Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Environment Research

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/sustainable-
environment-research/

Original Research Article

Emissions and fuel use performance of two improved stoves and

determinants of their adoption in Dodola, southeastern Ethiopia
Fikadu Mamuye a, Bekele Lemma b, *, Teshale Woldeamanuel c
a
Wondo Genet College of Forestry, Hawassa University, Shashemene, P.O. Box 128, Ethiopia
b
Department of Chemistry, Hawassa University, Hawassa, P.O. Box 5, Ethiopia
c
Regional REEDþ Coordination Office, Hawassa, P.O. Box 1952, Ethiopia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Improved cook stoves (ICS) have perceived to exert a significant impact on households' economy, human
Received 6 April 2017 health, and global climate change. There are few studies on ICS emissions and fuel use performance and
Received in revised form on the factors that affect their adoption in Ethiopia. Thus, the objectives of this study were assessing: (a)
29 June 2017
the emissions of CO, CO2 and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) of improved Merchaye and Lakech charcoal
Accepted 25 September 2017
Available online 30 September 2017
stoves in comparison with traditional metal stoves; (b) specific fuel consumption (SFC) of the two ICS;
and (c) the factors that affect their adoption. Data were collected using the Water Boiling Test in a
laboratory and household survey. The results showed the Merchaye stove reduced emission of CO, CO2
Keywords:
Merchaye
and PM2.5 by 28, 22 and 27% respectively in comparison to a traditional charcoal stove. Whereas, the
Lakech Lakech stove reduced emission of CO, CO2 and PM2.5 by 15, 8 and 13%, respectively. In non-sustainable
Emission fuel wood harvest circumstances, the annual emission reduction potential for individual Merchaye
Adoption stoves was 0.33 t CO2e and Lakech stoves 0.14 t CO2e yr1. The SFC of Merchaye and Lakech were reduced
Climate change by 222 and 164 g d1, respectively. The two ICS also reduced the time required for cooking. Regarding the
status of adoption of ICS, 43.7% the sample households were adopters of Merchaye stoves and 31.3%
Lakech, stoves. Whereas the non-adopters comprise 25% of the sample. Adoption of ICS was influenced
by household head age, sex, education level and income. The results may have implication for mitigation
of climate change, forest degradation and household workload.
© 2017 Chinese Institute of Environmental Engineering, Taiwan. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
In developing countries, biomass is still the predominant
cooking fuel [1] and currently there are a wide variety of stove
technologies and designs. Among biomass fuels, charcoal is the
predominant cooking fuel in sub-Saharan Africa's cities and towns
[2], and in Ethiopia charcoal stoves are commonly used in urban
and semi urban settings. Inefficient fuel combustion in traditional
stoves release gaseous products with a higher global warming
potential than carbon dioxide, such as carbon monoxide [3].
Traditional stoves are still the most prevalent way of cooking in the
developing countries regardless of their inefficiency and risks
associated to human health and the environment [4].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Bekelelelemma@gmail.com (B. Lemma).
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Institute of Environmental
Engineering.
The main reason for the development of improved stoves is their
environmental, health and socioeconomic benefits. Zhang et al. [5]
have indicated that improved cook stoves (ICS) reduce the emission
of health-risky pollutants in the short term and reduce greenhouse
gases (GHG) emission in the long term. A study in China found that
adoption of ICS reduced fuel wood consumption, wood collection
time, and tree felling by 40.1, 38.2 and 23.7%, respectively [6]. In
Guatemala the ‘Plancha’ ICS saved wood consumption by 39%,
decreased time spent for wood collection and reduced indoor air
pollution levels [7]. Pine et al. [8] asserted that ICSs reduced par-
ticulate matter (PM) by 74% and carbon monoxide (CO) concen-
trations by 78% in Mexico. The adoption of ICS (Patsari) has
significantly contributed to improvements in living conditions
through wood savings, and reducing indoor air pollution [9]. The
adoption of ICS (patsari) improved womens' respiratory systems
and eye comfort in Mexico [10]. In Gambia, ICSs saved fuel wood
consumption by 40% and reduced indoor air pollution up to 90%
[11]. Similarly, in Tanzania the adoption of ICSs saved fuel wood

