Biomass and Bioenergy: Khondoker Abdul Mottaleb, Dil Bahadur Rahut T

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 9

Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biomass and Bioenergy


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Research paper

Biogas adoption and elucidating its impacts in India: Implications for policy T

Khondoker Abdul Mottaleb , Dil Bahadur Rahut
Socioeconomics Program (SEP), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera México-Veracruz Km. 45, El Batán, Texcoco, C.P 56237,
Mexico

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Indoor air pollution from the use of dirty fuel such as firewood, and dung cake for household chores is a serious
Biogas health risk globally. Currently, 2.8 billion people in the world rely on dirty fuel for cooking and heating, of which
Clean fuel more than 700 million (25%) people are from India. In 2016, 3.8 million premature deaths were attributable
Dirty fuel only to indoor air pollution, of which the total premature deaths due to indoor air pollution in India was 1.3
Indoor air pollution
million (34%). One of the effective ways to combat indoor air pollution is a rapid dissemination of biogas
Human capital
technology. With nearly 300 million bovine animals, and 22% of rural agricultural households that completely
HouseholdJEL classification:
C5 rely on livestock for their livelihoods, India has a great potential to expand biogas technology and to combat the
D1 killer indoor air pollution. Currently, however, only 0.4% of the households in India reportedly use biogas. Using
Q4 National Sample Survey Organization data, India, and applying an econometric estimation procedure, the
Q41 present study demonstrates that both physical capital, such as landholdings and house ownership, and human
Q48 capital, such as general education of the household head and spouse, can significantly affect the decision to use
R2 biogas. However, the positive decision to use biogas is negatively associated with the monthly expenditure on
dirty fuel. The study, therefore, recommends the provision of general education as well as external supports in
developing countries to increase awareness, as well as the adoption of domestic biogas digesters.

1. Introduction massive expansion of biogas at the household level in the form of es-
tablishing small-scale biogas digesters particularly for cooking
The hazardous outcome on human health from the use of dirty fuel [12,18–20]. Biogas is a renewable and clean source of fuel and less
[1–9], such as dung cake, biomass, and firewood for household chores hazardous to the ecology and environment compared to the direct use
through indoor air pollution is well documented [2,4,10]. Indoor air of dung cake and biomass for cooking. However, to develop an effective
pollution at the household level from the use of dirty fuel, such as strategy to ensure a rapid scaling up of the provision of biogas at the
biomass, firewood, and kerosene, which emits harmful gas and parti- household level in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, substantial em-
cles, globally causes 3.8 million premature deaths [11]. Importantly, pirical evidence is crucial. First, it is necessary to characterize the
the provision of clean fuel, such as LPG, biogas, and electricity for households that are currently using biogas for household chores, and,
household chores can not only mitigate the problem of indoor air pol- second, it is essential to provide scientifically robust evidence of the
lution [12], but also contribute to sustainable economic and social impacts of biogas on the consumption of other conventional fuel at the
development, thereby enhance the quality of life at the household level household level.
and contribute to human capital development [13–16]. It is, therefore, A few empirical studies are available that examine the public and
imperative to ensure the provision of clean fuel at the household level, private incentives and socio-demographic factors that affect the deci-
particularly in the energy-poor developing countries. sion to use biogas by households in Asian and African countries
Recognizing the importance, ensuring universal access to high [21–24]. Using Bangladesh as a case, Kabir et al. [22] demonstrate that
quality and clean energy is one of the important agenda of the public and private incentives, and a number of socio-economic factors
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations [17]. at the household level, such as education of the household head and
Questions arise as to how to attain the SDG goal for the energy-poor income, positively affect biogas adoption in Bangladesh. Kamp and
households by 2030. One of the potential ways to ensure the provision Forn [23] argued that the high price of conventional fuel had triggered
of clean fuel at the household level, particularly in the energy-poor the use of domestic biogas plants; however, socio-economic factors,
developing countries in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, is the such as literacy rate, political instability and importantly the low


Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.A. Mottaleb), [email protected] (D.B. Rahut).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2019.01.049
Received 8 October 2018; Received in revised form 28 January 2019; Accepted 31 January 2019
0961-9534/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

purchasing power of poor households are the major bottlenecks in the activities [10]. In general, in absence of the provision of clean fuel,
rapid dissemination of the technology. Walekhwa et al. [21], Mengistu households mostly rely on dirty fuel, such as kerosene for lighting, and
et al. [24] and Kelebe et al. [25] econometrically demonstrate that the dung cake, firewood, and biomass for cooking and heating [10]. Ir-
age and education of the household head, number of cattle owned, onically, the majority of the energy-poor people, who rely on dirty fuel,
access to credit and physical infrastructures such as good quality road are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where the ratio
and access to electricity, significantly affect the decision to adopt small- of the extremely poor, who live on less than USD1.90/day, is already
scale biogas technology in Ethiopia and Uganda. high [45]. It indicates that economic poverty and energy poverty are
While a few studies characterize biogas-using households, existing positively correlated. As the global population is expected to grow to
studies seldom examine the impacts of the adoption of biogas on other 9.6 billion – 25% higher than the current level – by 2050 [46], access to
fuel consumption behavior of the adopting households. The exceptions clean energy by the populations of developing countries may further
are Katuwal and Bhohara [26] and Abadi et al. [12]. Abadi et al., [12] deteriorate. For example, by 2030, more than 674 million people – 90%
demonstrate that the adoption of small-scale biogas in Ethiopia reduces of which will be only in Africa – will have no access to electricity, and
the number of cases of indoor air pollution-related diseases and treat- 2.3 billion people will continue to depend on dirty fuel for cooking
ment costs and it reduces the yearly biomass and firewood collection [10]. Therefore, annual 3.8 million premature deaths will continue due
time at the household level. Using Nepal as a case, Katuwal and Bohara to continued indoor air pollution.
[26] demonstrate that, the adoption of biogas in Nepal has positive India, the second most populated country (1.32 billion) in the world
impacts on agricultural productivity, environmental protection by re- after China (1.38 billion) [45], has achieved dramatic success in en-
ducing deforestation, workload reduction of the collection of firewood suring access to electricity for all. The access to electricity has expanded
and biomass, and positively affects the empowerment of women. from 43% in 2000 to 82% in 2017, and it is projected that by 2030 the
However, none of the existing studies examined the impacts of the country will able to ensure universal access to electricity [10]. How-
adoption of biogas on households' behavior of the use of dirty-fuel. ever, concerning the provision of clean energy for cooking, the situation
Using information collected from 3,232 households by the National of Indian households is similar to the other energy-poor households in
Sample Survey (NSS) Organization, Government of India: NSS 46th, developing countries. In India, in 2011–12, on average 53.2% of the
NSS 56th, NSS 63rd, and NSS 68th round data on the use of biogas, and total households were reportedly using firewood and chips for cooking;
other fuel for household chores, the present study first characterizes the however, it was 83.5% for rural households and 23% for urban
households that use biogas for cooking. Second, the study assesses the households [27]. In contrast, 71% of households in urban areas, and
impacts of using biogas on the expenditure on firewood, biomass, 21% of households in the rural areas reportedly used LGP for cooking
kerosene and coal, and on electricity. In India, currently, 83.5% of rural [27]. On average, a rural household in India used 19 kg of firewood and
households, and 23% of urban households rely on firewood and bio- chips monthly for cooking; worth of Rs.48.2 [27]. It indicates that the
mass for their household chores [27]. This reliance on biomass and price of firewood and chips is Rs.2.54/kg. For an urban household, the
firewood is the primary source of indoor air pollution in India monthly expenditure on firewood and chips was Rs.13.2 for 4.3 kg [27].
[3,28–33]. Studies show that in addition to 1.3 million yearly pre- In contrast to India, 45% of China's population relies on solid fuel for
mature deaths [34], indoor air pollution in India on average reduces an cooking [47]. As 53% of India's population uses firewood and chips for
Indian's productive life years by 5% [33,35]. cooking [27], this means that nearly 700 million population of India
A rapid scaling up of small-scale biogas digesters in India can sig- (out of 1.32 billion) is currently relying on dirty-fuel for cooking. As 2.8
nificantly mitigate the indoor air pollution problem. Also, the by- billion people globally rely on dirty-fuel, it means 25% of them reside
products of the biogas plants (slurry) can be used as organic fertilizer only in India. Due to the massive use of dirty-fuel for cooking and the
and or land conditioner, which can be instrumental in maintaining and resultant indoor air pollution, it is projected that every one-seventh of
restoring land fertility. Finally, a massive scaling up of the biogas the population in India that relies on dirty-fuel will face premature
technology can contribute to the preservation of forest resources and death [47].
reduce deforestation by reducing the over-extraction of biomass and Biogas can be produced from pig and cow manure, poultry litter,
firewood. The rest of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 pre- agricultural residues, such as rice straw, banana stem, maize stalks, and
sents the global scenario of the reliance on firewood and biomass for from the silage of sugar beet, sugar cane, and maize [48]. According to
household chores; Section 3 explains data sources and specifies the the USDA [49], India is the top-ranked country in the world regarding
econometric estimation procedure; Section 4 includes descriptive and bovine animals with more than 305 million bovine animal, which is
econometric findings, and Section 5 presents the conclusion and policy more than 30% of the world's total (Table 1).
implications. Also, in India, 58% of rural households are agriculture-based
households [50]. The monthly average income of agricultural
2. Global reliance on firewood and biomass for cooking, and
India's position
Table 1
Cattle poultry population by country and rank in 2019 (1,000 head).
Based on their local pollution potential, fuels used in cooking and
heating at the household level are divided into two groups: dirty and Country No of animal % Share Rank
clean fuels [2,4,7,8]. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas,
India 306500 30.4 1
biogas, and electricity are considered as high-quality or clean fuels, due Brazil 238150 23.6 2
to their less harmful effects and less potential for indoor air pollution at United States 95000 9.4 3
the household level [2,4,7,8]. In contrast, kerosene, firewood, biomass, China 94700 9.4 4
crop residue, and dung cake are considered dirty fuels, as these are the European union 87290 8.6 5
Argentina 54215 5.4 6
primary source of indoor air pollution [36–43]. Others 44383 4.4 7
Globally, out of 7.27 billion people in the world in 2014 [44], nearly Australia 25200 2.5 8
15% of them (1.1 billion) had no access to electricity, and 2.8 billion Russia 18500 1.8 9
had no access to clean fuel and technologies for cooking [10]. Cur- Mexico 16815 1.7 10
Turkey 14990 1.5 11
rently, indoor air pollution causes 3.8 million premature deaths
Canada 11520 1.1 12
worldwide per year [11]. Globally, several billion hours are is em- Total 1009282 100
ployed in collecting firewood for cooking, mainly by women and chil-
dren, which could be used for more productive and income generating Source: [49].

