Open access peer-reviewed chapter

# Explorative Analysis of Household Energy Consumption in Bauchi State, Nigeria

Written By

Abubakar Hamid Danlami and Rabi’ul Islam

Submitted: May 22nd, 2019 Reviewed: September 7th, 2019 Published: March 25th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89597

From the Edited Volume

## Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Lighting

Edited by Manuel Jesús Hermoso-Orzáez and Alfonso Gago-Calderón

Chapter metrics overview

View Full Metrics

## Abstract

This study was conducted with the major aim of conducting descriptive and exploratory analyses on the socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state and their pattern of energy choice and consumption. A total sample of 539 household responses were analysed, which were selected using cluster area sampling. The analysis indicates that the average monthly household income is USD 220, and the average monthly firewood consumption per household is about 35 bundles. Moreover, about 70% of the respondents argued that they use firewood as their main source of cooking fuel. For the lighting source of energy, 65% of the households argued that they use electricity as their main source of lighting. Additionally, the correlation analysis indicates that income has a positive relationship with the quantity of energy consumption, while there is a negative relationship between the price of a particular source of energy and its consumption. The study suggests that there is a need of a good policy that will reduce the households much dependence on firewood to other cleaner sources of energy.

### Keywords

• firewood; cooking and lighting
• energy
• consumption

## 1. Introduction

Energy is one of the most important aspects of household life. It is a commodity that is vital for the existence of modern household living [1, 2]. In fact, the total welfare of a household depends on the type and the pattern of the household’s energy utilisation. The household energy consumption pattern in Bauchi state can be categorised into three major dimensions: cooking, lighting and cooling purposes. For satisfying the needs of cooking, various sources are available, which includes: fuel-wood, kerosene, gas and electricity, plus elements of plant residues and animal dung which are used in some parts of the rural areas of the state. For lighting purpose, the various choices mainly include: electricity, petroleum/diesel (used for fuelling generators), kerosene, candles, traditional lamps and firewood, mostly based on socio-economic status of a household [3, 4]. Furthermore, for the purpose of drinks and space cooling, various energy sources are available which consist of mainly electricity and petroleum or diesel (gas) power generator.

Of all the above categories of fuel sources, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and kerosene are regarded to be either cleaned (i.e. in the case of electricity and gas) or transitional (i.e. in the case of kerosene) energy sources [5], while the traditional biomass fuel that include fuel-wood, animal dung and plant residues are not cleaned energy which can lead to numerous economic, social, health and environmental problems [6, 7].

The use of traditional lamp as the main source of lighting is a threat to the health and the life of the users; this is because such traditional lamp produces high rate of carbon monoxide that is harmful to human health; that is why in most of the rooms whereby such lamps are being used, there exist black dust in ceilings and the walls closer to the lamp. In the same vein, the use of fuel-wood for cooking and lighting purposes is totally not environmental friendly. It has negative impacts on the atmosphere and peoples’ lives [8, 9]. Apart from deforestation, desertification and soil erosion, the use of fuel-wood has a very low thermal efficiency and the smoke is also hazardous to human health, especially to women and children who mostly do the cooking in homes [10]. Acute respiratory infections (ARI) in children are one of the leading causes of infant and child morbidity and mortality [11, 12]. Studies have found associations between biomass fuel use and lung cancer. A 30-year-old woman cooking with straw or wood has an 80% increased chance of having lung cancer later in life [13, 14].

The underlying rational here is to encourage households to shift from the use of non-cleaned energy sources to the adoption of cleaned energy sources [15]. This is because there are so many benefits in using a cleaned energy. It has been widely argued that moving towards the use of cleaned fuels is an important option to improve the standard of living for households who rely heavily on biomass [16]. It is the key factor to improve the mode of living for rural population [17]. Moreover, encouraging households to switch to cleaned energy would lead to the consumption of less fuel per meal and less time spent for gathering fuel which could be used in other activities such as attending school and other income generating activities [5]. Cleaned energy provides easy access to education, health care and household resources. Children who do not have to collect bio fuels can attend school [18, 19]. Switching to cleaned fuels could also free up time for women to engage in income-generating pursuits [18].

To attain these benefits, a very important and effective policy that provides access to cleaned energy is required [9]. However, such effective policy also depends on a good research which is conducted to investigate and explore households’ energy consumption pattern in relevant area [20]. This study is conducted with the major aim of exploring socio-demographic features of households and their pattern of energy choice and consumption in Bauchi state, Nigeria, to assess the correlation between the energy consumption and the socio-demographic characteristics of households in Bauchi state.

The remaining part of the chapter is as follows: Section 2 consists of the review of related literature, Section 3 consists of methodology and Section 4 discussed the results and findings of the study. The last section consists of conclusions and policy implications of the study.

## 2. Literature review

This section examines and highlights the factors that influence the level of household fuel choice and consumption. Each of these factors is expected to relate with the quantity of fuel consumption of households either positively or negatively. The explanation of different categories of factors influencing the households’ energy choice and consumption is explained below.