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2017.09.003
2468-2039/© 2017 Chinese Institute of Environmental Engineering, Taiwan. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38
consumption, reduced women's workload by reducing time
required for fuel collection, and created self-employment for the
stove producers [12].
In developing countries like Ethiopia, whose energy supply is
heavily dependent on biomass fuels, technical advances in energy
efficiency are critical. In order to reduce pressure on forests and the
adverse impact of indoor air pollution, the government of Ethiopia
is trying to increase the availability of fuel saving technologies such
as ICSs [13]. In this regard, non-governmental organizations, mainly
GIZ, have been working on afforestation programs and dissemina-
tion of more efficient ICS technologies [14]. Although ICSs have
magnificent contributions in reducing GHG emissions and PM, little
attempt to quantify GHG emission from ICSs have been made in
Ethiopia. Despite the fact that ICSs are a better option than tradi-
tional stoves, studies indicate that adoption of ICS has fallen behind
expectations [15]. To our knowledge, there are no studies on
improved charcoal stoves in Ethiopia. The objectives of this study,
therefore, were to: (a) assess the CO, CO2 and PM2.5 emission
reduction potential of Merchaye and Lakech charcoal stoves; (b)
analyze their fuel and time saving efficiency, and (c) assess the
factors that determine their adoption at Dodola, South East
Ethiopia.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
The study was conducted in Dodola town, Oromia National
Regional State, southeastern Ethiopia. It is located 320 km south-
east of Addis Ababa in the Adaba-Dodola forest priority area. The
town has a population of 26,176 and 3842 households. Cooking
accounts for the bulk of domestic fuel consumption. Preparing
sauce (commonly known as ‘wot’), boiling water, making coffee and
similar activities involve burning a fire several times a day. Elec-
tricity and petroleum products are also available energy sources in
this town.
2.2. Selection of the study area
Dodola was purposively selected as the study site due to (1)
the accessibility of different types of charcoal stoves to the in-
habitants, and (2) the town's close proximity to the Dodola Adaba
forest reserve. Among the various available ICS, the researchers
purposively selected Lakech, Merchaye as well as the traditional
metal charcoal stove that is used by a large proportion of the
inhabitants. The traditional stove was used as the control for
comparison.
2.3. Description of charcoal stoves
The traditional metal charcoal stove (Fig. 1) is square shaped
with removable grates and weighs approximately 1.5 kg. Typical
dimensions 9.5 cm deep, an upper surface area of 441 cm2, and a
combustion area of 180 cm2. Evenly distributed holes are located at
the bottom of a square charcoal container. The cooking pot sits
directly on the charcoal in the chamber. The cost of the stoves was
60 birr (USD 3) in July 2015.
The Lakech charcoal stove weighs 1.9 kg with combustion area
of 179 cm2 and depth of 8.5 cm. It has also an upper surface area of
400 cm2. Pieces of charcoal are combusted in a bowl shaped com-
bustion chamber. The stove's grates have 0.5 cm diameter holes.
The pot sits on the stove's pan seat which is fixed to the metal part
of the combustion chamber. The primary air metal entrance allows
air to enter into the combustion chamber. The cost of a Lakech stove
in June 2015 was 70 birr (USD 3.5).
33
In comparison to the Lakech, the Merchaye stove is lighter, with
a smaller combustion area, depth, and upper surface area. It weighs
1.8 kg with a combustion area of 169 cm2, depth of 7.8 cm and
upper surface area of 324 cm2. Charcoal is burned in a bowl shaped
combustion chamber. The grates have 1e2 cm diameter holes. The
pot sits on the stove's pan seat which is fixed to the metal side of
combustion chamber. The primary metal air entrance enables air to
enter into the combustion chamber. In June 2015, the cost of a
Merchaye stove was 140e150 birr (USD 7e7.5). Merchaye and
Lakech stoves are made from clay and sheet metal while the
traditional stove is made from only sheet metal.
2.4. Water boiling test
The water boiling point test (WBT version 4.2.2) was conducted
in the Addis Ababa laboratory of the Ethiopian Ministry of Water
Irrigation and Energy to determine the performance of the stoves
[16]. Although WBT was originally designed for wood-stoves, it has
been adapted for charcoal stoves, with three phases e a cold-start
phase, hot-start phase, and a simmering phase [16]. In a cold-start
phase the tester begins with the stove at room temperature and
boils 2.5 L of water in a 3 L pot without a lid. In the hot-start phase,
water is boiled beginning with a hot stove to identify differences in
performance between a hot and cold stove body. The tester then
simmers the remaining water at approximately 3  C below boiling
for 45 min. These stove performance measurements help to
simulate the process of cooking food. In order to estimate daily fuel
consumption 2.5 L is multiplied by 3 (for morning, midday and
night cooking time). Each stove's CO and CO2 emissions data were
measured using IAQ-CALC meter (Model No. 7545 instruments,
Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA) while fine partic-
ulate matter (PM2.5) data were collected using an indoor air
pollution meter (IAP Meter-5000-Series, Aprovecho research cen-
ter, 2008). Both the IAQ-CALC meter and IAP Meter stored the data
on data logger minute-by-minute over the entire measurement
period. The test was done three times for each stove type and data
on CO2, CO and PM2.5 emissions were collected three times
following the standard WBT version 4.2.2 in a controlled laboratory
setting [16]. Background emissions were also accounted for by
measuring concentrations of CO2, CO and PM2.5 before and during
the test. The air temperature was 17.8e18.8  C, the local boiling
point was 91  C, and the relative humidity was 64%. The charcoal
used in this study was produced from an indigenous Podocarpus
falcatus. Its moisture content was 9% and its pieces used in the
study have a size of roughly 5e6 cm in diameter.
2.5. Household survey
Data on determinants affecting ICS adoption were collected by
means of a household survey. The standard statistical equation was
applied to determine the total sample size needed for this study
[17]. As a result, 40 samples households, who did not adopt
improved charcoal stoves, and 120 households who adopted
improved charcoal stoves were selected randomly from the town's
3842 household inhabitants. The major issues included in the
household survey were, the types of stoves adopted by the
household, status of adoption of the ICS, the factors that contrib-
uted for the differences due to adopter and non-adopter house-
holds, the type of fuel wood used for cooking, the amount used per
day, etc. The household survey questionnaires were pretested
before the actual survey and, based on the results, and were revised
avoiding ambiguity and terms of cultural sensitivity. Data collectors
were employed for the household survey after training them on
how to handle the interview. In addition a supervisor was assigned
to follow the data collection in unannounced time of interviews
34 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38