167
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

households in 2011–12 was Rs.6,426, in which the share of livestock 57 biogas-user households with 284 randomly chosen households from
was 12% [50]. However, among this 58% of rural agricultural house- 28,476 total sampled households of NSS 46th round. Thus, the process
holds, 22% of them depend entirely on livestock for their livelihoods provides us with 341 sub-sample households from the NSS 46th round
[50]. It indicates that India has a high potential of a scaling up of the of data. In the same process, we have considered 965 sub-samples from
biogas technology at the household level. 81,500 sampled households from the NSS 56th round data; 762 sub-
Despite the high potential, only 0.4% of the population of India samples from 63,729 sampled households from the NSS 63rd round of
reportedly used biogas for cooking [51]. Rapid scaling up of small-scale data and 1,016 sub-samples from 101,662 sampled households from the
biogas technology in India can significantly contribute to the UN goal of NSS 68th round of data (Table 2). This study, thus, relies on informa-
ensuring universal access to high quality and clean energy by 2030, as tion collected from sub-samples of 3,232 households from India, of
well as can reduce the disease burden of the resource-poor households which 1,764 (54.6%) were from rural areas, and 1,468 (45.4%) were
by mitigating the problem of indoor air pollution. The findings of the from the urban areas (Table 2).
present study, therefore, can be used to formulate effective strategies to
scale up biogas technology in India, as well as in other energy-poor
3.2. Conceptual framework and econometric model specification
developing countries.

The economic activities of the farm households in general produce


3. Materials and methods byproducts, which can be used as input for biogas production. It in-
dicates that agricultural (AH), and rural households (RH) have the
3.1. Data comparative advantage in adopting a biogas plant. On the other hand,
to construct a biogas plant, it is necessary to construct a biogas digester.
The study relies on data collected by the National Sample Survey It requires a physical space. It indicates that households with their own
(NSS) Organization, India, NSS 46th round collected in 1990–91; NSS house (OH) may have a comparative advantage in installing and
56th round collected in 2000–01; NSS 63rd round collected in 2006–07; adopting a biogas plant (tj). Importantly, there is a consensus in the
and NSS 68th round collected in 2011–12. Details of the sampling literature that the construction and maintenance cost of a biogas plant
procedure and data collection process can be seen in Refs. [27,52–54]. is one of the major deterring factors in the adoption of a biogas plant
Since the inception of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) [20,56–61]. The construction and maintenance cost of biogas plant can
in 1950, the Institute collects information on consumer expenditure, vary across size of a digester, and countries and even within different
employment, and unemployment on a regular basis. To enhance pre- geographic regions of the same country [57,58]. For example, in
cision in data collection, NSSO implements a stratified multi-stage Vietnam, the construction cost of a 6–8 m3 biogas digester was USD 200
sampling designing approach. Details of the sampling and data collec- including the government subsidy [62]; it was USD 385 in Bangladesh
tion process by NSSO can be seen in Ref. [55]. for 1.4–8 m3 digester [22]; and it was USD722 in India for a 4 m3 di-
In the NSS 46th round of data (1990–91), out of the 28,533 sur- gester [63]. On the other hand, although on average, the construction
veyed households, only 57 reportedly used biogas for cooking. The cost of a 4 m3 biogas plant in Nepal was USD 343, in Chitwan district it
number of households that supposedly used biogas for cooking in the was USD325, but in Lamjung district, it was USD 362 [57]. Also, the
NSS 56th round of data (2000–01) was 160, out of the total number of annual maintenance and repair costs vary across the regions in Nepal
households surveyed which was 81,500. Similarly, in the NSS 63rd [57]. The cost of water, which is also a most important ingredient to
round of data (2006–07), 63,729 households were surveyed, but only operate a biogas plant, should also be added in the maintenance and
129 reportedly used biogas, and in the NSS 68th round of data operation costs. In the absence of the information on the direct con-
(2011–12), 101,662 households were surveyed, and 148 households struction and operation costs at the household level, the economic
reportedly used biogas (Table 2). It shows that the sub-sample of the ability of the establishment of a biogas plant at the household level can
households that reportedly used biogas are only a few among the total be used as a proxy of the ability of a household (Ii) to construct and use
sampled households in the sampled NSS rounds. The econometric es- of a biogas plant. We assume that a household with higher-level of
timation process in characterizing the households that use biogas may income and expenditure can have more ability to construct and use a
not converge due to the non-proportional number of users and non- biogas plant. Also, the size of landholdings can also affect the decision
users of biogas among the households sampled. To solve the problem, to adopt a biogas plant, as draft animal power is often used in India to
we have randomly grouped the sampled households in each NSS round cultivate land, and such animals produce dung. Symbolically:
into 100 sub-groups, and chose only the sub-sample in the first group,
and merged them with the sub-sample of the households who re- 4
⎧ 1, if γ (AHj) + β (RHj ) + θ (OHj ) + ϑ(I j ) + ∑d = 2 φ (Id ) + ∅ (SHj )
portedly used biogas. In the process, for example in the case of the NSS ⎪
tj = + α (MHj ) + (HCj ) δ + uj > 0
46th round of data, we have divided 28,476 households into 100 ⎨
random groups. Each group consists of 284 households. We merged the ⎪ 0, otherwise

(1)
Table 2
Distribution of the households by years sampled and the use of biogas. where, t j is the biogas plant dummy that assumes a value of 1, if a
household has a biogas plant, and 0 otherwise;
Years sampled 1990/91 2000/01 2006/07 2011/12

NSS round 46th


56 th
63 rd
68th - SHj is the small-farm holder household dummy that assumes a value
of 1, if a household owned 1.01–2 ha of land, and 0 otherwise;
Total sampled households 28,533 57,273 63,729 101,662 - MHj is the marginal farm holder household dummy that assumes a
% Households from rural areas 48.2 37.5 52.0 58.7
Total households used biogas 57 160 129 148
value of 1, if a household owned 1 ha or less land, and 0 otherwise;
Randomly chosen households not 284 805 633 1,016 - I j a natural log (ln) of monthly per capita expenditure that captuare
using biogas the economic ability of a household(Rs.);
Sub-sampled households considered 341 965 762 1,164 - Id includes three dummies (Q2, Q3, and Q4) for four levels of per
in the study
capita total monthly expenditure (Rs.) setting the poorest ex-
% Rural households in the sub- 50.7 39.8 60.1 64.3
sample penditure group, Q1, as the base (=0);

Sources: Authors' calculation based on [27,52–54]. HCj is a vector of variables that includes:

168
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

Table 3
Basic background information of the sampled households by whether or not they use biogas.
All sampled households Sub-sample with no biogas Sub-sample with biogas Mean differences (a-b)
plant plant

b a c

No. observations 3,232 2,738 494


% Male-headed households 89.9 (30.2) 89.1 (31.1) 93.9 (23.9) −4.81*** (−3.26)
Age, household head (years) 46.8 (14.2) 45.8 (13.9) 51.9 (14.3) −6.09*** (−8.89)
Age, spouse (years) 33.1 (19.9) 31.8 (19.7) 40.3 (19.4) −8.57*** (−8.91)
No. of members in a household 4.9 (2.5) 4.7 (2.4) 5.7 (2.9) −1.02*** (−8.39)
% Household head was educated up to primary level (up to class 5) 19.0 (39.2) 19.0 (39.2) 19.0 (39.3)
% Household head was educated up to middle school level (class 15.9 (36.6) 14.8 (35.5) 22.3 (41.6) −7.51*** (−4.21)
6–8)
% Household head with secondary and above level education (9 and 33.4 (47.2) 33.1 (47.1) 35.0 (47.8) −1.93 (−0.84)
above)
% Spouse was educated up to primary level (up to class 5) 15.8 (36.5) 14.7 (35.4) 21.7 (41.2) −6.94*** (−3.90)
% Spouse was educated up to middle school level (class 6–8) 10.5 (30.7) 9.5 (29.3) 16.4 (37.1) −6.93*** (−4.64)
% Spouse with secondary and above level education (9 and above) 17.1 (37.7) 17.3 (37.9) 16.0 (36.7) 1.35 (0.73)
Monthly per capita total expenditure (Rs.) 1414.4 (5137.6) 1403.9 (5538.4) 1472.5 (1639.9) −68.5 (−0.27)
% Household in the expenditure quartile group 1 (Q1), poorest 25.1 (43.3) 27.0 (44.4) 14.4 (35.1) 12.6*** (5.99)
% Household in the expenditure quartile group 2 (Q2) 25.0 (43.3) 25.5 (43.6) 22.3 (41.6) 3.19* (1.51)
% Household in the expenditure quartile group 3 (Q3) 25.0 (43.3) 23.1 (42.2) 35.4 (47.9) −12.3*** (−5.84)
% Household in the expenditure quartile group 4 (Q4), richest 25.0 (43.3) 24.4 (43.0) 27.9 (44.9) −3.50 (−1.66)
% Rural household 54.6 (49.8) 50.0 (50.0) 80.0 (40.1) −29.9*** (−12.6)
% Agriculture household (yes = 1) 29.5 (45.6) 24.1 (42.8) 58.9 (49.3) −34.8*** (−16.21)
% Households own their own house (yes = 1) 81.8 (38.6) 79.3 (40.6) 96.0 (19.7) −16.7*** (−8.96)
% Small farm household, yes = 1 (land owned 1.01–2 ha) 8.8 (28.3) 7.5 (26.3) 16.2 (36.9) −8.74*** (−6.36)
% Marginal farm household, yes = 1 (land owned less than or equal 76.3 (42.5) 83.3 (37.3) 37.4 (48.4) 45.9*** (23.97)
to 1 ha)
% Backward class households (yes = 1) 31.8 (46.6) 32.7 (46.9) 26.9 (44.4) 5.72** (2.52)
% Scheduled caste household (yes = 1) 13.2 (33.9) 14.5 (35.2) 6.1 (23.9) 8.43*** (5.11)
% Scheduled tribe household (yes = 1) 10.0 (30.0) 10.9 (31.2) 4.9 (21.5) 6.0*** (4.14)
% Households from East Indian States (Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, 17.2 (37.7) 18.4 (38.8) 10.5 (30.7) 7.9*** (4.28)
West Bengal = 1)

Note: Standard deviations/t-values are in parentheses. *Significant at the 10% level. **Significant at the 5% level. ***Significant at the 1% level.
Source: Authors' calculation based on [27,52–54].

- a dummy that assumes a value of 1 if a household is from the fuel expenditures (Rs.), including expenditure on firewood, biomass
backward class, and 0, otherwise; and cow dung, and separately on kerosene and coal, and expenditure on
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1 if a household is from the electricity and LPG.
scheduled caste, and 0, otherwise; Considering the relationship of the ownership of a biogas plant, and
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1 if a household is from the its impact on a household's monthly expenditure on different energy
scheduled tribe, and 0, otherwise; sources, this study applied an endogenous treatment-regression esti-
- a sex dummy that assumes a value of 1 if the household head is a mation procedure. This is because the decision to use of biogas for
male, and 0, otherwise; household chores by a household, may not be exogenous with respect to
- age of the household head; the outcome variables, which are monthly expenditures on different
- age of the spouse; sources of energy, such as on kerosene, firewood, and electricity.
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the household head is edu- Following Heckman [64,65] and Maddala [66], the error terms εj in
cated up to primary level (class 5), or 0 otherwise; Equation (2) and uj of Equation (1) are bivariate normal with the mean
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the spouse is educated up to zero and the covariance matrix:
primary level (class 5), or 0 otherwise;
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the household head is edu- 2
⎡ σ ρσ ⎤
cated up to middle school level (class 6–8), or 0 otherwise; ⎢ ρσ 1 ⎥ (3)
⎣ ⎦
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the spouse is educated up to
middle school level (class 6–8), or 0 otherwise; Note that there are no interactions between tj and HCj . The cov-
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the household head is edu- ariates in Equations (1) and (2) are exogenous and unrelated to the
cated up to class 9 or above, or 0 otherwise; error terms. This is a constrained model, as the variance and correlation
- a dummy that assumes a value of 1, if the spouse is educated up to parameters are identical across the treatment and control groups. The
class 9 or above, or 0 otherwise; model can be estimated using the ‘etregress’ command of Stata, which
- household size measured by the number of family members; uses either the maximum likelihood estimator or control function es-
- three-year dummies for years 2000–01, 2006–07 and 2011–12, timator [67].
setting the year 1990–91 as the base (=0); In this study, we estimate three outcome equations (yj): household-
level monthly expenditure: (1) on dirty-fuel consists of the expenditure
The ownership of a biogas plant can play a significant role in a on firewood, biomass and cow dung; (2) on mixed fuel consists of the
household's monthly expenditure (Rs.) on other fuel (yj ), such as bio- expenditure on kerosene and coal; and (3) on clean fuel consists of the
mass and firewood, and kerosene and coal. Symbolically: expenditure on electricity and LPG in Indian Rupee (Rs.), conditional
yj = HCj Φ + σt j + εj on the endogenous treatment of the binary choice variable (tj) where
(2)
tj = 1, if a household operates a biogas plant, and 0 otherwise. In the
where yj is an outcome equation, which includes monthly household estimation process, we applied the maximum likelihood estimating

