|
Ethnobotanical Leaflets 14: 841-55. 2010.
Household
Firewood Consumption and its Dynamics in Kalisizo
Sub-County, Central
Uganda
Agea Jacob Godfrey1*, Kirangwa Denis1, Waiswa Daniel2 and Okia Clement Akais1
1Department of Community Forestry
& Extension
2Department of Forest
Management
Faculty of Forestry & Nature
Conservation, Makerere
University,
P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda.
E-mails: agea@forest.mak.ac.ug, j.agea@yahoo.com
Issued: August 1,
2010
Abstract
This study examined
household firewood consumption and its dynamics in Kalisizo sub-county of Rakai
district, central Uganda.
Fifty households were selected and administered with semi-structured questionnaires
to determine the preferred tree/shrub species for firewood and the
socio-economic dynamic of firewood consumption in the households. Direct
measurements were made to quantify the daily amount of firewood consumed by
the households. Questionnaire responses were analyzed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), while the volume of firewood consumed per
household was computed. Findings indicated a very strong positive
correlation (R2 = 0.919) between a household family sizes and the volume of firewood
consumed per day. On average, a household with a family size of about seven
persons consumed 1.56 m3 of firewood daily. The most preferred
tree and shrub species for firewood were Sesbania sesban (85%), Eucalyptus
sp. (83%), Calliandra calothyrsus (73%), Ricinus communis (68%)
and Ficus natalensis (63%). Most of the species were reported to have
good combustion characteristics. Firewood collectors covered 8 to 12 km and spent
4 to 6 hours daily to gather firewood, and on average many households
collected 4 to 6 headloads of firewood per week. Most people preferred
smaller diameter (13–56 mm) pieces of firewood, as they are easy to cut and
transport as headloads. All the households interviewed said they occasionally
buy firewood especially during rainy seasons and most (92%) of them spend up
to UGX 200,000 (US $ 100) per year on firewood.
Ninety percent of households made two fires (traditional three-stone fire)
per day and 80% prepared two meals per day. There is a need for continued
sensitization of household members about fire management in traditional
three-stone fire cooking stoves to reduce firewood consumption and waste.
Studies have shown that efficiency of a three-stone fire cooking stoves can
be quite high if the fire is closely tended and managed. Use of energy saving
stoves should also be promoted to save the already scarce firewood. There is
also a need for continued encouragement of households to establish their own
woodlots in order to reduce the burden of firewood collection on women and
children. Lastly, there is a
need to quantify opportunity costs foregone by household members involved in
firewood collection to give a better picture of the overall dynamic of
firewood in rural household economies.
Key words: Fuelwood,
woodfuel, biomass energy, cooking, tree preferences, Uganda.
Introduction
The main use of the world’s wood is not as building materials or paper,
but as fuel. It is a pattern both ancient and modern, and one that is not
likely to change in the next several decades (Matthews,
2000). Today, hundreds of millions of people remain completely reliant
upon wood for energy and cannot anticipate any rapid transition to other
energy sources. In fact, woodfuels are the world’s most important form of
non-fossil energy burning (FAO 1999). It occupies enviable place for
providing many people, especially the poor and rural households, with a
primary source of energy (Leach and Mearns 1988; Eberhard 1990; Hall 1994; Delali et al. 2004).
Of the 4.4 billion cubic meters (m³) of wood harvested in 1996, close to half
(1.9 billion m³) are burned for cooking or to provide heat, or are used to
make charcoal for later burning (FAO 1999). Leach and Mearns (1988) estimated
that 79% of the total traditional energy consumed in developing countries is
fuelwood and between 60% and 69% of this is in sub-Saharan Africa.
Wood consumed annually for fuel energy in sub-Saharan Africa
increased from 1,500 million m3
to 3,500 million m3
between 1950 and 1990 (Durning 1991).