Fig. 1. Pictures of (a) Mirchaye, (b) Lakech and (c) traditional stove.

within a day during the survey and, in approximately 5% of the cis e CO2, CO, PM2.5 emission or SFC of improved stoves.
households, to minimize interviewer bias. c ts e CO2, CO, PM2.5 emission or SFC of improved stoves.

2.6. Calculations
2.6.1. The CO2 equivalents (CO2e) calculation
The global warning potential of CO, CO2 and PM2.5 is different.
So, the CO2e of CO and PM2.5 were calculated as follows to deter-
mine the total emission in CO2e.
CO2e ¼ GWPi  GHGi
where GWPi is a global warming potential of each gas (relative to
CO2). GHGi is the quantity of each greenhouse gas emitted.
2.6.4. Statistical analysis
The statistical differences in SFC and emissions of CO2, CO and
PM2.5 among the stoves were computed by one way Analysis Of
Variance (ANOVA) using SPSS statistical software version 20 at 5%
level of significance. The least significant difference test was con-
ducted for mean separation of significant differences. The data from
the household survey were analyzed using descriptive statistics:
frequency, percentage, means and standard deviation.
3. Results and discussion

2.6.2. Specific fuel consumption (SFC) and time 3.1. Improved charcoal stoves and CO2, CO and PM2.5 emission
SFC (g) is the charcoal required to boil 2.5 L of water, which was
calculated following the equation: Both Merchaye and Lakech emitted significantly lower CO2
(P < 0.001) than the traditional metal stove. Fig. 2 shows the
fd
SfC ¼ Merchaye stove emitted the least CO2. The CO2 emission per 2.5 L of
ðphf  pÞ water for the Merchaye, Lakech and traditional metal stove was 531,
625 and 681 g, respectively. The CO2 emission of this study's
where fd e fuel consumed (g).
Merchaye stove was comparable with the Ghanaian Gyapa charcoal
stove [18] which emitted 536 g per 2.5 L of water. However, the CO2
phf e weight of pot with water after test (g).
emission from the Lakech stove was higher than the Gyapa stove.
p e weight of pot (g).
With respect to CO emission, Merchaye and Lakech emitted
significantly lower CO (P < 0.001) than the traditional metal stove
Time needed to boil 2.5 L of water was calculated as the differ-
while the Merchaye stove emitted significantly lower CO
ence between start and finish times:
(P < 0.001) than Lakech stove. Merchaye, Lakech and traditional
Dt ¼ tf  ti stoves emitted 66, 79 and 92 g of CO, respectively per 2.5 L of water.
The CO emission reductions of the Merchaye and Lakech stoves
where Dt e total time (min) to boil. were 28 and 15%, respectively (Fig. 2). Although both Merchaye and
Lakech stoves emitted relatively less CO than the traditional metal
tf e time at the end of the test. stove, the emissions from these ICS were above the proposed
ti e time at the start of the test. benchmark value of 20 g [19]. This is because the international
bench mark value is the average of wood and charcoal stoves.
Charcoal would normally have a higher CO level than wood [19]
which may explain this study's higher CO emissions.
2.6.3. Emissions and specific fuel wood reduction calculation
The PM2.5 emissions from the Merchaye, Lakech and tradi-
Calculation of a specific emission reduction potential and fuel
consumption reduction for each improved stove was accomplished tional metal stoves were 275, 325 and 375 mg, respectively
(Fig. 2). The Merchaye and Lakech emitted significantly lower
by comparing with the corresponding values of the traditional
metal stoves using the formula below. PM2.5 (P < 0.001) than the traditional metal stove. The Merchaye
stove emitted the least PM2.5 (P < 0.001; Fig. 2). The results show
cts  cis that PM2.5 emission reduction by Merchaye and Lakech stoves
creduction ¼ 100
cts were 27 and 13%, respectively. The fine PM emissions from both
improved stoves and the traditional metal stove were quite below
where, creduction e CO2, CO, PM2.5 emission reduction or SFC the proposed benchmark value of 1500 mg [18]. The bench mark
reduction of improved stoves. value was also computed for both charcoal and wood stoves.
 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38 35

