115/ES2011-54615\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCAG. (2019). Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. Comptroller and Auditor General of India. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-report/details/55961\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCecelski, Elizabeth. (1995). From Rio to Beijing: Engendering the energy debate. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy, \u003c/em\u003eVol.23, Issue.6, pp.561\u0026ndash;575. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)91241-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCecelski, Elizabeth. (2020). The Role of Women in Sustainable Energy Development. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26889.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDabadge, Ashwini., Josey, Ann., \u0026amp; Sreenivas, Ashok. (2016). From LPG Connections to Use. \u003cem\u003eEconomic \u0026amp; Political Weekly\u003c/em\u003e. Vol.51, Issue.16. https://www.epw.in/journal/2016/16/budget-2016%E2%80%9317/lpg-connections-use.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGould, C.F., Urpelainen, Johannes. (2018). LPG as a clean cooking fuel: Adoption, use, and impact in rural India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy, \u003c/em\u003eVol.122, pp.395\u0026ndash;408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.042\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJaiswal, Vaishali, Bhole., Meshram, Pravin, U. (2020). Behavioral Change in Determinants of the Choice of Fuels amongst Rural Households after the Introduction of Clean Fuel Program: A District-Level Case Study. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Challenges,\u003c/em\u003e Vol.5, Issue.2. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.2020000\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonsson, Seema, Arora. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Environmental Change\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.21, Issue.2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA. (2017). World Energy Outlook 2017. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/4a50d774-5e8c-457e-bcc9-513357f9b2fb/World_Energy_Outlook_2017.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA. (2018). World Energy Outlook 2018. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/77ecf96c-5f4b-4d0d-9d93-d81b938217cb/World_Energy_Outlook_2018.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA. (2019). Women working in the rooftop solar sector: A look at India\u0026rsquo;s transition to clean energy. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/67e60726-8659-4c58-aefd-c86bdaa5fc10/Women_working_in_the_rooftop_solar_sector.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIEA. (2023). World Energy Outlook 2023. The International Energy Agency. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/86ede39e-4436-42d7-ba2a-edf61467e070/WorldEnergyOutlook2023.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMakonese, Tafadzwa., Ifegbesan, Ayodeji, P., Rampedi, Isaac, T. (2018). Household cooking fuel use patterns and determinants across southern Africa. \u003cem\u003eEnergy \u0026amp; Environment\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.29, No.1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/90018235\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMartines, Rebecca, Pearl., Stephens, Jennie, C.(2016). Toward a gender diverse workforce in the renewable energy transition. \u003cem\u003eSustainability Science Practice and Policy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.12(1). DOI:\u003cu\u003e10.1080/15487733.2016.11908149\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMenghwani, Vikas. et.al. (2019). Determinants of Cookstoves and Fuel Choice Among Rural Households in India. EcoHealth, Vol.16, pp.21-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-018-1389-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMottaleb, Khondoker, Abdul., \u0026amp;Rahut, Dil, Bahadur. (2021). Clean energy choice and use by the urban households in India: Implications for sustainable energy for all. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Challenges\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100254\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMPNG. (2019). The Ujjwala Saga-Unending Happiness \u0026amp; Health. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15741/1/Ujjwala%20Saga.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMwaura, Francis., Okoboi, Geofrey., Ahaibwe, Gemma. (2014). Determinants of household\u0026rsquo;s choice of cooking energy in Uganda. AgEcon Search, Research Series No.114. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNelson, Sibyl., \u0026amp; Kuriakose, Anne T. (2017). Gender and renewable energy: entry points for women\u0026rsquo;s livelihoods and employment. Climate Investment Funds. https://www.cif.org/sites/cif_enc/files/knowledge-documents/gender_and_re_digital.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOECD. (2021). Gender and the Environment: Building the Evidence Base and Advancing Policy Actions to Achieve the SDGs. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development https://www.oecd.org/env/gender-and-the-environment-3d32ca39-en.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePachauri, Shonali, et. al. (2013). Pathways to achieve universal household access to modern energy by 2030. Environmental Research Letters, Volume.8, Number.2. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024015/pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePandey, Vijay, Laxmi., \u0026amp;Chaubal, Aditi. (2011). Comprehending household cooking energy choice in rural India. \u003cem\u003eBiomass and Bioenergy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.35, Issue.11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.09.020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParikh, Jyoti, K., (1995). Gender issues in energy policy. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.23, Issue.9, pp. 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)00056-O\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParikh, Jyoti, K., (2011). Hardships and health impacts on women due to traditional cooking fuels: A case study of Himachal Pradesh, India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.39, Issue.12, pp. 7587-7594. DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.055\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatnaik, Sasmita., \u0026amp;Jha, Shaily. (2020). Caste, Class and Gender in Determining Access to Energy: A Critical Review of LPG Adoption in India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.67. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101530.