Improving stove evaluation using survey data: Who received which intervention matters

• Published in: Ecological economics Vol. 93; pp. 301 - 312
• Main Authors: Mueller, Valerie, Pfaff, Alexander, Peabody, John, Liu, Yaping, Smith, Kirk R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.09.2013; Elsevier
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Applied sciences; Assets; Atmospheric pollution; Benefits; Biological and medical sciences; Biomass energy; Biomass fuel; Candidates; China; Coal; Developing countries; Energy utilization; Environmental health; Exact sciences and technology; Fuel; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Health; Household air pollution; Household equipment; Households; Indoor air pollution; Matching; Pollution; Pollution control; Stoves; Subsidies; Surveys; Testing; Asia; China; Matching; Health; Household air pollution; China; Coal; Indoor air pollution; Biomass fuel; Stoves; Environment economy; Household; Ecology; Biomass; Improved stove; Fuel; Indoor pollution; Air pollution; Public health; Environment quality
• ISSN: 0921-8009; 1873-6106
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.001

As biomass fuel use in developing countries causes substantial harm to health and the environment, efficient stoves are candidates for subsidies to reduce emissions. In evaluating improved stoves' relative benefits, little attention has been given to who received which stove intervention due to choices that are made by agencies and households. Using Chinese household data, we find that the owners of more efficient stoves (i.e., clean-fuel and improved-biomass stoves, as compared with traditional-biomass and coal stoves) live in less healthy counties and differ, across and within counties, in terms of household characteristics such as various assets. On net, that caused efficient stoves to look worse for health than they actually are. We control for counties and household characteristics in testing stove impacts. Unlike tests that lack controls, our preferred tests with controls suggest health benefits from clean-fuel versus traditional-biomass stoves. Also, they eliminate surprising estimates of health benefits from coal, found without using controls. Our results show the value, for learning, of tracking who gets which intervention. •Agencies' and households' choices can affect who receives which stove intervention.•In a large data set for China, we show differences between different stoves' owners.•The differences bias impact estimates, in this case making efficient stoves look worse.•Preferred impact estimates control for counties and various household characteristics.•Controls eliminate spurious results and suggest health gains from clean-fuel stoves.