2.1.1. Study Area Location

Delanta district is placed in the eastern part of the Amhara region, within the South Wollo Zone (refer to Figure 1). It is bordered by Wadla and Angot districts to the north, Dawunt district to the west, Tenta district to the south, and Ambasel district to the east. Its geographical coordinates are 38°40′39″N and 11°20′11″E. The district’s primary town and central commercial hub, Wogeltena, lies about 98 km from Dessie, the central town of South Wollo Zone, and approximately 499 km northeast of Addis Ababa. From an administrative perspective, Delanta was part of the North Wollo Zone until 2000 E.C. and has been part of the South Wollo Zone since 2001 E.C. The district is made up of 30 rustic kebeles and 3 town kebeles, totaling 33 kebeles [23].

2.1.2. Topography

Delanta district spans an area of 106,017 ha, with a landscape comprised of approximately 30% flatlands, 36.5% rough landscape (known locally as gedelama), 30.5% rocky ground, and 3.5% mountainous areas. The district’s northern region is more rugged, while the west features broader plains. Elevations within Delanta range between 1900 and 3800 m above sea level. The area is adjacent to the Bashilo River, which splits it from Tenta district before eventually joining the Abay River [23].

2.1.3. Climate

The Delanta district’s climate includes several agroclimatic zones: the cool, highland “Dega”; the temperate, midaltitude “Woyna Dega”; the warm to hot, semi-arid “Kolla”; and a smaller alpine “Wurch” zone. The zone composition is approximately 26.4% Dega, 41.3% Woyna Dega, 28.5% Kolla, and 3.8% Wurch. Annual rainfall in Delanta ranges from 614.80 to 968.7 mm, averaging around 803 mm. The region experiences dual raining periods, with smaller falls occurring in March and April (spring), and heavier rains from June through September (summer). The district’s average yearly temperature ranges from 5.9°C to 19.11°C, with temperatures ranged from 21.2°C to 28°C for the maximum values between January and June, while the minimum temperatures varied from 1.6°C to 7.1°C between October and December, the coolest months [23].

2.1.4. Soil

As noted by Abate et al. [24] and the Delanta District Communication Affairs [23], the soils in Delanta district are characterized by high total porosity (46.51%–60.55%) and a predominance of heavy clay (35%–80%). They have relatively small bulk densities (1.02–1.35 g·cm³) and mineral soil particle densities (2.41–2.82 g·cm³), while exhibiting a large water-holding ability (129.9–287.9 mm·m⁻¹). The soil pH ranges from 6.25 to 8.29, reflecting slightly acidic to moderately alkaline conditions. These soils are generally low in salinity (EC < 0.5 dS·m⁻¹) and contain moderate to little ranks of carbon-based material (organic) (0.12%–4.82%) and total nitrogen (0.02%–0.28%). Available phosphorus fluctuates between 0.52 and 18.44 mg·kg⁻¹. The cation exchange capacities (CEC) of these soils are high to very high (31.98–65.48 cmolc·kg⁻¹), with ample exchangeable bases and significant base saturation (60.22%–98.97%). However, their tendency to become gluey when rainy, strengthen when dry, face waterlogging concerns, and be prone to soil loss due to unsuitable plowing cultures limit their agricultural potential. This emphasizes the need for effective and coordinated soil management strategies throughout the district.

2.1.5. Natural Vegetation

Patterns in the spread of native vegetation are influenced by multiple factors, with landscape features, weather conditions, water flow patterns, and soil characteristics being the greatest significant. In the Delanta district, vegetation cover is sparse due to a deeply rooted history in farming and dense inhabitants. The district’s shrub and tree growth includes degraded forests, woodlands, scrublands, and dispersed trees within farming areas. The remaining forests that have experienced degradation are primarily located in the district’s northern region, now reduced to mall section fewer than 1500 ha. The primary forest tree types found in these forests include Cordia, Acacia, Juniper, Eucalyptus, and Hagenia [23].

Wooded grasslands in the area consist of land with grasses and herbs interspersed with patches of woody plants, while scrublands comprise small shrubs interspersed with grasses and herbaceous plants. Additionally, isolated remnant trees are scattered across the cultivated landscapes throughout the district [23].

2.1.6. Demographic Features

As reported by CSA in 2010, Delanta district has a total population of 149,882, with 72,701 males (50.5%) and 71,181 females (49.5%). The district’s high population growth has resulted in a dense settlement on limited land, leading to recurring food shortages and environmental degradation. High population density in the area contributes to forest loss, agricultural land degradation, habitat destruction, and reduced biodiversity. Problems like land degradation and soil erosion are also prevalent.

2.1.7. Energy Sources

Conventional biomass sources like firewood, charcoal, and animal dung remain the primary energy source for rural and periurban households in the district. Modern energy sources, like electricity, remain largely inaccessible and unaffordable. Out of 33 kebeles in the district, only 4 rural and 3 urban kebeles have access to electricity, leading the community to rely heavily on fuelwood and animal dung for household energy needs. This situation underscores the importance of tapping into alternative energy sources to provide an adequate energy supply for society (Delanta District Communication Affairs Office).

Connecting all kebeles to the national electricity grid, largely powered by hydropower, has proven challenging due to the country’s rugged terrain, which significantly raises distribution costs to remote areas. As a result, firewood extraction and charcoal production from montane forests have substantial economic impacts.

2.2.1. Sampling

The Delanta district was chosen for the study because it is recognized as a region with forest resources within the zone that is experiencing notable forest and land degradation. The sampling procedure followed for this study was multistage sampling. Accordingly, first out of 32 total kebeles in the Delanta district, three kebeles were randomly selected, namely, Mesnoamba (01), Goshmeda (019), and Mistinkir kebeles (018).

The required sample of each kebele could be obtained proportion by using the next method and described in Table 1.

nh = (N^∗/Nh)(n), in which nh is size of sample each rural kebele, N^∗ = total population of each kebele to be taken whereas Nh is size of total population [25].

nh1 (from the 019 kebele) = (438/1452)(126) = 38, nh2 (from the 01 kebele) = (461/1452)(126) = 40, and nh3 (from the 018 kebele) = (553/1452)(126) = 48.

2.2.2. Key Informant (KI) Selection

This research identifies KIs as the primary source of information. These individuals, experts in fuelwood collection, are knowledgeable about its economic importance for household livelihoods in the study area. The participants were chosen using the snowball sampling technique [26].

During the village survey, the first farmer was randomly prompted to list various KIs. Among the listed candidate KIs, the only one was selected at each village to make KIs for the entire investigation. A whole of 12 KIs as a whole were selected. In this technique, each person gives multiple referrals; however, only one person is recruited randomly from each referral.

2.3.1. Household Survey

A structured questionnaire was designed to obtain data on available fuel sources. Questionnaires containing both close-ended (single response) and open-ended (multiple responses) were prepared (Appendix 3). Before administering questionnaires, orientations were given for the household head that are randomly selected. The questionnaires were initially created in English and then translated into Amharic language for the respondents. In light of the study purpose, a survey containing two sections, namely, household characteristics and sources of domestic energy use and sale.

The household characteristic section of the questionnaire helped to collect evidence on the energy section was used to find information on the sources of each of the major fuels used, the distance traveled to gather commercial and noncommercial fuels, and the person responsible for obtaining each fuels. For traditional fuels, the reference period was 1 week to minimize recall errors. The reason for the reliance on fuel sources currently in use and the amount to the fuel consumed by them was investigated.

2.3.2. Key Respondent Interviews

Interviews were carried out with selected individuals, including personnel from developmental agencies (DAs), women, and heads of households who primarily collect fuelwood from open-access forests (Appendix 4). The aim was to gain insights into their thoughts, feelings, perspectives, and viewpoints. The research involved structured interviews designed to collect data from the respondents (Appendix 4).