In India
for instance, an estimated 70% of the energy requirement is met by fuelwood
collected from forests and marginal lands (MEF 1996). In parts of the
Himalaya per capita annual fuelwood consumption ranged between 500 and 1200
kg (Metz
1990). The natural forests of Siloti and Chanoti in the Himalayas
supports 70% and 80% of the two villages respectively, for their fuelwood
needs (Tewari et al. 2003). In Africa, highly efficient energy
resources like kerosene or liquid gas are rare and expensive. Therefore,
firewood and charcoal will most likely be major energy resources in the
coming decades (Pak 2005). Charcoal has lower transport costs per unit energy
and higher energy content per tonne but it is produced inefficiently, so that
the scarcity of energy resources is even increased if it is switched from
fuelwood to charcoal. The social aspects of the household also influence the
efficiency of use of firewood and charcoal. The fireplace is an important
location in the social life. In regions where plenty of fuelwood is
available, people like to keep the fire a bit longer than is needed only for
cooking (Pak 2005). To sit around the fire is as common in Africa
as in many other cultures.
In Uganda, firewood is the most significant
source of energy, and the majority of the people employ it for domestic use
and small-scale industries, e.g. brick and tile making, agro processing and
fish processing (Forestry Department 1992; NEMA 1998, Tabuti et al. 2003). In urban areas people use charcoal more
than firewood. At present because of national energy crisis,
demand/consumption for firewood in Uganda is estimated to be growing
at a rate of 3% per annum (MEMD 2007). From the historical trend of fuelwood use, it is
apparent that there are multifaceted dimensions to utilization rather than
from economic perspectives only. The dimensions include livelihood options
and strategies. Any disruption in availability and use of wood for fuel
energy could render marginalized households vulnerable to livelihood
insecurity (Tabuti et al. 2003). This
is likely to impact on other activities of the household (e.g., division of
labour, cooking and heating, other resource use and allocation).
Alternatively, any changes in most household activities could as well impact
on the use of wood for fuel energy. Subsequently, problems associated with
fuelwood consumption cannot be treated in isolation of diversified portfolios
of households.
Although fuelwood use
has been discussed in literature on world development in recent years (e.g. DFID
2002; World Bank 2002; Tabuti et al. 2003, Fisher
2004; Kohlin and Amacher 2006; Arnold et al. 2006), such literatures cannot be generalised;
diversity is the rule and the only valid information comes from specific data
on local conditions (Leach and Mearns 1988; Madubansi
and Shackleton 2007). For
the case of Kalisizo sub-county
of Rakai district,
where many families depend on firewood for cooking and other domestic energy
requirement, little is known of household woodfuel consumption and its
dynamics. This study therefore, examined the household firewood consumption
and its dynamics in Kalisizo sub-county
of Rakai district, central Uganda.
It specifically determined the amount of firewood used by the average
household family size, tree species preference for firewood and the
socio-economic dynamic of firewood consumption.
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study
was conducted in Kalisizo
sub-county, Kyotera
County in Rakai
district. The sub-county is located in the central part of Uganda, about 200 Km from Kampala city. It lies between longitudes 31°E and 32°E, and
latitudes 0°S and 1°S (UDIH 2005). The sub-county is situated within a
modified equatorial climatic zone with high temperatures. There
is a relatively dry season around January and February and another in June,
July and in August. However, these dry periods are occasionally mitigated by
a few light falls (UDIH
2005). The topography is characterised by a rolling landscape with
occasionally rocky hills in some areas. Over 75% of the soils are
ferralitic- representing an almost final stage of weathering with little or
no mineral reserve left with exception of some heavy clay varieties (REBR 2000). The vegetation is
mainly savanna grassland with many thickets of Acacia species (REBR 2000).
The major economic activity and livelihood source for the majority of
the inhabitants in area is
subsistence agriculture.
Study procedure
The sub-county was stratified into seven
parishes. Two parishes (Kakoma and Matale)
were then randomly selected. In each parish, a convenient sample of 25
households was selected, making a total of 50 households. Convenience sampling
is a non-probability sampling technique where subjects are selected because
of their convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher (Hultsch
2002). The technique is fast, inexpensive, easy and the subjects are readily
available. Prior to the main survey, the sub-county
and parish chiefs were contacted for permission to carry out research in
their area of control.
Questionnaires consisting of a mixture of open- and close-ended
questions were administered in face-to-face interviews conducted sometimes in
the local language. The
major items covered in the questionnaires included
the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, tree species
preferred for firewood and the socio-economic dynamics of firewood
consumption. Responses were coded and analysed using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The quantity of firewood consumed by the household was measured over a
period of 24 hours. The length (l) and the diameter (d) of individual pieces
of the firewood in the bundle that was used on a daily basis were measured
using a tape.
The volume of each
piece of the firewood in the bundle was calculated using the formula:
V = (pd2l)/4
(Wood and Wiant 1993) and then averaged.
The bundle was then
left in the kitchen of each household with instructions to cook with wood
only from the bundle. On the next day the authors returned to each household
and the remaining wood were measured to calculate the actual consumption per
day. Volume of firewood used daily by the household was regressed against the
household family size.
Results and
Discussion
Socio-demographic characteristics
of the respondents
The socio-demographic
characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. The majority
(93%) of the respondents were females because most men shied away from
answering questions about firewood. Men believed that women were the ones that
could best answer questions about firewood use because they are the one who
cook. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents were married, 28% were widowed
and 15% were divorced. Majority (67%) of the respondents were more than 40
years old. Large percentages (70%) of the respondents were educated at least
up to primary level of education. Ninety-three percent were peasant farmers
and 52% had an average family size of seven people.
Quantity of firewood consumed
daily by the households in Kalisizo sub-county
The individual pieces
of firewood in the headload bundles gathered for daily household domestic
energy requirements were small and ranged from 0.33 m to 2.32 m in length,
and from 13 mm to 56 mm in diameter. The number of pieces of firewood in an
adult headload bundle ranged from 28 to 60 pieces depending on the size of
the pieces. The volume of the firewood used on a daily basis varied from 0.30
m3 to 3.01 m3 depending on the size of the household,
with an average volume of 1.56 m3 for an average household family
size of seven persons. There was a very strong positive correlation (R2 = 0.919) between the
household family size and
the volume of firewood consumed per day (Figure 1).
Preferred tree/shrub species for firewood by
households in Kalisizo sub-county
When asked about their preferred tree/shrub species for firewood, most
respondents provided a list of about 3 to 4 species. The most popular species
mentioned was Sesbania
sesban, desired
by 85% of the respondents. Next in
importance was Eucalyptus
spp., with 83%, followed by Calliandra
calothyrsus (73%), Ricinus communis (68%), Ficus natalensis (63%)
and Mangifera indica (58%) (Table 2). Some of the species (e.g. Mangifera
indica and Ficus natalensis)
were said to possess good combustion characteristics (e.g. produce
quality fire with hot flame, produce less smoke and burn for a longer period)
and were multipurpose in use. Mango fruits (Mangifera indica) are eaten and sold for cash while
the bark of Mutuba tree (Ficus natalensis) is used for making bark cloth. Similarly, Calliandra calothyrsus, Leucaena leucocephala, and Sesbania sesban in addition
to its use as firewood, were credited for their beneficial roles as fodder
crops for livestock and for improving soil fertility. However, some of the species such as ‘Musasa’ (Sapium ellipticum) which burns
for a long time with strong embers and hot flames, were said to the very
difficult to find.
Socio-economic dynamic of firewood
consumption in Kalisizo sub-county
Time spent by household members on collecting
firewood varied from one to nine hours but majority (66%) of the household
members spent on average 4 to 6 hours for a return journey (Table 3). Most
(72%) household members often travel long distances (return journey) of from
eight to 12 kilometers to collect firewood. Very few (18%) traveled less than
8 km in search for firewood. Number of headloads of firewood collected per
week varied from one to ten, with the majority (64%) of households collecting
4 to 6 headloads per week. All the households interviewed said they
occasionally buy firewood especially during rainy seasons. Most (92%) of
these households spend up to UGX 200,000 (US $ 100)
per year on firewood. The number of fires made and the number of meals
prepared per day were virtually identical. Ninety percent
of households made two fires per day and 80% prepared two meals per day.
Fourteen percent of the households ate three cooked meals and yet only 4% of
them made three fires per day (Figure 2). Only 6% of the households made one
fire per day and prepared only one meal a day.
In Uganda,
over 90% of energy used for domestic activities is fuelwood in the form of
firewood and charcoal (MWLE 2001). In the current
study, the average household of seven persons consumed 1.56 m3 of
firewood daily, and there
was a strong positive correlation between the household family size and the volume of firewood
consumed per day. Generally, large household family size is naturally
expected to increase firewood consumption because of increased energy demand
and increased labour available for firewood collection. Most households collected smaller diameter (13–56 mm) pieces firewood similar to that (15–45 mm diameter) reported by Gandar (1983)
for over 80% of the firewood collected in southern Africa. Most firewood
collectors’ preferred smaller diameter pieces of firewood, as they are easy to
cut and light to carry, so a fairly large quantity (headload) can be taken
per trip. In Malawi, there is also a report (Abbot and Homewood, 1999) that
most women prefers to gather small sized trees for firewood because they are
easy and less tiresome to carry as headloads. Similarly, in Ciskei region
of southern Africa, Bembridge and Tarlton
(1990) reported the preference of smaller pieces of firewood by gatherers as
it tends to suit the traditional method of making fires.
Most respondents in the present study were found to be conversant about
the tree/shrub species they prefer for firewood in terms of their combustible
characteristics. Some preferred species (e.g. Ficus natalensis, Acacia hockii, Ricinus communis and Combretum spp.) were
indigenous while others (e.g. Calliandra calothyrsus and Eucalyptus spp.) were
introduced (exotic), although most of them have already become naturalized in
the study area. Elsewhere,
Yikii et al. (2006) also reported preference a mixture of exotic (e.g.
Eucalyptus spp.) and indigenous
species (e.g. Combretum mole and Combretum collinum) for firewood by tobacco
growing households in northwestern Uganda. FAO (1984), attributed
peoples’ preference for indigenous species to most exotic tree species for
firewood to their slow combustion rates, which results in much heat. This
claim was also evident from the present study, where most indigenous species
such as Ficus natalensis and Mangifera indica were credited for
having good combustible characteristics such as production of quality fires
and ability to burn for longer periods. The high preference of exotic species
like Calliandra calothyrsus
and Leucaena leucocephala by the households could perhaps be
due to the impact of Vi-Agroforestry Project that operates in Masaka and
Rakai districts, promoting the use of multipurpose tree species in local
farming systems.
In the African Sahel,
it has been reported that household members especially women walk up to 10 km
or three hours per day to gather fuelwood (Bukh 1979). In Niger, village women were said to
spend about four hours every day gathering wood (Arnold and Jongma 1977). In
the present study, most firewood collectors covered 8 to 12 kilometers
or spent 4 to 6 hours for two-way trip to gather firewood and on average many
households collected 4 to 6 headloads of firewood per week. Aluma (1987)
reported that women in rural areas of Uganda walked 4 to 10 km or spent
2 to 6 hours per day in search for firewood. Preference of certain
trees/shrubs to others for firewood in itself increases the walking distance
and time involved, but most women would rather walk longer distance rather
than take any dead wood they come across. However, the long time and distance
travel to gather firewood has other has implications. First, most women
interviewed complained about pains in their back, chest, neck and shoulders
after making such long journeys. Secondly, the long time and trips to collect
firewood by women induces neglect of children at home, meals are skipped, the
sick ones are not adequately taken care of and the school is not regularly
attended as older children either accompany their mothers in search for
firewood or are assigned to take care of the young ones and other domestic
chores. The need to spend cash to buy firewood at certain times of the year
especially the rainy seasons when there is little time to collect firewood
because of too much rain and demanding farm work, is also forcing some poorer
households to cut down on other vital expenses such as education, clothes and
variety in food (balanced diet).
Most households were also observed to be cooking on the traditional
three-stone fire stoves, in which more firewood were burned than necessarily
required in the cooking process. The fires was maintained by pushing at least
three pieces firewood into the hot ashes and, according to the heat
requirements, are pushed further in (more heat) or pulled out partly (less heat).
However, much of the heat generated is often wasted because the cooking is
usually done in open. The number of fires made and
the number of meals prepared per day were generally identical except in a
few cases where households ate more cooked
meals and than the fires made per day. Where more meals than fires were
prepared, it was assumed that the family had some cold meals.
