The Delanta District is situated in the South Wollo Zone of the eastern Amhara region in Ethiopia (Figure 1). Geographically, it is bordered by the Wadla and Angot districts to the north, Dawunt to the west, Tenta to the south, and Ambasel to the east, with coordinates of 38°40′39″N and 11°20′11″E. The main urban center, Wogeltena, is located approximately 98 km from Dessie, the administrative center of the South Wollo Zone, and 499 km northeast of Addis Ababa.

Historically, Delanta was part of the North Wollo Zone until 2000 E.C. (Ethiopian Calendar), when it was integrated into the South Wollo Zone. Currently, the district is composed of 33 kebeles, including 30 rural and 3 urban kebeles (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office, 2020).

Demographically, the district has a population of 149,882, comprising 72,701 males (50.5%) and 71,181 females (49.5%), as reported by the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) in 2010. Rapid population growth has led to significant challenges, including overcrowding on limited arable land. This has intensified food shortages and resource degradation. Furthermore, the high population density has caused extensive deforestation, habitat degradation, and reduced biodiversity, aggravating the district’s environmental issues.

Delanta District encompasses 106,017 hectares characterized by diverse topography, including 30% plains, 36.5% rugged terrain (gedelama), 30.5% rocky land, and 3.5% mountainous regions. The northern part is predominantly rugged, while the western area features extensive plains. Elevation in the district varies significantly, ranging from 1,900 to 3,800 m above sea level. The Beshilo River serves as a natural boundary with Tenta District before joining the Abay River (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office, 2020).

The district’s climate spans multiple agro-climatic zones: 26.4% Dega (moist highland), 41.3% Woyna Dega (midland), 28.5% Kolla (lowland), and 3.8% Wurch (alpine). Annual rainfall fluctuates between 614.8 mm and 968.7 mm, with an average of 803 mm. Rainfall follows a bimodal distribution, with small rains occurring between March and April and main rains falling from June to September. Average temperatures range from 5.9°C to 19.11°C, with maximums varying from 21.2°C to 28°C between January and June, and minimums ranging from 1.6°C to 7.1°C from October to December (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office, 2020).

The soils in Delanta District exhibit favorable characteristics for agriculture but also face certain limitations (Nahusenay Abate et al., 2014). They are primarily heavy clays (35%–80%) with high total porosity (46.51%–60.55%) and low bulk densities (1.02–1.35). Particle densities are within a suitable range (2.41–2.82 g/cm³), and the soils demonstrate good water-holding capacity (129.9–287.9 mm/m). The pH levels range from 6.25 to 8.29, indicating slight acidity to moderate alkalinity, and the soils are free from salinity (EC < 0.5 dS/m). Organic matter content is low to medium (0.12%–4.82%), and total nitrogen ranges from 0.02% to 0.28%. Available phosphorus shows variability (0.52–18.44 mg/kg). The soils also have high cation exchange capacity (31.98–65.48 cmolc/kg) and base saturation (60.22%–98.97%).

Despite these favorable attributes, the soils are prone to stickiness when wet and hardness when dry, presenting challenges for tillage. Issues such as waterlogging and erosion due to improper land management practices further hinder agricultural productivity. Consequently, effective soil management strategies are essential to enhance the district’s agricultural potential and ensure long-term sustainability.

The distribution of natural vegetation in Delanta District is influenced by factors such as topography, climate, drainage patterns, and soil types. However, high population density and extensive agricultural activities have significantly reduced vegetation cover. The remaining woody vegetation comprises degraded forests, woodlands, scrublands, and scattered trees on farmland. In the northern part of the district, degraded forests have shrunk to less than 1,500 hectares and feature tree species such as Acacia, Juniper, Hygienia, Eucalyptus, and Cordia (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office, 2020).

The district’s vegetation includes wooded grasslands, which consist of herbs, grasses, and patches of woody plants. Scrublands are dominated by low shrubs mixed with grasses and herbs, while scattered remnant trees are common across cultivated landscapes.

For energy, traditional biomass, including fuelwood and animal dung, is the primary source for rural and peri-urban households. Access to modern energy sources, particularly electricity, is limited; only 4 rural and 3 urban kebeles out of a total of 33 have electricity. This heavy reliance on traditional biomass highlights the urgent need for alternative energy solutions (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office).

