Sustainable Environment

An international journal of environmental health and sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaes21

Biogas technology adoption and its potential of

replacing biomass fuels, kerosene, and chemical
fertilizer in rural Gonder, Northern Ethiopia

Haile Fentie & Getachew Sime

To cite this article: Haile Fentie & Getachew Sime (2022) Biogas technology adoption
and its potential of replacing biomass fuels, kerosene, and chemical fertilizer in
rural Gonder, Northern Ethiopia, Sustainable Environment, 8:1, 2066811, DOI:
10.1080/27658511.2022.2066811

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2022.2066811

© 2022 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 05 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1852

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaes21
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT
2022, VOL. 8, NO. 1, 2066811
https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2022.2066811

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, POLLUTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT |

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Biogas technology adoption and its potential of replacing biomass fuels,

kerosene, and chemical fertilizer in rural Gonder, Northern Ethiopia
Haile Fentiea and Getachew Simea,b
a
Department of Biology, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia; bCenter for Ethiopian Rift Valley Studies, Hawassa University, Hawassa,
Ethiopia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The depletion of bioenergy sources has caused significant deforestation, low agricultural production, Received 07 December 2021
and energy crisis. This study evaluates factors associated with biogas technology adoption and the Accepted 12 April 2022
amount of biomass fuels, kerosene, and chemical fertilizer that can be replaced or saved upon adoption KEYWORDS
by rural households. Questionnaire household survey, key informant interview, focus group discussion Organic fertilizer; kerosene;
and field obervation were used for data collection. Biogas technology adoption reduced the use of biogas technology; biomass
firewood, charcoal, dung cake, and kerosene consumption by 58%, 36%, 71%, and 74%, respectively. It fuels; rural household
also reduced the use of chemical fertilizer by 94% and the combined use of chemical fertilizer and energy; Ethiopia
manure by 91%. Adoption turned the majority of households (65.4%) to use a combination of bio-slurry
and chemical fertilizer as well. It helped the majority (89.95%) of adopters to construct and connect
toilets to biogas operational system. In doing so, the adoption reduced defecation in the field and
improved environmental sanitation and human health. It further enabled saving of about 38% of
adopters’ time, which otherwise would be expended for firewood and dung collection. It similarly
enhanced adopters’ income through decreasing expenses for chemical fertilizer, kerosene, and other
fuel sources. Biogas technology has huge potential of replacing traditional fuel sources for domestic
consumption, and of reducing the consumption of kerosene and chemical fertilizers as well as of
increasing income and decreasing labor for biofuel collection. The adoption of biogas technology
could also reduce deforestation rate, improve agricultural production and improve energy supply of
rural households.

Background source is firewood (77%), followed by cow dung cake

Biogas is combustible mixture of gas. It consists mainly (13%), crop residues (9%), and charcoal (1%). Kerosene
of methane and carbon dioxide and is made from (56%) is the central energy source for lighting, followed
decomposition of organic compounds by anaerobic bac­ by a rechargeable electric battery (14%) in rural
teria. It is a methane rich fuel gas produced by anaerobic Ethiopia. Over 92 % of the domestic energy demands
digestion of organic materials with the help of metha­ are met from biomass-based fuels. Unsustainable cut­
nogenic bacteria. Biogas technology offers a very attrac­ ting down of trees for firewood has directly caused
tive route to utilize certain categories of biomass for significant deforestation, land degradation and soil ero­
meeting partial energy needs (Molina et al., 2007). It sion. The use of crop residues and dung cakes as sub­
provides an alternative energy source for the use of stitute of firewood has further intensified problems
traditional fuel sources, which is dominantly used in related to land degradation and agricultural underpro­
most developing countries. Biogas technology serves duction (Sime et al., 2020).
two major purposes, biogas and bio-slurry. Biogas Most of the previous studies conducted so far in
energy could replace the use of firewood, charcoal and Ethiopia are associated either with factors hindering or
kerosene for cooking, heating and lighting while bio- fostering the adoption of biogas technology (Abadi et al.,
slurry could replace the use of chemical fertilizer for 2017; Berhe et al., 2017; Kamp & Bermúdez Forn, 2016;
agricultural production (Sime et al., 2020). Shallo et al., 2020; Shallo & Sime, 2019). In addition, other
Ethiopia is one of the developing countries that extre­ previous studies were dealt with prospects of domestic
mely relies on biomass for cooking and lighting (Sime biogas technology (Desalegn, 2014) and contribution of
et al., 2020). The predominant cooking biomass energy biogas technology adoption to rural livelihood and

CONTACT Getachew Sime [email protected] Department of Biology, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia
Reviewing editor: Guneet Kaur, York University, CANADA
© 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the
license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional
restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
2 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

environment health improvement (Amare, 2015; Mengistu policy-makers, also benefits from the findings of consoli­
et al., 2016). None of these studies have offered detailed dating and promoting the undergoing National Biogas
attention to the evaluation of the technical potential of Program, Climate-resilient Green Economy Policy and
biogas technology in replacing biomass fuels (firewood, Green Legacy Program. Above all, the findings from this
charcoal, cow dung), kerosene and chemical fertilizer. study would directly contribute towards the government’s
Since 2015, the national biogas domestication program efforts of disseminating biogas technology to benefiting
has been implemented in the present study area, Misrak rural communities lacking access to the grid electric
and Mirab Estie Districts in South Gondar zone in power supply and entirely depending on biomass fuels.
Northern Ethiopia. Although rural households in the Most such households reside in remote areas.
study area have been adopted the technology, studies
addressing the questions that the present study is attempt­
Materials and methods
ing to answer are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this
study is to evaluate the amount of biomass fuels, kerosene Description of the study area
and chemical fertilizer that can be replaced or saved
Location
through adopting biogas technology in Northern
Ethiopia. The specific research questions were: what is the The study areas, Misrak and Mirab Este Districts, are
amount of 1) firewood, charcoal and cow dung 2) kerosene, located in South Gondar zone, Amhara Regional State,
and 3) chemical fertilizers that can be replaced by Northern Ethiopia (Figure Figure 1). Misrak Este District
a household upon adopting biogas technology? It also is located at 7°40’ N latitude and 36°50ʹE longitude and at
evaluated the association between biogas technology adop­ 96 kilometer from Bahir Dar, the capital city of Amhara
tion and toilet construction, human and environmental Regional State and at 46 kilometer from Debre Tabor, the
health, and income generation. capital city of South Gondar zone. The District has 43
The findings from this study are hypothesized to help Kebele1 (5 urban and 38 rural villages), and is bordered by
the community realizing the multiple benefits of adopting the Abay River in the South, by Dera district in the West,
biogas technology, including saving forests from cutting by Farta in the North and by Simada in the East. Mirab
and crop residues for fuel consumption as well as lowering Este lies within 11°10’ to 11° 30’ North latitude and 37°45’
the expenses for buying kerosene and chemical fertilizers, to 38° to 00ʹE longitudes. It is located at 148 kilometers
among others. The government of Ethiopia, particularly from Bahir Dar, the capital city of Amhara Regional State

Figure 1. Physical map of study area.