Table 1
700 Total Global Warming Potential (TGWP, grams CO2e per 2.5 L of water) and CO2e
emission per year of Merchaye, Lakech and traditional stoves.
600
Stoves Emissions TGWP CO2e emission
(g 2.5 L1) (g 2.5 L1) per year (t yr1)
500
CO CO2 PM2.5 CO2e CO2e
WBT CO2 (g)

400 Merchaye 66 531 0.28 917 1.00

Lakech 79 625 0.33 1082 1.19
Traditional 92 681 0.38 1213 1.33
300 *
GWP of CO ¼ 3, GWP of CO2 ¼ 1 and GWP of PM ¼ 680.

200
emission of CO, CO2 and PM2.5 of Merchaye, Lakech and traditional
100 metal stoves, were 1.0 t, 1.2 t and 1.3 t CO2e, respectively (Table 1).
Although this laboratory study should not be used to specifically
0 predict real-world performance, it is interesting to project the po-
tential emission reductions in CO2e, per stove, per year. Merchaye
stoves can potentially mitigate 0.33 t CO2e yr1 and Lakech 0.14 t
CO2e yr1 emission per stove. Thus, the Merchaye stove reduced
total emissions of the studied GHG by 25% and the Lakech 11%.
80 Improved charcoal stoves were estimated to reduce 20% of
emissions produced from incomplete combustion [20], and in the
present study the Merchaye ICS had emission reduction close to
60 this value. If biomass is harvested sustainably, then the CO2
WBT CO (g)

released in combustion is theoretically reabsorbed by the biomass

growing to replace it. In the non-sustainable fuelwood harvesting
40 circumstances in Ethiopia [21], the CO2 released is contributing to
the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere [19]. The results of this study
show that shifting from traditional metal stoves to Merchaye and
20 Lakech stoves could mitigate CO2, CO and PM2.5 emissions with
Mechaye being superior in its performance.

0 3.2. SFC and time required for cooking by ICS

Fig. 3 shows that cooking 7.5 L of water in a day, the fuel con-
400
sumption of a Merchaye stove was 478 g while the Lakech charcoal
stove required 536 g of charcoal. In comparison, the traditional
350
stove had a fuel consumption of 700 g d1. The values of fuel
300
consumptions were significantly different (P < 0.001) among the
three stoves. Thus the Merchaye stove used 222 g (32%) less fuel
and the Lakech stove 164 g (23%) less fuel, per day than the tradi-
WBT PM 2.5 (mg)

