ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA.pdf

ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN
MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D/ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA
M.Sc. THESIS
HABTAMU AYALEW BOGALE
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY, WONDOGENET COLLEGE OF FORESTERY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
WONDOGENET, ETHIOPIA
MARCH, 2020

ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN
MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D/ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA
HABTAMU AYALEW BOGALE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND
DEVELOPMENT WONDO GENET COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HAWASSA UNIVERSITY
WONDO GENET, ETHIOPIA
IMPARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
(SPECIALIZATION: CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT)
WONDOGENET, ETHIOPIA
MARCH, 2020

iii
ADVISOR APPROVAL SHEET
This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Adoption of Improved Cooking stove and
their implication in mitigation of greenhouse gas emission in D/Elias district,
Ethiopia" submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
Masters of Science with specialization in Climate Change and Development at
HwU, WGCF-NR, and is a record of original research carried out by Habtamu
Ayalew Bogale under my supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted
for any other degree or diploma. The assistance and help received during the
courses of this investigation have been duly acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend
that it can be accepted as fulfilling the thesisrequirement.

iv
EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET
We, the undersigned, members of the board of examiners of the final open defense by
Habtamu Ayalew have read and evaluated the candidate and his thesis entitled ‘’Adoption
of Improved cook stove and their implication in mitigation of Greenhouse gas emission in
D/Elias district, Ethiopia’’. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science in Climate
Change and Development.
Name of Chairperson Signature Date
Name of External Examiner Signature Date
Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date
Name of Advisor Signature Date
SGS Approval Signature Date

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank the Almighty God and virgin holy mother of God jion
Saint Marry, for giving me the ability, endurance, determination, and motivation throughout
the ups and downs of my life and preparation of this thesis. My philosophical sense of
gratitude goes to my supervisor Tsegaye Bekele (Professor), Hawassa University, Wondo
Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources for his continuous support,
encouragement and patient instructions which have always boosted my confidence. I
humbly thank you for his illuminating guidance, perceptual interest, valuable suggestions
and ever helping mind at every step throughout my study.
I extend my sincerest thanks to my beloved brother Semahegne Ayalew, who helped me
during my study as well as my thesis work. I also take this prospect to extend my thanks to
my brothers and sisters for their valuable assistance in collecting data for the study. Finally,
I express my very profound gratitude to my parents who provide me with consistent support
and continuous encouragement throughout the study period.

v
DECLARATION
I, Habtamu Ayalew, hereby declare and affirm that this thesis entitled ―Adoption of
improved cooking stove and their implication in mitigation of greenhouse gas emission in
D/Elias district, Ethiopia is my original work. Any scholarly mater that is included in the
thesis has been given recognition through citation. This thesis is submitted for the
requirement for Master of Science degree in climate change and development at Hawassa
University Wondogenet College of forestry and natural resource. I solely declare that this
thesis has not been submitted to any other institutions anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma or certificate.
Habtamu Ayalew Signature___________________
Hawassa University, WGCF – NRs Date_______________________
College of General forestry
Department of climate change and development
Wondo genet, Ethiopia

v
DEDICATION
This thesis manuscript is dedicated to my beloved father Mr. Ayalew Bogale and my
Mother Mrs. Yeshiwork Arega for devoting their time and resources to my wellbeing.

vi
ACRONYMS
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent
CRGE Climate-resilient green economy
EF Emission factor
EFCH4 Emission factor of methane
EFCO2 The emission factor of carbon dioxide
EFN2O Emission factor of nitrous oxide
Eq Equivalent
FGD Focus group discussion
FWS Fuelwood saved
GIZ Gesellschaft für International Zusammenarbeit
Gt Gigatone
GWP Global warming potential
IAP Indoor air pollution
ICS Improved cooking stove
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
KII Key informant interview
KPT Kitchen performance test
N2O Nitrous oxide
NCCSPE National clean cooking stove program of Ethiopia
S.N Serial Number
SAE Standard adult equivalent

vii
TCS Traditional cooking stove
UNDP United Nation development program
WHO World health organization

viii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................ 15
1.1. Introduction.............................................................................................................15
1.1.1. Background of the study......................................................................................15
1.2. Statement of the problem ........................................................................................17
1.1. Objectives of the study................................................................................................18
1.1.1. General objective .................................................................................................18
1.1.2. Specific objectives ...............................................................................................19
1.3. Research questions..................................................................................................19
1.4. Scope of the study...................................................................................................19
1.5. Limitation of the study............................................................................................20
1.6. Significance of the study.........................................................................................21
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................... 22
LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................... 22
2.1. Definition of Terms and Terminologies......................................................................22
2.2. Overview of Global Energy Consumption..................................................................23
2.3. Overview of energy consumption in Ethiopia ............................................................24
2.3.1. Energy Consumption........................................................................................................ 26
2.4. Overview of fuel wood consumption..........................................................................26
2.5. Cooking stoves............................................................................................................26
2.5.1. Traditional three-stone cooking stove.............................................................................. 26
2.5.2. Improved cooking stoves ................................................................................................. 27
2.5.3. Improved Cooking stoves and wood fuel saving ............................................................. 27

ix
2.6. Effects of traditional cooking stove ............................................................................28
2.6.1. Impacts on health ............................................................................................................. 28
2.6.2. Impacts on household air quality ..................................................................................... 29
2.6.3. Impacts on the environment............................................................................................. 29
2.6.4. Impacts on Climate .......................................................................................................... 30
2.7. Uses of improved cookstoves .....................................................................................30
2.8. Factors affecting improved cook-stove adoption........................................................33
3. MATERIALS AND METHOD ..................................................................................................... 35
3.1. Description of study Area ...........................................................................................35
3.1.1. Geographical location ...................................................................................................... 35
3.1.2. Soil type, topography, and Climate.................................................................................. 36
3.1.3. Population ........................................................................................................................ 36
3.2. Sampling techniques and sample size determination..................................................36
3.2.1. Data type and sources....................................................................................................... 38
3.3. Method of data collection ...........................................................................................38
3.3.1. Household survey............................................................................................................. 38
3.3.2. Key informant interview .................................................................................................. 38
3.3.3. Focus group discussion .................................................................................................... 39
3.3.4. Personal observation ........................................................................................................ 39
3.3.5. Experimental design......................................................................................................... 39
3.4. Method of data analysis ..............................................................................................40
3.4.1. Descriptive analysis ......................................................................................................... 40
3.4.2. Econometric model .......................................................................................................... 40
3.4.3. Estimation of greenhouse gas emission ........................................................................... 42

x
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................... 43
4.1. Results.........................................................................................................................43
4.1.1. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondent ................................ 43
4.1.2. Types of ICS used in Debre Elias district ........................................................................ 44
4.1.3. Source of information for the HH to adopt ICS ............................................................... 45
4.1.4. State of ICS adoption by type, Gender, and education .................................................... 46
4.1.5. Improved cookstoves adoption status by level education and sex ................................... 46
4.1.6. Role of Mirt and Gonzeye stove in Mitigation of Greenhouse gas emission................... 47
4.1.7. Role of Mirt and Gonzeye stoves for forest resource conservation ................................. 50
4.1.8. Factors affecting adoption of Mirt and Gonzeye stove .................................................... 50
4.2. Discussion...................................................................................................................53
4.2.1. Role of ICS....................................................................................................................... 53
6. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix I..........................................................................................................................63
Appendix II ........................................................................................................................73
Appendix III.......................................................................................................................74
Appendix IV.......................................................................................................................75
Appendix V........................................................................................................................76
APPENDIX VI...................................................................................................................78
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 79

xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Selected Keble’s with sample households...............................................................37
Table 2: Fuel wood consumption difference of Mirt, Gonzeye, and traditional three-stone
cook stoves.............................................................................................................................47
Table 3: GWP and EF of CO2, CH4, and N2O for fuelwood and charcoal............................48
Table 4: GHG offset potential of baking Injera stoves..........................................................49
Table 5: Factors that affect adoption of ICS in the study area ..............................................52

xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Share of energy sources in the total global primary energy supply in 2008..........23
Figure 2: Number of developing countries reporting fuel wood ...........................................24
Figure 3: Benefits of fuel-efficient stoves in achieving SDGs..............................................31
Figure 4: Location and Map of the study area.......................................................................35
Figure 5: Source of information for the household to adopt ICS ..........................................45
Figure 6: a) Mirt Stove, b) Lakech Stove, c) Mirchaye Stove...............................................50

xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Household survey Questionnaires ....................................................................63
Appendix 2: Photo during data collection .............................................................................73
Appendix 3: Fuelwood consumption potential of cook stoves .............................................74
Appendix 4: Conversion factor used to estimate Tropical livestock unit .............................75
Appendix 5: Emission reduction potential of backing Injera stoves .....................................76

xiv
ABSTRACT
In Ethiopia, agricultural expansion, overgrazing and fuel-wood collection are the causes of
deforestation and forest degradation which contribute to carbon emission. To mitigate this,
promoting improved cook stove (ICS) is an intermediate solution. Thus, the overall
objective of this study was assessing adoption of ICS and analyzing GHG emission
mitigation potential of using ICS in D/Elias District, Ethiopia. Based on data collected from
365 randomly selected respondents, assessments of determinants of improved cookstove
adoption and potential implication for CO2 equivalent emission reduction has been made.
Household survey has been supplemented with KII, FGD, and secondary data obtained
from published and unpublished local archives. Data were analyzed employing descriptive
statistics, binary logistic regression technique, and IPCC carbon equivalent estimation
technique. Using IPCC for carbon estimation, one HH is taken randomly and types of
stoves used for cooking Injera were collected, and equal croton-macrostachyus fuel-wood
were supplied, and difference was recorded, where as carbon was estimated using formula
of IPCC standard. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze quantitative data. And
study revealed that Mirt, Gonzeye, Mirchaye, Fermello, Fetenech and three-stone cook-
stoves are the main types of cookstoves used in the study district. About 4.57 and 2.38 tons
of forest resources were saved annually if households were using Mirt and Gonzeye cook
stoves when compared to three-stone cook-stove. Consequently, the GHG emission
mitigation potential of Mirt and Gonzeye were estimated to be 13.08 and 6.87 tCO2 eq. The
binary logistic regression result indicated that Education, Gender (Female), income, and
fuel wood source were factors that positively influence adoption of improved cook stoves at
less than 5% level of significance and occupation of household head is negatively
influencing with less than 5% significance level. Based on the study result, improving the
awareness of the community, increasing the supply of ICS, and increasing financial accecc
would have significant impact to enhance adoption of ICS and thereby enhance mitigate
GHG emission.
Research gap (future line of work): In estimating of greenhouse gas emission reduction it is
better to use water boiling test other than IPCC document. Due to budget limitation the
researcher is focused on IPCC document. Water boiling test is accurate than IPCC formula
because there is uncertainty in estimation of fuelwood consumption.
Key Words: adoption, deforestation, forest, forest degradation, fuel-wood, Greenhouse gas,
improved cook stove.