 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 3

Figure 2. Conceptual framework showing the technical potential of biogas energy systems, adapted from Wamuyu (2009).

and at 91 kilometers from Debre Tabor, the capital city of District has an estimated population density of 170.6
South Gondar zone. This District has 24 Kebele (2 urban people per m2. Teff, maize, barley, potato, bean and
and 22 rural villages), and is bordered by Misrak Este in wheat are the major crops grown. The main livestock
Northeast and by Abay River in the South and by Dera in type are cattle, sheep, goat, poultry, mule and donkey
the West. (Central Statistics Agency (CSA)).
The total population size in the Mirab Este District is
The topography 137,767, out of which 70,077 are male and 67,690 are
The topography of Misrak and Mirab Este Districts female. The District’s total size of land area is 98,216 hec­
comprises 41% plain, 47% plateau and 12% deep gorge tares with population density of 173.3 people per m2.
and other features according to District Agriculture The main crops grown are teff, maize, barley, potato and
Office. It has wide variation in altitude, ranging from bean. Livestock rearing is part of mixed of livestock—
less than 1500 to more than 2300 meters above sea level. crop production system as the basis of the main source
of livelihood. The main livestock types are cattle, sheep,
goat, poultry, mule and donkey (Central Statistics
Agro-climatic conditions
Agency (CSA)). At the time of data collection, the total
The Districts have three agro-ecological zones. They
livestock holding size in Misrak and Mirab Este was
include Dega2 with an altitude of more than 2300
252,820 and 342,091, respectively (Table 1).
meter above sea level, Woina-dega3 with an altitude of
1500–2300 meters above sea level and Kolla4 with an
Theoretical framework
altitude of less than 1500 meters above sea level. Dega,
Energy is essential for economic and social development
Woina-dega and Kolla cover about 3%, 91% and 6%,
of a nation (Rambo, 2013). The energy policy of
respectively. The maximum and minimum annual tem­
perature is 25 °C and 8.3 °C, respectively. Table 1. Livestock holding size in study Districts
Livestock holding size Misrak Este District Mirab Este District
Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of Cattle 78,964 89,608
Sheep 58,529 125,241
the Districts Goat 33,348 25,107
The Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia indi­ Donkey 8,111 8,835
Mule 4,539 974
cated that Misrak Este has an estimated total population Horse 7,958 886
of 403,956, of whom 199,325 are men and 204,631 are Poultry 61,371 73,440
women. With an estimated area of 2,368.13 m2, the Total 252,820 324,091
4 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

Ethiopia promotes the use of renewable energy. The fertilizers for agricultural production, of increasing
domestication of biogas technology as a national pro­ income and of decreasing time for biofuel collection
gram has started since 2009. Since then the program has from fields or forests. Despite all the available opportu­
been implemented in two rounds (2009–2013 and nities, there are also factors hindering the rate of adop­
2014–2017) and is currently at a stage of scaling up to tion of the technology. The rate of adoption may depend
all potential regions (Sime et al., 2020). The two main on the family size, income, livestock size, the price of
pillars of the biogas technology dissemination program chemical fertilizer, distance to firewood sources, dis­
in Ethiopia are ensuring sustainable energy and food tance to water sources, maintenance services, training
security of rural communities who do not have access to for awareness creation, availability of spare parts, and
electricity. The biogas technology supplies rural com­ socio-cultural and institutional factors. These factors
munities with clean and smokeless domestic energy as play key roles in determining whether the technology
well as bio-slurry as organic fertilizer. The major socio­ is to be adopted or not by a particular household.
economic variables influencing the adoption of biogas Farmers’ characteristics such as age, gender, education
technology among others include amount and availabil­ and experience influence the attitudes, knowledge, and
ity of cow dung and toilet wastes as feedstock, distance value orientation, and determine their reasoning in
to water sources for preparation of feedstock and size of acceptance of the technology. These characteristics of
labor. The biogas plants are constructed through sub­ households contribute to the adoption decision of
sidies by both government and non-government orga­ a technology. This study also looks at the inter-links
nizations. In addition to the energy and organic among the fostering and limitations hindering the adop­
fertilizer supply, the biogas technology delivers multiple tion of biogas technology. The adoption of biogas tech­
services to rural communities like saving time for cook­ nology reduces the dependence on firewood, charcoal,
ing, avoiding indoor air pollution with direct health kerosene and chemical fertilizers. At the same time, it
benefits, and reducing the dependence on forest for also reduces the pressure on forest management.
firewood and charcoal for cooking, and kerosene for
lighting. The bio-slurry is a high quality organic fertili­
Approaches to data collection, sample size
zer used for increasing agricultural production and
determination and sampling techniques
ensuring food security (Figures 2 and 3). In this study,
the term technical potential therefore refers to the The study districts were selected with a purposive sam­
potential of biogas technology of replacing traditional pling technique. This is because the National Biogas
fuel sources for domestic consumption such as fire­ Program had been implemented only in these districts
wood, charcoal, cow dung, crop residues, of reducing among other districts. On top of that there were only
the consumption of kerosene for lighting and chemical 74 households in the two districts adopting biogas

Figure 3. Biogas technology energy operating system, sourced from https://www.bing.com/images/search

