The drivers of sustained use of liquified petroleum gas in India


Ninety-five per cent of Indian households now have access to liquified petroleum gas (LPG), with 80 million acquiring it under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) since 2016. Still, having a connection is not enough to eliminate household air pollution. Studying panel data from rural households in six major states from 2014–2015 and 2018, we assess the determinants of cooking energy transition from solid fuels to LPG. We find that PMUY beneficiaries have much lower odds of using LPG as the primary or exclusive fuel compared with general customers, irrespective of their economic status. Village-level penetration of LPG as a primary fuel and the years of LPG use positively influence its sustained use, while ease of access to freely available biomass and reliance on uncertain and irregular income sources hinder LPG use. The findings highlight the need to interlace cooking fuel policies with rural development, to enable a complete transition towards cleaner cooking fuels.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Distribution of LPG-use categories among LPG households in 2018.
Fig. 2: Household-level shifts in fuel stacking from 2015 to 2018 in the panel subset.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study (both of panel and cross-sectional analysis) are made available through Figshare at

Code availability

The files that format, clean and analyse the merged and appended datasets are available through Figshare at, while the R scripts that produce the figures are available at Information on unique identifiers between the datasets is available in the file.


  1. 1.

    Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 2019);

  2. 2.

    Census of India 2011 (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India & Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2013);

  3. 3.

    Balakrishnan, K. et al. The impact of air pollution on deaths, disease burden, and life expectancy across the states of India: the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e26–e39 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Jeuland, M., Pattanayak, S. K. & Bluffstone, R. The economics of household air pollution. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 7, 81–108 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bailis, R., Wang, Y., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A. & Masera, O. Getting the numbers right: revisiting woodfuel sustainability in the developing world. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 115002 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bhaskar, U. NDA Ujjwala surpasses targets, provides 80.33 million LPG connections. Mint (9 September 2019).

  7. 7.

    Gould, C. F. & Urpelainen, J. LPG as a clean cooking fuel: adoption, use, and impact in rural India. Energy Policy 122, 395–408 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kumar, P., Kaushalendra Rao, R. & Reddy, N. H. Sustained uptake of LPG as cleaner cooking fuel in rural India: role of affordability, accessibility, and awareness. World Dev. Perspect. 4, 33–37 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dabage, A., Sreenivas, A. & Josey, A. What has Pradhan Mantra Ujjwala Yojana achieved so far? Econ. Polit. Wkly 53, 69–75 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kar, A., Singh, D., Pachauri, S., Bailis, R. & Zerriffi, H. in The Ujjwala Saga – Unending Happiness & Health 16–21 (Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, 2019).

  11. 11.

    Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 7.23 Crore Connections released under Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana. Press Information Bureau Government of India (2019).

  12. 12.

    Ahmad, N., Sharma, S. & Singh, D. A. K. Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) step towards social inclusion in India. Int. J. Trend Res. Dev. 5, 46–49 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Giri, A. & Aadil, A. Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana: A Demand-side Diagnostic Study of LPG Refills Policy Brief (MicroSave, 2018).

  14. 14.

    Smith, K. R. in Making of New India: Transformation Under Modi Government (eds Debroy, B. et al.) 401–410 (Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation and Wisdom Tree, 2018).

  15. 15.

    Kar, A., Pachauri, S., Bailis, R. & Zerriffi, H. Using sales data to assess cooking gas adoption and the impact of India’s Ujjwala programme in rural Karnataka. Nat. Energy 4, 806–814 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pope, D., Bruce, N., Dherani, M., Jagoe, K. & Rehfuess, E. Real-life effectiveness of ‘improved’ stoves and clean fuels in reducing PM 2.5 and CO: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 101, 7–18 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sambandam, S. et al. Can currently available advanced combustion biomass cook-stoves provide health relevant exposure reductions? Results from initial assessment of select commercial models in India. EcoHealth 12, 25–41 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Johnson, M. A. & Chiang, R. A. Quantitative guidance for stove usage and performance to achieve health and environmental targets. Environ. Health Perspect. 123, 820–826 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Ruiz-Mercado, I. & Masera, O. Patterns of stove use in the context of fuel-device stacking: rationale and implications. EcoHealth 12, 42–56 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Muller, C. & Yan, H. Household fuel use in developing countries: Review of theory and evidence. Energy Econ. 70, 429–439 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Lewis, J. J. & Pattanayak, S. K. Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A systematic review. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 637–645 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Puzzolo, E., Pope, D., Stanistreet, D., Rehfuess, E. A. & Bruce, N. G. Clean fuels for resource-poor settings: A systematic review of barriers and enablers to adoption and sustained use. Environ. Res. 146, 218–234 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gupta, G. & Köhlin, G. Preferences for domestic fuel: Analysis with socio-economic factors and rankings in Kolkata, India. Ecol. Econ. 57, 107–121 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Joon, V., Chandra, A. & Bhattacharya, M. Household energy consumption pattern and socio-cultural dimensions associated with it: A case study of rural Haryana, India. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1509–1512 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Farsi, M., Filippini, M. & Pachauri, S. Fuel choices in urban Indian households. Environ. Dev. Econ. 12, 757–774 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kemmler, A. Factors influencing household access to electricity in India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 11, 13–20 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pandey, V. L. & Chaubal, A. Comprehending household cooking energy choice in rural India. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 4724–4731 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ahmad, S. & Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. Fuel switching in slum and non-slum households in urban India. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 130–136 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Khandker, S. R., Barnes, D. F. & Samad, H. A. Energy Poverty in Rural and Urban India : Are the Energy Poor also Income Poor? (The World Bank, 2010); (2010).