15
CHAPTER ONE
1.1.Introduction
1.1.1. Background of the study
Deforestation and forest degradation constitute one of the most significant sources of
greenhouse gas emission in many developing countries; particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa
(Dresen et al., 2014). Approximately, half of the world's population and 90% sub-Saharan
African countries use solid biomass fuels such as solid wood, charcoal, coal, crop straws,
leaves, and animal dung implementing traditional and inefficient stove technologies for
cooking and heating needs (Alamir, 2014). Using traditional inefficient cooking stoves
induces health risks in addition to being direct drivers of deforestation and forest
degradation (Lee et al, 2013). In developing countries like in Ethiopia, deforestation and
forest degradation is the major share of greenhouse gas emission that contributes to global
warming and climate change.
In rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa, three-stone open fire is the major biomass cookstoves
of incomplete ignition and inappropriate ventilation (Jetter and Kariher, 2009; Rehfuess,
2006). These traditional three-stone stoves are also caused high indoor health-damaging
pollutants including particulate matter and carbon monoxide.
In Ethiopia, there is a considerable amount of deforestation and forest degradation resulted
from heavy dependence on biomass energy that leads to the emission of CO2 into the
atmosphere. This contributes to an increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide that contributes to global warming (Dresen, 2014).
Human survival and prosperity are highly dependent on the environment. Complex forest
ecosystems ensure a continuous supply of food and fresh water and provide wood and other
products and services for the sustenance of life on Earth. Climate regulation and

16
environmental protection such as reduction of floods and other natural disasters are some of
the critical services of forest ecosystems. Forest ecosystems have shown a remarkable
capacity to accommodate more and more of human needs. However, these foundations of
human existence are now endangered by population growth and unsustainable utilization of
natural resources (Eshetu, 2014).
Worldwide, about 2.6 billion people rely on traditional solid biomass fuel such as fuelwood,
charcoal, animal dung, crop straws, shrubs, and agricultural residue to fulfil their energy
needs for cooking (Allen, 2015; Eshetu, 2014; Evelyn, 2014; Kaffayat et al., 2014). Lack of
cleaner fuels for cooking continues to be a critical issue (Alliance et al., 2014; Alamir,
2014). The number of people relying on solid biomass will increase to 2.7 billion by the
year 2030 because of population growth, which calls for the higher adoption rate of
improved biomass saving cooking stoves (Palit and Bhattacharyya, 2014).
The household energy sector in Africa relies on wood-based energy since access to other
alternative energy sources is limited (Alamir, 2014). In Africa, 792 million people are
compelled to cook using biomass traditional inefficient cooking stoves. The number of
people using traditional cooking technology is expected to increase by 2030. The energy
supply of Sub-Saharan African countries is heavily dominated by solid biomass fuel which
accounts above 95% of total energy supply (NCCSPE, 2011), and traditional three-stone
open fire that induces significant environmental pollution is the cooking stove dominantly
used (Alamir, 2014, Onyekuru and Apeh, 2017, Gizachew, and Tolera, 2018).
Efforts are needed to develop or adopt and use improved energy-saving cooking stoves as
an intermediate solution to minimize the adverse impacts of using traditional three-stone
open fire cookstoves (GIZ, 2013). The three-stone traditional stoves are not efficient in
energy use and it also promotes deforestation and forest degradation and thereby contributes

17
emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide
(Lee et al, 2013). Improving the efficiency of fuelwood consumption has the potential of
conserving forests; mitigate climate change and improve human health simultaneously.
According to the climate-resilient green economy (CRGE) strategy of Ethiopia (2011), fuel
food and charcoal consumption in Ethiopia has led to woody biomass degradation of about
14 million tons in 2010 and this is projected to increase to about 23 million tons by 2030
due to expected continual use of biomass for cooking. This heavy reliance on biomass
resources plays a major role in the depletion of the country's forest resources
(Gebreegziabher et al., 2010; Asres, 2002; Shanko, 2001).
The GHG emission from forest degradation due to heavy dependence on biomass energy
sources in Ethiopia is expected to increase from 24 Mt CO2 eq in 2010 E.C to 41 Mt CO2 eq
2030 E.C if no action is taken (Gizachew and Tolera M., 2018). Efforts are needed to
promote the adoption of improved energy-saving cooking stoves as an intermediate solution
to minimize the adverse impacts of using three-stone open fire cookstoves (GIZ, 2013).
Therefore this study is initiated to assess the types of cooking stoves currently used by
households, determine the impacts of substituting traditional cooking stoves by improved
cooking stoves, estimate the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the improved
cookstoves, and identify the determinant factors that affect the adoption of improved
cooking stoves.
1.2.Statement of the problem
In most developing countries, biomass-based energy accounts for more than 90% of all
household energy consumption (FAO, 2016). Over 95% of Ethiopia's energy supply is relay
on solid biomass fuel sources mostly using traditional three-stone cook-stove (Beyene and
Koch, 2013). The traditional three-stone cook-stove is inefficient in transforming solid fuel

18
into energy. It also causes air pollution which is dangerous for the health of children in
addition to the demand for labour to fuelwood collection. Moreover, following the biomass
to energy conversion inefficiency of the traditional three-stone cook-stove, it is one of the
main causes of deforestation and forest degradation in Ethiopia. With the effect of indoor
air pollution, 3.7% and 2.7% of the global population and developing countries' population
were affected by indoor air pollution (WHO, 2002). Improved cooking stoves have the
potential to minimize the adverse effect of indoor air pollution that resulted from traditional
inefficient biomass cookstoves (WHO, 2010).
According to D/Elias's energy sector report (2018), town youths are organized to produce
and disseminate ICS that include Mirt stove, Gonzeye stove, Fetenech, Mirchaye as well as
Fermello to the community since 2008. Among these, Mirt stove was the dominant stove
produced and disseminated to the community (D/Elias Energy Sector, 2018). However,
there is limited study related to assessing the distribution of ICS, factors affecting the
adoption of ICS distribution, as well as the GHG emission mitigation potential of ICS.
Therefore, this study was initiated to assess the types of cooking stoves used by the
households, estimate the potential of GHG mitigation of ICS as compared to that of
traditional three-stone biomass cook-stove as well as to assess the factors that affect the
adoption of ICS in D/Elias District, Ethiopia.
1.1. Objectives of the study
1.1.1. General objective
The general objective of this study was to examine the types of ICS adopted and their
implication in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emission in D/Elias District, E/Gojjam,
Ethiopia.

19
1.1.2. Specific objectives
The specific objectives of this study are
 To assess the types of biomass cooking stove used by households in the district
 To investigate the impacts of substituting traditional three-stone cookstoves by
improved cook stoves for forest resource conservation
 To estimate the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of improved cookstoves as
compared to that of traditional three-stone open fire cookstove
 To examine factors that affect the adoption of improved cook stove in the study area
1.3.Research questions
This study is focused to answer the following specific questions
 What are the major types of cooking stoves currently used by households in D/Elias
district?
 What is the impact of substituting traditional three-stone open fire cookstoves by
improved cook stoves for forest resource conservation?
 What is the estimated greenhouse gas mitigation potential of improved cookstoves
when compared to three-stone open fire cookstoves?
 What are the factors affecting improved cookstove adoption in the study area?
1.4. Scope of the study
The scope of this study is limited to identify the types of ICS commonly used by
households, estimate carbon footprint mitigation potential of ICS, analyze the factors that
affect the adoption of ICS and investigate the impacts of substituting traditional three-stone
cook stove by ICS for forest resource conservation in D/Elias district. The greenhouse gas

20
mitigation potential is estimated only using the two types of improved cookstoves, Mirt and
Gonzeye.
1.5.Limitation of the study
The result of this study would be very attractive if it would have included all types of
biomass-based energy technologies and would have studied in wider scale. However, due to
time and budget limitations, the study is limited to certain types of biomass based cook
stove in the district.

21
1.6.Significance of the study
The findings of the study may be useful to assist decision makers local stove producers,
district energy and water office experts, district agricultural office, Kebele agents and
national clean cook stove program of Ethiopia to be aware of the determinant factors which
affect households improved cook stove adoption decision. Besides, this study can be used as
a reference for further and detailed study.

22
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Definition of Terms and Terminologies
Adoption: In this study, adoption refers to the decision of households to use a specific type
of cook stove.
Fetenech stove: This is a type of improved stove made from clay sand enclosed with tin
used for making coffee and stew.
Gonzeye stove: This is a type of improved cook stove made from a combination of red soil
and water and dried by sunlight and heated by fire.
Improved cook stove: An improved cook stove (ICS) is a stove that is more fuel-efficient
and releases fewer emissions when compared to traditional three-stone open fire
Kebele: refers to the lowest level of government administrative structure in Ethiopia.
Mirt stove: This is a type of improved cook stove made from a combination of cement and
clay sand.
Mitad: This is a circular clay plate used to back Injera /bread which is placed between the
stove and akinbalo.
Akinbalo: the Amharic name is a dish like structure made from bamboo and red mud.
Open-fire: Open-fire refers to the traditional method that relies on a clay 'U' shape or three
stones to support cooking that is highly inefficient in biomass energy conversion potential.
Reradiating light: light that can travel in the form of electromagnetic wave that reaches to
the earth and bounces back to the atmosphere.
Solid fuels: refers to fuels which include biomass fuels such as wood, crop residues, dung,
charcoal, and coal.
Stove: A traditional or improved energy conversion tool for cooking or heating

23
Traditional stove: A type of stove produced used locally for centuries and characterized as
fuel inefficient and pollutant when compared to any improved cook stove.
Woreda: refers to the government's administrative unit in Ethiopia which is equivalent to
district.
2.2. Overview of Global Energy Consumption
Sustainable development is unbearable without making energy systems more sustainable.
One of the major challenges in the 21st
century is ensuring sustainable development and
meeting the energy needs of the ever-increasing world's population. Under today's energy
policy and investment trends in energy infrastructure, projections show that as many as 1.4
billion people will rely on biomass in 2030 (IGAD, 2007). This scenario is not different in
Africa (Karekezi, 2002). The world's total primary energy supply in 2008 was dominated by
non-renewable energy sources accounting for about 87.1% (Karekezi, 2002).
Figure 1: Share of energy sources in the total global primary energy supply in 2008.
Note: GE = Geothermal energy, RE = renewable energy, WE = wind energy
Source: Getenet (2018) unpublished document
According to Broad head (2016), trends in the country report of fuel wood production
figures to FAO have fluctuated since 1961 as shown in figure 2 below.