Expanding hydropower-generated electricity to all kebeles is challenging due to the district’s rugged topography, which makes distribution to remote areas prohibitively expensive. As a result, firewood extraction and charcoal production from montane forests remain crucial for meeting energy needs and supporting economic activities in the district.

The Delanta district was selected for this study as it is identified as one of the areas with significant forest resources within the zone, but also faces considerable forest and land degradation. A multistage sampling procedure was adopted for this research. Initially, out of the 32 total kebeles in the Delanta district, three kebeles were randomly selected: Mesnoamba (01), Goshmeda (019), and Mistinkir (018).

The study respondents comprised rural households that extract fuelwood from the surrounding forest for energy needs. At this stage of sampling, a simple random sampling technique was applied within each selected kebele to determine the total number of household heads to be surveyed. Wealth ranking was not conducted during household selection because the contributions of various income sources and resource endowments to fuelwood dependency vary significantly. Therefore, all individual households within each kebele were randomly chosen for this investigation into the household economy. The total sample size was calculated using the formula provided by Kothari (2004).

Equation 1: sample size determination n = Z 2 pqN e 2 N − 1 + Z 2 pq   (1) where: n = the required sample size.

p = 0.1 that is 10%: population reliability (for frequency estimated for a sample size of n)

q = 1−p (1-0.1) = 0.9,

N = 1,452 which is the total number of households in targeted kebeles.

Z = Standard error corresponding to 95% confidence interval which is 1.96, and

e = the margin of error that the researcher tolerates which is (0.05) or the degree of accuracy desired.

So n = 1.96 2 * 0.1 * 0.9 * 1452 0.05 2 * 1452 − 1 + 1.96 2 * 0.9 * 0.1 = 126 Households

The required sample of each kebelie could be obtained proportion by using the following formula. n h = N *   N h n where, nh is size of sample each rural kebelie N^* = total population of each kebelie to be taken where, as Nh, is size of total population (Kothari, 2004).nh1 (from the 019 kebelie) = 438 1452 126 = 38, nh2 (from the 01 kebelie) = 461 1452 126 = 40 and nh3 (from the 018 kebelie) = 553 1452 126 = 48.

In this study, key informants (KIs) were identified as individuals with extensive knowledge of fuelwood extraction from forests, its economic contribution to household economies, and prolonged residency in the community. The selection process employed the snowball method (Bernard, 2002).

During the village reconnaissance, the first farmer encountered was asked to provide the names of potential KIs. From these referrals, one KI was selected per village to represent the study. In total, 12 key informants were selected across all villages. While each individual could provide multiple referrals, only one referral from each pool was recruited, chosen at random.

A structured questionnaire was developed to collect data on available fuel sources. The questionnaire included both close-ended (single-response) and open-ended (multiple-response) questions. Prior to administration, an orientation session was held for randomly selected household heads. The questionnaire, originally prepared in English, was translated into Amharic to ensure respondents’ comprehension.

The questionnaire was divided into two main sections:

The first was Household Characteristics: This section captured general demographic and socioeconomic information. And the Domestic Energy Use and Sales: This section explored major fuel sources, distances traveled to collect commercial and non-commercial fuels, and the individual responsible for obtaining each type of fuel.

For traditional fuels, a 1-week reference period was used to minimize recall errors. The survey also examined the reasons for choosing current fuel sources and measured the quantity of each fuel type consumed.

Structured interviews were conducted with individuals such as development agents (DAs), women, and household heads who actively harvest fuelwood from open-access forests. These interviews aimed to understand participants’ insights, feelings, thoughts, and opinions on fuelwood use. A set of structured questions guided the interviews to ensure comprehensive data collection.

Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with interested community members in each kebele. The purpose of these discussions was to gather detailed information on household energy use. Participants included representatives from agricultural development agencies, kebele administrative offices, and households that commonly produce charcoal and firewood.

Each FGD involved four households per kebele, and a prepared checklist was used to guide the discussions. The FGDs provided a platform to explore community perspectives on fuelwood consumption and other energy use patterns.

The data gathered for the study was analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative data, obtained from the survey questionnaire and direct measurements, was organized and analyzed through descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, mean, and standard deviation, to examine various socioeconomic situations.

The qualitative data, collected through personal observations and focus group discussions, was analyzed and described in narrative form by sorting and grouping the views and concepts. The quantitative data was analyzed using MS Excel (2010) and STATA version 14.2.

