Impact of randomly assigned “pay-as-you-go” liquefied petroleum gas prices on energy use for cooking: Experimental pilot evidence from rural Rwanda

Abstract

The disease burden related to air pollution from traditional solid-fuel cooking practices in low- and middle-income countries impacts millions of people globally. Although the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuel for cooking can meaningfully reduce household air pollution concentrations, major barriers, including affordability and accessibility, have limited widespread adoption. Using a randomized controlled trial, our objective was to evaluate the association between the cost and use of LPG among 23 rural Rwandan households. We provided a 2-burner LPG stove with accessories and incorporated a “pay-as-you-go” (PAYG) LPG service model that included fuel delivery. PAYG services remove the large up-front cost of cylinder refills by integrating “smart meter” technology that allows participants to pay in incremental amounts, as needed. We assigned three randomized discounted prices for LPG to each household at ∼4-week intervals over a 12-week period. We modeled the relationship between randomized PAYG LPG price and use (standardized to monthly periods), analyzing effect modification by relative household wealth. A 1000 Rwandan Franc (about 1 USD at the time of the study) increase in LPG price/kg was associated with a 4.1 kg/month decrease in use (95 % confidence interval [CI]: −6.7, −1.6; n = 69 observations). Wealth modified this association; we observed a 9.7 kg/month reduction (95 % CI: −14.8, −4.5) among wealthier households and a 2.5 kg/month reduction (95 % CI: −5.3, 0.3) among lower-wealth households (p-interaction = 0.01). The difference in price sensitivity was driven by higher LPG use among wealthier households at more heavily discounted prices; from an 80 % to 10 % discount, wealthy households used 17.5 to 5.3 kg/month and less wealthy households used 6.2 to 3.1 kg/month. Our pilot-level experimental evidence of PAYG LPG in a rural low-resource setting suggests that further exploration of subsidized pricing varied by household wealth is needed to ensure future policy initiatives can achieve targets without exacerbating inequities.