ArticleEnergy for sustainable development : the journal of the International Energy Initiative2025
Voucher-based liquefied petroleum gas subsidies achieve nearly exclusive clean fuel use when affordable delivery is available.
Article in Energy for sustainable development : the journal of the International Energy Initiative, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Fuel subsidization can promote clean fuel adoption and reduce household air pollution. We investigated whether a voucher-based system could be as effective as a home-based fuel delivery program in achieving exclusive use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) within a randomized controlled trial in Puno, Peru. Methods: In the first year of the trial, we delivered unlimited LPG to intervention homes, while comparison group participants continued baseline cooking practices. In the second year, comparison group participants received vouchers covering the cost of two 10 kg LPG tanks per month but did not receive tank delivery. We assessed voucher use and compared LPG use between the voucher and home delivery schemes. We conducted qualitative interviews with 15 women to understand perceptions and use of the vouchers and LPG. Data were collected in 2020 but remain relevant given the unchanged LPG system in Peru. Results: Voucher use was high (97.6% of vouchers were used). Participants receiving vouchers used LPG for 94.3% of cooking minutes, which was only slightly lower than the percent of cooking done with LPG by participants who received free home delivery (98.2%) (p<0.001). Voucher participants cooked with biomass for 84.7 minutes per week, within the range estimated as acceptable for meeting the World Health Organization interim air quality targets (<1-3 hours per week). Facilitators of voucher and LPG use included the ease and speed of cooking with gas, availability of LPG delivery in the region, access to several nearby LPG distributors, owning a second back-up LPG tank, and reinforcement of exclusive LPG use by study fieldworkers. Conclusion: A voucher-based system for providing subsidized LPG, paired with a reliable LPG infrastructure and behavioral motivation, effectively achieved near-exclusive clean fuel adoption. Findings can guide the design of LPG subsidization programs, which are increasingly important amid rising global LPG prices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.