250
200
150
100
50
0 pressure on forests.
Merchaye stove Lakech stove Traditional Metal stove
Fig. 2. Average CO2, CO and PM emission per 2.5 L of water of Merchaye, Lakech and
traditional stoves.
Therefore, the difference could be attributable to the higher PM
emission from wood stoves than from the charcoal stoves. High
amounts of PM precursor are removed during the charcoal pro-
duction process which leads to lower levels of PM emissions from
charcoal stoves [19].
The Merchaye and Laketch stoves had a lower potential of
emitting GHGs with GWP as compared to traditional stoves. This
becomes apparent when GWP is applied to all emissions and
combined into the same scale of CO2e (Table 1). The annual
tional stove. The SFC reduction in the present study was in the
range for Ceramic Jiko ICS in Kenya which was 20e50%. According
to EPA [22], ICS can save up to 25% over traditional stove. In the
present study, the Lakech stove showed results close to this esti-
mation while the Merchaye stove had even better results. In sub-
Saharan Africa, fuel wood and charcoal accounts for 75% of total
wood harvest, contributing to rapid deforestation in hotspot areas
including Ethiopia [21]. Thus, the present results have implications
concerning forest degradation since the use of ICS can reduce
The difference in SFC among the various stoves could be
attributed to the difference in design [23] and the materials from
which they were made. Design and materials are the most impor-
tant variables that affect stove performance [24]. Even though
Merchaye and Lakech stoves were made from the same materials,
the design is different as is the performance. Traditional stove loses
more heat as compared to ICS due to the use of only sheet metal in
their construction.
The Mechaye charcoal stove took 220 min for cooking per day
with the Lakech stove 224 min. The two ICS significantly reduced
(P < 0.01) cooking time when compared to traditional metal stove.
Traditional metal stove was the slowest, taking 236 min d1. This
implies that using these ICS stoves can save 13e17 min cooking
time per day. In Uganda, studies found that the average cooking
36 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38
700
600
500
400
SFC (g)
300
200
100
0 Mirt stoves. A review on the adoption of improved stove by Lewis
250
200
150
Time (min)
100
50
0
Merchaye stove Lakech stove Traditional Metal stove
Fig. 3. Average SFC per day and mean time required for cooking.
time per household was reduced by 27 min d1 when using the
Rocket Lorena stove [25]. Although the time saved per day is rela-
tively small, the accumulated time can be a benefit to the family's
wellbeing.
3.3. Adoption of ICS and their determinants
The household survey result indicates that the majority of the
respondents (75%) have adopted ICS. Specifically, out of the 160
respondents, 43.8% of the respondents were using the Lakech stove
and 31.3% the Merchaye stoves. The remaining 40 respondents
(25%) had not adopted ICSs. In this regard, socioeconomic charac-
teristics of the households such as sex of the household head, ed-
ucation level of household head, household income and family size
were considered important variables that affected adoption of the
improved charcoal stoves.
Comparison of the adopter and non-adopter households with
respect to their age shows that the former households are younger
than the later. The average age of sampled households was 36.3 and
the average age of adopter households was 32.4 which is less than
this average age of all sampled households. However the average
age of non-adopters (40.2) was higher than the average of adopter
households as well as the average of all sampled households
(Table 2). This shows that households that adopted ICS are younger
than the non-adopters. This could be because the younger
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of age and family size with respect to adoption of improved
charcoal Stoves.
Variables Groups Min Max Mean St. dev
Age Non-adopters 23 69 40.2 10.6
Adopters 19 67 32.4 10.7
Family size Non-adopters 1 9 5.05 2.1
Adopters 1 9 5.13 2.0
household heads were more eager to adopt ICS technologies than
older household heads. In contrast to the present study, Gebreeg-
ziabher et al. [26] found that older household heads were more
willing to use the improved Mirt stoves than younger household
heads. The present study was consistent with Dawit [27] who
indicated that younger household head were better adopters of
and Pattanayak [28] indicated that the age of household head
influenced the adoption of ICS significantly and negatively. The
younger household heads make adoption decision superior to older
ones and older household heads were more conservative to use the
traditional stoves.
The mean family size of both improved cooking stove adopters
and non-adopters was very close. The mean family size of adopters
was 5.13 and that of the non-adopters was 5.05 with family size
ranging between 1 and 9 for both groups (Table 2). This implies that
the decision to adopt ICS was not influenced by household size. In
contrast to this finding, family size was a significant factor in
determining the adoption of ICS in Mexico [8]. Another Ethiopian
study had similar findings [26]. Pine et al. [8] explained that
households with larger family size consumed larger amounts of
fuelwood leading to the adoption of ICS. However, this argument
was not supported by the present finding.
Table 3 shows that out of 160 households, males led 98 of these
households. Among these male-led households, 64.3% were
adopters of ICS while 35.7% were non-adopters. Whereas, out of the
62 female-lead households, 92% were improved stove adopters and
only 8% were non-adopters. The majority of households who did
not adopt improved charcoal stoves were male-headed households.
Female-headed households were more likely to adopt ICS as
compared to married women of male-headed families. One plau-
sible explanation for this could be that female household heads had
greater power to make economic decision as compared with fe-
males in male-headed households. In a patriarchal society such as
Ethiopia, economic decisions are most often made by a husband in
a male-led household [29,30]. The adoption of ICS can be affected
by failure to recognize and target women in the ICS dissemination
activities.
Education level of the household head is an important variable
found to influence adoption of the ICS. The results showed that
70.6% of the households attended formal education, and of these,
62.5% were improved charcoal stove adopters (Table 3). On the
other hand, 29.4% of the households did not attend formal educa-
tion and only 12.5% of them were ICS adopters. The proportion of
households with formal education adopted ICS more than those
who did not attend formal education. This shows that educated
households have a higher probability of using improved stoves. This
could be attributable to the awareness that education brings con-
cerning fuel cost comparisons and the health issues with traditional
stoves [31]. Another study has also indicated the key role of edu-
cation in shifting household cooking preferences from traditional to
improved cooking devices [32]. Consistent with the present study, a
review of different studies by Lewis and Pattanayak [28] showed
that the household head's education level was a significant factor
determines ICS adoption. Jan [30] also indicated that knowledge
 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38 37