 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 5

Table 2. Study Districts and Kebeles, and their corresponding number of installed biogas plants
Misrak Este District Mirab Este District
Kebele plants Number of installed biogas Kebele plants Number of installed biogas
Agona Kositet 4 Deriba Betanisa 5
Debir Zewana 9 Gishina 4
Mekane Eyesus 3 Merji Tenikot 4
Goshiberet 4 MesiBekilo Filega 4
Licha Arida 6 Sheme Mosha 5
Liwaye Ashama 7 Simet Sholaye 3
Mikrie Kuskuam 4 Yedi Digmegn 3
Jibasra Mariam 5 Total number 28
Ziguara 4
Total number 46
Note: The number of installed biogas plants is the same as the number of biogas user households

technology at the time of data collection. Thus, all the 74 categories. Three focus group discussions per sample
biogas user households in 16 biogas user villages in both district were held. Each group has six members. The
Districts were purposively considered (Table 2). Official optimum size for a focus group discussion ranges from
list of the 16 biogas user villages and the 74 user house­ six to eight members (Bloor, 2001; Ritchie et al., 2013).
hold heads was provided by the respective Biogas Responses from both the interviews and discussion were
Coordinators of Misrak and Mirab Este Districts. The recorded with a tape recorder. User voices were also
most commonly domesticated and adopted biogas plant recorded in videos upon their consent.
size was 6 m3. Biogas plant was installed by the govern­ Among others, the most important questions
ment and nongovernmental organizations. addressed through the focus group discussion and
A research design incorporating both qualitative and key informant interviews were related to existing
quantitative research approaches were employed for challenges and opportunities for biogas technology
data collection. The qualitative approach was employed domestication (biogas technology for both energy
for gathering information through undertaking a key and fertilizer utilization; feedstock preparation and
informant interview, focus group discussion and field human labor demand for biogas plant feeding; pro­
observation. The quantitative approach used household motion of the technology and awareness creation of
questionnaire survey for gathering quantitative data. communities; existing energy policies; deforestation
Primary data were therefore collected using ques­ and major fuel sources for rural communities; che­
tionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group dis­ mical fertilizer application; benefits such as envir­
cussion and field observation. All the 74 household onmental sanitation, toilet construction, human
heads were interviewed through administering the ques­ health, etc.).
tionnaire. In addition, a total of seven key informants
The field observations were conducted along with
(five biogas users and two-biogas coordinators) were
other data collection activities. Biogas plant feeding
purposefully selected. Then, the key informants were
materials, major fuel sources, the market value of
interviewed upon their consent using interview check­
household fuel at local markets (charcoal, firewood,
lists. Key informants are individuals who are knowl­
and kerosene and dung cake) and the use of che­
edgeable, open-minded, articulate, and cooperative for
mical fertilizer and bio-slurry were observed.
the research interview purpose (Neergaard & Ulhøi,
The qualitative data collected through key informant
2007). Focus group discussion was also held by group
interviews, focus group discussion and field observa­
of biogas users belonging to different age and sex
tions were used for cross-checking the information col­
lected through questionnaire survey.
Table 3. Sex and age of household heads
Gender Category Frequency (N = 74) Percent One sample t-test
Data analysis. All the data collected were entered
Sex Male 67 90.5 P-value = 0.00
Age Female 7 9.5 P-value = 0.00 into Microsoft Office and statistical analysis was
Total 74 100.0 done using SPSS-20 software. For the analysis of
26–36 4 5.4
37–46 20 27.0 data, descriptive statistics, chi-square, and one sam­
47–57 36 48.6 ple t-test were used at the 95% confidence interval
>57 14 19
Total 74 100.0
(at p-value < 0.05; Ioannidis, 2018). Specifically, the
significant at P-value ˂ 0.05 (CI = 95%) data collected through the qualitative were analyzed
6 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

Table 4. Household size of adopters Table 5. Educational status of adopters

Household family size Frequency Percent Education level Frequency Percent One sample t-test
1–3 12 16.2 Illiterate 21 28. P-value = 00.00
4–6 48 64.9 Read and write 32 43.2
7–9 14 18.9 Primary complete 19 25.7
Total 74 100.0 Secondary complete 2 2.7
significant at P-value ˂ 0.05 (CI = 95%)

through the narrative method, categorizing them

into themes and subthemes (Chu et al., 2020). Household size of adopters
About 16.2 % of the households had a family size
between 1–3 members. The majority (83.8 %) of biogas
Results and discussion adopters had a family size in the range of 4–6 persons
with an average family size of 5 per household. This is
Sex and age composition of adopters higher than the national average household size, which
Concerning sex (Table 3), out of the 74 adopter is 4.8 persons per household, for the adoption of biogas
households, 90.5% were male and the remaining technology in Ethiopia (EREDPC & SNV, 2008). There
were female headed. The adoption is dominated by is an adequate labor force for feedstock preparation and
the male headship, which shows that sex is operation of biogas plants (Table 4). Large household
a determinant factor in biogas technology adoption. size may mean having sufficient labor required to man­
One sample t-test indicates that sex has a significant age and operate biogas technology (Mengistu et al.,
positive relationship with the adoption of biogas 2016).
technology (at p < 0.05). Shallo & Sime (2019)
reported that the sex of a household head signifi­ Educational level of adopters
cantly (at p < .05) and positively influences biogas Table 5 shows 28.4 % of the adopters were illiterate, 43.2 %
technology adoption in southern Ethiopia. In could read and write, 25.7% had completed primary school
Ethiopia, household energy is primarily the duty of and the remaining 2.7% completed secondary school. The
women in Ethiopia, nevertheless, men dominantly majority of the biogas adopters are educated, which shows
control household resources and often make the that educational status is a determinant factor in biogas
final decision at household level (EREDPC & SNV, technology adoption. One sample t-test shows that educa­
2008). Male-headed households are more likely to tion level has a significant positive relation to biogas tech­
adopt a new technology because they are often nology adoption (at p < 0.05). There is a positive
more likely to get more information about new tech­ association between educational status of household
nology and take on risk than female-headed house­ heads and adoption of biogas technology (Kabir et al.,
holds. Thus, the male-headed households adopt 2013; Mwirigi et al., 2009). Surendra et al. (2014) reported
biogas technology more than female headed house­ that lack of education is among the most critical factors that
holds because of having access to controlling house­ limits the dissemination of biogas technology. Kabir et al.
hold assets and getting information. (2013) indicated that education plays a very important role
The age category of adopter households was 5.4%, in the biogas technology adoption, the more the household
27.0 %, 48.6% and 18.6 % fell in the range of 26–36, head is educated, the more it is likely to adopt biogas
37–46, 47–57 and greater than 57 years of age, technology. Walekhwa et al. (2009) reported that house­
respectively. In this regard, the majority (94.6 %) hold heads with higher educational level are less conserva­
lies within 47–57 years of age (Table 3), which attri­ tive, more informed and more knowledgeable.
butes to higher income generation and asset accu­ There is a positive association between selected demo­
mulation. One sample t-test result shows that age has graphic variable and knowledge of biogas adopters before
a significant positive relationship with adoption of adoption. All the selected socio-demographic characteris­
biogas technology (at p < 0.05). Household heads tics had a negative association (at p > 0.05) with the knowl­
with more capital accumulation and economic status edge of field defecation and its impacts on human and
are more likely to adopt biogas technology (Abadi environmental health (Table 6). The awareness on proper
et al., 2017; Mengistu et al., 2016). Hence, age of management of field defecation and the possibility for
household heads has a positive influence on the producing biogas and bio-slurry from other sources like
adoption of biogas technology. from domestic and kitchen wastes are lacking.
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 7