24
Figure 2: Number of developing countries reporting fuel wood
Note: (NC: Non – coniferous), (C: coniferous) and charcoal (ch), from 1960 - 2010.
(Source: Broadhead, 2016)
2.3. Overview of energy consumption in Ethiopia
There is a correlation between poverty level and traditional biomass use in many developing
countries (Karehezi, 2014). The energy sector of Ethiopia is one of the least developed in
the world even though there is enormous energy resource endowment. The main sources of
fuel wood in Ethiopia are woody biomass (78%), dung (8%), crop residue (7%) and
petroleum (5%) (Eshete et al., 2006).
Furthermore, rural households' heavy reliance on traditional energy has been reported by
several studies in Ethiopia. In this regard, Ethiopia is the third largest user of traditional bio
fuels for household energy in the world, next to Chad and Eritrea. About 96% of its
population is dependent on traditional biomass to meet their energy needs (Jargstorf, 2014).
On the other hand, the finding of Konemund (2012) revealed that traditional biomass energy
consumption in the country accounts for about 94% of the total national energy
consumption. Both studies confirm that Biomass is the major source of energy in Ethiopia.
The household is the major consumer of energy in Ethiopia. It accounts for about 89.2% of

25
the total national energy consumption while the remaining 10.8% is shared among
agriculture, transport, industry, and service sectors (EREDPC and MoARD, 2003).
According to EREDPC and MoARD (2003), fuel wood with charcoal and animal dung with
crop residues accounts for 83% and 16% respectively, whereas electricity and petroleum
together contribute with 1% of the total household energy consumption.

26
2.3.1. Energy Consumption
Nearly half of the global population relies on biomass, coal, and animal dung, for their
cooking needs (Legros et al., 2009; Rehfuess et al., 2006). Unprocessed biomass (for
instance charcoal, firewood, crop waste, litter fall) remains as a major household fuel source
for most inhabitants of low-income Countries particularly the poor (Bruce et al., 2000).
2.4. Overview of fuel wood consumption
Globally, approximately 2.4 billion people rely on burning solid fuels (wood, dung, crop
residue, garbage or coal) for cooking, heating, and lighting (Evelyn et al., 2014). In Africa,
despite the availability of various energy sources, more than 80% of the total population in
most countries is still using traditional biomass as the main source of energy for cooking
(IEA, 2016). The proportion of biomass fuels in total energy consumption in Ethiopia is one
of the supreme in the world. Biomass fuels constitute over 90% of total energy consumption
in the country and about 99% in the rural areas, and the trending scarcity is one major cause
of deforestation and forest degradation that in turn contributed for carbon emission
(Mekonnen, 1999).
2.5. Cooking stoves
Cooking stoves are stoves commonly used for cooking food in the household. Generally,
cookstoves are currently characterized as traditional and improved, where the former is fuel
inefficient and the latter is a fuel-efficient cooking stove.
2.5.1. Traditional three-stone cooking stove
Traditional cooking stoves are those stoves characterized as fuel-inefficient, the major
source of indoor air pollution that impact health and a driver of deforestation and forest
degradation particularly in developing countries like Ethiopia.

27
2.5.2. Improved cooking stoves
Biomass improved cooking stove is a cooking stove which uses biomass fuel (wood,
charcoal, vegetable matter or paper) designed to maximize thermal and fuel efficiency and
minimize emissions harmful to human health (Allen, 2015). Improved biomass cooking
stove was developed to improve cooking efficiency compared with that of traditional
cooking stoves. Improved biomass cooking stoves can reduce the amount of fuel required,
fuel gathering time and cooking time, mitigate GHG emission, improves health and increase
household income. Also, these efficiencies can benefit the local environment and to mitigate
global climate change due to a reduction in fuelwood harvesting and particulate emissions.
Despite clear scientific evidence on the efficacy of these innovations, initial efforts to
promote these technologies have run into challenges surrounding diffusion, dissemination,
and implementation (Cordes, 2014).
2.5.3. Improved Cooking stoves and wood fuel saving
Traditional three-stone cooking stoves used for cooking and heating are characterized as
inefficiency due to incomplete combustion of fuelwood during cooking. This low efficiency
is resulting in high consumption of fuelwood, which intern leads to more collection of
fuelwood and exacerbate deforestation and forest degradation. The plantations practiced in
rural areas are not sustainable and so are not able to contribute to net carbon sequestration.
Single improved biomass cooking stoves can save a considerable amount of fuelwood
annually and consequently lessen the requirement of firewood and lessens the load on forest
(Panwar, Kurchania, and Rathore, 2009).

28
2.6. Effects of traditional cooking stove
2.6.1. Impacts on health
Daily exposure to toxic smoke from traditional cooking practice is one of the world's
biggest but least known killer diseases. Penetrating deep into the lungs of its victim, this
smoke causes deadly chronic and acute health effects such as childhood pneumonia, lung
cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, tuberculosis, premature
mortality and low birth weights in children born to mothers who will breath toxic fumes
from open fires during their pregnancy (Pope et al., 2010; Dherani et al., 2008; Bruce et al.,
2000). Indoor air pollution emitted by burning solid fuel in poorly ventilated conditions is
possible for two million premature deaths per year exceeding deaths attributable to malaria
or tuberculosis, or 3.3% of the global burden of disease, particularly women and children
(Cordes, 2004, WHO, 2009). The adverse health outcomes are chiefly caused by the
inhalation of fine soot particles ≤ 2.5µm in aerodynamic diameter (Smith et al., 2009).
In addition to adverse health effects, negative social impacts often result from using
traditional stoves. For example, inefficient stoves require more time to cook and gather fuel,
a burden usually for women and children, which diverts their time from education and
income-producing activities.
Exposure to particulate matter from biomass smoke is a risk through in utero exposure as
well as direct inhalation during early life. Prenatal impacts occur as a result of the effect of
pollution on the mother and the direct transfer of biomass toxins across the placenta which
is known to reduce nutrient flows and disrupt the central nervous system of the fetus
(Lafave et al., 2018).

29
2.6.2. Impacts on household air quality
During cooking inadequate ventilation and incomplete combustion through the use of
rudimentary stoves or open fire pits are common resulting in acute and chronic exposure to
air pollutants /particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, carcinogens (Fullerton et
al., 2008; Smith et al., 2000). The low efficiency of traditional fuels and cooking stoves
leads to higher smoke discharges and the deterioration of indoor air quality caused by a
range of particulate and gaseous emissions such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides. Black
carbon (carbon monoxide) and other particulates in developing countries is the most critical
global environmental problem. The direct impacts are respiratory infections in children and
chronic lung disease in non-smoking women. It increases the concentration of greenhouse
gases within the atmosphere. Cooking stove efficiency considerations, therefore, play a
major role in the mitigation of greenhouse gas emission and respiratory infectious diseases.
These could be promoted by upgrading to a more efficient biomass improved cooking
stoves.
2.6.3. Impacts on the environment
Environmental impacts arise from damages to ambient air and local forest ecosystem.
Biomass burning contributes to ambient atmospheric pollution (Shindell et al., 2011).
Reliance on polluting, inefficient cooking stoves and fuel leads to a wide variety of
environmental problems. In many countries, much of the native forest cover has been
stripped to support charcoal production, fuelwood production and other activities. Reliance
on wood fuel for cooking can lead to increased pressure on local forest and natural
resources. The unsustainable collection of wood for charcoal production can contribute to
mudslides, loss of watershed functions and desertification as well degrades local forests

30
which cause carbon emission, and destruction of wildlife habitat (Geist and Lambin, 2001,
Bond et al., 2004, Hofstad et al., 2009, Kohli et al., 2011).
2.6.4. Impacts on Climate
Cooking with unsustainably harvested biomass can affect climate due to inefficient fuel
combustion releases products of incomplete combustion with a better heating potential than
CO2, like methane and carbon monoxide (Sargar and Kartha, 2007). Therefore emissions
from the combustion of unsustainably harvested wood fuel and biomass in inefficient
traditional cooking stoves is a significant contributor to global climate change. The burning
of solid fuel produces significant quantities of emissions, including gases such as methane,
carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxides, as well as particles such as black carbon which affects
the climate in the short term. Residential sources, mainly from the cooking stove, represent
more than 25 per cent of the global inventory of black carbon emissions (Bond et al., 2007).
Large-scale adoption of clean cooking stoves can mitigate climate change by reducing
carbon dioxide emissions from non-sustainable harvesting of biomass, and by lowering
emissions from short-lived GHG and aerosols.
2.7. Uses of improved cookstoves
Improved cookstoves (ICS) are designed to improve health, conserve fuel wood and reduce
emission. The use of ICS was also attractive because by the fact that it also saves time and
money used for gathering and/or purchasing fuel respectively. The use of improved
cookstoves (ICS) was described as diagrammatical below.