2.3.3. Focus Group Discussions

Discussions in focus groups were organized engaging with members of the community in respective kebele. The goal of the FGDs was to gather full information regarding household energy usage from various community groups. Key participants included representatives from the rural DA, local organizational bodies, and families that regularly harvest charcoal and firewood. These discussions aimed to obtain comprehensive data on fuelwood consumption and other energy practices. Each focus group comprised four households from the respective kebeles, and discussions were guided using a prepared checklist (Appendix 5).

2.4.1. Household Survey Data Analysis

The study’s data were analyzed using a combination of qualitative and quantitative systems. Information gathered via survey questionnaires and direct measurements was organized and investigated employing descriptive statistics, including frequencies, proportions, means, and standard deviations, to assess various socioeconomic conditions. Data found from direct observations and focus group discussions were analyzed and presented narratively by categorizing and synthesizing different viewpoints and ideas. Quantitative data were examined using MS Excel [27] and STATA version 14.2.

2.4.2. Measurement of Fuel Consumption and Sales

Fuelwood consumption was measured during February, March, and April of 2021. An essential aspect of measuring fuelwood is weighing solid fuels, which facilitates accurate consumption estimations [28, 29]. Weight measurements provide a more practical means of determining solid volumes, as it is quicker and easier to weigh bundles of wood, animal dung, and crop residues using a spring balance than to estimate the volume of irregularly shaped headloads of fuelwood [30, 31].

An overall number of 126 random selections of households were made from three kebeles for the household surveys, representing approximately 10.05% of all households in the surveyed kebeles. The quantity of fuel utilized and sold over a 24-h timeframe was recorded for one week using a weight survey method with a spring balance, following training in measurement techniques for collectors or survey teams [32–34].

Fuel types identified by respondents as being used daily such as wood products, crop waste, animal waste, charcoal, and kerosene were physically and distinctly measured and documented. The bundles were weighed and sent to each participating home with instructions to use only the measured resources, depending on the projected daily fuelwood requirement for each household as indicated by the responses given by the participants. as well as bags from designated fuel sources (own, forest, and market) (Appendix 2). On the next day, fuelwood consumption values were derived by subtracting the weight of remaining fuelwood from the initial weight of the bundles or sacks provided [13, 35].

To calculate the average daily fuelwood consumption per household over 1 week, respondents were asked to display an amount of fuelwood equivalent to what they had used the previous day for market sale the following morning. The designated bundles were measured using a spring scale and recorded on the datasheet. Similarly, other fuels, including animal dung for consumption and sale, were weighed and documented based on respondents’ indications during interviews. For households using kerosene, it was measured in liters. Overall, the annual fuelwood consumption was estimated by multiplying the weekly fuelwood weight by the number of weeks in a year (52) [36].

2.4.3. Estimation of CO₂ Emissions

The annual carbon emissions for the study area were estimated based on the guidelines set by the UNFCCC [37] (Appendix 1). This calculation utilized default net calorific values, emission factors, and carbon storage data from forests (Table 2). The selection of climate parameters for evaluation was essential for comparing and quantifying the climatic impacts of various emissions.

3.1.1. Characteristics of the Households

Approximately 23.81% of the 126 heads of households in the sample were women. The respondents’ ages varied between 22 and 85 years, with the average age being 47 years. Of the household members, 5.56%, 66.67%, 12.7%, and 15.08% were single, married, widowed, and divorced, respectively. Households had a minimum of two family members, a maximum of eight, and an average of four. The proportion of respondents who were illiterate was 59.52%, surpassing the 18.25% who could read and write. Conversely, 17.46% and 4.76% of the households had received at least some formal education. The percentage of respondents receiving awareness services was relatively low at 36.57%, while 26.19% were more informed; the remainder, 17.46% and 19.84%, were either somewhat aware or completely unaware.