Table 6. Association between biogas technology adopters’ knowledge and selected demographic variables before adoption
Gender Age Education
Knowledge statement X2 = (P-value) X2 = (P-value) X2 = (P-value)
Field defecation can pose challenge to human and environmental health if not properly managed 0.250 (0.882a) 4.052(0.670a) 7.167(0.305a)
Field defecation may foster disease transmission, if not properly managed 2.468(0.291a) 3.657(0.723a) 5.053(0.537a)
Possibility for biogas and bio-slurry production from other sources than from cow dung and toilet waste 1.92(0.383a) 6.183(0.403a) 7.471(0.280a)
statistically significant at the P-value ˂ 0.05 (CI = 95%)

Table 7. Cattle holding size of biogas user households

Number of cattle Frequency Percent One sample t-test result positive association with the adoption of biogas technology
1–3 41 55.4 P-value = 0.00 (Kabir et al., 2013; Shallo & Sime, 2019; Walekhwa et al.,
4–5 24 32.4
6–7 4 5.4
2009).
7 5 6.8 In terms of cattle grazing systems, about 31.1% of the
Total 74 100.0 households used free grazing on open field, 40.5% con­
Significant at p-value ˂ 0.05
trolled grazing (zero grazing practices) and the remaining
28.4% used combined together free grazing on open field
and controlled grazing. On the other hand, about 59.5% of
Cattle holding size
the households got sufficient cattle dung while 40.5%
About 55.4%, 32%, 5.4%, and 6.8% of the households had lacked it for feeding biogas plants. The latter households
cattle holding size ranging from 1–3, 4 − 5, 6–7 and > 7, had their cattle grazing freely moving on open fields.
respectively. The average cattle holding size was three cattle Furthermore, 40.5% of the households collected dung
per household, which is less than the minimum standard from various sources while the remaining 59.5% did not.
set by the National Biogas Program of 4 cows for installing Among those households collecting cow dung, 26.6% col­
biogas plants (Table 7). One sample t- test result showed lected dung from the field, 43.3% from a stall (locally called
that livestock size has a significant (at p < 0.05) positive Beret) and the remaining 30% of stall and field (Table 8).
association with the adoption of biogas technology. Field Field observation also showed that households practicing
observations of biogas plants also showed that the avail­ controlled grazing method have better a potential of adopt­
ability of sufficient cattle dung, which is the primary feed­ ing biogas technology than those practicing other methods
stock for biogas plants, is the most important factor in daily of grazing types. Controlled grazing was observed to ease
biogas operation. Thus, the quantity of dung available dung collection, lessening labor and time. Mwirigi et al.
per day is critical in realizing the benefit and viability of (2009) reported a significant positive relationship between
biogas technology. Eshete et al. (2006) indicated that rural grazing system and adoption of biogas technology in
households in Ethiopia would need at least four cattle Kenya.
stabled during the night to get a minimum of 20 kg of
fresh animal dung per plant per day, which is the size
Traditional biomass energy use pattern
required to produce enough biogas energy for cooking or
lighting (EREDPC & SNV, 2008). Other findings from The energy use pattern showed that an extensive num­
previous studies indicated that cattle size has a significant ber of households use firewood (41.9%), followed by

Table 8. Grazing types and dung collection

Variable Type of grazing Frequency Percent
What grazing type do you use for feeding your cattle? Free grazing on open field 23 31.1
Controlled grazing 30 40.5
Free grazing on open field 21 28.4
and controlled grazing 74 100.0
Total
Do you have sufficient cattle dung for biogas plants? Yes 44 59.5
No 30 40.5
Total 74 100.0
Do you collect cattle dung from various sources? Yes 30 40.5
No 44 59.5
Total 74 100.0
If Yes, from where do you collect cow dung? Field 8 26.6
Stall (Beret) 13 43.3
Both field and stall 9 30.0
Total 30 100.0
8 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

Frequency Percent
45 41.9
40
35 31 29.7
30
25 22
20 17.6
15 13
10.8
10 8

5
0
Fuelwood Dung cake Charcoal Kerosene

Figure 4. Biomass and kerosene use pattern before installation of biogas plants.

dung cake (29.7%), charcoal (17.6%) and kerosene 33.6 bundles of firewood annually. This is equivalent to
(10.8%) before biogas technology adoption saving 3010.565 ETB annually at a local price rate of 89.6
(Figure Figure 4). Firewood becomes an indispensable ETB per bundle of firewood (Table 9). In turn, this is
source of fuel for cooking, followed by charcoal. This equivalent saving 3833.22 ETB annually at local rate of
shows that traditional biomass are major sources of 48.40 ETB per 32 kg per bundle. Amare (2015) reported
domestic energy (89.2%) in the study areas. About that biogas technology adoption enabled a reduction of
95% of the Ethiopian population rely on traditional 70.47% of firewood per household per year. A reduction
biomass fuels for cooking (Sanbata et al., 2014). of 45% in firewood consumption was also reported
Gwavuya et al. (2012) reported that firewood holds the because of partial replacement of traditional fuels with
greatest share of energy sources for cooking in rural biogas energy (Abadi et al., 2017). Similarly, other pre­
Ethiopia. Besides, kerosene was mainly used for lighting. vious studies also showed that biogas users tend to
Kerosene is the major energy source for lighting in rural consume less firewood than non-users do
areas in Ethiopia (Sime et al., 2020). (Christiaensen & Heltberg, 2014).