31
Figure 3: Benefits of
Fuel-efficient stoves in achieving SDGs Adopted from UNDESA (2005), UNDP (2005b).
Provides clean
water and
sanitation SDG - 6
Poverty reduced SDG - 1
More production
Land productivity
Increase in labor
productivity
More time for other
activity
Reduce forest
deforestation and
degradation SDG - 12
Dung used for
fertilizer
Wood collection
time reduced
Health status
improved SDG– 3
Engage
in
more
product
ive
activity
SDG -
3
Medical
expense
decreased
Minimize
indoor air
pollution
Give more time to
female students to
attend school
Improved cooking stoves
Decrease wood consumption
Lesson carbon emission
Fuel wood demand
reduced
Better academic
achievement SDG – 2, 3
Pressure on forests reduced Mitigate climate change SDG - 12

32
The result from this specific study site also showed that the use of improved cooking stoves
reduces the amount of fuelwood used at a household level is significantly small as
compared to households who use of the traditional cooking stoves. They also showed that
the use of improved cooking stoves in the study area results in a per capita annual emission
reduction of about 0.126 tons of CO2. The study also identified that improved cooking
stoves contribute to clean development strategy in developing countries where biomass
plays a major role as an energy source. They also identify seasonal variation factors that
may reduce the consumption of firewood.
A review study which looked 32 papers conducted in 22 countries found evidence of a
systematic and theoretically consistent relationship between the adoption of clean energy
products and socioeconomic status including income, education, social marginalization, and
urban location. The study investigated that different types of cooking stoves use different
types of fuels (Carolina, 2012).
Inappropriate cooking stove design, such as inconvenient stove size and instability; prevent
women from adopting new stoves. As well as several technological, psychosocial and
contextual factors influence the perceptions of traditional cook-stove adoption.
Understanding attitudes and practices towards traditional stoves can impact stove design
and implementation and ultimately increase adoption. Women use multiple traditional stove
constructions and settings to meet their cooking needs, even within the same kitchen
(Evelyn et al., 2014). ICS adoption and clean fuel choice were significantly associated with
socioeconomic status(Pattanayak, 2012). In this study, income and education were
positively associated with the adoption of improved cookstove where social status was
negatively related.

33
2.8. Factors affecting improved cook-stove adoption
The key barriers to adopting improved cook-stove, were overemphasis on technology,
under-emphasis on the user-friend lines, purchasing patterns by households, income
variability of end-users, limited market players and stove builders in the rural areas and
knowledge gaps are the determinant factors to adopt improved cooking stoves (Palit et al.,
2012). Realistic metrics and methods for testing household biomass cooking stoves are
required to develop standards needed by international policymakers, donors, and investors
(Jetter, 2012).A study made on adoption and emission reduction potential of improved
cookstoves, in Bale-eco region, considering various socioeconomic factors found that
Gender of household head, higher education level of household head, and ownership of
separate kitchen and large Household size significantly influence households' decision to
adopt improved cooking stove. Based on findings of studies the major factors that
determinant adoption of improved cookstoves are Age of Household Head, Education level
in addition to Gender of household head and access to information.
Age of household head: The previous studies found contradictory results concerning the
correlation between age and ICS adoption. A review by Lewis and pattanayak (2012),
uncovered that the household head's age was indicated to be a significant negative factor
that determines the adoption of ICS. On the contrary, Gebreegziabher et al (2010) found the
household head's age to be the positive and statistically significant determinant factor of
improved stove adoption decision. The finding of Dawit (2008) reveals that the household
head's age is negatively and statistically significant determinant factor of Mirt stove
adoption. Concerning the influence of a household head’s age on household's ICS adoption
decision, a work of Puzzolo et al (2013) found inconsistency among research findings.

34
Education Level of households’ heads: Lewis and Pattanayak (2012), in their review study
found that household head's education is positively and statistically significant factor that
determines the adoption of ICS. In a similar study, it is argued that better educated is
attributed to increased awareness of the benefits of improved cookstoves as compared to
those with a lower level of education (Inayat, 2011; Menon & Thandapani, 2011;
Adrianzen, 2009), which in turn impact adoption of improved cookstoves positively. Menon
and Thandapani (2011) again claim that the decision-makers (household head) education
level is a factor to look to opportunities of accessing finance to purchase improved
cookstoves with minimal opportunity cost or risk. Damte and Koch, Gebreegziabher et
al (2010), Dawit (2008) and Makame (2007) also found the household head's education
level has a positive influence to adopt improved cook stove in Ethiopia. Generally, studies
reviewed found that household head's level of education and improved stove adoption have
positive association; which means households with higher education are usually more likely
to adopt improved cookstoves.

35
3. MATERIALS AND METHOD
3.1. Description of study Area
3.1.1. Geographical location
The study was conducted in D/Elias District, East Gojjam, Amhara National Regional State
of Ethiopia, which is located around 335 km northwest from the capital city of Ethiopia,
Addis Abeba. Geographically D/Elias is located between 100 00’ 00’’ N - 100 25’ 00’’ N
and 370 5’ 00’’ E – 370 5’ 00’’ E.
D/Elias District is bordered on the South and West by Blue Nile (Abay) river in the North-
West by the Mirab Gojjam zone, on the North by Machakel district, and on the East by
Guzamn district. Elias is the capital city of D/ Elias district.
Figure 4: Location and Map of the study area

36
3.1.2. Soil type, topography, and Climate
The most dominant soil type in the district is red and it is moderately characterized as
fertile. The mean annual temperature of D/Elias district ranges from 180C - 27°C and
receives a mean annual rainfall of 1,150 mm. The altitude ranges from 800 to 2,200 m
above sea level (Achenef and Admas, 2012).
3.1.3. Population
Based on the information obtained from D/Elias district (2020), this district has a total
population of 107,023 of whom 53,211 are male and 53,812 are female. The sampled
kebeles population for Dejiba, Yekegat and Tijagoter accounts 6,266 (M=3057, F=3209),
6002 (M=3031, F=2971) and 5785 (M=2816, F=2973) respectively (D/Elias district, 2020).
The majority (98.94%) of the inhabitants are Orthodox Christianity while 1.01% of the
population is Muslim. The area is moderately densely populated that ranges from 100 to 120
people per km2 (D/Elias district Agriculture and rural development office report, 2012).
The number of households in the district is about 24,889 and the total number of households
in the sampled Kebeles’ is 4,197. On average, each household has four individuals in the
study district.
3.2. Sampling techniques and sample size determination
For this study, both purposive and random sampling methods were used. Debre Elias
District was selected purposely based on researcher personal experience and familiarity.
From 18 Kebele’s in the District, three Kebeles namely Dejiba, Tijagoter, and Yekegate
were also purposively selected by considering the rate of distribution of improved
cookstoves stoves (Debre Elias Energy sector, 2018). Finally, random sampling was applied
to select sample respondents from sampled kebeles. From the total number of households in

37
the three Kebeles, the sample size was calculated using the formula provided by Yamane
(1967 as sighted in Israel, 1992).
Where: n = designates the sample size; N = designates the total number of households in
three Kebeles; e = margin of error (5% (0.05). Accordingly, the number of respondents
from each Kebele was calculated shown below.
Table 1: Selected Keble’s with sample households
S.N Sample kebeles Total households Sample households
1. Dejiba Kebele 1,457 THH 127 SHH
2. Tijagoter Kebele 1,345 THH 117 SHH
3. Yekegate Kebele 1,395 THH 121 SHH
N = 4,197 THH n = 365 SHH
Where N = total households, n = sample households
Source: Own survey data (2020)

38
3.2.1. Data type and sources
The study used both primary and secondary data types. Primary data were collected through
a household survey, focus group discussion (FGD), key informant interview (KII) as well as
a personal observation, while secondary data were collected from published and
unpublished sources including journal articles, books, internet sources, and from
government offices in the district such as the office of agriculture and water and energy
development office reports of D/Elias District.
3.3. Method of data collection
3.3.1. Household survey
The household survey was conducted through a structured questionnaire and the interviewer
was done with a face-to-face interview. The structured questionnaire for the household
survey included open-ended and close-ended questions. The questionnaire was first
designed in English and then translated to the local language Amharic. A total of 365
households were interviewed.
3.3.2. Key informant interview
Key informant interview was undertaken with model farmers, those farmers who have better
experiences as compared with others and are active in receiving new technologies, district
expert and development agents who have long years of experience in the sector were also
used as key informants. A total of ten key informants including one district energy expert,
three Kebele health extension agents, three development agents (DA's) and three model
farmers were used as key informants. The key informant interview was used to obtain in-
depth information regarding the types of cooking stoves commonly used by the households,
and factors that affect the adoption of improved cooking stoves in the District.

39
3.3.3. Focus group discussion
Two focused group discussions, Male and female group, was made in each Kebele. The two
groups were arranged independently for male and female household heads to reduce gender
bias tensions among male and female participants. A total of six FGDs each consisting of
six participants were conducted for this particular study.
FGDs were important in obtaining information that cannot be easily obtained through a
face-to-face interview. A checklist was prepared and used to guide the focused group
discussion.
3.3.4. Personal observation
In addition to the key informant, and FGD, the personal observation was conducted. During
the personal observation, notes on improved stove preparation and usage were recorded. As
well photos were taken using a digital camera.
3.3.5. Experimental design
The contribution of improved cookstoves to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction in
rural households' was studied in a systematic sample of households from three purposively
selected rural Keble’s of D/Elias District. For the estimation of GHG emission mitigation,
the fuelwood consumption potential of the traditional cook stove and improved cookstoves
named Mirt and Gonzeye were recorded in seven consecutive days for equal supply of
fuelwood. The fuelwood left in Mirt and Gonzeye in each day was recorded after a three-
stone open fire cook stove consumed the fuelwood that was supplied. The mean value of
fuelwood left in seven days and the repetition of cooking Injera per household was
estimated based on daily based records. Following it the monthly and the annual amount of
fuelwood saved due to the adoption of improved cookstoves using Mirt and Gonzeye were

40
estimated. Finally, the emission reduction potential of cookstoves using Mirt and Gonzeye
was estimated compared to that of a traditional three-stone cooking stove.
3.4. Method of data analysis
3.4.1. Descriptive analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze primary data collected using a household survey.
The data was organized and presented using tables, graphs, and charts. Also, qualitative data
collected from Key informant interview (KII) and Focus group discussion (FGD) was
transcribed and used to support results from survey data.
3.4.2. Econometric model
A binary logistic regression model was used to determine factors influencing the adoption
of ICS by farmers in the area. The dependent variable (Y) takes a value ―1‖ if the particular
household uses ICS and ―0'' if the particular household does not use it. Different
socioeconomic economic variables such as Gender of household head, education status of
household head, fuelwood source, an income of households, household size, as well as
educated Household members in the household were used as predictor variables that were
hypothesized to influence the adoption of ICS technologies in the study area.
The general functional form of binary logistic regression model used to analyze
determinants of ICS adoption of the households is as described in equation (1): The
probability to adopt technology Pr (Ti = 1), or not adopt the technology Pr (Ti = 0)
The probability of adoption of improved cooking stove
( ) (
(
(
( )
Similarly the probability not to adopt Mirt stove were
( ) ( ) (
( )
Dividing equation (1) by equation (2) we get

