The Impact of Gasfier Stoves Use on Socio-Economic and Environment in Tanzania: The Case of Arusha and Moshi Municipalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the socio-economic and environmental impact of the adoption of gasfier stoves by households in Arusha and Moshi towns in Tanzania. A total of 55 respondents were selected purposely from the gasfier stoves. For comparative purposes another 55 charcoal users were selected randomly for interview making a total sample of 110. There were also focus group consultations and key informant interviews. Structured and semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect data, which were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. The results show that the respondents who were using gasfier stoves had significant reduction (p=0.001) in the cost of energy for cooking compared to charcoal stove users by spending only T.shs 13,396 per month compared to T.shs 36,932 for charcoal users. The use of gasfier stoves also had a positive impact on the environment. Findings show that by using gasfier stoves 15.4 ha were saved from deforestation per annum and about 365.4.tonnes of carbon were saved for sequestration an act that reduces carbon emissions and global warming. Nevertheless, despite the impressive performance of gasfier stoves for cooking, the rate of adoption has remained low. The main reason for this was reported to be the high price, poor quality of the pellets and unfriendly usability. The adoption of gasfier stoves could only be enhanced by addressing these constraining factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".