  30. 30.

    Kishore, A. & Spears, D. Having a Son Promotes Clean Cooking Fuel Use in Urban India: Women’s Status and Son Preference. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 62, 673–699 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Epstein, M. B. et al. Household fuels, low birth weight, and neonatal death in India: The separate impacts of biomass, kerosene, and coal. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 216, 523–532 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mishra, V. K. & Retherford, R. D. Cooking smoke increases the risk of acute respiratory infection in children. Natl. Fam. Health Surv. Bull. 8, 1–4 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Mishra, V. K., Retherford, R. D. & Smith, K. R. Biomass cooking fuels and prevalence of tuberculosis in India. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 3, 119–129 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Cheng, C. & Urpelainen, J. Fuel stacking in India: Changes in the cooking and lighting mix, 1987–2010. Energy 76, 306–317 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gangopadhyay, S., Ramaswami, B. & Wadhwa, W. Reducing subsidies on household fuels in India: how will it affect the poor? Energy Policy 33, 2326–2336 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Viswanathan, B. & Kavi Kumar, K. S. Cooking fuel use patterns in India: 1983–2000. Energy Policy 33, 1021–1036 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Swarup, V. A. & Rao, K. R. An Econometric Approach to Analysis of Trends and Patterns of Household Fuel Choices in India. Indian Econ. Rev. 50, 105–129 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Singh, D., Pachauri, S. & Zerriffi, H. Environmental payoffs of LPG cooking in India. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 115003 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Harmonized household energy survey questions. World Health Organization (2018).

  40. 40.

    Rao, M. N. & Reddy, B. S. Variations in energy use by Indian households: An analysis of micro level data. Energy 32, 143–153 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Alem, Y., Beyene, A. D., Köhlin, G. & Mekonnen, A. Modeling household cooking fuel choice: A panel multinomial logit approach. Energy Econ. 59, 129–137 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Choumert-Nkolo, J., Combes Motel, P. & Le Roux, L. Stacking up the ladder: A panel data analysis of Tanzanian household energy choices. World Dev. 115, 222–235 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Lam, N. L., Smith, K. R., Gauthier, A. & Bates, M. N. Kerosene: a review of household uses and their hazards in low- and middle-income countries. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B 15, 396–432 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Simons, A. M., Beltramo, T., Blalock, G. & Levine, D. I. Using unobtrusive sensors to measure and minimize Hawthorne effects: evidence from cookstoves. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86, 68–80 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dickinson, K. L. et al. Adoption of improved biomass stoves and stove/fuel stacking in the REACCTING intervention study in Northern Ghana. Energy Policy 130, 361–374 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gould, C. F. et al. Household fuel mixes in peri-urban and rural Ecuador: Explaining the context of LPG, patterns of continued firewood use, and the challenges of induction cooking. Energy Policy 136, 111053 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Aklin, M., Cheng, C., Ganesan, K., Jain, A. & Urpelainen, J. Access to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity: Survey of States in India (ACCESS) (Harvard Dataverse, 2016);

  48. 48.

    Aklin, M., Cheng, C., Urpelainen, J., Ganesan, K. & Jain, A. Factors affecting household satisfaction with electricity supply in rural India. Nat. Energy 1, 16170 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Jain, A. et al. Access to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity: Survey of States (CEEW, 2015); (2018)

  50. 50.

    Mani, S. et al. Access to Clean Cooking Energy and Electricity: Survey of States in India 2018 (ACCESS 2018) (Harvard Dataverse, 2019);

  51. 51.