169
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

procedure. group than the user group (Table 4). In contrast, relatively-economic-
ally affluent households (Q3 expenditure group) are proportionately
more in the biogas user group compared to the non-user group. It in-
4. Results and discussion dicates that, as operating a biogas plant requires minimal operating
costs in addition to basic input, such as water and dung, relatively-
4.1. Descriptive findings economically-affluent households are more likely to establish and use
biogas than others.
The background information of the sampled households is presented Based on the descriptive findings in Table 3, we assert that rural
in Table 3. Out of 3,232 randomly selected sub-sampled households, agricultural households and households with their own houses are more
494 (15.2%) households used biogas for household chores, and 2,738 likely to use biogas. As the establishment of a biogas plant requires
(84.8%) did not use biogas (Table 3). It shows that nearly 90% of the structural investment and space, the households with their own houses
households considered in this study are male-headed, and the average are more likely to use biogas compared to the other households. Finally,
age of the head and spouse are nearly 47 years and 33 years respec- it shows that out of 3,232 sampled households, 17.2% were from the
tively (Table 3). On average, a household consisted of nearly five family Eastern Indian States: Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, and West Bengal.
members, and the monthly per capita nominal expenditure was Among the sampled East Indian households, 10.5% adopted biogas
Rs.1,414.4 (Table 3). It further shows that 19% of the household heads plants; whereas, more than 18% of the sampled households from the
and nearly 16% of the sampled spouses were educated up to primary East Indian States did not adopt biogas, and the mean difference is
level; whereas, more than 33% of the sample heads and 17% of the statistically significant. It indicates that the adoption of biogas among
sampled spouses were educated up to class 9 and above (Table 3). On the sampled households from the East Indian States is low.
average, 55% of the sampled households were from the rural areas, The NSSO generally collects data on a monthly basis, and the in-
more than 29% of the households were agricultural households, and formation on energy expenditure is quite detailed. The information was
more than 85% of the sampled households operated land up to 2 ha. collected, first on the major source of energy used for lighting and
The caste distribution of the sampled households shows that nearly 32% cooking separately, and second, on the monthly expenditure on the
of the sampled households were from the backward class; more than major fuel based on their sources. For example, every household re-
13% were from the scheduled caste, and 10% were from the scheduled ported their expenditure on firewood and chips, dung cake, kerosene,
tribe (Table 3). coal, coke and charcoal, LPG, biogas and electricity and any other en-
In Table 3, we have presented the t-values of the tests of the mean ergy, based on whether or not a household used the fuel. In the NSSO
differences between the variables of interest to depict the differences of data, information on biogas digester construction and maintenance
the households based on whether or not using biogas. It shows that costs, and water costs for operating a biogas plant are not available. For
relatively older heads and spouses, and relatively more educated econometric estimation purposes, this study broadly grouped all fuel
spouses (Table 3) headed the households that used biogas. The average expenditures based on three broad energy sources. The first expenditure
family size of the household using biogas (5.7 persons) is statistically group consists of the monthly expenditure on firewood, chips, and
significantly larger than the households without biogas plants (4.7 biomass, which are dirty-fuel. The second fuel expenditure group con-
persons); among the biogas-user households, the proportion of the rural sists of the monthly fuel expenditure on kerosene, coal, and charcoal,
households, the agricultural households and the households with their which are mixed fuels and finally the expenditure on clean fuels, which
own houses are statistically higher than the group of households that are electricity, LPG and biogas.
did not use biogas (Table 3). It shows that the households with less than Monthly expenditure patterns on different fuels used by the sampled
1 ha of land, and households that are in the backward class or scheduled households based on whether or not a household used biogas are pre-
caste or scheduled tribe are proportionately less in the group of biogas sented in Table 4. It shows that, on average, the expenditure on fuel by
users (Table 3). a sampled household was Rs.470, of which Rs.286.6 was on electricity,
To examine the differences in the economic status of the biogas user LPG and biogas (Table 4). It was nearly 61% of the total monthly ex-
and non-users, we examined the monthly per capita expenditure (Rs.) penditure on fuel by a sampled household in India. On average, a
of the sampled households (Table 4). Also, we have divided the sampled sampled household spent Rs.142.5 monthly on firewood, chips, and
households into four expenditure quartiles based on the monthly per biomass, which was a little more than 30%, and spent Rs.41 on kero-
capita expenditure, in which the first expenditure group (Q1) are the sene, coal, and charcoal per month, which was 8% of the total fuel
poorest households, and the last expenditure group (Q4) are the richest expenditure of a sampled household.
households. On average, a sampled household spent Rs.1,414 per Table 4 presents the monthly fuel expenditure behavior of the
month for a member; however, it was Rs.1,403 for a household that did sampled households based on whether or not the households have
not use biogas and Rs.1,472 for the households that used biogas. The biogas plants. It shows that the monthly household expenditure on dirty
difference in the per capita monthly expenditure between the two fuel such as firewood chips and biomass of the households without
groups of households is, however, statistically insignificant (Table 4). It biogas plants is Rs.149.3, whereas it was Rs.105 for the households
further shows that the proportion of the relatively poorer households with biogas plants. Similarly, the monthly expenditure on kerosene,
(Q1 and Q2 expenditure groups) are higher for the non-biogas user

Table 4
Impacts of having a biogas plant on the fuel expenditure behavior of the sampled households.
Fuel used by the sampled households and monthly expenditure All sampled households Sub-sample with no biogas Sub-sample with biogas Mean differences (a-b)
(Rs.) plant plant

b a c

Monthly expenditure biomass and firewood (Rs.) 142.5 (240.7) 149.3 (204.9) 105.1 (381.1) 44.14*** (3.76)
Monthly expenditure on kerosene, coal and charcoal (Rs.) 40.9 (63.4) 42.6 (67.0) (31.3 (36.1) 11.3*** (3.65)
Monthly expenditure on electricity and LPG gas 286.6 (383.1) 264.9 (367.3) 406.6 (442.3) −141.59*** (−7.63)

Note: Standard deviations/t-values are in parentheses. *Significant at the 10% level. **Significant at the 5% level. ***Significant at the 1% level.
Source: Authors' calculation based on [27,52–54].