Table 3 Table 5
Distribution of households by gender and education between improved charcoal Opinion of households' on Improved Charcoal Stove Price.
stoves adopter and non-adopters.
Opinion on stove's price Adopters Non adopters
Variables Categories Adopter Non Total
Frequency % Frequency %
adopter
Cheap 41 34.2 1 2.5
No. % No. % No. %
Fair 39 32.5 1 2.5
Household Female 57 35.6 5 3.1 62 38.8 Expensive 40 33.3 38 95
head sex Male 63 39.4 35 21.9 98 61.2 Total 120 100 40 100
Education No formal education 20 12.5 27 16.9 47 29.4
Formal education 100 62.5 13 8.1 113 70.6

about the different financial instruments can be increased by ed-
ucation which minimizes the perceived expensiveness of ICS. Other
studies in Ethiopia have also confirmed that the household head's
education influenced the decision of improved stove (Mirt) adop-
tion [26,27,29,33].
In this study, adoption of ICS was also affected by household
income which is defined as the annual earnings of a household
obtained from all sources (e.g., crop production, livestock and
livestock products, salary, etc.). The majority of adopter households
(95%) earned more than 1501 birr per month (Table 4). For the non-
adopters, 75% earned less than 1500 birr per month and are
grouped in the low income categories. Arthur et al. [4] indicated
that higher socio-economic status affected a household's ICS
adoption decision positively and significantly. Other studies also
showed that household income was a significant factor that
affected adoption of ICS in Ethiopia and elsewhere [8,26e30]. Since
women are almost exclusively responsible for the cooking, they are
more likely to make decision on cook stove adoption. But their
decisions are constrained by the inadequate financial resources in
the area of their decision-making [34].
The influence of income on ICS adoption was also supported by
data concerning stove pricing. The majority (95%) of non-adopter
respondents stated that the price of improved charcoal stoves
was “expensive” and they could not afford to buy it. Whereas only
2.5% of the respondents indicated that the price was “cheap.” This
implies that price of ICS affected their decision not to purchase the
stoves. Regarding the adopter households, 34.2% of respondents
said that the price is “cheap” and 33.3% of the respondents replied
the price was “expensive” with 32.5% “fair” (Table 5). This may
indicate that adoption of ICS is comparatively easy for adopter
households who have relatively high income (Table 4). This finding
was similar with a study by Axen [35] that indicated the cook
stove's price was an important factor that affects the adoption
decision. A study by Levine et al. [36] also found that the cost of ICS
was an important adoption barrier. The poor cannot afford to buy
ICS because of the relatively high cost and thus, the cost of ICS was a
determinant factor of adoption [37]. In contrast, the poor often have
to spend a substantial amount of an already constrained household
finance on fuel wood. Thus the enabling of a more efficient fuel use
may thus be an important strategy in poverty alleviation [38] in
addition to other benefits.
Table 4
Distribution of household monthly income (Birr) with respect to improved charcoal
stoves adopters and non-adopters.
Monthly income (birr) Adopters Non adopters
Frequency Percent Frequency
< 1000 3 2.5 20
1001e1500 3 2.5 10
1501e2000 39 32.5 6 15
2001e2500 40 33 3 7.5
> 2501 35 29.2 1 2.5
Total 120 100 40
*
Note: birr is Ethiopian currency.
The current study shows that adoption of ICS is not only affected
by household socioeconomic characteristics but also by fuel source.
The majority of the households (96.7%) purchased their cooking
fuel while 3.3% obtained free fuel from their own farm. Most high
income households in the study area are more likely to afford ICS.
However, purchasing fuel wood from market than obtaining for
free could also be a major motivation for using energy saving ICS
devices. When households have free access to free fuelwood, they
are less likely interested in purchasing ICS. Several other studies
also found that households who purchase fuel wood adopted ICS
more than those who could get free fuelwood [29,30,35]. Similarly
Geary et al. [39] showed that the availability of free fuelwood is a
factor leading non-adoption of ICS. A study by Pine et al. [8] found
that access to open forest land is negatively correlated with ICS
adoption. Axen [35] and Troncoso et al. [40] reported a positive
correlation between lack of open forest access and ICS adoption and
vice versa.
4. Conclusions
The findings from this study show that there is differential
emission and fuel use performance among cook stoves. Merchaye
and Lakech ICS emitted less CO, CO2 and PM2.5 as compared to the
traditional metal stove. The Merchaye stove was better in reducing
CO, CO2 and PM2.5 emissions compared to the Lakech stove. The
annual emission reduction potential of the Merchaye stove is 0.33 t
and the Lakech stoves 0.14 t CO2e. This is a daily SFC reduction of
32% for the Merchaye and 23% for the Lakech stove. The differential
SFC reduction of the Merchaye and Lakech stoves could be
attributed to the difference in design and the type of materials
used for making the stoves. The potential reduction of CO, CO2 and
PM2.5 emission and the reduction of SFC of these ICS in the present
study may have implication for mitigation of climate change and
forest degradation. The two ICS stoves also reduced the time
required for cooking which will have impact on women's house-
hold workload.
Results shows that three fourth of the households were found to
be adopters of Merchaye and Lakech ICS, while one fourth of the
households were non adopters. From the factors considered in the
present study, household-head education, sex, age, income and
stove price determined household ICS adoption. Whether the fuel is
freely collected or purchased was also an adoption factor.
The adoption of ICS technology is critical to reduce GHG
emissions, forest degradation, and household workload in
developing countries that heavily depend on biomass energy and
where fuel wood and charcoal account for the rapid deforesta-
tion. The dissemination of ICS is, therefore, vital in the developing
Percent
countries like Ethiopia. The contribution of ICS to the reduction of
50
GHG, forest degradation and household workload can be
25
augmented by: (i) increasing the capacity of the households to
adopt the ICS by providing the ICS through credit and other
means, (ii) recognizing the importance of women and targeting
100 them in the dissemination activities of ICS, and (iii) improving the
designs of biomass stoves.
38 F. Mamuye et al. / Sustainable Environment Research 28 (2018) 32e38