41
( )
( )
( )
Taking log in both sides of equation 3 results
[
( )
( )
] ( )
Where subscript i = denotes the ith
observation in the sample, Pr is the probability of the
outcomes, β0 is the intercept term, and β1, β2… βk are coefficients associated with each
explanatory variables X1, X2 ...Xk.
The data obtained from all respondents 365 from each size including both ICS adopters and
ICS non-adopters were considered in the model. The explanatory variables (Xi) included in
the model were education level of household head (EDUCATION), fuelwood source
(FSOURCE), gender of the household head (GENDER), age of the household head (AGE),
Household size (FSIZE), the participation of a Household member in energy-saving
technology-related training (TRAIN) annual gross income from farm and off-farm activities
(INCOM) occupation of household head (OCCUPATION). The dependent variables used in
this logistic analysis is Adoption status (AICS) where AICS = 1 if the household adopts any
improved cookstoves technology and 0 otherwise. Given the above explanatory variables,
the general form of Eq. [4] was rewritten as follows to represent the likelihood of adopting
improved cookstoves by households in the study site, D/ Elias district.
Ln
( )
( )
] = β0 + β1GENDER + β2AGE + β3FSIZE + β4INCOM + β5 OCCUPATION
+ β6EDUCATION + β7FSOURCE + β8TRAIN
Quantitative data were managed and analyzed using Microsoft office word, Microsoft office
excel 2007 and statistical package for social science (SPSS Version - 20).

42
3.4.3. Estimation of greenhouse gas emission
To estimate the greenhouse gas emission from three different stoves (traditional three-stone
and improved cooking stoves (Mirt stove and Gonzeye stove) a formula developed by IPCC
(2006) was used. The formula to estimate GHG emission is provided below.
∑ ( )
(Source: IPCC, 2006)
Where Ea = Emission reduction potential of cooking stove
Ci = Amount of firewood consumed in kilogram
EFCO2 = Emission factor of carbon dioxide gas
GWPCO2 = Global warming potential of carbon dioxide
EFCH4 = Emission factor of methane gas
GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of methane gas
EFN2O = Emission factor of nitrous oxide gas
GWPN2O = Global warming potential of nitrous oxide gas.

43
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Results
4.1.1. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondent
Out of 365 sampled households surveyed, 30.5% was male-headed and 69.5% was female-
headed. The survey result shows that education level starts with 0 and ends with grade 8 and
that is a categorical variable categorized as unable to read and write, read and write,
educated up to grade 4 and educated from grade 4-8 respectively. The average farming
experience of the households head was 37 years with the maximum being 57 and the
minimum 14 years. Farmers in the study area engaged in mixed farming activities, including
the production of staple and cereal food crops (such as maize, wheat, teff and haricot bean)
and rearing of domestic animals such as cows, oxen, goats, sheep’s and donkey. Moreover,
the survey result revealed that the livestock holding in terms of tropical livestock unit
(TLU) with maximum and minimum ranges from 15.72 to 3.42 respectively.
Major sources of income in the study area are farm activities, and pity trade activity mainly
from the sale of crops, vegetables and livestock, livestock products (e.g. butter…etc.).
Trading daily labour and renting of animals such as donkey are also other sources of non-
farm income for some of the sampled households, the land size ownership of the
household’s ranges with a maximum and minimum 3 hectare and 0.25 hectare. Household’s
income (farm income and mini trade income) of the sampled surveyed household’s ranges
from 20,000.00 to 100,000.00 birr with an average of 50,642.86 birrs per annum. Surveyed
household income from nonfarm farm activities ranged from 0 to 3000.00 birr with an
average of 932.14 birrs per annum and 87.28% of the households have tradition to saving.

44
4.1.2. Types of ICS used in Debre Elias district
Different types of ICS were found being used for different purposes among surveyed
households in the study district. The identified stoves have distinct functions that include
cooking Injera & bread, for making coffee, for cooking stew and porage. The types and
frequency of cookstoves with their function are described below (Table 2).
Table 2: Types of cooking stove adopted by type, frequency and percentage
Meal preparing stove Stove type Frequency %
Cooking Injera Stove Three stone 223 61.2
Mirt 77 21.1
Gonzeye 65 17.7
Cooking stew and phorage Stove Three stone 291 79.8
Fermello 27 7.5
Mirchaye 25 6.8
Fetenech 22 6.1
Making coffee Stove Three stone 241 66
Coffee non user 109 29.9
Fermello 15 4.1
Source: Own survey data (2018).

45
4.1.3. Source of information for the HH to adopt ICS
The Survey result shows that the source of information to adopt ICS were through cell
phone (74.1%), energy experts (69.4%), health extension service (66%), radio (60.5%),
model farmer (51%) and from development agents (47%).
Figure 5: Source of information for the household to adopt ICS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
Households
Source of Information

46
4.1.4. State of ICS adoption by type, Gender, and education
Generally, the survey result shows that out of the total sample households 21.1% and
17.7% were found to be adopters of Mirt and Gonzeye for baking Injera respectively and
7.5%, 6.5% and 6.1% were found to be adopters of Fermello, Mirchaye and Fetenech
cookstove for preparing stew and /or forage respectively. About 4.06% of the households
also use Fermello stove for making coffee. But the majority of households about 61.2%,
75.5% and 67.3% of the households were found to be users of traditional open fire three-
stone cook stove for baking Injera, preparation of stew, and coffee respectively.
Female-headed households were found to adopt improved cookstoves better than male-
headed households Own survey data (2018).
4.1.5. Improved cookstoves adoption status by level education and sex
As shown in Table 3 households with formal education are found to adopt ICS better than
those who had no formal education.
Table 3: ICS adoption by education level
Gender (Adopter in %) Education level (adopter in %)
Purpose of cook
stove
Stove type Male Female Illiter
ate
Able to read
and write
Grade
1-4
Grade
5-8
Injera and bread
cook stove
Mirt 6.8 14.28 7.45 12.24 29.9 17.7
Gonzeye 5.44 12.24 2.04 3.4 5.44 6.8
Three stone 25.17 36.05 27.2 25.25 4.75 3.4
Stew and porage
cook stove type
Fermello 1.36 6.12 0 1.36 2.72 2.72
Merchay 2.72 4.08 0 1.36 2.72 2.72
Fetenech 0 6.12 0 1.36 2.04 2.72
Three stone 38.74 36.73 41.5 13.6 10.2 10.9
Coffee making
stove type
Fermello 0 4.08 0 0 2.04 2.04
Three stone 6.8 60.54 34 14.3 10.2 8.82

47
4.1.6. Role of Mirt and Gonzeye stove in Mitigation of Greenhouse gas emission
Anthropogenic greenhouse gases were gases that cause warming of the atmosphere when
the concentrations are increased. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the major
greenhouse gases emitted from unsustainable use of biosphere. Mostly their sources were
from combustion of fuel wood, animal dung, ruminant animals, swamps, and from the area
under rice were cultivated. Improved cook stoves can reduce emission of these gases. The
contribution of Mirt and Gonzeye stove in Mitigation of greenhouse gas emission was
estimated based on efficiency of fuel wood saving of standard adult equivalent of the
household. The fuel wood consumption difference of Mirt, Gonzeye, and traditional three-
stone cook stove were illustrated in (Table 4) (appendix III).
Table 2: Fuel wood consumption difference of Mirt, Gonzeye, and traditional three-stone
cook stoves.
An equal amount of croton macrostachyus fuel wood supplied for the three cook stoves in kilogram
S.N Stove type Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
1. Three stone stove 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
2. Mirt stove 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
3. Gonzeye stove 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5
4. FWS in Mirt stove 9.5 8.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.5
5. FWS in Gonzeye stove 8.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 7.5 8.5
Note: Fuelwood supplied for three stones, Mirt, and Gonzeye were recorded with beam
balance. Mean fuelwood consumption potential of the three stoves was taken first by using
the formula provided.
̅= , Where X1, X2, X3... Xn was the number of variables means the
amount of croton macrostachyus fuelwood saved per day 'n' = several observations taken
from (Table 4) above. The average fuelwood consumption obtained through experimental

48
design was divided by the mean average number of cooking Injera per week obtained
through a surveying of households. The mean number of times of backing Injera per week
of households in the study was three times per week. After obtaining the mean fuelwood
consumption per week, monthly and yearly mean fuelwood consumption was determined
and the mean fuelwood consumed was multiplied by the total number of households. About
0.201 tone fuelwood was consumed per year in the traditional three-stone cook stove and
0.146 tons and 0.0914 tons of fuelwood were found to be saved per year if every household
were using either Mirt or Gonzeye stove respectively. The GHG emission was estimated
using the formula provided by the IPCC (2006) document. The EF and GWP of Carbon
dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), and Nitrous oxide (N2O) were provided in Table 3 below.
Table 3: GWP and EF of CO2, CH4, and N2O for fuelwood and charcoal
Fuel type CO2 K.g/MJ CH4 K.g /MJ N2O K.g /MJ Source
Fuel wood/EF 0.112 0.0003 0.000004 IPCC, 2006
Charcoal/EF 0.112 0.0002 0.000001 IPCC, 2006
GWP 1 25 CO2 298 CO2 IPCC, 2006
Using IPCC (2006) formula, CO2 eq reduction potential of three-stone open-fire
cookstoves, Mirt and Gonzeye were about 52.29, 13.08, and 6.87 tons of CO2 equivalent
respectively as in table 6 (appendix III).
This result uncovers that Gonzeye stove offsets 86.9% GHG emitted by traditional three-
stone open fire cookstove while Mirt stove offsets about 75% of GHG emitted when
compared to traditional three-stone open fire cookstoves.