Quantity of firewood consumption Quantity of dung cake consumption

About 70.3% of households consumed 3–5 bundles of Dung cake is regularly used as traditional fuel in tradi­
firewood, 23% consumed 6–7 bundles of firewood and tional stoves in most parts of Ethiopia. Before adoption,
6.8% consumed 8–9 bundles of firewood per month. the average consumption was 65.4 dung cakes per
This is, on average, equivalent to the consumption of household per month. However, after adoption, the
57.6 bundles of firewood per year before adoption. After average consumption was 18.6 dung cakes per house­
adoption, 81.1% of the households used 1–2 bundles of hold per month. This is a reduction of 46.8 dung cakes
firewood, 10.8% used 3–4 bundles of firewood and 8.1% per household per month. Thus, the adoption of biogas
used 5–6 bundles of firewood per household per month. technology enabled the saving of 561.6 dung cakes per
This is a reduction of 33.6 bundles of firewood per year. household per year. This is in turn equivalent to saving
Thus, biogas technology adoption enabled the saving of 1684.8 ETB per year at a local price rate of 3 ETB per

Table 9. Number of bundles of firewood consumption per household per month before and after adoption of biogas technology
Before adoption After adoption
Number of bundle Frequency Percent Number of bundle Frequency Percent
3–5 52 70.3 1–2 60 81.1
6-7 17 23.0 3–4 8 10.8
8–9 5 6.8 5–6 6 8.1
Total 74 100.0 Total 74 100.0
Average = 4.8 Average = 2.0
How much is the price of one bundle in your local market (ETB)? Price Frequency Percent
80–90 42 56.8
91-100 31 41.9
101–110 1 1.4
Total 74 100.0
Average = 89.6
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 9

Table 10. Number of dung cake consumption of household per month before and after adoption of biogas technology
Before plant installation After plant installation
Number of dung cake Frequency Percent Number of dung cake Frequency Percent
60–65 42 56.8 15–20 61 82.4
66-70 24 32.4 21–25 10 13.5
71–75 8 10.8 36–30 3 4.1
Total 74 100.0 Total 74 100.0
Average = 65.4 Average = 18.6
How much is the price of one dung cake in your local market? Price (ETB) Frequency Percent
Average price of one dung cake is three ETB 1–2 17 23.0
3-4 55 74.3
5–6 2 2.7
Total 74 100.0

Table 11. Quantity of charcoal consumption (in sacks) per household per month before and after biogas plant installation
Before adoption After adoption
No. of sack Frequency Percent No. of sack Frequency Percent
1 44 59.4 0.25 52 70.3
1.5–2 25 33.7 0.5 21 28.4
2.25–2.5 5 6.7 1 1 1.4
Total 74 Total 74 100.0
Average = 1.4 Average = 0.5
How much is the price of one sack of charcoal in your local market? 250–260 17 23
261-270 34 45.9
271–280 23 31.1
Total 74 100.0
Average = 266

Table 12. Time requirement before and after adoption of biogas technology
Time requirement Hour per week Frequency Percent
How long does it take you to collect firewood 8–9 43 58.1
and cattle dung before biogas plant installation? Hour per week Average time = 12 hours/week 10-11 17 23.0
12–13 14 18.9
Total 74 100.0
How long does it take you to collect firewood and cattle dung after biogas plant installation? Hour per week 3-4 48 64.9
Average time = 4.5 hours/week 5-6 14 18.9
7–8 12 16.2
Total 74 100

dung cake (Table 10). Amare (2015) reported that adop­ average consumption of 0.5 sacks of charcoal per house­
tion of biogas technology enabled a saving of 600 kg of hold per month. This is a reduction of 10.8 sacks of
dung cakes per year, which is equivalent to saving 1,662 charcoal per year (Table 11). In monetary terms, this is
ETB per year in Amhara Region in Northern Ethiopia. equivalent to saving 2872.8 ETB annually at local rate of
266 ETB per sack of charcoal. Amare (2015) reported
Quantity of charcoal consumption that adoption of biogas technology enabled households
Table 11 presents consumption of charcoal (in sacks) replacing 12 sacks of charcoal per household per year,
before and after adoption of biogas technology. which is equivalent to saving 1,243.20 ETB per house­
Accordingly, 59.4% of the households consumed 1 hold per year at the local rate of 103.60 ETB.
sack of charcoal, 33.7% consumed 1.5–2 sacks of char­
coal and 6.7% consumed 2.25–2.5 sacks of charcoal per
Analysis and estimation of time requirement for
month, with an average consumption of 16.8 sacks of
traditional fuel collection
charcoal per year before adoption. After adoption, the
majority of households (70.3%) consumed 0.25 sacks of To collect firewood and cattle dung, about 58.1% of
charcoal, 28.4% consumed 0.5 sacks of charcoal and households took 8–9 h, 23.0% took 10–11 h and the
1.4% consumed 1 sacks of charcoal per month, with an remaining 18.9% took 12–13 h per household per week
10 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

before the adoption of the biogas technology. This is on and females (Arthur et al., 2011; Sime, 2020). The
average equivalent to12 h per household per week or reduced workload from women and children in associa­
576 h per year. After adoption, about 64.9% of user tion with firewood or cow dung collection and the
households took 3–4 h, 18.9% took 5–6 h and the availability of clean household energy lead to social
remaining 16.2% took 12–13 h to collect firewood and and economic development (Garfí et al., 2012).
cow dung per household per week (Table 12). This is, on Domestic biogas energy reduces the workload of
average, equivalent to 216 h per year. Thus, biogas women by reducing the need to collect firewood, tend
technology adoption enabled biogas user to save an fires and clean soot from cooking utensils (Amare, 2015;
average time of 7.5 h per household per week, which is Eshete et al., 2006; Gwavuya et al., 2012).
about 38%. Among household members, primarily
women and girls are the ones who collect firewood Quantity of kerosene consumption
from various sources and engage in cooking activities.
Thus, adoption of biogas technology predominantly With regard to kerosene consumption, the majority
enables women and girls save time to be spent for fire­ of households (43.9%) consumed 1–2 liter of kero­
wood collection and cooking. The saved time enhanced sene, 45.5% consumed 3–4 liters and only 10.5%
women’s socioeconomic engagements: petty trading, consumed greater than 4 liter of kerosene per
executing agricultural activities and undertaking other month, with an average consumption of 32.4 liter
social obligations. Adoption also increased the number of kerosene per year before adoption. However,
girls attending schools. The time saved following biogas after adoption, 51.5% of the households consumed
technology adoption is utilized for schooling or other 0.25–0.5 liter of kerosene, with an average con­
productive purposes (Sime, 2020). The use of biogas sumption of 0.7 liter of kerosene per household
narrowed the gap in educational status between males per month (Table 13). This is a reduction of 24

Table 13. Consumption of kerosene per household per month before and after adoption of biogas technology
Question Variable Frequency Percent
Do you purchase kerosene? Yes 66 89.2
No 8 10.8
Total 74 100.0
If yes, at what price do you buy one liter of kerosene?
Average price was 19 ETB per liter
16–18 26 39.4
19–21 33 50.0
22–23 7 10.6
Total 66 100.0
Before adoption After adoption
Liter Frequency Percent Liter Frequency Percent