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Ethiopian Ministry of Water Irriga-
tion and Energy for allowing access to their laboratory facilities. We
are grateful to Robert Sturtevant for editing the English of the
manuscript and two anonymous reviewers as well as the Editor for
their invaluable input that improved the quality of the manuscript.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] Bruce N, Perez-Padilla R, Albalak R. The Health Effects of Indoor Air Pollution
Exposure in Developing Countries. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Or-
ganization; 2002.
[2] Mwampamba TH, Ghilardi A, Sander K, Chaix KJ. Dispelling common mis-
conceptions to improve attitudes and policy outlook on charcoal in devel-
oping countries. Energy Sustain Dev 2013;17:75e85.
[3] Ramanathan V, Carmichael G. Global and regional climate changes due to
black carbon. Nat Geosci 2008;1:221e7.
[4] Arthur MFSR, Zahran S, Bucini G. On the adoption of electricity as a domestic
source by Mozambican households. Energy Policy 2010;38:7235e49.
[5] Zhang J, Smith KR, Ma Y, Ye S, Jiang F, Qi W, et al. Greenhouse gases and other
airborne pollutants from household stoves in China: a database for emission
factors. Atmos Environ 2000;34:4537e49.
[6] DeWan A, Green K, Li X, Hayden D. Using social marketing tools to increase
fuel-efficient stove adoption for conservation of the golden snub-nosed
monkey, Gansu Province, China. Conserv Evid 2013;10:32e6.
[7] Bielecki C, Wingenbach G. Rethinking improved cookstove diffusion pro-
grams: a case study of social perceptions and cooking choices in rural
Guatemala. Energy Policy 2014;66:350e8.
[8] Pine K, Edwards R, Masera O, Schilmann A, Marro
n-Mares A, Riojas-
Rodríguez H. Adoption and use of improved biomass stoves in rural Mexico.
Energy Sustain Dev 2011;15:176e83.
[9] García-Frapolli E, Schilmann A, Berrueta VM, Riojas-Rodríguez H, Edwards RD,
Johnson M, et al. Beyond fuelwood savings: valuing the economic benefits of
introducing improved biomass cookstoves in the Pure
pecha region of Mexico.
Ecol Econ 2010;69:2598e605.
[10] Masera O, Edwards R, Arnez CA, Berrueta V, Johnson M, Bracho LR, et al.
Impact of Patsari improved cookstoves on indoor air quality in Michoaca
Mexico. Energy Sustain Dev 2007;11:45e56.
[11] Jacob NJ. Promotion and use of improved cook stoves in the conservation of
biomass resources and biomass briquettes from solid wastes in the Gambia.
ISESCO J Sci Technol 2013;9:17e26.
[12] Bwenge NS. The Effects of Adopting Improved Wood Stoves on the Welfare of
Rural Women: A Case of Kibaha District in Tanzania [Master's Thesis]. Leeu-
warden (Netherlands): Van Hall Larenstein Univ.; 2011.
[13] Cooke P, Ko€ hlin G, Hyde WF. Fuelwood, forests and community management
e evidence from household studies. Environ Dev Econ 2008;13:103e35.
[14] Gebreegziabher Z, van Kooten GC, van Soest DP. Land degradation in Ethiopia:
what do stoves have to do with it?. In: Annual Meeting of International
Association of Agricultural Economists. Gold Coast, Australia; 2006 Aug
12e18.
[15] Haider MN. Success Without Subsidy: A Case Study of the Fuel-Efficient
Smokeless Stoves Project. Islamabad, Pakistan: United Nations Development
Programme; 2002.
[16] GACC. Water Boiling Test Version 4.2.3. Washington, DC: Global Alliance for
Clean Cookstoves; 2013.
[17] Kothari CR. Quantitative Techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi, India: Vikas Pub-
lishing House; 2004.
[18] Roden CA, Bond TC, Conway S, Pinel ABO. Emission factors and real-time
optical properties of particles emitted from traditional wood burning cook-
stoves. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:6750e7.
[19] MacCarty N, Ogle D, Still D, Bond T, Roden C. A laboratory comparison of the
global warming impact of five major types of biomass cooking stoves. Energy
Sustain Dev 2008;12:56e65.
[20] Barrett H, Christopher B. Field Guide of Appropriate Technology. 1st ed.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2003.
[21] Jagger P, Jumbe C. Stoves or sugar? Willingness to adopt improved cookstoves
in Malawi. Energy Policy 2016;92:409e19.
[22] EPA. The Third National Report on the Implementation of the UNCCD/NAP in
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopia Environmental Protection Authority;
2004.
[23] Tryner J, Willson BD, Marchese AJ. The effects of fuel type and stove design on
emissions and efficiency of natural-draft semi-gasifier biomass cookstoves.
Energy Sustain Dev 2014;23:99e109.
[24] Yohannes S. Design and Performance Evaluation of Biomass Gasifier Stoves
[Master's Thesis]. Addis Ababa (Ethiopia): Addis Ababa Univ.; 2011.
[25] Habermehl H. Economic Evaluation of Improved Household Cooking Stove
Dissemination Programme in Uganda. Eschborn, Germany: German Agency
for Technical Cooperation; 2007.
€ hlin G. Urban energy transition
[26] Gebreegziabher Z, Mekonnen A, Kassie M, Ko
and technology adoption: the case of Tigrai, northern Ethiopia. Energy Econ
2012;34:410e8.
[27] Dawit W. Fuel efficient technology adoption in Ethiopia: evidence from
improved “mirt” stove technology: a case in selected kebeles from “Adea”
wereda. Ethiop J Econ 2008;17:77e107.
[28] Lewis JJ, Pattanayak SK. Who adopts improved fuels and cookstoves? A sys-
tematic review. Environ Health Perspect 2012;120:637e45.
[29] Beyene AD, Koch SF. Clean fuel-saving technology adoption in urban Ethiopia.
Energy Econ 2013;36:605e13.
[30] Jan I. What makes people adopt improved cookstoves? Empirical evidence
from rural northwest Pakistan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3200e5.
€ hlin G. Biomass Fuel Consumption and Dung Use as Manure
[31] Mekonnen A, Ko
Evidence from Rural Households in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series
08e17; 2008.
[32] Chambwera M, Folmer H. Fuel switching in Harare: an almost ideal demand
system approach. Energy Policy 2007;35:2538e48.
[33] Makame MO. Adoption of improved stoves and deforestation in Zanzibar.
Manag Environ Qual Int J 2007;18:353e65.
[34] Muneer SET. Adoption of biomass improved cookstoves in a patriarchal so-
ciety: an example from Sudan. Sci Total Environ 2003;307:259e66.