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePIB. (2021). PM to launch Ujjwala 2.0 on 10\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e August. Press Information Bureau, Posted on 8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003eAugust, 2021. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1743813#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20Shri%20Narendra%20Modi,30%20PM%20via%20video%20conferencing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerkins, Jessica, M. et. al. (2019). Changes in socio-economic patterns of energy consumption and insufficient energy intake across India from 1993\u0026ndash;94 to 2011\u0026ndash;12. \u003cem\u003ePublic Health Nutrition\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.23(2), pp.231-242. doi:10.1017/S1368980019001484\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePokul, Frank, Adusah., Adams, Samuel., Mantey, Kwame, Adjei. (2022). Does thegenderofthehousehold head affect household energy choice inGhana? Anempirical analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol.25, pp.6049-6070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02293-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRanjan., Rahul., \u0026amp;Kausik, K, Bhadra. (2019). Impacts of Traditional Cooking Fuels on the Prevalence of Ailments in India. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Human Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol. 13(3), pages 294-307, December. DOI: 10.1177/0973703019900444\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRanjan, Rahul., \u0026amp; Singh, Sudershan. (2020). Household Cooking Fuel Patterns in Rural India: Pre- and Post-Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Human Development\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.14, Issue.3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703020975\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRanjan, Rahul., \u0026amp; Singh, Sudershan. (2023). Switching Towards LPG: Indian Household Perspectives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Quantitative Economics\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.21, pp.417-433. DOI:10.1007/s40953-023-00337-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSCF. (2020). India\u0026rsquo;s Community Kitchens and Clean Cooking Nexus. Smokeless Cookstove Foundation. https://smokelesscookstovefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/HRS_Indias-Community-Kitchens-and-Clean-Cooking-Nexus.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSharma, Vikesh., \u0026amp; Dash, Madhusmita. (2022). Household energy use pattern in rural India: A pathtowards sustainable development. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Challenges\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100404\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, Sudershan., Ranjan, Rahul., \u0026amp; Gonsalves, Oliver, Nelson. (2020). Decomposing the Gaps in Access to LPG across Socio-Religious Groups in Rural India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Inclusion Studies\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.6, Issue.1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394481120944780\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwain,Swadhina, Shika., \u0026amp; Mishra, Pulak. (2019). Determinants of adoption of cleaner cooking energy: experience of the Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana in Rural Odisha, India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.248(10). DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119223\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Indian Express. (2023). High refill cost, lack of access deter the poor from using LPG: study. Dated 22\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e August 2023. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/high-refill-cost-lack-of-access-deter-the-poor-from-using-lpg-study-8903063/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNDP. (2012). Gender and Energy. United Nations Development Programme, New York. https://www.undp.org/energy/our-work-areas/energy-and-gender-equality\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNIDO. (2023). Gender equality in the sustainable energy transition. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2023-05/Gender-equality-in-the-sustainable-energy-transition-en.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWHO. (2021). Transitioning to cleaner cooking. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/transitioning-to-cleaner-cooking\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWHO. (2022). Household air pollution. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health?gad_source=1\u0026amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwzN-vBhAkEiwAYiO7oI5bzgpkcQONi1ike0MK8jcnT8k_yvo5rV9XHZOCUyvgz21MuYdAqxoCEwYQAvD_BwE\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYadav, Prabhakar., Davies, Peter, J., \u0026amp;Sarkodie, Samuel, Asumadu. (2021). Fuel choice and tradition: Why fuel stacking and the energy ladder are out of step?. Solar Energy, Vol.214, pp.491-501. DOI:10.1016/j.solener.2020.11.077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYawale, Satish, Kumar. et. al. (2023). End-use energy projections: Future regional disparity and energy poverty at the household level in rural and urban areas of India. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Policy\u003c/em\u003e, Vol.182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113772\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYelamanchi, Bala, Bharathi., Jayakumar, Vandana., \u0026amp; Samad, Syed, Abdul. (2019). Pradhan MantriUjjwalaYojana (PMUY): Brightening Lives by Bridging Barriers. ET Cases. https://www.etcases.com/pradhan-mantri-ujjwala-yojana-report.html#case-study\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas estimates that on 7th September 2019, 8 crore LPG connections have been distributed. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.pmuy.gov.in/about.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;5\u003c/sup\u003e According to Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Par9\" class=\"Para\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://mopng.gov.in/en/page/46#:~:text=The%20target%20of%20releasing%20additional,2.0%20on%2031st%20Dec\u0026apos;22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314235\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e Report for the 76th Round states that there may be respondents bias while answering the questions pertaining to benefits received from the government schemes. Furthermore, because the survey was not designed to estimate the number of households that benefited from various government programmes, no second stage stratification of households was performed in the sample design to adequately capture the households that benefited from each of the government programmes for housing, drinking water, sanitation, electrification, and LPG connections. These factors must be considered when interpreting the data on the benefits gained from various government activities and access to the aforementioned facilities. However, no such caveat was used for LPG users, so we assume that the beneficiaries may be underestimated by the data, it correctly estimates the LPG users.