    Dalaba, M. et al. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) supply and demand for cooking in Northern Ghana. EcoHealth 15, 716–728 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Carrión, D. et al. Enhancing LPG adoption in Ghana (ELAG): a factorial cluster-randomized controlled trial to Enhance LPG Adoption & Sustained use. BMC Public Health 18, 689 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Dickinson, K. L. et al. Prices, peers, and perceptions (P3): study protocol for improved biomass cookstove project in northern Ghana. BMC Public Health 18, 1209 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Sehjpal, R., Ramji, A., Soni, A. & Kumar, A. Going beyond incomes: Dimensions of cooking energy transitions in rural India. Energy 68, 470–477 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Gould, C. F. & Urpelainen, J. The gendered nature of liquefied petroleum gas stove adoption and use in rural India. J. Dev. Stud. 0, 1–21 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Pachauri, S. & Rao, N. D. Gender impacts and determinants of energy poverty: are we asking the right questions? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 205–215 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Rahut, D. B., Behera, B. & Ali, A. Patterns and determinants of household use of fuels for cooking: empirical evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Energy 117, 93–104 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Abebaw, D. Household determinants of fuelwood choice in urban Ethiopia: a case study of Jimma Town. J. Dev. Areas 41, 117–126 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ouedraogo, B. Household energy preferences for cooking in urban Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Energy Policy 34, 3787–3795 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Kar, A. & Zerriffi, H. From cookstove acquisition to cooking transition: framing the behavioural aspects of cookstove interventions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42, 22–33 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Pattanayak, S. K. et al. Experimental evidence on promotion of electric and improved biomass cookstoves. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 13282–13287 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Pillarisetti, A. et al. Promoting LPG usage during pregnancy: a pilot study in rural Maharashtra, India. Environ. Int. 127, 540–549 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Behera, B., Rahut, D. B., Jeetendra, A. & Ali, A. Household collection and use of biomass energy sources in South Asia. Energy 85, 468–480 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Baquié, S. & Urpelainen, J. Access to modern fuels and satisfaction with cooking arrangements: Survey evidence from rural India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 38, 34–47 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Filmer, D. & Pritchett, L. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—Or tears: An application to educational enrollments in states of India. Demography 38, 115–132 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Menghwani, V. et al. Determinants of cookstoves and fuel choice among rural households in India. EcoHealth 16, 21–60 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Vyas, S. & Kumaranayake, L. Constructing socio-economic status indices: how to use principal components analysis. Health Policy Plan. 21, 459–468 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Paudel, U., Khatri, U. & Pant, K. P. Understanding the determinants of household cooking fuel choice in Afghanistan: A multinomial logit estimation. Energy 156, 55–62 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Ravindra, K., Kaur-Sidhu, M., Mor, S. & John, S. Trend in household energy consumption pattern in India: A case study on the influence of socio-cultural factors for the choice of clean fuel use. J. Clean. Prod. 213, 1024–1034 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    van der Kroon, B., Brouwer, R. & van Beukering, P. J. H. The energy ladder: Theoretical myth or empirical truth? Results from a meta-analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 20, 504–513 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Peng, W., Zerriffi, H. & Pan, J. Household level fuel switching in rural Hubei. Energy Sustain. Dev. 14, 238–244 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Shi, X., Heerink, N. & Qu, F. The role of off-farm employment in the rural energy consumption transition — A village-level analysis in Jiangxi Province, China. China Econ. Rev. 20, 350–359 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Heltberg, R. Fuel switching: evidence from eight developing countries. Energy Econ. 26, 869–887 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The Council on Energy, Environment and Water supported time spent by S.M., A.J. and S.T. on this research. The data collection was supported by the Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation and the National University of Singapore. C.F.G. is supported by the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant no. T32 ES007322.

Author information




A.J. conceptualized the study and led the design of the work. A.J., S.T. and S.M. contributed to the collection of data. S.M. and A.J. led the data analysis, with input from all team members. S.T. led the interpretation of results and the writing of the manuscript, with input from all team members. C.F.G. contributed to writing the manuscript, led reviewing of the literature and designed the figures. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript. Please direct any comments or requests for data used in the figures or analysis to S.M. (

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sunil Mani or Saurabh Tripathi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–18, Fig. 1, Notes 1–3 and refs 1–7.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mani, S., Jain, A., Tripathi, S. et al. The drivers of sustained use of liquified petroleum gas in India. Nat Energy 5, 450–457 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing