Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 195–204 | Cite as

Delineating key determinants of domestic fuelwood consumption of rural households in western Himalaya-policy implications

  • Tahir Mushtaq
  • Kamal Kishor SoodEmail author
  • Rajinder Peshin


A study was carried out in district Samba of Western Himalayan province of Jammu and Kashmir of India. The data were collected in an interview schedule in personal interview with 180 household heads. The association between the level of fuelwood consumption (low versus high consumption) and different factors, each individually, was investigated using chi-square test of association at 0.001 level of significance. It was found that out of 25 socio-economic, biophysical and alternate fuel factors, 15 factors (each individually) significantly influenced the domestic fuelwood consumption. Logistic regression models of alternate fuel use, social, economic and biophysical factors were developed to identify key variables influencing fuelwood consumption levels within each respective category. A composite model was also developed to identify key factors when all variables in all the pre-said categories were considered simultaneously. Surprisingly, in contrast to expectation the model with alternate fuel use did not provide a good fit. The biophysical model also did not provide a good fit. The economic and composite models were the same with equal level of accuracy of predication. This implies that economic aspects, rather than the availability of alternate fuels, dominate fuelwood consumption levels of rural households. Strategies to increase the exposure of the head of household to outside world needs to formulated to reduce the domestic fuelwood consumption levels. Households nearer to state forests are to be educated about efficient use of fuelwood and be encouraged to intensify use of Liquified Petroleum Gas. The wider implications of study are: the availability of alternate fuels is not a necessary condition to decrease household level domestic fuelwood consumption. Economic factors needs to be considered in designing strategies to reduce fuelwood consumption. Increased employment opportunities would increase the opportunity cost of fuelwood collection and this would reduce its use.


Social Economic Household Alternate fuel Regression 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold M, Köhlin G, Persson R (2002) Woodfuels, livelihoods and policy interventions: changing perspectives. World Development 34: 596–611. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes D, Floor D (1996) Rural energy in developing countries: a challenge for economic development. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 21: 497–530. DOI: 10.1146/ Scholar
  3. Bhagwan MR, Giriappa S (1995) Biomass energy and economics and natural differentiation in rural Southern India. Biomass and Bioenergy 8: 181–190. DOI: 10.1016/0961-9534(94)00084-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eldirdiri FE, Yahaya OA (2010) Can fuel switching from wood to liquefied petroleum gas reduce the deforestation in Sudan. Research Journal of Forestry 4: 194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans PT (1988) Designing agroforestry innovations to increase their adoptability: a case study from Paraguay. Journal of Rural Studies 4: 45–55. DOI: 10.1016/0743-0167(88)90078-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. FAO (1997) Regional Study on Wood Energy. Today and Tomorrow in Asia. Regional Wood Energy Development Programme in Asia (GCP/RAS/154/NET). Food and Agriculture Organisation, Bangkok.Google Scholar
  7. FAO (1998) Asia-pacific Forestry Towards 2010. Report of the Asia-pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.Google Scholar
  8. FAO (2010) Annual Report. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  9. FSI (Forest Survey of India) (2004) Annual Report. Forest Survey of India, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India.Google Scholar
  10. Gajendra S, Rawat GS, Deepti V (2009) Comparative Study of Fuelwood Consumption by Villagers and Seasonal Dhaba Owners in the Tourist Affected Areas of Garhwal Himalaya. Department of Habitat Ecology, Chandrabani, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, India.Google Scholar
  11. Government of Jammu and Kashmir (2011) District Samba (Jammu and Kashmir). (, accessed on 2011-02-10)Google Scholar
  12. Jensen M (1995) Wood Fuel Productivity of Agroforestry Systems in Asia. A Review of Current Knowledge. Regional Wood Development Programme in Asia. FAO, Bangkok.Google Scholar
  13. Kumar M, Sharma CM (2008) Fuelwood Consumption Pattern at Different Altitudes in Rural Areas of Garhwal Himalaya. Annual Report, Department of Forestry, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal, India.Google Scholar
  14. Marenya PP and Barett CB (2007) Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya. Food Policy 32: 515–536. DOI:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masera OR, Saatkamp BD, Kammen DM (2000) From linear fuelwood switching to multiple cooking strategies: a critique and alternative to energy ladder model. World Development 28: 2083–2103. DOI: 10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00076-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Omorah EO (2000) Household energy utilisation pattern by the Ichongu people of the TivTribe of Benue State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Forestry 1: 22–28.Google Scholar
  17. Pohekar SD, Kumar D, Ramachandran M (2005) Dissemination of cooking energy alternatives in India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9: 379–393. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2004.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rawat YS, Vishvakarma SCR, Todaria NP (2009) Fuelwood consumption pattern of tribal communities in cold desert of the Lahaul valley, North-western Himalaya, India. Biomass and Bioenergy 33: 1547–1557. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.07.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reddy SRC, Chakravarty SP (1999) Forest dependence and income distribution in a subsistence economy. Evidence from India. World Development 27: 1141–1149. DOI:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00057-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sarkar MAR, Islam SMN (1998) Rural energy and its utilisation in Bangladesh. Energy 23: 785–789. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-5442(98)00018-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saud T, Singh DP, Mandal TK, et al. (2011) Spatial distribution of biomass consumption as energy in rural areas of the Indo-Gangetic plain. Biomass and Bioenergy 35:932–941. DOI:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sharma S, Gupta NK (2005) Socio-economic Factors Associated with Fuel Consumption in Rural Areas (Rui Watershed). Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu, India.Google Scholar
  23. Sood KK (2003) Factors Affecting Tree Growing in Traditional Agroforestry Systems in Western Himalaya, India. Ph.D Thesis, Unversity of Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K.Google Scholar
  24. Sood KK, Mitchell CP (2011) Household level domestic fuelwood consumption and forest resource use in relation to agroforestry adoption: Evidence against need-based approach. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 337–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wahab M, Ahmad M, Khan N (2008) Phytosociology and dynamics of some pine forests of Afghanistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany 40: 1071–1079.Google Scholar
  26. Wamukonya L (1995) Energy consumption in three rural Kenyan households: A survey. Biomass and Bioenergy 8: 445–451. DOI: 10.1016/0961-9534(95)00037-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tahir Mushtaq
    • 1
  • Kamal Kishor Sood
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rajinder Peshin
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of AgroforestrySher-e-kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and TechnologyJammuIndia
  2. 2.Division of Agricultural Extension EducationSher-e-kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and TechnologyJammuIndia

Personalised recommendations