Fuelwood consumption measurements were conducted in February, March, and April 2021. A key consideration in these measurements was weighing solid fuels, which enables accurate estimations of consumption (FAO, 2002; Bailis et al., 2015). Weighing was chosen as a more convenient method than measuring volume, as the weight of a bundle of wood, animal dung, or crop residue can be quickly and easily determined using a spring balance. This approach is faster than estimating the gross volume of an irregularly shaped headload of fuelwood, as noted by Broadhead (2016) and Wood and Baldwin (1985).

A total of 126 households were randomly selected for household surveys across three kebeles, representing approximately 10.05% of the total households in the surveyed areas. Over a 1-week period, fuel consumption and sales were measured using a weight-survey method, with the spring balance employed by Ali and Benjaminsen (2004), United Nation Energy Program (2019), and Wangchuk (2011). Prior to this, I completed necessary training in the measurement method for collectors and survey teams.

Fuel types identified by respondents as being used daily (wood, crop residues, dung, charcoal, and kerosene) were physically measured and recorded separately. The estimated daily fuelwood consumption for each household was weighed and provided in bundles or sacks. Respondents were instructed to use only the fuelwood from the weighed bundles and sacks, based on the respective sources of fuelwood (own, forest, or market). On the following day, fuelwood consumption was calculated by subtracting the remaining weight of the fuelwood from the original weight of the bundles or sacks (Miah et al., 2009; World Bank, 2003).

To estimate the daily fuelwood sales per household within the week, respondents were asked to lay out an equivalent amount of fuelwood for the next day’s market sale. This identified bundle of wood was measured using the spring balance and recorded. Similarly, other fuels, such as animal dung, were weighed and recorded separately, based on the information provided by the respondents. For households using kerosene, the consumption was measured in liters.

To calculate annual fuelwood consumption, the weight of fuelwood consumed in 1 week was multiplied by 52 (the number of weeks in a year) (Kyaw et al., 2020).

Annual carbon emission in the study area was calculated based on clean development mechanism and United Nation framework of Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2013). Default net calorific values, emission factors and carbon storage in forests. The reason for selecting a climate parameter to assess the effects is required in order to compare and quantify the climatic impacts of different emissions (Table 1).

This methodology, based on the CDM/UNFCCC framework, allows researchers to estimate emissions with minimal data, facilitating wider adoption through tools like online worksheets. While alternative methods, such as direct measurements or region-specific emission factors, could enhance accuracy, they require extensive field data, which was not feasible for this study. The use of internationally accepted default values ensures consistency with global climate mitigation efforts but may not fully capture local variations in fuel quality and practices, introducing some uncertainty. Despite this, the CDM/UNFCCC approach offers broad applicability and comparability, making it a valuable tool for climate impact assessments (Alemayehu Zeleke and Motuma Tolera, 2019).

Equation 2: estimation of carbon dioxide E = FC × f NRB , × NCV × EF − projected − fossil fuel (2) where: E, Is emission in kg of carbon dioxide (kg of CO₂)FC, Is the quantity of Fuelwood consumed in kilo gram.f_NRB, Is the fraction of non-renewable woody biomass.NCV, Is the net calorific value of fuelwood. EF _{projected-fossil fuel}, default emission factors for all combination of species.

The survey revealed that fuelwood, including both firewood and charcoal, is the primary energy source for households, with most of it sourced from open-access natural forests. On average, each household annually extracts 2,725 kg of firewood for personal use and 3,909 kg for sale. This indicates that the volume of firewood collected for income generation significantly exceeds that gathered for household consumption. These findings contrast with Kyaw et al. (2020), who reported average annual per capita firewood consumption rates of 298 kg for households relying solely on firewood and 530 kg for those using a mix of firewood and other energy sources. The availability of electricity in the surveyed Myanmar village likely explains this discrepancy.

In total, the households surveyed removed approximately 343,356 kg of firewood annually for personal use and 492,567 kg for commercial purposes. Notably, natural forests contributed 38% of the firewood for household consumption and 55% for sales. Additionally, only 3,260 kg (0.5%) of the total fuelwood extracted was used for household charcoal production, while 65,078 kg (7%) was produced for sale. This resulted in average annual charcoal outputs of 26 kg for household use and 516.5 kg for sale.