1-2 29 43.9 0.25–0.5 34 51.5

3-4 30 45.5 0.75–1.0 18 28.3
>4 7 10.5 1.5–1.75 14 21.2
Total 66 100.0 Total 66 100.0
Average = 2.7 Average = 0.7

Table 14. Fertilizer use pattern before and after adoption of biogas technology
Question Fertilizer type Frequency Percent
What type of fertilizer do you use before biogas adoption? Chemical fertilizer only 31 41.9
Compost 5 6.8
Manure 2 2.7
Chemical fertilizer and manure 35 47.3
Chemical fertilizer and compost 1 1.4
Total 74 100.0
What type of fertilizer do you use after biogas adoption? Fertilizer type Frequency Percent
Chemical fertilizer only 2 2.7
Bio-slurry and compost 26 35.1
Manure and compost 6 8.1
Chemical fertilizer and manure 3 4.1
Chemical fertilizer and bio-slurry 37 50.0
Total 74 100.0
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 11

liter kerosene per year. This shows that biogas sacks of DAP and 2 sacks of urea per hectare
adoption enabled saving of 24 liter of kerosene per year, with an average consumption of 4.5 sacks
per year. This is equivalent to saving 456 ETB of DAP and 1.5 sacks of urea before adoption (1 sack
annually at a local rate of 19 ETB per liter of weighs 50 kg). Whereas, after adoption, about 45.9%
kerosene. Simur (2012) estimated the daily con­ of the households used 1sack of DAP and 0.25 sacks
sumption of kerosene of 0.13 liter per day per of urea. The majority of households (54.1%) used 2
household, which is equivalent to saving 47.43 liter sacks of DAP and 0.5 sacks of urea per hectare
of kerosene per household per year and saving 617 per year, with an average consumption of 1.5 sacks
ETB based on local price of 13 ETB per liter in of DAP and 0.37 sacks of urea per household per
Amhara Region in Northern Ethiopia. hectare per year (Table 15). This is a reduction of 3
sacks of DAP and 1 sack of urea per household per
hectare per year. Thus, adoption of the technology
Quantity of chemical fertilizer consumption
enabled the saving of 3 sacks of DAP and 1 sack of
There are two kinds of chemical fertilizers that are urea per hectare per year. In terms of monetary
widely used in Ethiopia. They are DAP and urea, the returns, this is equivalent to a saving of 2265.00
former is phosphorus fertilizer while the later one is ETB from DAP and 695.00 ETB from urea purchase
nitrogen fertilizer. Before adoption, about 41.9% of the annually per hectare at local rate (1 sack or 50 kg
households used chemical fertilizer only while 47.3% of DAP = 755 ETB, 1 sack per 50 kg urea = 695 ETB, at
them used both chemical fertilizer and manure. The rest the time of data collection). Thus, the adoption has
of the households used compost, manure or their com­ remarkably reduced the quantity of chemical fertili­
bination. However, after adoption, 50% of the house­ zer consumption. Debebe and Itana (2016) stated
holds used chemical fertilizer and bio-slurry, 35.1% used that chemical fertilizer is very expensive as compared
bio-slurry and compost and the remaining used chemi­ to bio-slurry, 80.8% of the bio-slurry users saved
cal fertilizer only, manure and compost and chemical 1000–2000 ETB per year and 19.2% saved 2000–
fertilizer and manure (Table 14). The use of chemical 3000 ETB per year. Similarly, Amare (2015) reported
fertilizer was reduced 94%. Similarly, the combined use that the use of biogas offered an annual saving of
of chemical fertilizer and manure was reduced by 91%. 717.65 ETB and Claudia and Addis (2011) of 682
Furthermore, field observations showed that the use of ETB from replacing inorganic chemical fertilizer with
bio-slurry has increased following adoption. The major­ chemical fertilizer. The difference in the amount of
ity of adopter households (65.4%) also used money saved might infer to soil fertility, type of crop
a combination of bio-slurry and chemical fertilizer grown, and tradition of using chemical fertilizer and
together. Debebe and Itana (2016) reported that 15.4% bio-slurry.
biogas adopter households used chemical fertilizer only, There is a direct causal relationship between biogas
11.5% used cow dung, compost and chemical fertilizer, technology adoption and replacement for firewood, ker­
while the remaining 7.7% used bio-slurry, compost and osene and chemical fertilizer. This is because the adop­
chemical fertilizer. tion of the technology enables the dependence on
Likewise, the majority of households (62.2%) used firewood for cooking and lighting. Not only
4 sacks of DAP and 1sack of urea, 37.8% used 5 a collection of firewood from forest or other sources is

Table 15. Amount of chemical fertilizer used before and after biogas technology adoption
Question Amount and type of fertilizer Frequency Percent
How many sacks of chemical fertilizer do use before biogas 4 sack DAP and 1 sack urea 46 62.2
technology adoption per hectare per season?
Average = 4.5 sack DAP and 1.5 sack urea
5 sack DAP and 2 sack urea 28 37.8
Total 74 100.0
How many sacks of chemical fertilizer do use after biogas
technology adoption per hectare per season? 1 sack DAP and 0.25 sack urea 34 45.9
Average = 1.5 sack DAP and 0.37 sack urea 2 sack DAP and 0.5 sack urea 40 54.1
Total 74 100.0
How much is the price of one sack (50 kg) Price Frequency Percent
chemical fertilizer in your local market? 750 ETB DAP and 690 ETB urea 51 68.9
Average = 755 ETB DAP and 695 ETB urea 760 ETB DAP and 700 ETB urea 23 31.1
Total 74 100.0
NB: The US Dollar (USD) to Ethiopian Birr (ETB) average exchange rate at the time of data collection was 27.6677 ETB
12 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

difficult, but also its availability has been readily Table 17. Trend of using toilets and connecting toilets to biogas
decreasing in association to deforestations. Forests are system
the major sources of firewood, although cow dung and Before adoption After adoption