170
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

Table 5
Linear regression with endogenous treatment estimated applying treatment-effect model, explaining adoption of biogas plant and the impact of biogas plant on fuel
expenditure behavior by fuel type of the sampled households (Estimator: maximum likelihood).
Dependent variables Have a biogas Expenditure on Have a biogas Expenditure on Have a biogas Total expenditure on
plant (yes = 1) firewood and cow plant (yes = 1) kerosene and coal plant (yes = 1) electricity
dung

Rural household dummy (yes = 1) 0.46*** (0.09) 0.45*** (0.09) 0.49*** (0.10)
Agriculture household dummy (yes = 1) 0.24*** (0.09) 0.23*** (0.09) 0.23*** (0.09)
Own a household dummy (yes = 1) 0.50*** (0.11) 0.51*** (0.12) 0.46*** (0.12)
Small farm household dummy (land owned −0.40*** (0.10) −0.39*** (0.10) −0.38*** (0.10)
1.01–2 ha)
Marginal farm household dummy (land −0.97*** (0.09) −0.97*** (0.09) −0.96*** (0.09)
owned less than or equal to 1 ha)
Backward class dummy (yes = 1) −0.21*** (0.07) 7.49 (7.70) −0.20*** (0.07) 6.05** (2.59) −0.21*** (0.07) −82.0*** (11.55)
Scheduled caste dummy (yes = 1) −0.25** (0.11) 34.1*** (10.39) −0.25** (0.11) 7.82** (3.61) −0.25** (0.11) −59.3*** (13.41)
Scheduled tribe household (yes = 3) −0.64*** (0.13) 80.3*** (15.91) −0.66*** (0.13) 9.27** (4.41) −0.64*** (0.13) −96.9*** (15.55)
Male-headed household dummy (yes = 1) −0.08 (0.15) −6.32 (12.81) −0.049 (0.15) 0.72 (4.69) −0.089 (0.15) −38.4* (21.48)
Age, household head 0.01*** (0.00) −0.90** (0.37) 0.009*** (0.00) −0.31*** (0.10) 0.009*** (0.00) 1.50*** (0.49)
Dummy for household head educated up to 0.10 (0.10) −19.5* (11.38) 0.11 (0.10) −3.04 (3.45) 0.10 (0.10) −12.6 (13.03)
primary level (up to class 5)
Dummy for household head educated up to 0.29*** (0.10) −37.9*** (14.36) 0.30*** (0.10) −1.08 (4.25) 0.30*** (0.10) −6.31 (15.58)
middle school level (class 6–8)
Dummy for the household head with 0.17* (0.10) −65.4*** (15.85) 0.19* (0.10) −5.14 (4.54) 0.18* (0.10) 21.8 (17.78)
secondary and above level education (9
and above)
ln (per capita monthly expenditure Rs./) 0.098 (0.11) 24.8* (14.55) 0.076 (0.11) 5.11 (7.14) 0.084 (0.11) 216.1*** (46.12)
Dummy for a household in the expenditure 0.16 (0.11) 15.5 (10.03) 0.16 (0.11) 7.04 (4.49) 0.16 (0.11) −6.20 (23.33)
quartile group 2 (Q2)
Dummy for a household in the expenditure 0.37*** (0.13) −12.0 (13.38) 0.37*** (0.13) 5.01 (6.82) 0.36*** (0.13) 27.1 (40.55)
quartile group 3 (Q3)
Dummy for a household in the expenditure 0.28 (0.20) −14.3 (23.31) 0.27 (0.20) −3.07 (10.50) 0.27 (0.20) 77.5 (63.93)
quartile group 4 (Q4)
Age, spouse 0.00062 (0.00) 0.58** (0.24) 0.00044 (0.00) 0.066 (0.08) 0.00097 (0.00) 0.24 (0.46)
Dummy for spouse educated up to primary 0.26*** (0.09) −20.6** (10.06) 0.26*** (0.09) 0.91 (3.41) 0.26*** (0.09) 33.1** (13.81)
level (up to class 5)
Dummy for spouse educated up to middle 0.39*** (0.11) −24.7** (12.02) 0.38*** (0.11) 2.79 (5.07) 0.41*** (0.11) 25.6 (17.39)
school level (class 6–8)
Dummy for spouse with secondary and 0.26** (0.11) −55.3*** (11.24) 0.25** (0.11) −14.7*** (3.57) 0.27** (0.11) 126.4*** (20.82)
above level education (9 and above)
No. of family members 0.032** (0.01) 24.8*** (5.25) 0.031** (0.01) 3.15*** (0.55) 0.031** (0.01) 43.9*** (3.41)
Year 2000–01 dummy (yes = 1) 0.057 (0.15) 23.3* (12.70) 0.075 (0.15) 22.3*** (6.98) 0.058 (0.15) −6.96 (40.65)
Year 2006–07 dummy (yes = 1) −0.48*** (0.18) 77.2*** (16.39) −0.46** (0.19) 11.6 (9.35) −0.49*** (0.18) 14.5 (59.80)
Year 2011–12 dummy (yes = 1) −0.51** (0.22) 164.5*** (23.35) −0.49** (0.23) 19.7* (11.74) −0.51** (0.22) 40.4 (78.88)
East Indian states dummy (yes = 1) −0.22** (0.09) 11.2 (7.35) −0.22** (0.09) 25.9*** (3.25) −0.22** (0.09) −63.5*** (10.10)
Own a biogas plant (yes = 1) −14.7* (8.37) −22.1*** (5.47) −10.4 (26.46)
Constant −2.39*** (0.63) −168.6* (86.75) −2.32*** (0.65) −16.7 (33.68) −2.33*** (0.64) −1466.1***
(231.27)
Athrho
Constant −0.10* (0.06) 0.14** (0.07) 0.12*** (0.05)
Lnsigma
Constant 5.37*** (0.19) 4.11*** (0.06) 5.67*** (0.08)
Rho −0.11*** (0.06)) 0.14* (0.06) 0.12** (0.05)
Sigma 214.78*** (41.73) 60.91*** (3.55) 291.37*** (22.99)
Lambda −22.35*** (7.97) 8.75** (3.76) 35.06*** (11.56)
Observations 3232 3232
Wald Chi2 (22) 999.73 378.74 1572.18
Prob > Chi2 0.00 0.00 0.00
Log pseudolikelihood −22956.50 −18881.05 −23941.52
Wald test of indep. eqns. (rho = 0): chi2(1) 3.39 5.26 6.77
Prob > chi2 0.07 0.02 0.009

Note: *Significant at the 10% level. **Significant at the 5% level. ***Significant at the 1% level.

coal, and charcoal is also statistically significantly higher for house- 4.2. Econometric findings
holds without a biogas plant (Rs.67/month) compared to the house-
holds with biogas plants (Rs.36/month). In contrast, the monthly ex- 4.2.1. Factors influencing the adoption of biogas plants
penditure on electricity and LPG is statistically significantly higher for Table 5 presents the estimated functions applying the treatment-
households with biogas plants (Rs.407/month) compared to households effect model estimation procedure; it explains first the factors affecting
without biogas plants (Rs.265/month). The findings in Tables 3 and 4 the adoption of a biogas plant by a sampled household. Second, it
are simply the descriptive statistics, in which the impact of other presents the impact of having a biogas plant on the monthly ex-
variables on the variable of interest is not reflected. In the next sub- penditure on different fuels by a sampled household. It shows that the
section, in our econometric estimation process, we specifically elucidate likelihood of the adoption of a biogas plant is highly positive and sta-
the impacts of having a biogas plant on the monthly fuel expenditure tistically significant for a rural household, an agricultural household
behavior of a household. and the household that owns a house. In contrast, comparing medium-
and large-farm owner households, the small farm owner household that

171
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

Table 6
Estimated adoption and impacts of adoption of biogas plants in India.
Indicators Variables/expected factors