The scarcity of firewood in study area was eminent from the average
distance traveled by collectors in search of firewood. Therefore, there is a
need to sensitize the rural household members about fire management in their
predominantly used traditional three-stone cooking stoves as one way of
reducing firewood consumption and waste. Studies have shown that the
efficiency of a three-stone cooking stoves can be quite high if the fire is
closely tended and managed (Dewees 1989). Community based organizations and
local governments at parish level could take a lead in this endeavor. Use of
energy saving stoves should also be encouraged in order to save the already
scarce firewood. There is also a need for continued encouragement of
individual households to establish their own woodlots in order to reduce the
burden of firewood collection on women and children. Lastly, there is a need to quantify of
opportunity costs (e.g. farm work by women and school going time by
children) foregone by
household members involved in firewood collection. Quantification of
these opportunities costs could perhaps give a better and realistic picture
of the overall dynamic and contribution of firewood in rural household
economies.
References
Abbot, J.I.O. and Homewood, K. 1999. A
history of change: Causes of miombo woodland decline in a protected area in Malawi.
J. Appl. Ecol., 36: 422- 433.
Aluma, R.W.J. 1987. Uganda’s
energy crisis: a case study of firewood and charcoal consumption. Kampala, Uganda.
Arnold, J.E.M. and Jongma,
J.H. 1977. Fuelwood and charcoal in
developing countries. Unasylva, 29 (118): 2-9.
Arnold, J.E.M., Köhlin, G. and Persson, R. 2006. Woodfuels,
livelihoods, and policy interventions: Changing Perspectives. World Devel., 34 (3): 596–611.
Bembridge, T.J. and
Tarlton, J.E. 1990. Woodfuel in Ciskei: a headload study. South African Forest
Journal, 154: 88–93.
Bukh, J. 1979. Village women
in Ghana.
Centre for Development Research, Scandinavian Inst. African Studies, Uppsala.
Delali, B.K.D.,
Witkowski1, E.T.F. and Shackleton, M.C. 2004. The fuelwood crisis in southern
Africa – relating fuelwood use to
livelihoods in a rural village. GeoJournal,
60: 123–133.
Dewees, P.A. 1989. The
woodfuel crisis reconsidered: observations on the dynamics of abundance and
scarcity. World Devel., 17 (8):
1173–1202.
DFID. 2002. Energy for
the poor: Underpinning the millennium development goals. Department for
International Development, London. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/energyforthepoor.pdf
Accessed 15 May 2009.
Durning, A. 1991. Saving
the forests: what will it take? Worldwatch Paper 117. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC.
Eberhard, A.A. 1990. Energy
consumption patterns and supply problems in underdeveloped areas of South Africa.
Devel. Southern
Africa 7: 335–346.
FAO. 1984. Understanding tree uses in farming system. Workshop on
planning fuelwood projects with participation of the rural people. Lilongwe, Malawi.
FAO. 1999. The State of
the World’s Forests, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Fisher, M. 2004.
Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern
Malawi. Environ Dev Econ, 9: 135–154.
Forestry Department 1992. The national biomass study, Phase I.
Technical report. Forest Department, Nakawa,
Uganda: 229pp
Gandar, M.V. 1983. Wood
Requirements of Rural People and an Approach to Woodlot Development. Institute of Natural
Resources, Natal
University,
Pietermaritzburg.
Hall, D.O. 1994.
Introduction, summary and conclusions. In Hall DO and Mao YS (Eds), Biomass
energy and coal in Africa, pp. 1–16. Zed
Books and AFREPEN.
Hultsch, D.F.,
MacDonald, S.W., Hunter, M.A., Maitland, S.B. and Dixon, R.A. 2002.
Sampling and generalizability in developmental
research: comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults.
Int. J. Behav. Dev
26:345-359.
Kohlin, G. and Amacher,
G. 2006. Welfare implications of community forest plantations in developing
countries: The Orissa Social Forestry Project. Am J Agric Econ, 87(4): 855869.
Leach, G. and Mearns, R.
1988. Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis: People Land
and Trees in Africa. Earthscan
Publications Ltd., London.
Madubansi,
M. and Shackleton, C.M. 2007. Changes in fuelwood use and
selection following electrification in the Bushbuckridge lowveld, South Africa. J. Environ. Manag., 83 (4): .
Matthews, E. 2000. Undying flame: the continuing demand for
wood as fuel. Extract from Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Forest Ecosystems. EarthTrends 2001 World Resources Institute.
MEF. 1996. Annual
report. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New
Delhi.
MEMD. 2007. Renewable energy
sources in Uganda.
Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, Kampala Uganda.
Metz, J.J. 1990. Conservation practices at upper elevation
village of west Nepal.
MRD, 10(4): 7–15.
MWLE. 2001. Forestry Sector Review. Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment, Kampala, Uganda.
NEMA. 1998. State of the environmental report for Uganda. National Environmental
Management Authority. Kampala,
Uganda.
Pak, S.L. 2005. Climate change and Africa.
Cambridge University Press, ISBN-13: 978-0521836340, pp412.
REBR. 2000. Rakai East Baseline Report. Rakai district, Uganda.
Tabuti, J.R.S.,
Dhilliona, S.S. and Lye, K.A. 2003. Firewood use in Bulamogi County, Uganda:
species selection, harvesting and consumption patterns. Biomass & Bioenergy 25: 581–596.
Tewari, J.C., Tripathi,
D., Pratap, N. and Singh, S.P. 2003. A study of the structure, energy fluxes
and emerging trends in traditional Central Himalayan agroforestry systems. Forests, Trees & Livelihoods 13(10):
17–38.
UDIH. 2005. Uganda Districts Information Handbook. Fountain
Publishers. Kampala, Uganda
Wood, G.B. and Wiant,
H.V Jr (Eds.). 1993. Modern Methods of Estimating Tree and Log Volume, Proc.
IUFRO Conference, Morgantown, West Virginia, June 14-16, 1993. West Virginia University Publication Services. 168
pp.
World Bank. 2002. Report
of the AFTEG/AFTRS joint seminar on household energy and woodland management.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Yikii, F., Agea, J.G. and Kaboggoza, J.R.S. 2006. Eucalyptus versus
indigenous trees: what do tobacco farmers prefer in Northwestern
Uganda. MURJ., 1(2): 171-177.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents in Kalisizo sub-county, Rakai district,
Uganda.
|
Variable
|
%
response (N = 50)
|
|
Sex
|
|
|
Female
|
93
|
|
Male
|
07
|
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
< 20
|
13
|
|
20-40
|
20
|
|
> 40
|
67
|
|
Marital status
|
|
|
Married
|
57
|
|
Widow/widower
|
28
|
|
Divorced
|
15
|
|
Education level
|
|
|
No formal education
|
08
|
|
Primary
|
70
|
|
Secondary
|
22
|
|
Occupation
|
|
|
Peasantry farming
|
93
|
|
Others (teaching, causal labouring)
|
07
|
|
Family size*
|
|
|
1 – 4
|
30
|
|
5 – 8
|
52
|
|
> 8
|
18
|
*Average household family size = 7
persons.
Table 2. Tree species preferred
for firewood in Kalisizo sub-county, Rakai district, Uganda.
|
Tree/shrub species
|
Local name
|
%
response
|
Origin
|
Desirable
attributes reported
|
Descriptive remarks
|
|
Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr.
|
Muzimbandeya
|
85
|
Indigenous
|
A, B, C
|
Shrubby multi-branched tree that grows about 5 to 8 m tall.
|
|
Eucalyptus spp.
|
Kalitunsi
|
83
|
Introduced/naturalised
|
D, E, I, J
|
Species grow to variables height (10-60 m). Highly coppicing when
cut. Drains water from the soil.
|
|
Calliandra calothyrsus Meissn.
|
Calliandra
|
73
|
Introduced/naturalised
|
A, C, D, E,
|
Small and thornless leguminous
tree growing up to about 12 m high.
|
|
Ricinus communis L.
|
Nsogasoga
|
68
|
Indigenous
|
A, F
|
Shrub-like multi-branched
herb growing to about 5 metres high. Seeds very poisonous.