### 2.1 Economic factors

These are the factors that serve as a measure of economic status of the household which can influence the households’ fuel consumption decision. For instance, studies have established that there is a positive relationship between the households’ income and the adoption of cleaned energy [21, 22, 23]. Poorer households especially in developing countries tend to adopt firewood, plant residues, animal dung and other un-cleaned energy sources, whereas wealthier households tend to adopt energy from more cleaned sources.

A relationship also exists between the type of occupation of the household head and the nature of the energy source to be adopted by the household. Empirical studies conducted in [2, 24] proved that those in white-collar jobs (executives, big entrepreneurs) adopt cleaned energy, while those in blue-collar jobs (such as farming, trading) tend to adopt firewood and other biomass fuels. Home ownership, which is one of the indicators of the economic status of households, affects their decision on the type of energy sources to adopt. Those who live in their owned house tend to adopt cleaned energy source [22, 25]. Price of energy has a negative relationship with energy consumption. When the price of a particular energy source is high, households switch to other alternative fuel available. This is in line with the law of demand and also has been established by previous studies [9, 26].

### 2.2 Socio-demographic factors of households

The type and composition of socio-demographic factors of households influence their fuel switching and consumption behaviour. For instance [27], we found that households tend to adopt cleaner energy when the head of the household is female. The age of the household head was found to have a negative relationship with the adoption of cleaned energy [27, 28]. Households adopt less cleaned energy source when the head is older. The level of education of the household head has a positive relationship with cleaned energy adoption. When the higher educated is the household head, the more he realises the negative impact of un-cleaned energy, and therefore, the less it will be adopted [2, 25]. The location of household was also established to affect the nature of energy use. Households that live in the urban areas tend to spent more on electricity than those living in the rural areas [29]. The number of a household’s members (i.e. household size) affects the household’s energy consumption decision; the larger the size of a household, the lesser the adoption of cleaned energy [30, 21]. Lastly in [31], it is established that there is a strong relationship between the household energy use and the level of education of the household head.

### 2.3 House characteristics

The characteristics of the building in which the households leave can also affect their energy choice behaviour. For instance, the location of the home in which the households live have serious impact on their energy consumption decision. The households that are located in urban areas adopt cleaner energy than their rural counterparts [2, 21]. In addition, the type of the house (i.e. nature of the building) exacts some influence on household energy consumption behaviour. For instance, in [2, 21], it was empirically found that living in detached house has significant positive relationship with the adoption of gas, electricity and liquid fuel. The sizes of the residence in which households live also influence their energy consumption behaviour. Most of the previous studies, such as [22, 32, 33], found that the larger the size of the building, the higher the adoption of fuel wood, all things being equal. Furthermore, the number of rooms in the house is one of the building characteristics which influence households’ energy consumption choice. For instance, in [2, 24], it was found that this variable has a positive significant relationship with the household use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Share of dwellings (i.e. more than one household living in the same building) is one of the factors which also shapes the energy consumption behaviour of households [22].

## 3. Data and methodology

Because this chapter is a study of households at micro level, this section contains the description of the study samples and the methods used in data gathering.

### 3.1 Sample size

In this study, the total sample size was determined based on [34]. The formula for determining a good representative sample is:

S=NP1PBC2N1+P1PE1

where S, required sample size; N, the population size = 769,960; P, the population proportion expected to answer in a particular way (the most conservative proportion is 0.50); B, the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05); and C, the Z statistic value based on the confidence level (in this case, 1.96 is chosen for the 95% confidence level).

Therefore, the sample size can be determined as:

S=769,9600.510.50.05/1.962769,9601+0.510.5=192490501.067+0.25E2
S=192490501.317=384.E3

This formula has been widely applied in household micro level studies [35, 36, 37, 38]. Furthermore, it commensurates with the sample size recommended by social science researchers. For instance, in [39], a rule of thumb is given for selecting a good sample size which is larger than 30 and less than 500 for most of the research; and that in case of multivariate studies, the sample size should be at least 10 times as large as the number of variables. In [40], a rule of thumb for the accurate sample size of at least 5–10 times larger than the number of variables is given. However, for the purpose of data collection for this study, a total of 750 questionnaires were distributed instead of the pre-determined sample number of 384 samples. This was to avoid a problem of non-response rate. According to [41], since it is not every selected sample that will likely response, there is a need for a researcher to increase the sample size to avoid non-response bias. Babbie (1995) (cited in [42]) argued that at least 50% rate of response is necessary for reporting and analysis. Finally, about 548 filled questionnaires were returned back, which is more than 70% of the total number of the issued questionnaires.

### 3.2 Sampling technique

For the purpose of this study, cluster area sampling method was adopted. According to [43], area sampling is a special type of cluster sampling whereby samples are grouped and clustered on the basis of geographical location areas [44, 45]. The reason for adopting this method of sampling is that though the sampling frame for the various clusters of Bauchi state is available and was obtained from the office of Nigerian National Population Commission, there is no available frame containing the list of all households living in Bauchi state. Hence in this situation, area sampling is one of the most suitable techniques of data collection. As argued by various scholars, the underlying practical motivation for using area sampling is the absence of complete and accurate list of the universal elements under study since it does not depend upon the population frame [44, 45, 46]. Moreover, from [47], it was argued that in the case of cluster sampling, the full list of clusters forms the sampling frame and not the list of individual elements within the population.