Total population 1.32 billion


Total households (@ 4.8 persons per household) 275 million
Rural households (58% of the total households) 159.5 million
Rural agricultural households depend on livestock (22%) 35.1 million
50% adoption of biogas plants by the livestock-dependent households 17.5 million
Expected savings on firewood and chips per month (000, ton) @ 5.78 kg per household 101.4
Estimated value of the saved firewood and chips per month (million Rs.) 257.6
Expected savings on kerosene per month (million liter) @ 0.78 L per household 13.7
Estimated value of the saved kerosene per month (million Rs.) 389.5

Source: Authors' calculations based on estimated results in Table 5.

operates 1.01–2 ha of land and the marginal farm household that op- Table 5 shows that the male-headed households are likely to spend less
erates land less than 1 ha are less likely to adopt a biogas plant. It is on electricity compared to female-headed households who are the base
probably because, rural and agricultural households own cattle that (female-headed household = 0). The age of the household head is in-
produce dung in a natural process, which is the basic input of a biogas versely related to the expenditure on dirty fuel but positively relative to
plant. It thus positively and strongly influences rural and agricultural mixed and clean fuel.
households to adopt biogas plants. Compared to the medium- and large- Similar to previous studies [5,6] our findings highlight that, with
farm owner households, the small- and marginal-farm household are the increases in the level of education of the head and spouse, house-
less likely to choose a biogas plant. holds regressively spend less on dirty fuel, but progressively spend more
Compared to the mainstream upper caste households, the scheduled on clean fuel (Table 5). Our results confirm that there is a positive as-
caste, tribes, and backward class households are less likely to own sertion between monthly per capita household expenditure and the
biogas plants, probably because social caste in India is negatively as- expenditure on clean fuel; however, a household's expenditure on dirty-
sociated with some other factors. For example, access to information, fuel may less likely decrease with economic affluence. The household
income, credit and other social and productive resources is limited to size is positively associated with the expenditure on all types of fuel
these castes [68,69]. However, it requires further investigation with sources. The year dummies in Table 5 indicate that over a period the
solid household-level data to make conclusions about the adoption of expenditure on firewood and chips and kerosene, coal and charcoal has
biogas plants by the backward class or low-caste households in India. increased. In contrast, the expenditure on clean fuel has not changed.
Estimated functions in Table 5 confirm that, in general, the age of Finally, it is found that the expenditure on kerosene oil and coal is
the household head and the adoption of biogas is positively related. The higher for East Indian states, and the consumption of the electricity is
coefficient of the primary school level (up to class 5) education dummy lower compared to the rest of India.
(yes = 1), middle school level education dummy (class 6–8) and sec- Finally, our estimation shows that the expenditure on dirty fuel and
ondary and above level of education dummy (class nine and above) of mixed fuel is lower for those households with biogas plants. The
the household head are positively associated with the adoption of adoption of a biogas plant, however, has no statistical significance on
biogas, but significant only for middle level and secondary level and the use of clean fuel. It shows that, on average, the use of biogas reduces
above schooling. The coefficient of the dummy of the education level of the monthly firewood and biomass expenditure by Rs.14.7 and kero-
the spouse for primary, middle and secondary and above levels of sene and coal by Rs.16.7, but it does not eliminate them. Based on the
education are also positive and significant in explaining the adoption of fact that the price of firewood and chips is Rs.2.54/kg and kerosene per
biogas plants at the household level. It points out that the awareness in liter is Rs.28.3 [27], our estimations indicate that the use of biogas
the form of formal education of the household head and spouse plays an saves 5.78 kg of firewood and chips, and 0.78 L of kerosene per
important role in the adoption of biogas as a source of fuel for domestic household in a month.
chores. Based on the revealed impacts of biogas adoption on households’
The monthly per capita expenditure, as well as the expenditure other fuel expenditures per month (Table 5), we have calculated the
quartile dummies, Q2 and Q4 have no statistically significant influence attainable economic benefits of the rapid dissemination of biogas plants
on the adoption of a biogas plant; however, the expenditure group Q3 is only among rural households that rely on livestock for their livelihoods
positive and significant in explaining the adoption of a biogas plant by a (Table 6). Based on the average household size of 4.8 persons [70], and
household. It indicates some non-linear positive relationship between that 58% of the total households are rural agricultural households, in
economic affluence and the adoption of biogas plants at the household which 22% completely rely on livestock for their livelihood, we have
level. The year dummies that capture the effect of time trends on the calculated that currently 35 million rural households in India com-
adoption of the biogas plant indicate that in 2006/07 and 2011/12 the pletely rely on livestock for their livelihoods. Animal excreta and
adoption of biogas plants was lower compared to 1990/91, which is the poultry litters are the general byproducts of these rural livestock-de-
base (1991–92 = 0). It indicates the declining trend of the adoption of pendent households. If 50% of the rural households that rely on live-
biogas over the period sampled. Finally, the dummy for the household stock for their livelihoods adopt biogas plants and use them, it would
from the East Indian States is negative in explaining the adoption of save 101 thousand tons of firewood and chips worth Rs.258 million,
biogas plants, which is similar to the descriptive findings (Table 4). and nearly 14 million liters of kerosene worth Rs.390 million in a
month. Thus, similar to the findings of Subedi et al. [71], our study also
indicates that a rapid scaling out of biogas plants in India, can preserve
4.2.2. Econometric estimation of the impact of biogas plants on expenditure forests significantly by reducing fuelwood and biomass use.
on clean and dirty fuel
In general, Table 5 shows that, compared to high caste households,
the backward class and scheduled caste and tribe households spend 5. Conclusion and policy implications
more on dirty-fuel, such as firewood and chips and mixed fuel, such as
kerosene, coal, and charcoal. In contrast, they spend relatively less on Currently, 2.8 billion people in the world have no access to clean
clean fuel, such as electricity and LPG. The estimated function in fuel and modern technologies for cooking, 700 million (25%) of which

