Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Interventions to Improve the Adoption and Use of Improved Cookstoves
Last registered on October 09, 2018


Trial Information
General Information
Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Interventions to Improve the Adoption and Use of Improved Cookstoves
Initial registration date
October 09, 2018
Last updated
October 09, 2018 2:51 PM EDT
Primary Investigator
Duke University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
Duke University
Additional Trial Information
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
Improved cookstoves (ICS) have the potential to deliver the triple dividends of household health and time savings, local environmental quality improvements, and reduced impacts on climate. However, despite clear scientific evidence on the potential efficacy of these innovations, these technologies have run into important translation challenges that have impeded their widespread diffusion and dissemination. Our project – Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Interventions to Improve the Adoption and Use of Improved Cookstoves – was developed in response to a refrain of calls for applied research to develop a more refined understanding of the nature of these challenges. The logic underlying our research approach (described in greater detail below) stemmed from a perceived need to better understand the complex web of issues that constitute barriers to adoption of ICS and similar technologies (Pattanayak and Pfaff 2009), through careful background research and field preparation, followed by a study design that would enable rigorous hypothesis testing of supply and demand barriers to ICS adoption.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Jeuland, Marc and Subhrendu Pattanayak. 2018. "Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Interventions to Improve the Adoption and Use of Improved Cookstoves." AEA RCT Registry. October 09.
Former Citation
Jeuland, Marc, Marc Jeuland and Subhrendu Pattanayak. 2018. "Designing and Evaluating Behavior Change Interventions to Improve the Adoption and Use of Improved Cookstoves." AEA RCT Registry. October 09.
Sponsors & Partners

There are documents in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Experimental Details
A stove promotion intervention was implemented and randomized at the hamlet level; all sample households living in treatment communities
were visited by sales teams working for a local NGO; households living in control communities were not. Following careful field piloting of potential promotion techniques (Lewis et al., 10 2015), trained sales people working in teams of two visited treatment households and conducted intensive promotion activities with them. First, these teams presented treatment households with an information sheet and explanation of the stove features for the two available options (an electric coil stove and a biomass-burning improved cook stove), even as they performed a live tea-making demonstration. Second, once the demonstration was complete, the sales people proposed a financing plan to households: All households were given the choice of paying for the stoves upfront or in three equal installments (including a modest fi nancing fee of INR 60 or 80, depending on the stove) that would be collected over a period of three installments spread over four weeks.
Third, households were assigned a randomized rebate to be given at the time of the final payment if they were found to be using the stoves (as observed during unannounced visits). Those paying for stoves upfront were also eligible for the rebate and thus were also revisited roughly one month later. Prior to households indicating whether they would purchase a stove, this household-level randomized rebate was revealed by drawing a chit out of a bag. The bags contained equal numbers of chits corresponding to the three potential rebate levels, low - INR 25 (a 2.5% discount), medium - INR 200 (a 20% discount), and high - equivalent to a full installment (a 33% discount). Sales prices prior to the rebate corresponded to the stove-specifi c prices paid to suppliers.
On the basis of power calculations and our estimation of the differential treatment effects expected from the alternative rebate levels, 71 of the baseline hamlets (corresponding to 770 of the 1,061 baseline households) were randomly assigned to the treatment group, and the remaining 26 sample hamlets served as controls, that did not receive any visits from the stove promotion teams.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Purchase of improved cookstoves (overall and by technology), and use of improved cookstoves.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Not applicable
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Impacts of intervention and stove adoption on solid fuel consumption, cooking time, collection time, and self-reported health.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
Baseline surveys followed by intervention and then short-term follow-up surveys, in a sample of 1061 households living in 98 hamlets.
Hamlet-level randomization of intervention to 71 hamlets (with 27 hamlets as controls): Supply of stoves during sales visits, basic demand promotion (information and demonstrations), and financing option for purchase of stoves.
Household-level randomization of rebates delivered to households conditional on observed use of stoves.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Hamlet-level randomization done in an office on a computer; household level randomization achieved in the field by draw from a bag.
Randomization Unit
Sales intervention: Hamlet level
Rebates: Household level
Was the treatment clustered?
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
97 hamlets.
Sample size: planned number of observations
1061 households
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
71 clusters assigned to treatment, 27 to control
Among treatment households (n=770), one third expected in each rebate group.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB Name
Duke University IRB
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Is the intervention completed?
Intervention Completion Date
October 31, 2013, 12:00 AM +00:00
Is data collection complete?
Data Collection Completion Date
March 31, 2015, 12:00 AM +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
97 hamlets; 71 treated.
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
1061 households
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
97 hamlets; 71 treated.
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers