Download StudyGeneral

Study Overview

Evaluating the effectiveness of household energy interventions in rural Senegal using experimental and quasi-experimental methods
Study ID:
Initial Registration Date:
Last Update Date:
Study Status:
In Development
More than 95% of Senegal’s rural population uses fuelwood in dirty, traditional stoves for cooking, with significant productivity, health, and environmental costs. Against this backdrop, the Government of Senegal has launched ambitious efforts to promote widespread diffusion of cleaner energy technologies that lessen this burden. In collaboration with local partners, this study aims to inform such efforts in Senegal and beyond through three main research questions: 1. Can suppliers of locally produced, low-cost, clean cooking technologies be encouraged to cater to demand for their products in previously unserved areas? 2. Are low-cost cooking technologies that can be easily manufactured locally sufficiently effective at delivering environmental, health and social benefits relative to traditional or more improved alternatives? 3. Is biogas an effective household energy solution relative to traditional or improved biomass alternatives? Thus, this study will investigate approaches to encourage adoption of household energy technology, and evaluate whether such devices—that may play a critical role in meeting global energy access needs—indeed deliver expected benefits.
Health, Nutrition, and Population
Private Sector Development
Additional Keywords:
Rural development
Secondary ID Number(s):
PW3.08.SN.IE (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation [3ie])

Principal Investigator(s)

Name of First PI:
Jörg Peters
RWI - Leibniz-Institute for Economic Research
Name of Second PI:
Marc Jeuland
Duke University

Study Sponsor

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
Study Sponsor Location:
Funding Proposal:

Research Partner

Name of Partner Institution:
L'Université Gaston Berger, CERER, Ministry of Energy of the Government of Senegal, and GIZ Senegal

Intervention Overview

This study entails a three-pronged intervention. (1) Stove-supply intervention: Producers/vendors of locally made ICS will be incentivized to target unserved areas where reliance on both fuelwood/traditional stoves and demand for modern alternatives is high. The main objective is to connect suppliers and potential customers to yield increased production, sales, and uptake of ICS. Expected beneficiaries are private-sector ICS producers and peri-urban/rural Senegalese households. (2) Stove impacts intervention: A locally produced biomass ICS will be distributed to households and impacts (relative to traditional as well as more advanced alternatives) will be studied in real-world settings. Expected beneficiaries are the Government of Senegal (which is promoting these ICS as part of its energy access efforts) and rural Senegalese households. (3) Biogas intervention: The potential of biogas to deliver welfare benefits relative to traditional alternatives will be evaluated. The main objective is to shed light on the magnitude of benefits versus costs of a capital-intensive technology. Once again, the Government (which is also promoting biogas) and households are expected beneficiaries.
Theory of Change:
Multiple Treatment Arms Evaluated?

Implementing Agency

Name of Organization:
RWI Essen, Duke University, L'Université Gaston Berger, CERER, Ministry of Energy of the Government of Senegal, and GIZ Senegal

Program Funder

Name of Organization:
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
Type of Organization:
NGO (International)

Intervention Timing

Intervention or Program Started at time of Registration?
Start Date:
End Date:
Evaluation Method

Evaluation Method Overview

Primary (or First) Evaluation Method:
Randomized control trial
Other (not Listed) Method:
Additional Evaluation Method (If Any):
Difference in difference/fixed effects
Other (not Listed) Method:

Method Details

Details of Evaluation Approach:
(1) Stove-supply intervention: Random assignment of the treatment (a supply-promotion intervention) at the level of the stove producer/vendor will be used to isolate causal impacts of improved supply on production, sales, and, ultimately, household-level uptake of locally produced improved cookstoves (ICS). (2) Stove impacts intervention: Randomized provision of a locally produced ICS or an advanced ICS at the household level will be used to isolate causal impacts of adoption of various ICS technologies on health outcomes, air quality and fuelwood consumption relative to a control group (no ICS provided). Stoves will be provided at no cost to ensure a sufficiently large sample. (3) Biogas intervention: Given the infeasibility of randomly allocating the capital-intensive biogas technology, causal impacts will be identified by comparing biogas households with observationally similar non-biogas households before and after the provision of the technology to the former (i.e., difference-in-differences with matching).
Outcomes (Endpoints):
(1) Stove supply intervention: Producer-level ICS production and sales; Producer/vendor-level ICS marketing activities and sales; Household- and community-level ICS adoption. (2) Stove impacts intervention: Objective and subjective measures of health (including, but not limited to, blood pressure, biomarker levels, and self-reported wellbeing); household energy-use patterns. (3) Biogas intervention: Household fuelwood consumption, collection time, and/or cost; subjective measures of health.
Unit of Analysis:
(1) Stove supply intervention: ICS producers and/or vendors; (2) Stove impacts intervention: Households; (3) Biogas intervention: Households
Unit of Intervention or Assignment:
(1) Stove supply intervention: ICS producers and/or vendors; (2) Stove impacts intervention: Households; (3) Biogas intervention: Households
Number of Clusters in Sample:
Number of Individuals in Sample:
(1) Stove supply intervention: ~200-300 ICS producers and ~70-90 vendors; (2) Stove impacts intervention: 400 households; (3) Biogas intervention: 200 households
Size of Treatment, Control, or Comparison Subsamples:
(1) Stove supply intervention: ½ treatment, ½ control; (2) Stove impacts intervention: ~135 control, 135 stove A, 135 stove B; (3) Biogas intervention: ~66 early adopters, 66 late adopters; 66 control

Supplementary Files

Analysis Plan:
Other Documents:

Outcomes Data

(1) Stove supply intervention: Producer/vendor-level survey data on ICS production/sales patterns, and geographical outreach of producers/vendors; (2) Stove impacts intervention: Household-survey data on household demographics, energy use, time allocation, objective and subjective measurements of health outcomes, and air pollution exposure; (3) Biogas intervention: Household-survey data on household energy use, time allocation, subjective measures of health outcomes, productive uses of digester
Data Already Collected?
Survey Name:
Data Previously Used?
Data Access:
Data Obtained by the Study Researchers?
Data Approval Process:
Approval Status:

Treatment Assignment Data

Participation or Assignment Information:
Data Obtained by the Study Researchers?
Data Previously Used?
Data Access:
Data Obtained by the Study Researchers?
Data Approval Process:
Approval Status:

Data Analysis

Data Analysis Status:

Study Materials

Upload Study Materials:

Registration Category

Registration Category:
Prospective, Category 1: Data for measuring impacts have not been collected

Completion Overview

Intervention Completion Date:
Data Collection Completion Date:
Unit of Analysis:
Clusters in Final Sample:
Total Observations in Final Sample:
Size of Treatment, Control, or Comparison Subsamples:


Preliminary Report:
Preliminary Report URL:
Summary of Findings:
Paper Summary:
Paper Citation:

Data Availability

Data Availability (Primary Data):
Date of Data Availability:
Data URL or Contact:
Access procedure:

Other Materials

Survey Instrument Links or Contact:
Program Files:
Program Files Links or Contact:
External Link:
External Link Description:
Description of Changes:

Study Stopped