|
|
Ficus natalensis Hochst.
|
Mutuba
|
63
|
Indigenous
|
C, G, D, H, I,
J
|
Shrubby tree/strangler
growing up to about 20 m high or more. Bark used for making bark cloth.
|
|
Mangifera indica
|
Muyembe
|
58
|
Introduced/naturalised
|
C, G, D, H, I,
J
|
Fruit tree that grow to about 35-40 m tall, with often a wide crown diameter
of about of 20 m.
|
|
Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) De Wit.
|
Leucaena
|
55
|
Introduced
|
A, C, D, E
|
Shrub/tree
growing up to about 15-18 m tall, forked when shrubby and branching
strongly after coppicing.
|
|
Markhamia lutea (Benth.) K.Schum.
|
Nsambya, lusambya
|
50
|
Indigenous
|
G, H
|
Upright evergreen tree
growing 10-15 m high, with a narrow, irregular crown.
|
|
Combretum spp.
|
Mukoola, Ndagi
|
48
|
Indigenous
|
D, G, H, J
|
Shrub/small to medium size
trees growing to variables heights (3-20 m high).
|
|
Bridelia micrantha
(Hochst.) Baill.
|
Katazamiti
|
40
|
Indigenous
|
C, G, H, I
|
Tree growing up to about
20 m tall with a dense rounded crown.
|
|
Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br.
|
Grevillea
|
35
|
Introduced
|
C, G
|
Medium-sized to large
tree growing to about 12-25 m high with dense conical crown.
|
|
Polyscias fulva (Hiern) Harms.
|
Setala
|
23
|
Indigenous
|
C, D, G
|
Tree growing up to 25-30 m high, with a regular
branching pattern and a clear, straight bole with branches developing high
up.
|
|
Acacia hockii De Wild.
|
Kasana
|
15
|
Indigenous
|
D, I
|
Small to medium-sized
tree, growing to about 15-17 m tall.
|
|
Acacia mellifera (Vahl)
Benth.
|
Matovu
|
13
|
Indigenous
|
D, I
|
Low branched tree/shrub
with a more or less spherical crown growing often as a dense thicket of 2-5
m high.
|
|
Senna spectabilis (DC.) H. S. Irwin and R. C. Barneby
|
Cassia
|
10
|
Introduced/naturalised
|
D, I
|
Small rounded tree
growing 7-15 m tall with a spreading crown.
|
|
Sapium ellipticum (Hochst.) Pax.
|
Musasa
|
08
|
Indigenous
|
D, G, I
|
Medium-sized tree up to
12-15 m in height, occasionally reaching 25 m.
|
Desirable attributes of firewood
tree species reported by respondents: A=easy to ignite, B=easy to
gather/harvest, C= multipurpose, D=quality fire, E=coppices quickly, F=easy
to find, G= Burns for a long time, H=produces strong embers, I= has a hot
flame, J=produces less smoke.
Figure 1. Volume of firewood used daily by
the household in Kalisizo sub-county, Rakai district (Averaged volume
used daily = 1.56 m3, averaged household size = 7 persons).
Figure 2. Number of fires made and
meals prepared per day by the households in Kalisizo sub-county, Rakai
district.
Table 3.
Socio-economic dynamic of firewood consumption in Kalisizo sub-county, Rakai
district, Uganda.
|
Variable
|
% response
|
|
Time (hours) spent on
collecting firewood for two-way trip
|
|
|
1–3
|
22
|
|
4–6
|
66
|
|
7–9
|
12
|
|
Distance (Km) covered for
two-way trip
|
|
|
3–7
|
18
|
|
8–12
|
72
|
|
> 12
|
10
|
|
Frequency of firewood
collection (number of headloads per week)
|
|
|
1–3
|
20
|
|
4–6
|
64
|
|
7–10
|
16
|
|
Amount of money (Uganda
shillings) spent per year on firewood*
|
|
|
100,000–200,000
|
92
|
|
201,000–300,000
|
6
|
|
>300,000
|
2
|
*1
Uganda
shillings (UGX) = US $ 0. 0005
|