Cited by 325Energy and Environment ImpactsEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesPro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves

Open access
Hanna, Rema, Duflo, Esther, Greenstone, Michael·2016·American Economic Journal: Economic Policy

Abstract

Laboratory studies suggest that improved cooking stoves can reduce indoor air pollution, improve health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries. We provide evidence, from a large-scale randomized trial in India, on the benefits of a common, laboratory-validated stove with a four-year follow-up. While smoke inhalation initially falls, this effect disappears by year two. We find no changes across health outcomes or greenhouse gas emissions. Households used the stoves irregularly and inappropriately, failed to maintain them, and usage declined over time. This study underscores the need to test environmental technologies in real-world settings where behavior may undermine potential impacts. (JEL D12, O12, O13, Q53, Q54, Q55)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/pol.20140008

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 325

Metadata

Authors
Hanna, R., Duflo, E., & Greenstone, M.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Venue
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy
Published
2016-02-01
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
80-114
ISSN
  • 1945-7731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-774X
OpenAlex
W3124156497
Cited by
323
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 11
FWCI
15.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Journal Economic Policy (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • Children's Investment Fund Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Pro-Environmental Behavior and Attitudes
Keywords
improved cookstoves, household behavior, indoor air pollution, smoke inhalation, greenhouse gas emissions, health outcomes, technology adoption, long-term effects, India

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review