49
Table 4: GHG offset potential of baking Injera stoves
Stove type CO2 eq emission
Three stone cook
stove
∑ (
)
= ∑ (
)
CO2 eq were emitted annually when the traditional three stone
open fire is used
Mirt Stove
∑ (
)
∑ (
13.08 ton of CO2 eq were emitted annually when Mirt stove is used
which indicate offsetting potential of 39.21 tons of CO2 eq about
74.98% when compared to the traditional three-stone open fire
cookstove
Gonzeye stove Emission of CO2 eq ∑ (
)
= ∑ (
). 6.87 tones of CO2 eq were emitted annually when
Gonzeye stove is used which indicates offsetting potential of 45.42
tons of CO2 eq GHG about 86.86% when compared to traditional
three-stone open fire cookstove.
The differences in GHG emission reduction potential of the stoves were due to the
difference in fuelwood consumption potential. This is due to the difference in the design of

50
the stoves. A typical Mirt, Lakech and Mirchaye stove which is made by the youth
association in D/Elias district are shown below.
a) b) c)
Figure 6: a) Mirt Stove, b) Lakech Stove, c) Mirchaye Stove
4.1.7. Role of Mirt and Gonzeye stoves for forest resource conservation
Different cookstoves were found used in D/Elias district for different purposes. However, to
study the impact of ICS for forest resource conservation the two major types of cookstoves,
Mirt and Gonzeye which used for backing Injera and bread, the traditional regular
foodstuffs are selected and used for the purpose estimation. Generally, the use of ICS
promotes forest resource conservation due to its impact on fuelwood use efficiency. Mirt
stove and Gonzeye stoves were found to fuel-wood efficient when compared to the
traditional open fire three-stone cook stove. Around 4.53 and 2.38 tons of forest resource
would have been saved annually if Mirt and Gonzeye stoves were used than the traditional
three-stone stoves.
4.1.8. Factors affecting adoption of Mirt and Gonzeye stove
To identify factors that influence the adoption of ICS technology in the study district, six
independent variables were hypothesized and among these three of the variables were found
to have a significant positive influence on the adoption of improved cookstove (ICS).
Household income:
The income of the household measured in Ethiopian Birr was found to be a significant and
positive factor for the adoption of improved cookstoves at a 5% level of significance. It was

51
hypothesized and confirmed that households with higher income could have better access to
improved technology than those with lower income in the study area.
Educational status of household head (EDUCATION): Education measured in ordinal scale,
1 representing household heads which are not able to read and write; 2 those able to read
and write; 3 those who attended either of grade 1-4; 3 those who attended either of grade 5 –
6; 4 those who attended either of grade 7 – 8; 5 those who attended either 9 - 10; 6 those
who attended some TVT college and above. It was also hypothesized and confirmed that
household heads with a higher level of education are more likely to adopt improved cooking
stoves than those household heads with lower education levels in the study district at 5%
significance level.
Occupation of household head (OCCUPATION): it is a categorical variable and categorized
as farmers and local merchants. Occupation of household head negatively and significantly
influences the adoption of improved cookstove at a 5% level of significance. This indicates
that as the household heads have occupations other than farming the likely to adopt
improved stove technologies for cooking purpose. A farm household was found to adopt
improved cookstove 2.2% more than the household who is engaged in a profession other
than farming. The reason for this is to be the fact that farm households in the study area are
surplus grain producers and has relatively better annual income than local tradesmen.
Fuelwood source (FSOURCE): classified as private wood loot and communal open-access
forest, positively and significantly influence the adoption of the improved cooking stove at a
1% level of significance.
Gender of the households head (GENDER): Classified as male and female, positively and
significantly influence the adoption of improved cooking stoves at 5% level of significance.

52
Table 5: Factors that affect adoption of ICS in the study area
Factors B df P-Value R2
Value
Education Level of households head (EDUCATION) 3.906 0.218 1 0.048* 0.122
Occupation of households head (OCUPATION) -3.267 0.022 1 0.022*
Annual income (INCOME) 2.531 1.001 1 0.046*
Age of household head (AGE) 3.143 0.876 1 0.142
Fuel wood source (FSOURE) 2.365 0.2345 1 0.001**
Family size (FSIZE) 4.445 0.366 1 0.235
Gender of household head (GENDER) 3.523 0.385 1 0.049*
Institutional factor(TRAIN) 4.454 0.465 1 0.244
Note: **, * indicates significant at 1%, 5% significant level, respectively. And the
abbreviation, B = Coefficient, = intercept, df = degree of freedom, Sig = significance
level or P - Value, R2
- Value = Coefficient of determination.

53
4.2. Discussion
4.2.1. Role of ICS
Adopting ICS has a role in reducing GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO2),
Methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and other particulate matter. The GHG
emission reduction potential of Mirt and Gonzeye stove was estimated to be 13.079 tons of
CO2 eq and 6.87 tons of CO2eq for Mirt stove and Gonzeye stoves respectively. The forest
resource conservation potential was estimated to be about 4.53 tons and 2.38 tons by the
households who adopt Mirt stove and Gonzeye stoves compared to that of traditional three-
stone adopters. This result of the study is in line with the results of Dresen E. et al (2014)
which tell us the total amount of firewood saved was 1.28 tons per household annually in
which equivalent to 11, 800 tons of CO2 is saved in 30-hectare forest land. Generally
adopting ICS reduces pressure on forests, increase household sanitation, and mitigate GHG
emission.
4.2.2. Factors affecting improved cookstove adoption
The adoption of ICS is found low in the study district due to many factors. There fuelwood
access, income, education, and occupation was some of the factors which influence ICS
adoption in the study area. The result in which education is a significant factor in the
adoption of ICS in the study area is in line with the study of Gizachew and Tolera (2018) in
the Bale eco-region of Ethiopia which uncovered that education as a significant major factor
of ICS adoption in addition to other factors. Similarly, a study by Uckert (2017) uncovered
that income and education are the driving factors for adopting new technology. When
people get more educated their awareness regarding the importance of adoption of ICS
rises; and their access to information from different sources increases which impact the rate
improved technology adoption including ICS. This study is parallel with the study of
Vigolo, Sallaku and Testa (2018) which state that education seems to play a major role in

54
increasing modern fuel consumption and at the same time reducing biomass use. There is a
general agreement that better-educated people tend to adopt ICS more frequently than do
people with a low level of education, both men and women.
Fuelwood source: Fuelwood access without charge negatively influences improved cooking
stove adoption. As households get fuelwood free of charge, fuelwood saving cannot be the
concern of the particular household and as the adoption of improved cookstove incurs a
cost, the household prefers to stay in the business as a usual practice to avoid additional
costs. This affects the adoption of improved cooking stoves negatively. This result is in line
with the results of Kenneth et al. (2018).
Household income: In this study households with higher income were found to adopt
improved cookstoves which can be explained by the fact that households with higher
income can afford to purchase ICS to improve their lifestyles in addition to other similar
factors (Malla, S. and Timilsina, G.R., 2014).
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusions
The type of cooking stove used by the households in the study district is three-stone
cookstoves, Mirt, Gonzeye, Mirchaye, Fermello, and Fetenech for baking Injera /bread,
cooking stew /porage, and making coffee.
The forest resource conservation potential of Mirt and Gonzeye stove was estimated to be
0.146 and 0.0941 tons saved annually in the study district. As well the GHG emission
reduction potential of Mirt and Gonzeye stove was estimated to be 13.079 tons of CO2 eq
and 6.87 tons of CO2 eq respectively. The differential mitigation potential of Mirt, Gonzeye
and traditional three-stone cook stove could be attributed to the difference in design and the
types of material used for making the stove.

55
The major factors that affect the adoption of ICS in the study area were the educational
status of household head, Occupation of household head, income level, fuel wood source
and Gender of the household head. The adoption of ICS technology is critical to reduce
forest degradation, limit GHG emission, and reduce the burden of the household member
burden responsible for cooking, usually female members of the household. The contribution
of ICS to the reduction of GHG emission, forest degradation, and household workload can
be amplified by increasing the capacity of the households to adopt ICS by providing ICS
through credit and other means, recognizing the role of women and targeting them in the
dissemination activities of ICS, and increasing access to education.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that:
 Educational status of the household was found to be statistically significant to
determine households improved cookstove adoption decision. This suggests that
adult education in the study area should be strengthened and continued to enhance
the capacity of access to information and thereby increase the likelihood of adopting
improved cookstoves.
 As household income was one of the significant factors that influence the adoption
of improved cookstoves, increase access to finance and enhance household income
level through livelihood diversification should be an option of intervention to
enhance ICS adoption and thereby to save forests.

56
6. REFERENCES
Agurto Adrianzen, M., 2009. The role of social capital in the adoption of firewood efficient
stoves in the Northern Peruvian Andes.
Bekele, K., Hager, H. and Mekonnen, K., 2013. Woody and non-woody biomass utilization for
fuel and implications on plant nutrients availability in the mukehantuta watershed in
Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal, 21, pp.625-636.
Bergstrom, R.W., Pilewskie, P., Russell, P.B., Redemann, J., Bond, T.C., Quinn, P.K. and
Sierau, B., 2007. Spectral absorption properties of atmospheric aerosols.
Beyene, A.D. and Koch, S.F., 2013. Property rights, institutions and choice of fuelwood source
in rural Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 30, pp.30-38.
Beyene, A.D., Bluffstone, R., Dissanayake, S., Gebreegziabher, Z., Martinsson, P., Mekonnen,
A. and Toman, M., 2015. Can improved biomass cookstoves contribute to REDD+ in
low-income countries? Evidence from a controlled cooking test trial with randomized
behavioral treatments. The World Bank.
Bond, T.C., Streets, D.G., Yarber, K.F., Nelson, S.M., Woo, J.H. and Klimont, Z., 2004. A
technology‐based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from
combustion. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 109(D14).
Cecelski, E., Dunkerley, J. and Ramsay, W., 2015. Household energy and the poor in the Third
World. Routledge.
Damte, A. and Koch, S.F., 2011. Property rights, institutions and fuel wood demand, by source,
in rural Ethiopia. University of Pretoria Department of Economics Working Paper
Series, (2011-10).
DeWan, A., Green, K., Li, X. and Hayden, D., 2013. Using social marketing tools to increase
fuel-efficient stove adoption for conservation of the golden snub-nosed monkey, Gansu
Province, China. Conservation Evidence, 10(1), pp.32-36.