Natural forests also provide fuelwood for significant cultural events, such as weddings and funerals (Kandel et al., 2016; Aguilar et al., 2015). On average, each household harvested 7,176.7 kg of fuelwood annually, resulting in a total annual extraction of 904,262 kg. This surpasses the average annual harvest of 700 kg reported in community forests in Dolakha, Nepal (Kandel et al., 2016). The data suggests that 66% (557,645 kg) of the fuelwood extracted is intended for sale, highlighting its role as an alternative income source, while only 34% (346,616 kg) is used for household consumption. These findings align with Sintayehu and Yemiru (2024), who observed that, based on the market value of the forest’s fuelwood; people depend on it 0.86 times more for income generation than for subsistence needs.

The evidence indicates that more than half of the harvested fuelwood is directed primarily toward financial gain, with charcoal being utilized more for commercial purposes than for household consumption (Figure 2). This suggests that the volume of fuelwood extracted for sale is a significant driver of deforestation compared to that used for personal consumption. Similar studies support this conclusion, indicating substantial annual revenues from fuelwood sales (Sintayehu and Yemiru, 2024). Therefore, it can be concluded that the primary incentive for fuelwood extraction is economic gain, corroborating the findings of Mhache (2007) and Taylor et al. (2014), who emphasize the critical role of fuelwood as an alternative income source.

In addition to forest-derived fuelwood, households in the Delanta district also rely on non-forest fuel sources, such as private trees and animal excrement (Chen et al., 2006). These alternative sources of energy help families meet their fuelwood needs for both domestic use and market sales, particularly when access to forest resources is limited. Rather than actively cutting trees for fuelwood, most households use leftover wood from construction and other activities, as well as by-products from tree management practices like thinning, lopping, and pollarding.

Annually, private trees in the surveyed households produce a total of 47,086 kg of firewood for personal use and 7,618 kg for income generation. On average, each privately owned tree yields 373.7 kg of firewood per year, with 60.5 kg being sold per household. Charcoal production from these trees averages 7.6 kg for personal consumption and 61.5 kg for sale, leading to an annual output of 962 kg and 7,748 kg of charcoal for household use and income generation, respectively. This data underscores the positive impact of encouraging individual tree planting among farmers (Mercer and Soussan, 1992).

In addition to wood-based fuels, households in the region generate an average of 2,303 kg of animal dung annually for personal use and 68 kg for sale. Key informants, development organizations, and community leaders confirmed that families depend on non-forest resources like private trees and animal dung, particularly when forests are too distant to access easily. This observation aligns with findings by Duguma et al. (2014), which showed that rural Ethiopian farmers often use cattle dung as a supplemental energy source due to a shortage of firewood.

As shown in Figure 3, dung constitutes 80% of the energy derived from internal sources, while firewood accounts for only 13%. Sintayehu and Yemiru (2024) also emphasized the significant role of animal dung in subsistence income. Notably, households located farther from forests are more likely to mix firewood with animal dung to meet their energy needs than those residing closer to forest resources. These findings suggest that promoting private tree planting could be a sustainable solution to addressing rural fuel shortages (Gebreegziabher, 2007).

As previously discussed, the primary energy sources for cooking and heating in the study area are firewood from forests and animal dung from non-forest sources. Among these, firewood remains the dominant energy source. Our findings are consistent with previous studies by Asfaw et al. (2013) and Rahut et al. (2017), which also identified firewood as the main energy source in similar regions. The sampled kebele does not rely on electricity or other modern energy sources.

The survey conducted in this study revealed that, for annual energy consumption, animal dung from non-forest areas accounted for 42% (290,149.6 kg), while firewood from forests made up 50% (343,356 kg). This aligns with the research of Sintayehu and Yemiru (2024), which highlights that, in subsistence economies, firewood from forests represents the most valuable energy source, generating a total of 686,712 Birr annually.

In addition to firewood from forests, households also used fuels like charcoal from the forest (1%, 3,260 kg) and firewood from non-forest areas (7%, 47,086 kg) for cooking and heating. However, according to key informant interviews, households prioritize utilizing trees for constructing homes and generating income from woodlots and home gardens rather than using them for fuelwood (Adanguidi et al., 2020).