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e The data suggests that there were 27 million beneficiary households in the country and 24.88 million households in the rural India. By December 2018 the number of PMUY beneficiaries had crossed 58 million. (PMUY Wikipedia)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e We have used Report of Dr.RaghuramRajan Committee for Evolving a Composite Development Index of states to categorise states. The report did not categorise Union Territories, hence we put them in a separate group. See Appendix B for details.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e https://arxiv.org/html/2403.17112v1#:~:text=Using%20Propensity%20Score%20Matching%20and,parallel%20decrease%20in%20firewood%20consumption\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e Shamsher Singh (2015), \u0026quot;Residential Segregation and Access to Basic Amenities: A Village-Level Case Study,\u0026quot; \u003cem\u003eReview of Agrarian Studies\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 5, no. 2, available at\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://ras.org.in/residential_segregation_and_access_to_basic_amenities\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e finds that there is segregation within village among SC and upper caste households, with SC populated areas having poorer access to services such as roads.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e Umap, S., \u0026amp; Jain, N. (2023). Employment Characteristics of Regular Salaried Employees in Urban Maharashtra. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Inclusion Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 139\u0026ndash;160. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/23944811231176988\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e finds that RSWW has tenurial security and other perks which makes it most favored job type in the labor market.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e These households usually constitute casual and agriculture labourers.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e These households are usually agricultural households.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e Lack of land has been considered as a proxy for lack of wealth in the rural areas.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojna, LPG Adoption, Clean Energy Policy, Income Classes, Rural India","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY), which aims to provide and transition rural households towards LPG, a cleaner cooking fuel, has been heavily debated for its sustainability and efficacy. In this context, the study tries to examine the determinants of household energy consumption post implementation of the PMUY using the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) Seventy-Sixth Round data - \u0026ldquo;Socio-Economic Survey: Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene and Housing Condition\u0026rdquo;. The data reveals that nearly 48.3 percent of rural households use LPG as the primary cooking fuel. Further, it is also observed that the LPG use amongst the households belonging to the lowest quintile of consumption is as low as 29 percent. The study also finds that a Ujjwala beneficiary is nearly 20 percent more likely to use LPG. Moreover, ST and SC households are almost 14 percent and 7 percent less likely to use LPG in comparison to Upper caste Hindus, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Household Energy Transition in Rural India in the Wake of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-22 09:34:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6916485/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-08-19T12:25:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-16T03:34:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-08-09T05:09:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258102523034579061101370764568765425998","date":"2025-08-06T13:40:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"126196371764101898085062367444676733472","date":"2025-08-02T03:48:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"121085520239348233644614343623905210535","date":"2025-08-01T15:03:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"44136411532188676596526072846146140821","date":"2025-07-21T11:38:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"72268391096098982179396869546415915894","date":"2025-07-19T16:29:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"131961409817629655698086100009929877578","date":"2025-07-18T19:55:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-07-18T12:58:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"240682285551747263439341858977132148959","date":"2025-07-18T12:50:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-07-18T12:22:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-07-10T09:13:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-08T14:16:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Sustainability","date":"2025-07-08T12:49:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-sustainability","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"disu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Sustainability](https://www.springer.com/43621)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Sustainability","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"339572ee-7422-48d2-bbb1-44f22a8d961f","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-29T16:08:46+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6916485","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02241-2","journal":{"identity":"discover-sustainability","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Discover Sustainability"},"publishedOn":"2025-12-23 15:58:17","publishedOnDateReadable":"December 23rd, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-22 09:34:23","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s43621-025-02241-2","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02241-2","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6916485","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6916485","identity":"rs-6916485","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}