57
Dherani, M., Pope, D., Mascarenhas, M., Smith, K.R., Weber, M. and Bruce, N., 2008. Indoor
air pollution from unprocessed solid fuel use and pneumonia risk in children aged
under five years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 86, pp.390-398C.
Dresen, E., DeVries, B., Herold, M., Verchot, L. and Müller, R., 2014. Fuelwood savings and
carbon emission reductions by the use of improved cooking stoves in an Afromontane
Forest, Ethiopia. Land, 3(3), pp.1137-1157.
Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T. and Tanabe, K. eds., 2006. 2006 IPCC
guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (Vol. 5). Hayama, Japan: Institute
for Global Environmental Strategies.
Eshetu, A.A., 2014. Role of fuel efficient stoves in achieving the millennium development
goals: case of Ethiopia. E3 Journal of Environmental Research and Management, 5(9),
pp.0156-0168.
Ethiopian, E.P.A., 2011. Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy (CRGE). Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p.188.
FAO, F., 2016. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome:
FAO, 82.
Fullerton, D.G., Bruce, N. and Gordon, S.B., 2008. Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel
smoke is a major health concern in the developing world. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(9), pp.843-851.
Gebreegziabher, Z., Mekonnen, A., Kassie, M. and Köhlin, G., 2012. Urban energy transition
and technology adoption: The case of Tigrai, northern Ethiopia. Energy Economics,
34(2), pp.410-418.
Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F., 2001. What drives tropical deforestation. LUCC Report series, 4,
p.116.

58
Gizachew, B. and Tolera, M., 2018. Adoption and kitchen performance test of improved cook
stove in the Bale Eco-Region of Ethiopia. Energy for sustainable development, 45,
pp.186-189.
Grieshop, A.P., Marshall, J.D. and Kandlikar, M., 2011. Health and climate benefits of
cookstove replacement options. Energy Policy, 39(12), pp.7530-7542.
Hofstad, O., Köhlin, G. and Namaalwa, J., 2009. How can emissions from wood fuel be
reduced. Realizing REDD, p.237.
Inayat, J., 2011. What makes people adopt improved cook stoves. Empirical evidence from
rural northwest Pakistan, (12).
Israel, G.D., 1992. Determining sample size.
Jargstorf, J., Kessels, K., De Jonghe, C. and Belmans, R., 2014, May. Economic signals in grid
tariffs for residential grid users. In 11th International Conference on the European
Energy Market (EEM14) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Jetter, J., Zhao, Y., Smith, K.R., Khan, B., Yelverton, T., DeCarlo, P. and Hays, M.D., 2012.
Pollutant emissions and energy efficiency under controlled conditions for household
biomass cookstoves and implications for metrics useful in setting international test
standards. Environmental science & technology, 46(19), pp.10827-10834.
Jetter, J.J. and Kariher, P., 2009. Solid-fuel household cook stoves: characterization of
performance and emissions. Biomass and Bioenergy, 33(2), pp.294-305.
Kandeler, E., Tscherko, D., Bruce, K.D., Stemmer, M., Hobbs, P.J., Bardgett, R.D. and
Amelung, W., 2000. Structure and function of the soil microbial community in
microhabitats of a heavy metal polluted soil. Biology and fertility of soils, 32(5),
pp.390-400.
Karekezi, S., 2002. Renewables in Africa—meeting the energy needs of the poor. Energy
policy, 30(11-12), pp.1059-1069.

59
Klasen, E.M., Menya, D., Kennedy, C., Khatry, S., Checkley, W., Levy, S., Naithani, N.,
Baliddawa, J., Tielsch, J.M., Dreibelbis, R. and Rhodes, E.L., 2014. Behavioral
attitudes and preferences in cooking practices with traditional open-fire stoves in Peru,
Nepal, and Kenya: implications for improved cookstove interventions.
Könemund, M., 2012. Energiespeicher im Vergleich—zentrale und dezentrale
Anwendungen. URL〈http://energiespeicher-nds.
De/fileadmin/Arbeitskreise/_BSZ__AK_Netzintegration/AK_Netzintegration_Prof.
Koenemund. pdf.
LaFave, D., Beyene, A.D., Bluffstone, R., Dissanayake, S.T., Gebreegziabher, Z., Mekonnen,
A. and Toman, M., 2019. Impacts of Improved Biomass Cookstoves on Child and
Adult Health: Experimental Evidence from Rural Ethiopia. The World Bank.
Lewis, J.J. and Pattanayak, S.K., 2012. Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A
systematic review. Environmental health perspectives, 120(5), pp.637-645.
Makame, M.O., 2007. Adoption of improved stoves and deforestation in
Zanzibar. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal.
Malla, S. and Timilsina, G.R., 2014. Household cooking fuel choice and adoption of improved
cookstoves in developing countries: a review. The World Bank.
Mekonnen, A., 1997. Rural household fuel production and consumption in Ethiopia: A case
study. Univ..
Naeher, L.P., Leaderer, B.P. and Smith, K.R., 2000. Particulate matter and carbon monoxide in
highland Guatemala: indoor and outdoor levels from traditional and improved wood
stoves and gas stoves. Indoor air, 10(3), pp.200-205.
Onyekuru, N.A. and Apeh, C.C., 2017. Assessing the Use and Determinants of Households’
Adoption of Improved Cook Stove in Nigeria: Empirical Evidence from Enugu
State. Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology, pp.1-12.
Palit, D. and Bhattacharyya, S., 2014. Adoption of cleaner cookstoves: Barriers and way

60
forward.
Panwar, N.L., Kurchania, A.K. and Rathore, N.S., 2009. Mitigation of greenhouse gases by
adoption of improved biomass cookstoves. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 14(6), pp.569-578.
Pope, D.P., Mishra, V., Thompson, L., Siddiqui, A.R., Rehfuess, E.A., Weber, M. and Bruce,
N.G., 2010. Risk of low birth weight and stillbirth associated with indoor air pollution
from solid fuel use in developing countries. Epidemiologic reviews, 32(1), pp.70-81.
Quinn, A.K., Bruce, N., Puzzolo, E., Dickinson, K., Sturke, R., Jack, D.W., Mehta, S., Shankar,
A., Sherr, K. and Rosenthal, J.P., 2018. An analysis of efforts to scale up clean
household energy for cooking around the world. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 46, pp.1-10.
Rehfuess, E. and World Health Organization, 2006. Fuel for life: household energy and health.
World Health Organization.
Rhodes, E.L., Dreibelbis, R., Klasen, E., Naithani, N., Baliddawa, J., Menya, D., Khatry, S.,
Levy, S., Tielsch, J.M., Miranda, J.J. and Kennedy, C., 2014. Behavioral attitudes and
preferences in cooking practices with traditional open-fire stoves in Peru, Nepal, and
Kenya: implications for improved cookstove interventions. International journal of
environmental research and public health, 11(10), pp.10310-10326.
Simur Asres, T., 2012. The Current Status of Traditional Biomass Energy Utilization and Its
Alternative Renewable Energy Technology in Amhara.
Taylor, J.M., 2012. Hoppin'John's low country cooking: recipes and ruminations from
Charleston and the Carolina Coastal Plain. UNC Press Books.
Tebugulwa, A., 2015. Understanding technology adoption: The case of improved cook stoves
in Bunga, Central Uganda.
Tigabu, A., 2014. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Cookstoves in Rural Areas:

61
Evidence from ‘Mirt’ Injera Baking Stove (The Survey of Dembecha Woreda, Amhara
Regional State, Ethiopia) (Doctoral dissertation, Mekelle University).
Uckert, G., Hafner, J., Graef, F., Hoffmann, H., Kimaro, A., Sererya, O. and Sieber, S., 2017.
Farmer innovation driven by needs and understanding: building the capacities of farmer
groups for improved cooking stove construction and continued
adaptation. Environmental Research Letters, 12(12), p.125001.
Vigolo, V., Sallaku, R. and Testa, F., 2018. Drivers and barriers to clean cooking: A systematic
literature review from a consumer behavior perspective. Sustainability, 10(11), p.4322.
Weldegiorgis, T. and Adem, M., 2018. Determinants of electric baking stove adoption in Urban
Tigrai, Ethiopia. SMART Journal of Business Management Studies, 14(1), pp.49-57.
West, S.K., Bates, M.N., Lee, J.S., Schaumberg, D.A., Lee, D.J., Adair-Rohani, H., Chen, D.F.
and Araj, H., 2013. Is household air pollution a risk factor for eye
disease?. International journal of environmental research and public health, 10(11),
pp.5378-5398.
World Health Organization, 2002. The world health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting
healthy life. World Health Organization.
World Health Organization, 2010. A conceptual framework for action on the social
determinants of health.
Woubishet, D., 2008. Fuel efficient technology adoption in Ethiopia: evidence from improved
―Mirt‖ stove technology: A Case in Selected Kebeles from ―Adea‖ Wereda. Ethiopian
Journal of Economics, 17(2).
Wylie, B.J., Coull, B.A., Hamer, D.H., Singh, M.P., Jack, D., Yeboah-Antwi, K., Sabin, L.,
Singh, N. and MacLeod, W.B., 2014. Impact of biomass fuels on pregnancy outcomes
in central East India. Environmental Health, 13(1), p.1.
Yizengaw, Y.S., Okoyo, E.N. and Beyene, F., 2015. Determinants of livelihood diversification

62
strategies: The case of smallholder rural farm households in Debre Elias Woreda, East
Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. African journal of agricultural research, 10(19), pp.1998-
2013.
Young, J., 2007. Sudan IGAD peace process: an evaluation. Sudan Tribune, 30.