3.1.2. Members of the Family Involved in Collecting Fuelwood

Responses indicate that both genders share the responsibility of collecting fuelwood. Specifically, 35% of participants reported that mothers and daughters are the primary individuals who consistently gather firewood from the forests. Conversely, 32% of respondents noted that fathers and sons also play a significant role in producing and transporting charcoal and firewood to earn cash income. Additionally, 33% of participants stated that both males and females, irrespective of their income levels, contribute to generating income by collecting and selling fuelwood while also meeting the household’s energy requirements. This research corroborates the findings of Sintayehu and Yemiru [39], which suggest that women predominantly handle the collection of firewood. Consequently, women face challenges in traveling long distances to gather wood, as this task demands considerable time and energy, diverting them from their extensive household duties. The key distinction is that women and girls tend to make informed decisions about energy usage and are often involved in kitchen work.

3.2.1. Energy Sources Extracted From Forest

The survey found that the most common energy source for households is fuelwood (charcoal and firewood), which is gathered from open-access forests in their natural state. For use and sale, each household removed an average of 2725 kg and 3909 kg, of firewood annually from the forest, respectively. This indicates the firewood collected for sale or income generation is greater than firewood collected for household use. This contrasts markedly with the findings of Kyaw, Ota, and Mizoue [36], which reported average yearly fuelwood consumption per individual of 298 kg for households relying solely on firewood and 530 kg for those using both fuelwood and other energy bases. The presence of electricity in the studied village in Myanmar explains the differences observed in these studies.

In other way of explanation, a total of 343,356 kg and 492,567 kg of firewood were taken out of the forest each year by the tested households for household use and for sale, respectively. Figure 2 illustrates that 38% and 55% of the entire quantity of firewood needed for residential use and commercial sales, respectively, is covered by natural forests. Also, Figure 2 displays that from the total fuelwood extracted from the forest, 3260 kg (0.5%) and 65,078 kg (7%) of charcoal produced annually, for the tested household consumption and income generation, respectively. As a result, the average yearly amount of charcoal generated from the forest per household was 26 kg for consumption and 516.5 kg for income generation.

Natural forests are also very beneficial to user groups because they may supply fuelwood for special events like weddings, funerals, and other social and cultural rites [41, 44]. The average yearly amount of fuelwood harvested from the forest per household was 7176.7 kg or 7.1767 tons, while the total annual amount extracted from the forest was 904,262 kg or 904.262 tons. Because electric power was accessible in Nepal, this result exceeded the average yearly amount of fuelwood harvested from the community forest in Dolakha, Nepal [44], which is 700 kg.

From the above expression, we can decide that 66% of fuelwood extracted from the forest is used for sale and serves as an alternate means of income generation, while 34% of fuelwood is used for household consumption in the study area. The findings of this study bring into line with those reported by Sintayehu and Yemiru [39], who found that, according to the forest’s fuelwood’s market value, people depended on it more than 0.86 times more for the production of cash than for their subsistence needs.

As a result, over half of the fuelwood that is harvested from forests for use in generating financial income comes from the production of firewood (Figure 2). However, even though charcoal makes up a minor part of all extraction, it is mostly employed to generate cash gain rather than for household consumption. So the alternative hypothesis is accepted as the amount of fuelwood from the forest available for sale and serving as an alternate means of income generation is a major contributor to deforestation than fuelwood available for household consumption in the study area. This is supported by another study conducted in a similar study area, which found that the forest produced 1,310,524.8 ETB of fuelwood annually and 703,014 ETB of fuelwood annually for both financial and subsistence use [39].

Therefore, people’s primary source of income was fuelwood from the forest, and they also made money by selling firewood and charcoal. This reveals that the primary motivator behind the removal of fuelwood from forests is income. This aligns with the results of Mhache [4] and Taylor, Akther, and Miah [45], which highlight the significant importance of fuelwood as a supplementary income source.