n,
[35] Axen GJ. Fuel Efficient and Efficient Aid: An Analysis of Factors Affecting the
Spread of Fuel Efficient Cooking Stoves in Northern Tanzania [Bachelor's
€derto
€rn Univ.; 2012.
Thesis]. Stockholm (Sweden): So
[36] Levine D, Beltramo T, Blalock G, Cotterman C. What Impedes Efficient Product
Adoption? Evidence from Randomized Variation in Sales Offers for Improved
Cookstoves in Uganda. Berkeley, CA: University of California; 2013.
[37] Fullerton DG, Bruce N, Gordon SB. Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel
smoke is a major health concern in the developing world. Trans R Soc Trop
Med Hyg 2008;102:843e51.
[38] Bensch G, Peters J. A Recipe for Success? Randomized Free Distribution of
Improved Cooking Stoves in Senegal. Essen, Germany. Ruhr Economic Papers,
no 325. 2012.
[39] Geary CW, Prabawanti C, Aristani C, Utami P, Desa YD. A Field Assessment of
Adoption of Improved Cookstove Practices in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Focus on
Structural Drivers, 360. Durham, NC: Family Health International; 2012.
[40] Troncoso K, Castillo A, Masera O, Merino L. Social perceptions about a tech-
nological innovation for fuelwood cooking: case study in rural Mexico. Energy
Policy 2007;35:2799e810.