On average, each household consumes 2,750 kg of fuelwood from the forest annually, with the total fuelwood consumption for the surveyed households amounting to 346,616.4 kg. This supports findings from Sintayehu and Yemiru (2024), who reported that fuelwood from forests, contributes 23.80% to the income needed for subsistence in a similar region.

In contrast, households use an average of 381 kg of fuelwood from non-forest sources annually, with the total annual consumption reaching 48,048 kg. This figure is comparable to the 2,300 kg of fuelwood consumed per household in Adaba Dodola, as noted in Alemayehu Zeleke and Motuma Tolera (2019) study. However, it is lower than the 6,500 kg of fuelwood consumed per household in Arsi Negele, as reported by Nejib Mohammed (2008). Furthermore, animal dung contributes 290,150 kg annually, making it the second-largest energy source after firewood.

Mekonnen and Köhlin (2009) also found that poorer rural households are more likely to use animal excrement as a cooking fuel. In rural Ethiopia, firewood and charcoal are generally preferred for cooking due to their relative efficiency compared to animal dung. Notably, the majority of crops grown in the study area such as beans, lentils, peas, wheat, barley, and teff are used as livestock feed rather than for energy production. As a result, crop residues are not utilized as a primary energy source. The remaining agricultural residues, mainly from sorghum and maize, are used for thatching traditional homes and as animal fodder, as confirmed by Duguma et al. (2014).

In terms of fuel usage, 98.4% of households in the study area rely on animal dung from non-forest sources, while 90.5% depend on firewood from forests. When measured by weight, forest fuelwood accounts for 51% of the total biomass consumed, with firewood contributing 50% and charcoal 1% (Figure 4). This supports the hypothesis that open-access forests contribute more significantly to household energy consumption than non-forest fuels, including private fuels from farms and other available energy sources. Thus, the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

In conclusion, Ethiopian households currently consume a disproportionate amount of biomass as their primary energy source. This finding is consistent with Maagøe’s (2023) review, which notes that 90% of household biomass is used for cooking, with 50%–75% dedicated to preparing Injera using Mitad-style stoves. However, these stoves are highly inefficient, with only 5%–10% of the biomass’s calorific content being converted into usable heat. This inefficiency highlights the challenges of fuel-efficient technologies and their contribution to direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Selling fuelwood is a year-round regular activity in Wogeltena town, with the primary source of fuelwood being the nearby open-access natural forest. According to our research, most households in the investigated area continue to rely on forest biomass, particularly fuelwood, as their primary source of income. Additionally, some households also generate income by selling other biomass-based energy sources.

Similar to the findings of Mhache (2007), our study reveals that fuelwood from the forest accounts for approximately 96% (557,645.4 kg) of the total biomass fuels used to generate cash revenue, while only 4% (23,894 kg) comes from non-forest biomass sources (Figure 5). Mhache (2007) also observed that Tanzanians were primarily motivated to produce fuelwood from forests by the desire to earn money, aligning closely with our findings.

Fuelwood selling in Wogeltena town is a persistent activity throughout the year. Development workers and kebele leaders concluded that impoverished households have limited income sources, and even when they engage in these activities, their earnings remain relatively modest. Consequently, households increasingly depend on the cash generated from selling forest-derived fuelwood. Our survey indicated that low-income households invest significant time in gathering fuelwood to meet both their home energy needs and income requirements. These households often utilize all their collected wood for heating purposes.

Fuelwood from forests in the study area serves as a vital source of employment and income generation. This finding is supported by the study of Sintayehu and Yemiru (2024), which reported that households in their sample earned a total yearly cash income of 985,135 Birr from firewood and 325,390 Birr from charcoal. In the Delanta district, fuelwood from forests contributes 40.65% to the households' relative cash income (Sintayehu and Yemiru, 2024).

Because respondents possessed only large trees on the edges of their croplands, the amount of charcoal produced from private trees was relatively small compared to firewood production. Nearly all charcoal derived from private trees was sold to generate income. However, it was disclosed by primary respondents and development agents (DAs) that most illicit charcoal producer exploit forest resources, treating them as private property for charcoal production. This highlights the prevalence of unauthorized use of forest resources for economic gain.

In conclusion, forest biomass, particularly fuelwood, remains a critical source of income for households in Wogeltena town. While alternative income sources exist, the reliance on forests underscores the urgent need for sustainable management and the development of diverse livelihood strategies to reduce dependence on natural forests for economic sustenance.