63
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Household survey Questionnaires
This questionnaire is designed to undertake household survey. In addition data collected in this
study will be used. Hence, I the researcher kindly request you to complete this questionnaire.
Thank you in advance
Name of enumerator: ___________________Date:____________Signature:______________
Location
I. Background Information
1. Kebele:________________________________________________________________
2. Local Agro ecology of the kebele (1 = kola, 2 = Woynadega, 3 = Dega):_____________
3. Gender of respondent (1 = male, 2 = female):______Occupation:_____________________
4. Age of respondents:______________________________________________________
5. Marital status (1 = Single, 2 = Married, 3 = divorced 4 = widowed, 5 = widower):_____
6. Educational level (1 = not able to read and write, 2 = only able to read, 3 = Grade 1- 4, 4 =
grade 5- 8, 5 = grade 9 – 10, 6 = Grade 11 – 12, 7 = Diploma Equivalent, 8 = Degree and
above):___________________________________________________________
7. Occupation of spouse: ______________Education level (1=Not able to read and write, 2 =
only able to read, 3 = Grade 1 – 4, 4 = Grade 5 – 8, 5 = Grade 9 – 10, 6 = Grade 11- 12, 7 =
diploma equivalent 8 = degree and above):__________________.
8. Household members description (including the respondent in age and Gender category)
Gender < 15 15 - 65 >65
Male
Female

64
9. Number of members of the Household at least able to read and write:
Male: ____________________________Female: _____________________________
16 Household asset holding
10. Description of residential house of the household head
Types of
house
Number
of house
Purpose (1 = living room, 2 = living
room shared with domestic animals, 4
= Kitchen shared with domestic
animals, 5 = living room and kitchen
shared with domestic animals
Estimated current monetary
value (how much will it cost
you if you wish to construct
it now?)
Tin roof
Grass roof
11. please complete the table below regarding production of domestic animals if exist
Asset Holding Ox Bull Cow Heifer Calf Goat Sheep Donkey Mule Horse Poultry
Number
I. Land holding, lively hood activities and access to basic services
12. Total Land size owned:___________________________________________________
13. Number of family member with mobile phone:_______________________________
14. Do you have TV/Radio (1 = No, 2 = Yes):____________________________________
15. How many different activities do you do for living? (count of number of livelihood
activities practiced by the household):_______________________________________
16. Do you have access to saving and credit? (1 = yes, 2 = No):______________________

65
17. Access to basic services:__________________________________________________
List of services/resources Distance from home in terms of adult
walking time
Number of visits by any member of the
household per week at least for
information when needed
Distance to forest
All weather road (asphalt)
Weekly market
18. Please complete the table below if any of household members had participated in any of the
listed non – farm lively hood activities (0 = if no any member of the household have
participated).
No. Number of household members involved
1. Traditional beehives
2. Modern beehives
3. Charcoal production and marketing
4. Fire wood collection and marketing
5. Carpentry
6. Pity Trade
7. Temporal employment (like daily laborer)
8. Bajaj / Motor
9. Building construction
10. Government employment
11. Private employment

66
12. Donkey pulled cart
13. Horse pulled cart
19. Total household saving in 2010 E.C_________________________________________

67
20. If your house hold use both firewood and charcoal, please complete the table below
List of
activities
Types of
stove used
Fire wood
k.g of fuel wood consumed/
activity
Frequency of
activities/ week
Injera &
bread backing
stove
Three stone
Mirt stove
Gonzeye
Stew and
phorage
cooking stove
Three stone
Fermello
Lakech
Mirchaye
Coffee
making stove
Three stone
Fermello
Lakech
Mirchaye
Other
activities
21. Do you have separate kitchen House (1 = yes, 2 = No):_________________________
22. If yes how many kilogram of fuel wood do you consume per week:_______________

68
Income from crop production in 2010
Name of crop Wheat Barley Maize Pepper Teff Ginger Coffee Peas Beans Total
Land allocated
Yield harvested
23. Annual income from sale off livestock products in 2010 Ethiopian calendar
24. Do you involve in off farm activity in 2010 E.C (1 = Yes, 2 = No)
Non – farm activity Daily labor in farm
activity
Trade Bee
keeping
Carpentry Crafts
men
Other
activities
Number of household size
Average annual income (ETB)
Non - farm income of the household
25. Annual income from non-farm activity in 2010 E.C
None farm activity Daily labor
in towns
Hand
craft
House
rent
Selling
local drink
Selling
firewood
Other
activities
Total
Average annual income (ETB)
26. Please state your opinion for each given statement using the following scales
1 = Agree 2 = Neutral 3 = Disagree
To improved cook stove adopters
1. Why do you use improved cook stoves?
2. Which Household members are benefited more from improved cook stove?
3. Do you have additional traditional three stone cook stove?
4. What are the limitations of improved cook stove technology?
5. What are the sources of energy for cooking in your area?

69
6. From where do you get the fuel wood?
7. What do you suggest recommend about improved cook stoves
To Traditional three stone cook stove adopters
1. Why do not you use improved cook stove?
2. What are the sources of energy for cooking in your area?
3. Is there fuel wood shortage in the locality?
4. If yes, what is better to do to overcome this problem?
What do you suggest, comment or recommend about ICS technology adoption?

70
To key informants
1. Do you distribute improved cooking stove to your locality specially Mirt stoves?
______. 1= Yes, 2 = No, 3 = doesn’t concern me
2. Have you give training for the local community about how to make improved cooking
stoves________________. 1= Yes 2 = No 3 = doesn’t concern me
3. What is the awareness of the local community regarding improved cooking stoves
4. What is improved cooking stove purchasing ability of the local community?
____________________. 1= High, 2 = Medium, 3 = Low
5. How fast do you buy the technology from the market? ___. 1= as soon, 2 = lately
6. If you say lately, why you are being late in distributing ICS to the locality_____.
7. How fast do you distribute the technology to the community after purchasing the
technology? 1 = as soon, 2 = lately, 3 = low
8. If you say lately, why you are being late in distributing improved cooking stove to the
locality_____________.
9. How fast the local community purchase improved cooking stove from the market?
________.1 = high, 2 = medium, 3 = low
10. What is the trade and purchasing linkages of the community in accepting improved
cooking stove technology?___.1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = high
11. What is the household air quality after using improved cooking stoves
1= improved, 2= not improved, 3 = remain the same
12. What is the fuel wood consumption of improved cooing stoves/ Mirt stoves compared
to that of traditional three stone cooking staves? ___________1= decreased, 2 =
increased, 3= remain the same, 4 = I am not concerned

71
13. If you say decreased, by what present the fuel wood will be saved? ________________
14. As a kebele health expert what is the position of you in changing the attitudes of the
local community in modifying the household’s air quality as well in reducing the health
risks faced by mothers.
15. As an energy expert which type of cooking stove is more efficient in reducing fuel
wood consumption as well as more efficient for reducing environmental pollution such
as black carbon as well as in reducing greenhouse gas emission and explain why?

72
To focus group discussants (FGD)
1. What is the household air quality after using improved cooking stoves compared with
that of traditional three stone cooking stoves? ____. (1 = improved 2 = not improved)
2. What is the fuel wood consumption of improved cooking stove compared to that of
traditional three stone cook stove? __. (1 = decrease 2 = increase 3 = remain the same).
3. If you say yes? What amount (K.g) of fuel wood will decrease _________________.
4. What are the major factors that may affect the adoption of Mirt stove/Gonzeye stove, in
your locality________________. (1 = educational level, 2 = fuel and technology, 3 =
household size, 4 = Age, 5 = cultural belief and community, 6 = Regulation and
standards, 7 = Programs and policies, 8 = Finance tax and subsidies, 9 = Market
development, 10 = Types of stoves, 11 = Design of stove, 12 = Durability of stoves, 12
= size of stoves, 13 = cost of stoves 14 = incomes of the household, 15 = If other factors
write in detail.
5. Do you have other idea about ICS?

73
Appendix II: Photo during data collection
A) B) C) D)
A) Photo during data colletion with health expert insde the households home who adoptes Mirt
stove B) Photo during data collection out side the househldes home who adoptes Mirt stove
(Chimeney outlet) C) Photos of lackech stove technology D) Photos of Mirchay stove
technology.
Source: Own survey data (2018)

74
Appendix III: Fuelwood consumption potential of cook stoves
Branches of croton macrostachyus fuel wood supplied and consumed in equal cooking of Injera
S.N Stove type Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
1. Three stone
cook stove
0.5b
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
0.5b
25 k.g/b =
12.5 K.g
0.5 25
k.g
=12.5
K.g
0.5b
25K.g/b
=
12.5k,g
0.5b
25 K.g
=12.5
k.g
0.5b
25 K.g
=12.5
k.g
0.5b
25 K.g
=12.5 k.g
2. Mirt Stove 0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
3. Gonzeye
stove
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5
k.g
0.5b×
25k.g/b
= 12.5 k.g
4. FWS in
Mirt stove
9.5 8.0 11 10 9 8 7.5
5. FWS
Gonzeye
stove
8 10 9 8 7 7.5 8.5
Source: Own experimental data (2018)

75
Appendix IV: Conversion factor used to estimate Tropical livestock unit
Livestock Unit Conversion factor
Horse 1.1
Ox 1
Cow 1
Heifer 0.75
Calf 0.25
Donkey 0.7
Sheep 0.12
Goat 0.13
Poultry 0.013

76
Appendix V: Emission reduction potential of backing Injera stoves
Stove type CO2 eq emission
Traditional
three stone
cooking
stove
∑ ( )
= ∑ ( )
∑ ( )
∑
of CO2 equivalent were emitted annually when traditional three stone
open fire is used
Mirt stove
∑ ( )
= ∑ ( )
∑ ( )
∑ = 13.08 tone
13.08 tone of CO2 eq were emitted annually when Mirt stove is used which
indicate offsetting potential of 39.21 tons of CO2 equivalent GHG about 75%
when compared to traditional three stone open fire cook stove.
Gonzeye
stove
Emission of CO2 eq ∑ (
)
= ∑ ( )
∑ ( )

77
∑ = 6.87 tone
6.87 tons of CO2 equivalent were emitted annually when Gonzeye stove is used
which indicate offsetting potential of 45.42 tons of CO2 equivalent GHG about
86.9% when compared to traditional three stone open fire cook stove.

78
APPENDIX VI
Population and households’ profile of each kebeles in D/Elias district adopted from D/Elias
(2020).
4403
4741
7728
6188
7529
4609
6002
9836
2275
5785
4763
3748
7109
4149
6958
6266
6621
8313
720 720
2001
1439
2234
1072 1395
22875291345
110887216539651618
1457
1540
1933
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Population & households profile
የ2012የህዝብ ብዛት እማወራ አባወራ

79
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on December 29, 1992 G.C in Dejiba Kebele, D/Elias district,
E/Gojjam, Ethiopia. He attended his elementary and secondary school education at Dejiba
full-cycle primary school and Debre Elias full-cycle Secondary School, respectively. Then,
he joined Jigjiga University, to pursue his B.Sc. degree in 2014 G.C and certified in
Chemistry program after three years duration. In 2017 he took a post-graduate diploma in
teaching from Bahirdar University and gets certified as a high school teacher. In 2017 G.C,
he started his career as a high school teacher in Chemistry. Finally, he joined Hawassa
University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resource to pursue his
postgraduate study in Climate Change and Development in 2018 G.C.

ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA.pdf

Similar to ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA.pdf (20)

More from Suzanne Simmons

More from Suzanne Simmons (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ADOPTION OF IMPROVED COOKING STOVE AND THEIR IMPLICATION IN MITIGATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION IN D ELIAS DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA.pdf