3.2.2. Energy Sources Other Than Forest

Households in the Delanta district also generate energy from private trees and animal excrement that is available for consumption and the generation of financial income (Figure 3). According to Chen Heerink and van den Berg [2], these energy sources are referred to as nonforest fuels. In this instance, the respondent can meet their fuelwood demands for domestic use and market sales because they have a private garden, woodlot, animal dung, and cropland with dispersed trees. Nevertheless, most of the households involved in the study do not engage in tree chopping, particularly for fuelwood consumption; instead, they only use the leftover wood from items like building materials and lumber. Additionally, they gather the results of thinning, lopping, and pollarding.

The total yearly firewood production from private trees or plantations in the tested households was 47,086 kg for household consumption and 7618 kg for generating monetary income, respectively. An owned tree yielded an average of 373.7 kg of firewood per year, of which 60.5 kg was sold and used by each home. Another fuelwood made from one’s own trees is charcoal. The average yearly production of charcoal from a household’s own tree was 7.6 kg for consumption and 61.5 kg for sale. This indicates that 962 kg and 7748 kg of charcoal, respectively, were produced annually from private trees in the tested houses for consumption and income creation. This suggests that encouraging individual farmers to plant trees has yielded some astounding results [46]. Additionally, the average annual amount of animal dung per household was 2303 kg for household consumption and 68 kg for income creation. KIs, development organizations, and kebele leaders all contend that families generate fuel from nonforest or private trees as well as animal excrement when forests are too far away from homes to gather fuelwood. This research reinforces the findings of Duguma et al. [47], indicating that rural Ethiopian farmers are compelled to rely on exploring cow dung as a suitable energy source due to a lack of fuelwood.

As shown below in Figure 3, dung makes up 80% of the energy from internal sources, with firewood coming in as a distant second (13%). This is in line with a study by Sintayehu and Yemiru [39] on animal dung, which covers a significant amount of subsistence income (290,149.60) when compared to income from energy sources that are found in nonforests. Consequently, individuals residing farther from the forest tended to use firewood combined with animal dung more often than those living in or near the forest to fulfill their energy requirements.

Consequently, private tree planting seems to be the most reliable way to address the issue of rural fuel [48].

3.2.3. Relative Contribution of Forest Fuelwood for Household Fuel Consumption

As we have already covered, the respondents’ main energy sources used for food preparation and warming the home are animal dung from nonforest sources and firewood from forests. Firewood from the forest remains the mandatory source of energy for consumption in the study areas among the other energy sources used by families [49, 50], and our study was comparable. The sampled kebele does not use electricity or other contemporary energy sources as a source of energy. The study’s weight survey also showed that, for annual consumption, the proportions of animal dung from nonforest areas and firewood from forests were 42% (290,149.6 kg) and 50% (343,356 kg), respectively. This is in line with research by Sintayehu & Yemiru [39], which examines how, in the situation of subsistence income, firewood from the forest has the highest value of energy sources, bringing in a total of 686,712 Birr annually.

The household also had access to energy resources for food preparation and warmth, including charcoal from the forest and firewood from nonforest areas, with corresponding contributions of 1% (3260 kg) and 7% (47,086 kg). Households prioritize using their trees for constructing and generating monetary income from wood lots, home gardens, and lands rather than using them for fuelwood consumption, according to data from KI interviews [51].

Each household uses 2750 kg (2.75 tons) of fuelwood from the forest annually on average, and the total amount of fuelwood utilized for consumption by the studied households is 346,616.4 kg. Thus, this study is supported by the finding that fuelwood from forests provides 23.80% of the income needed for subsistence, which was also examined in a study region that is similar to that reported in Sintayehu and Yemiru’s [39] study.

On the other hand, the average yearly amount of fuelwood from nonforest sources used for consumption is 381 kg, whereas the total annual amount used for consumption was 48,048 kg. As a result, the amount of fuelwood consumed in the Delanta district is equivalent to the 2.3 tons in Adaba Dodola, according to research done in 2019 by Alemayehu Zeleke and Motuma Tolera. However, this figure pales in comparison with the 6.5 tons of fuelwood consumed per home in Arsi Negele, as reported by Nejib [52]. Furthermore, 290,150 kg of animal excrement was consumed annually. This indicates that, after fuelwood, animal dung is the second-largest source of energy that may be consumed.