172
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

are concentrated only in India. Due to the massive use of dirty fuel for [8] R. Heltberg, Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala, Environ. Dev.
cooking and the indoor air pollution from it, it is projected that 14.3% Econ. 10 (2005) 337–361, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X04001858.
[9] K.S.K. Kumar, B. Viswanathan, Changing structure of income indoor air pollution
(1 in 7 persons) of the 700 million, who rely on dirty-fuel, will face relationship in India, Energy Policy 35 (2007) 5496–5504, https://doi.org/10.
premature death, which will be one million per year [47]. Rapid scaling 1016/j.enpol.2007.04.011.
out of biogas technology, particularly in the rural areas in India, can [10] International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy access outlook 2017: from poverty to
prosperity, World Energy Outlook Special Report Directorate of Sustainability,
directly contribute to mitigating the indoor air pollution problem. In Technology and Outlooks, International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, 2017https://
addition, it can contribute to attaining the Sustainable Development www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO2017SpecialReport_
Goals of the United Nations that is clean and green fuel for all by 2030. EnergyAccessOutlook.pdf.
[11] WHO (World Health Organization), Ambient ( Outdoor ) Air Quality and Health:
Finally, the expansion of biogas technology in India can facilitate clean Key Facts, (2018) Geneva https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
and green growth by reducing the use of firewood and, thereby, con- ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health.
serving forests. [12] N. Abadi, K. Gebrehiwot, A. Techane, H. Nerea, Links between biogas technology
adoption and health status of households in rural Tigray , Northern Ethiopia,
This study presents the potential for the expansion of biogas, par-
Energy Policy 101 (2017) 284–292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.015.
ticularly among rural agricultural households, and the potential eco- [13] R. Spalding-fecher, Health benefits of electrification in developing countries: a
nomic benefits of such expansion. In India, currently, more than 35 quantitative assessment in South Africa, Energy Sustain. Dev. 9 (2005) 53–62,
million rural agricultural households mainly rely on livestock for their https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60482-2.
[14] United Nations, Energy for a Sustainable Future: Summary Report and
livelihoods. The major input of a biogas plant such as manure and crop Recommendations, (2010) New York http://www.un.org/chinese/
residues are the general byproduct of the livelihood activities of 35 millenniumgoals/pdf/AGECCsummaryreport%5B1%5D.pdf.
million livestock-dependent rural households. Due to the general [15] D. Abebaw, Household determinants of fuelwood choice in urban Ethiopia: a case
study of jimma town, J. Dev. Areas 41 (2007) 117–126.
availability of cow dung, with minimal awareness and external support [16] A.O. Onoja, O. Idoko, Econometric analysis of factors influencing fuel wood de-
in some cases, these rural households can be the primary user of biogas mand in rural and peri-urban farm households of kogi state, Cons. J. Sustain. Dev. 8
in India. Our simple projection indicates that such adoption can gen- (2012) 115–127.
[17] United Nations, Sustainable Development Goal 7: Ensure Access to Affordable ,
erate large direct economic benefits by reducing firewood, chip and Reliable , Sustainable and Modern Energy, (2019) New York https://www.un.org/
kerosene use. It can generate indirect benefits, such as the conservation sustainabledevelopment/energy/.
of forests, restore land fertility due to the use of slurry as fertilizer and [18] E. Rehfuess, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development – a missed
opportunity for action on indoor air pollution? Energy Sustain. Dev. 11 (2007)
improve life quality by reducing indoor air pollution. 82–83, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0973-0826(08)60402-0.
Our study provides useful information for targeted intervention by [19] World Bank, Household Cookstoves , Environment, Health, and Climate Change: A
the policymakers. The econometric findings of this study indicate that New Look at an Old Problem, Washington D.C., 2011, http://cleancookstoves.org/
resources_files/household-cookstoves.pdf.
relatively educated spouses and households with their own houses and
[20] J. Mwirigi, B.B. Balana, J. Mugisha, P. Walekhwa, R. Melamu, S. Nakami,
more land are more likely to adopt biogas technology. Based on the P. Makenzi, Socio-economic hurdles to widespread adoption of small-scale biogas
findings in designing targeted intervention policy, rural agricultural digesters in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review, Biomass Bioenergy 70 (2014) 17–25,
households with more land and with their own houses, headed by https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.018.
[21] P.N. Walekhwa, J. Mugisha, L. Drake, Biogas energy from family-sized digesters in
educated heads and spouses, should be targeted for awareness and Uganda: critical factors and policy implications, Energy Policy 37 (2009)
training programs to motivate them to adopt biogas technology. Our 2754–2762, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.018.
findings confirm that the monthly expenditure status of the households, [22] H. Kabir, R.N. Yegbemey, S. Bauer, Factors determinant of biogas adoption in
Bangladesh, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 28 (2013) 881–889, https://doi.org/10.
after controlling for the influence of other factors, has no significant 1016/j.rser.2013.08.046.
impact on the adoption and use of biogas. However, the social in- [23] L.M. Kamp, E.B. Forn, Ethiopia ’ s emerging domestic biogas sector: current status ,
stitutions, such as the caste system in India, can play some role in the bottlenecks and drivers, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 60 (2016) 475–488, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.068.
adoption of biogas technology. This information should be considered [24] M.G. Mengistu, B. Simane, G. Eshete, T.S. Workneh, Factors affecting households'
in devising any targeted invention policy to expedite the adoption of decisions in biogas technology adoption, the case of Ofla and Mecha Districts,
biogas technology in rural India. Finally, conditional on the country northern Ethiopia, Renew. Energy 93 (2016) 215–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.02.066.
and societal heterogeneities, the policy implications of the present
[25] H.E. Kelebe, K.M. Ayimut, G.H. Berhe, K. Hintsa, Determinants for adoption deci-
study can be applicable to some extent to other developing countries in sion of small scale biogas technology by rural households in Tigray , Ethiopia,
South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, to expand the use of biogas, where Energy Econ. 66 (2017) 272–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.06.022.
[26] H. Katuwal, A.K. Bohara, Biogas: a promising renewable technology and its impact
rural households rely on agricultural and livestock activities for their
on rural households in Nepal, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 2668–2674,
livelihoods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.002.
[27] National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Level and Pattern of Consumer
References Expenditure 2011-12, NSS 68th Round, New Delhi, 2014http://www.
indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Level and Pattern of Consumer
Expenditure_0.pdf.
[1] R. Heltberg, T.C. Arndt, N.U. Sekhar, Fuelwood consumption and forest [28] V.K. Mishra, R.D. Retherford, K.R. Smith, Biomass cooking fuels and prevalence of
Degradation : a household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India, tuberculosis in India, Int. J. Infect. Dis. 3 (1999) 119–129, https://doi.org/10.
Land Econ. 76 (2000) 213–232. 1016/S1201-9712(99)90032-2.
[2] UNDP (United Nations Development Program) and World Bank, India: Access of the [29] K.R. Smith, National burden of disease in India from indoor air pollution, Proc. Natl.
Poor to Clean Household Fuels, Washington D.C., 2003, http://documents. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 97 (2000) 13286–13293.
worldbank.org/curated/en/2003/07/2778898/india-access-poor-clean-household- [30] P.R. Andresen, G. Ramachandran, P. Pai, A. Maynard, Women's personal and indoor
fuels%5Cnhttp://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/ exposures to PM2.5 in Mysore, India: impact of domestic fuel usage, Atmos.
WDSP/IB/2003/11/19/000012009_20031119134452/Rendered/PDF/ Environ. 39 (2005) 5500–5508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.06.004.
2630030India.pdf. [31] K. Kim, S.A. Jahan, E. Kabir, A review of diseases associated with household air
[3] B. Viswanathan, K.S. Kavi Kumar, Cooking fuel use patterns in India: 1983-2000, pollution due to the use of biomass fuels, J. Hazard Mater. 192 (2011) 425–431,
Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1021–1036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.05.087.
002. [32] L.T. Ingale, K.J. Dube, D.B. Sarode, S.B. Attarde, S.T. Ingle, Monitoring and re-
[4] WHO (World Health Organization), Burning Opportunity: Clean Household Energy spiratory health assessment of the population exposed to cooking fuel emissions in a
for Health, Sustainable Development, and Wellbeing of Women and Children, rural area of jalgaon district, India, asia-pacific, J. Public Health 25 (2011)
Geneva, 2016 doi:9789241565233. 463–475, https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539511420994.
[5] K.A. Mottaleb, D.B. Rahut, A. Ali, An exploration into the household energy choice [33] H. Rohra, A. Taneja, Indoor air quality scenario in India- an outline of household
and expenditure in Bangladesh, Energy 135 (2017) 767–776, https://doi.org/10. fuel combustion, Atmos. Environ. 129 (2016) 243–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
1016/j.energy.2017.06.117. atmosenv.2016.01.038.
[6] D.B. Rahut, K.A. Mottaleb, A. Ali, Household energy consumption and its de- [34] A. Kanti, 1.3 million deaths every year in India due to indoor air pollution, Dly. Bus.
terminants in Timor-Leste, Asian Dev. Rev. 34 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1162/ World. 1–6 (2017), http://www.businessworld.in/article/1-3-Million-Deaths-
ADEV_a_00085. Every-Year-In-India-Due-To-Indoor-Air-Pollution/09-09-2017-125739/.
[7] R. Heltberg, Fuel switching : evidence from eight developing countries, Energy [35] B.S. Reddy, T. Srinivas, Energy use in Indian household sector - an actor-oriented
Econ. 26 (2004) 869–887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2004.04.018. approach, Energy 34 (2009) 992–1002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.01.