crop residues also provide their shares. Rural house­ Trend of using toilet Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
Good 8 10.8 30 40.5
holds use kerosene for lighting during the night. The Very good 6 8.1 27 36.5
adoption of biogas technology not only provides energy Poor 29 39.2 11 14.9
for, but also energy for lighting. Similarly, chemical Very poor 31 41.9 6 8.1
Total 74 100.0 74 100.0
fertilizers are used for increasing agricultural productiv­ Is your toilet connected Variable Frequency Percent
ity, nevertheless, their availability and prices are always to biogas operational Yes 66 89.2
system? No 8 10.8
challenging households. The adoption of technology Total 74 100.0
enables the provision of high quality organic fertilizers,
bio-slurry, as its byproduct. Households can use bio-
slurry, made from locally available organic wastes, for
increasing agricultural production and income. Connection of toilet to biogas plants
All biogas user households had toilets. About 89.2%
Access to water sources of them connected their toilets to the biogas system.
Before adoption, the trend of using the toilet was
The majority of the households (70.3%) lacked access to
poor (39.2%), very poor (41.9%), good (10.8%) and
water sources. The water resources were mostly reached
very good (8.1%). Nevertheless, after adoption, the
within 50 minutes of walking distance from their resi­
trend was soundly changed where about 40.5% were
dence. Most of the households (62.5%) used water from
good, 36.5% were very good, 14.9% were poor and
rivers and 16.7% from water tap, and 12.5% from rain -
8.1% were very poor (Table 17). Biogas technology
water harvesting (Table 16). According to the standard
adoption helped the majority of biogas users to con­
set in the National Biogas Program document, for daily
struct toilets and reduce defecation in the field, with
feeding of biogas plants, the source of water should be
massive potential of improving environmental sani­
reached within a walking distance of 20 minutes to
tation and human health.
30 minutes away from home in Ethiopia (EREDPC &
Biogas technology improves health of rural house­
SNV, 2008; Eshete et al., 2006). A distant water source
holds by providing a cleaner cooking fuel and
had a negative influence on the functionality of biogas
a waste handling solution, thus, avoiding health pro­
plants (Shallo & Sime, 2019). Tucho et al. (2016) also
blems (Amigun et al., 2012; Sime, 2020). Cooking
reported that meeting biogas plant’s water requirement
with clean and odorless flame of biogas enabled the
remained a great challenge when distant water sources
reduction of in-door pollution caused from the smell
are considered. Since water is a basic substrate for biogas
of kerosene or smoke of firewood burning (Bajgain &
production, access to water sources is instrumental for
Shakya, 2005).
the sustainable adoption of biogas technology. Thus, lim­
Results from the qualitative approach supported
ited water availability is a basic constraint for the biogas
most of the results obtained from the survey. For
plant operation in some African countries (Parawira,
instance, the use of biogas technology reduces expo­
2009; Surendra et al., 2014; Wawa, 2012).
sure to indoor air pollution, deforestation, the use
of chemical fertilizers for crop production, use of
crop residues for fuel, use of kerosene for lighting,
Table 16. Access and sources of water
time for collecting cow dung from fields and fire­
Source of
Access to water source water Frequency Percent wood from the forest, etc. On one hand, the adop­
Do you get water at your home/ 22 29.7 tion of the technology promotes toilet construction
residence? or because toilets provide organic wastes for feeding
away from residence area? 52 70.3
Total 74 100.0 biogas plants and avoids field defecation. On the
If you do not get water in the River 30 62.5 other hand, poor promotion strategies and availabil­
nearest, Water well 4 8.3
from where do you fetch? Water tap 8 16.7 ity of spare parts, maintenance services are among
Rainwater 6 12.5 the persisting challenges to the full realization and
Total 48 100.0
exploitation of the technology.
 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT 13

Conclusion and recommendation Funding

This study evaluated the technical potential of biogas This study received funding support from Hawassa
technology to replace traditional fuel, kerosene and bio- University, Ethiopia.
slurry in northern Ethiopia. Biogas technology adoption
soundly reduced households’ firewood, charcoal, dung Notes on contributor
cake and kerosene consumption by 58%, 36%, 71%, and
74%, respectively. It similarly reduced the use of chemical Getachew Sime Getachew Sime is
fertilizer and combination of chemical fertilizer and man­ an associate professor of Agr-
oecology at Hawassa University.
ure by 94%, and 91%, respectively. The technology also His work focuses specifically on
enhanced adopters’ annual income. Besides increasing agricultural development, climate
the trend of constructing toilets, it reduced defecation in change adaptation and mitiga­
the field that massively improved environmental sanita­ tion, rural development, and
tion and human health. In conclusion, biogas technology renewable energy. Haile Fentie,
He is an MSc student the
offers a massive potential of reducing the consumption of
Department of Biology, Hawassa
firewood, charcoal, dung cake and kerosene, with huge University, College of Natural
implication for forest resource management and Sciences.
improvement of agricultural productivity, and human
and environmental health. It has also huge potential in
reducing the massive and widely practiced field defeca­
tion in rural areas through promoting the construction of Authors’ contributions
toilets. This would in turn have an enormous implication Both authors designed the research and conducted primary
for better environmental and human health management data collection and analysis for the studies. In addition, both
in rural settings. Future research needs to focus on recti­ authors edited and approved the final manuscript.
fying other challenges influencing the realization of the
technical potential of biogas technology dissemination in
Data Availability Statement
Ethiopia as well its huge potential for better management
of forest resources. All the processed data are contained within the manuscript
itself. The raw data, whereas are deposited with Hawassa
University database.www.hu.edu.et
Notes
1. “Kebele” is the smallest administrative division in References
Ethiopia. It is the same as a village.
2. Dega denotes a highland agro-climatic region. Abadi, N., Gebrehiwot, K., Techane, A., & Nerea, H. (2017). Links
3. Woina-dega denotes a midland agro-climatic region. between biogas technology adoption and health status of house­
4. Kolla denotes a lowland agro-climatic region. holds in rural Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Energy Policy, 101,
5. ETB (Ethiopian Birr) = Currency/money for Ethiopia 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.015
The US Dollar (USD) to Ethiopian Birr (ETB) aver­ Amare, Z. Y. (2015). The benefits of the use of biogas energy
age exchange rate at the time of data collection was in rural areas in Ethiopia: A case study from the Amhara
27.6677 ETB. National Regional State, Fogera District. African Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 9(4), 332–345.
https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2014.1838
Acknowledgements Amigun, B., Parawira, W., Musango, J., Aboyade, A., &
The Graduate School of Hawassa University, Ethiopia, Badmos, A. (2012). Anaerobic biogas generation for rural
funded this research. We are grateful to the key infor­ area energy provision in Africa. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Biogas
mants, focus group discussants, energy experts and farm­ (pp. 36–62). InTech.
ers for their unreserved assistance during the data Arthur, R., Baidoo, M. F., & Antwi, E. (2011). Biogas as
collection. They provided useful insights to the research­ a potential renewable energy source: A Ghanaian case
ers. The different district offices are also thanked for their study. Renewable Energy, 36(5), 1510–1516. https://doi.
generous hospitality and support. org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.11.012
Bajgain, S., & Shakya, I. S. (2005). A successful model of public
private partnership for rural household energy supply. SNV.
Disclosure statement Berhe, T. G., Tesfahuney, R. G., Desta, G. A., & Mekonnen, L. S.
(2017). Biogas plant distribution for rural household sustainable
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the energy supply in Africa. Energy and Policy Research, 4(1), 10–20.
author(s). https://doi.org/10.1080/23815639.2017.1280432
14 H. FENTE AND G. SIME