Mekonnen and Köhlin [42] also discovered that more impoverished rural households than any other group cook with animal excrement. In rural Ethiopia, firewood and charcoal are also comparatively better fuels for cooking. Due to the predominance of grass crops in the research area, including beans, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), lentils, teff (Eragrostis tef Zucc.), peas, and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), which are primarily utilized as livestock feed rather than for energy production, crop residues are not utilized as an energy source in this region.

The remaining agricultural residues, primarily from sorghum and maize, are utilized as thatch for the traditional homes the community builds and as animal fodder. This investigation supports the investigation of Duguma et al. [47]. Approximately 98.4% and 90.5% of families selected animal dung from nonforest sources and firewood from forests, respectively, as their primary fuel source. However, when comparing the measured weight of the energy sources, forest fuelwood constitutes 51% of the total amount of biomass fuels consumed, with firewood accounting for 50% and charcoal for 1% (Figure 4).

So, the study proves that the hypothesis to be tested is that the relative contribution of open-access forests to households’ total energy use is greater than nonforest fuels including private fuels, from the farm and other forms of energy available in the household. The alternative hypothesis is accepted. In overall, we draw the conclusion that Ethiopian households now consume a disproportionate amount of biomass as their major energy source. This is supported by the review of Viegand [53]; 90% of household biomass is used for cooking, with 50%–75% of that amount going toward using Mitad-style stoves to prepare Injera. Merely 5%–10% of the biomass’s calorific content is converted into usable heat during the cooking process on a biomass stove, which makes it incredibly inefficient. This indicates that there are important drawbacks, especially in the context of fuel-efficient technology regarding the direct release of GHGs.

3.2.4. Relative Contribution of Forest Fuels for Sale

Selling fuelwood is a year-round regular activity in Wogeltena town. The village gets its fuelwood from the nearby open-access natural forest. Based on our findings, the majority of households in the studied region persisted in depending on forest biomass, specifically fuelwood, as their main source of income. However, some households also made money by selling other energy sources (biomass fuels).

Similar to the study of [4], this study found that fuelwood from the forest accounted for approximately 96% (557,645.4 kg) of the biomass fuels available for the generation of cash revenue. Just 4% (23,894 kg) of biomass energy can be used to generate monetary revenue from areas that are not forests (Figure 5). This is consistent with the result of Mhache [4], which investigates Tanzanians were primarily motivated to produce fuelwood from the forest by the desire to make money.

Selling fuelwood in Wogeltena town is a frequent activity year-round. The development workers and leaders of the kebele came to the conclusion that the impoverished people’s sources of income are quite limited and that even when they do engage in these activities, their earnings are still relatively modest. These factors lead households to become more dependent on the cash income generated from trading in fuelwood harvested from the woodland.

The poll also showed that gathering fuelwood to meet home energy demands took a lot of time for those with low incomes. Individuals with low incomes would constantly gather fuelwood, using all of their electricity for heating. In the area under investigation, fuelwood from the forest is employed as sources of work opportunities and income generating. This research is underpinned by the findings of Sintayehu and Yemiru [39], who reported that the yearly cash income derived from firewood and charcoal for the sampled household’s amounts to 985,135 Birr and 325,390 Birr, respectively. In the Delanta district, fuel wood from the forest accounts for 40.65% of the households’ aggregate monetary income [39].

Because the respondents only had large trees on the edge of their crops, the amount of charcoal created from their own trees was relatively little when compared to the amount of firewood produced from those same trees. Nearly all of the charcoal produced by private trees might be sold to generate income. The primary respondent and the DA disclosed that most illicit charcoal producers use the forest as their private trees for charcoal production, thanks to their rights to charcoal from their own trees.