173
K.A. Mottaleb and D.B. Rahut Biomass and Bioenergy 123 (2019) 166–174

004. Delhi http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/476_final_0.pdf.


[36] N. Bruce, R. Perez-padilla, R. Albalak, Indoor air pollution in developing countries: [54] National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), Household Consumer Expenditure, NSS
a major environmental and public health challenge, Bull. World Health Organ. 78 63rd Round: July 2006 - June 2007, (2012) New Delhi https://www.ilo.org/
(2000) 1078–1092. surveydata/index.php/catalog/214/related_materials.
[37] M. Ezzati, D.M. Kammen, The health impacts of exposure to indoor air pollution [55] National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Household Consumer Expenditure ,
from solid fuels in developing countries: knowledge, gaps, and data needs, Environ. NSS 68th Round Sch 1 . 0 Type 1: July 2011 - June 2012, (2013) New Delhi www.
Health Perspect. 110 (2002) 1057–1068, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.021101057. icssrdataservice.in/datarepository/index.php/catalog/91/download/1176.
[38] M. Ezzati, D.M. Kammen, Household energy, indoor air pollution, and health in [56] W. Ortiz, J. Terrapon-Pfaff, C. Dienst, Understanding the diffusion of domestic
developing countries: knowledge base for effective interventions, Annu. Rev. biogas technologies. Systematic conceptualisation of existing evidence from de-
Energy Environ. 27 (2002) 233–270, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27. veloping and emerging countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 74 (2016)
122001.083440. 1287–1299, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.090.
[39] E. Duflo, M. Greenstone, R. Hanna, Indoor air pollution, health and economic well- [57] S.K.A. Subedi, Domestic Biogas Production and Use in Nepal – A Simple , Reliable ,
being, SAPIENS 1 (2008) 7–16. Clean and Cost-Effective Solution to Provide Energy Security to the Rural
[40] D.G. Fullerton, N. Bruce, S.B. Gordon, Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke Households. A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the
is a major health concern in the developing world, Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, P, Massey University, New Zealand, 2015https://
102 (2008) 843–851, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028. mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/8274.
[41] A. Arcenas, J. Bojö, B. Larsen, F.R. Ñunez, The economic costs of indoor air pol- [58] T. Bond, M.R. Templeton, History and future of domestic biogas plants in the de-
lution: new results for Indonesia , the Philippines , and timor- leste, J. Nat. Resour. veloping world, Energy Sustain. Dev. 15 (2011) 347–354, https://doi.org/10.1016/
Policy Res. 2 (2010) 75–93, https://doi.org/10.1080/19390450903350861. j.esd.2011.09.003.
[42] J.H.Y. Edwards, C. Langpap, Fuel choice , indoor air pollution and children ’ s [59] S. Rubab, T.C. Kandpal, Cos of anaerobic digestion technology: households biogas
health Fuel choice , indoor air pollution and children ’ s health, Environ. Dev. Econ. plants in India, Int. J. Energy Res. 19 (1995) 675–685.
17 (2012) 379–406, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X12000010. [60] D. Mengistie, D. Kidane, Assessment of the impact of small-scale irrigation on
[43] O. Oluwole, G.R. Ana, G.O. Arinola, T. Wiskel, A.G. Falusi, D. Huo, O.I. Olopade, household livelihood improvement at gubalafto district, north wollo, Ethiopia,
C.O. Olopade, Effect of stove intervention on household air pollution and the re- Agriculture 6 (2016) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture6030027.
spiratory health of women and children in rural, Air Qual. Atmos. Heal. 6 (2013) [61] A.G. Mwakaje, Dairy farming and biogas use in Rungwe district, South-west
553–561, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-013-0196-9. Tanzania: a study of opportunities and constraints, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 12
[44] World Bank, Population , Total vols. 1–19, World Bank, Washington D.C., (2008) 2240–2252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.04.013.
2019https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL , Accessed date: 27 [62] C.T.T. Thu, P.H. Cuong, L.T. Hang, N. Van Chao, L.X. Anh, N.X. Trach,
January 2019. S.G. Sommer, Manure management practices on biogas and non-biogas pig farms in
[45] World Bank, Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016, Development Goals in an Era of developing countries e using livestock farms in Vietnam as an example, J. Clean.
Demographic Change, Washington, D.C., 2016https://openknowledge.worldbank. Prod. 27 (2012) 64–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.006.
org/handle/10986/22547. [63] D. Raha, P. Mahanta, M.L. Clarke, The implementation of decentralised biogas
[46] P. Gerland, A.E. Raftery, H. Ševcikova, N. Li, D. Gu, T. Spoorenberg, L. Alkema, plants in Assam, NE India: the impact and effectiveness of the National Biogas and
B.K. Fosdick, J. Chunn, N. Lalic, G. Bay, T. Buettner, G.K. Heilig, J. Wilmoth, World Manure Management Programme, Energy Policy 68 (2014) 80–91, https://doi.org/
population stabilization unlikely this century, Science 346 (2014) 234–237, https:// 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.048.
doi.org/10.1038/42935. [64] J.J. Heckman, The common structure of statistical models of truncation , sample
[47] World LPG Association, Facts and Figures: Dangers, Facts Fig. Dangers. (2019), pp. selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models,
1–2 https://www.wlpga.org/initiatives/cooking-for-life/facts-and-figures/ , Ann. Econ. Soc. Meas. 5 (1976) 475–492 www.icssrdataservice.in/datarepository/
Accessed date: 20 January 2019. index.php/catalog/91/download/1176.
[48] S. Kumar, B.P. Mishra, M.S. Khardiwar, S.K. Patel, F.G. Sayyad, Economic evalua- [65] J.T. Heckman, Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation,
tion of different size of biogas plants in Chhattisgarh ( India ), 10 (2015) 184–188. Econometrica 46 (1978) 931–959.
[49] USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), Livestock and Poultry: World [66] G.S. Maddala, Limited- Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics,
Markets and Trade, Washington D.C., 2018, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/ Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf. [67] S. Corp, Stat: Release 15 (2017).
[50] National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Income , Expenditure , Productive [68] M. Micevska, D.B. Rahut, Rural nonfarm employment and incomes in the hima-
Assets and Indebtedness of Agricultural Households in India, NSS 70th Round, New layas, Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 57 (2015) 163–193.
Delhi, 2016http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/nss_rep_ [69] D.B. Rahut, M.M. Scharf, Livelihood diversification strategies in the Himalayas,
576.pdf. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 56 (2012) 558–582, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
[51] Government of India, Census of India, Table S00-018: Distribution of Households by 8489.2012.00596.x.
Availability of Separate Kitchen and Type of Fuel Used for Cooking, (2011) New [70] Government of India, Census of India, Table: HH-01 Normal Households by
Delhi, 2011 http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Hlo-series/HH10.html. Household Size, (2011) New Delhi, 2017 http://www.censusindia.gov.in/
[52] National Sample Survey, Office (NSSO), Household Consumer Expenditure , NSS 2011census/hh-series/hh01.html.
46th Round: July 1990 - Jun 1991, (2012) New Delhi http://www.icssrdataservice. [71] M. Subedi, R. Matthews, M. Pogson, A. Abegaz, B. Balana, J. Oyesiku-blakemore,
in/datarepository/index.php/catalog/21. J. Smith, ScienceDirect Can biogas digesters help to reduce deforestation in Africa?
[53] National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), Household Consumer Expenditure Biomass Bioenergy 70 (2014) 87–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.02.
and Employment - Unemployment Situation in India , 2000 - 2001, (2002) New 029.

174

You might also like