Bloor, M. (2001). Focus groups in social research. Sage. technology by farmers in Nakuru Districts, Kenya. Energy for
Central Statistics Agency (CSA),CSA 2015. Report on area and Sustainable Development, 13(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.
production of crop and utilization of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. 1016/j.esd.2009.05.002
Christiaensen, L., & Heltberg, R. (2014). Greening China’s Neergaard, H., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2007). Handbook of qualitative
rural energy: New insights on the potential of smallholder research methods in entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing.
biogas. Environment and Development Economics, 19(1), Parawira, W. (2009). Biogas technology in sub-Saharan
8–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X13000375 Africa: Status, prospects and constraints. Reviews in
Chu, S. Y., Wen, C. C., & Lin, C. W. (2020). A qualitative study of Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 8(2), 187–200.
clinical narrative competence of medical personnel. BMC Medical https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-009-9148-0
Education, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02336-6 Rambo, C. M. (2013). Renewable energy project financing
Claudia, B., & Addis, Y. (2011). Survey of biogas plants in four risks in developing countries: Options for Kenya towards
regional states of Ethiopia. SNV-. the realization of vision 2030. International Journal of
Debebe, Y., & Itana, F. (2016). Comparative study on the Business and Finance Management Research, 1(10), 1–10
effect of applying biogas slurry and inorganic fertilizer on http://www.bluepenjournals.org/ijbfmr.
soil properties, growth, and yield of white cabbage (Brassica Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (2013).
oleracea var. capitata f. alba). Journal of Biology, Agriculture Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science stu­
and Healthcare, 6, 19–26 https://www.researchgate.net/. dents and researchers. sage.
Desalegn, Z. (2014). Studies on prospects and challenges of Sanbata, H., Asfaw, A., & Kumie, A. (2014). Indoor air pollu­
uptake of domestic bio-gas technology, The case of SNNPR, tion in slum neighbourhoods of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ethiopia. St. Mary’s University. Atmospheric Environment, 89, 230–234. https://doi.org/10.
EREDPC & SNV. (2008). Ethiopian rural energy development 1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.003
and promotion center (EREDPC) and Netherlands devel­ Shallo, L., Ayele, M., & Sime, G. (2020). Determinants of
opment organization (SNV). In National biogas pro- biogas technology adoption in southern Ethiopia. Energy,
gramme Ethiopia: Programme implementation document Sustainability and Society, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.
(pp. 1-118). EREDPC and SNV. 1186/s13705-019-0236-x
Eshete, G., Sonder, K., & Heegde, F. 2006. Report on the Shallo, L., & Sime, G. (2019). Determinants of functional
feasibility study of a national programme for domestic biogas status of family size bio-digesters: Empirical evidence
in Ethiopia. SNV Netherlands Development Organization. from southern Ethiopia. 38(5), 493–510 https://doi.org/10.
Garfí, M., Ferrer-Martí, L., Velo, E., & Ferrer, I. (2012). Evaluating 1080/14786451.2018.1538145.
benefits of low-cost household digesters for rural Andean Sime, G. (2020). Technical and socioeconomic constraints to
communities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 the domestication and functionality of biogas technology in
(1), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.023 rural areas of southern Ethiopia. Cogent Engineering, 7(1),
Gwavuya, S., Abele, S., Barfuss, I., Zeller, M., & Müller, J. 1765686. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2020.1765686
(2012). Household energy economics in rural Ethiopia: A Sime, G., Tilahun, G., & Kebede, M. (2020). Assessment of
cost-benefit analysis of biogas energy. Renewable Energy, biomass energy use pattern and biogas technology domes­
48, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.042 tication programme in Ethiopia. African Journal of Science,
Ioannidis, J. P. (2018). The proposal to lower P value thresh­ Technology, Innovation and Development 38(5) , 493–510
olds to. 005. Jama, 319(14), 1429–1430. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2018.1538145.
1001/jama.2018.1536 Simur, A. (2012). The current status of traditional biomas enegry
Kabir, H., Yegbemey, R. N., & Bauer, S. (2013). Factors determi­ utilization and its alternative renewable enegry technology in
nant of biogas adoption in Bangladesh. Renewable and Amhara MSc Thesis pp 1–104 https://www.diva-portal.org/ .
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 881–889. https://doi.org/10. Surendra, K., Takara, D., Hashimoto, A. G., & Khanal, S. K.
1016/j.rser.2013.08.046 (2014). Biogas as a sustainable energy source for developing
Kamp, L. M., & Bermúdez Forn, E. (2016). Ethiopia‫׳‬s emer­ countries: Opportunities and challenges. Renewable and
ging domestic biogas sector: Current status, bottlenecks Sustainable Energy Reviews, 31, 846–859. https://doi.org/
and drivers. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.015
60, 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.068 Tucho, G. T., Moll, H. C., Uiterkamp, A. J., &
Mengistu, M. G., Simane, B., Eshete, G., & Workneh, T. S. Nonhebel, M. S. (2016). Problems with biogas imple­
(2016). Factors affecting households’ decisions in biogas mentation in developing countries from the persepec­
technology adoption, the case of Ofla and Mecha tive of labor requirements. Energies, 9(9), 1–16. https://
Districts, northern Ethiopia. Renewable Energy, 93, doi.org/10.3390/en9090750
215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.02.066 Walekhwa, P. N., Mugisha, J., & Drake, L. (2009). Biogas
Molina, F., Ruiz-filippi, G., García, C., Roca, E., & Lema, W. S. energy from family-sized digesters in Uganda: Critical
(2007). Winery effluent treatment at an anaerobic hybrid factors and policy implications. Energy Policy, 37(7),
USBF pilot plant under normal and abnormal operation. 2754–2762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.018
Water Science and Technology: A Journal of the Wawa, A. I. 2012. The Challenges of Promoting and
International Association on Water Pollution Research, 56 Adopting Biogas Technology as Alternative Energy
(2), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.468 Source in Semi-Arid Areas of Tanzania: The Case of
Mwirigi, J. W., Makenzi, P. M., & Ochola, W. O. (2009). Socio- Kongwa and Bahi Districts of Dodoma Region.MSc the­
economic constraints to adoption and sustainability of biogas sis, The Open University of Tanzania.