The sampling technique used in this study is the multistage cluster sampling. In the first stage, the whole of the study area was divided into three groups (clusters) based on the geo-political zonal categorisation of the study area; the various categories are: Bauchi South, Bauchi Central and Bauchi North. In the second stage, two clusters (Bauchi South and Bauchi North) were selected randomly out of the three clusters.

In the third stage, these two clusters were further categorised into two sub-clusters: urban and rural areas. Then, a total of 10 wards were randomly selected from the urban areas, while a total of 13 wards were selected randomly from the rural areas. This gives a total of 23 selected wards used as the sampling wards. In the fourth stage, six communities were selected randomly from each of the selected wards of urban areas, which made a total of 60 communities from the urban areas. On the other hand, another six communities were randomly selected from the selected wards of the rural areas making a total of 78 communities used from the rural areas. This gives a total of 100 and 138 sampled communities used in the study. In the last stage, six households were systematically selected from each of the selected communities of the urban areas making a total of 360 (i.e. 60 × 6 = 360) households selected from the urban areas. On the other hand, five households were selected systematically from each of the selected communities of the rural areas making a total of 390 (i.e. 78 × 5 = 390) households selected from the rural areas. Finally, a total of 548 households returned the filled questionnaires out of which nine questionnaires were discarded.

## 4. Results and findings

This section contains the findings of this study. Since this study is a descriptive and exploratory analysis, the tools that were used to analyse the data are the various descriptive statistics, frequencies, percentages and correlation analyses.

### 4.1 Summary of descriptive statistics

This section provides information about the descriptive statistics. The major descriptive statistics are the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum. Table 1 exhibits the values of the summary statistics.

VariablesNMeanSDMinMax
Gender5380.8740.3301
Age53636.4311.72360
Marital status5280.7390.4401
Household size5367.7256.04230
Location5370.5380.5001
Home size (ft2)53652.4219.320110
Number of rooms5366.5153.81223
Cooking fuel main source5390.4430.8103
Hours of electricity51927.3027.8097
Price of firewood48376.6735.330220
Price of kerosene361126.627.145200
Home appliances53515.3713.1057
Home ownership5350.2130.4101
Years of education53614.216.17022
Lighting fuel main source5320.4380.6702
Firewood quantity44934.2317.1490
Income (USD)536224.018078600

### Table 1.

Summary of descriptive statistics of variables.

Source: authors, 2019.

Table 1 shows that the monthly average consumption of firewood is about 35 bundles; this implies that on average, every household in Bauchi State uses more than one bundle of firewood everyday, which is a clear reflection of the high rate of firewood use in the state. Furthermore, the table indicates that the monthly average income of a household is little bit more than USD 200, with the maximum value of USD 600. This implies that most of the household in Bauchi State belong to the poor income group. In fact, Bauchi State is the third poorest state in Nigeria [48]. Furthermore, the table indicates that the average firewood price per bundle is about ₦75 (about $0.40). Furthermore, it indicates that on average, the household size in Bauchi state constitutes about eight members per household. This number approximately is tally to the estimated average household size in Bauchi state, given in [49]. The table shows that the average weekly hours of electricity supply is only 27 hours; this clearly reflects the nature of inadequate supply of electricity in the area, which is one of the factors that likely contributes to the high rate of biomass fuel use as the main source of energy by households in Bauchi state. Table 1 further shows that the average years of school experience by the heads of households in the study area is 14 years, representing a schooling experience up to the Diploma/NCE levels of education. Similarly, the reported average number of rooms in the building in which each household lives is six. This number constitutes bedrooms, rest room, sitting rooms and fallows. Additionally, the number of energy use devices possesses at home such as: bulbs, fans, ACs, televisions and radios among others shows an average value of 15 pieces of these items, which is clearly a reflection of low rate of modern energy use by households in the study area. Lastly, the table shows that the average age of household head in Bauchi state measured in terms of years is 36 years, which falls within the age group of working population. ### 4.2 Socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state and their pattern of energy consumption The objective of this study is to explore and describe the socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state, Nigeria, and their pattern of energy consumption. In this section, the study explored the socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state and their pattern of fuel consumption, based on the study samples. Table 2 indicates the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents. CharacteristicsFrequency(%)CUM Gender Male47087.3687.36 Female6812.64100 Age 16–3018734.8934.89 31–4522942.7277.61 46–609718.1095.71 Above 60234.29100 Marital status Single13826.1426.14 Married39073.86100 Level of education Non-formal education5510.2610.26 Primary School275.0415.30 Secondary9517.7233.02 Diploma/NCE19135.6368.66 B.Sc./HND12423.1391.79 Postgraduate448.21100 Occupation No standard job5911.0911.09 Farmer6812.7823.87 Teacher10619.9243.80 Banker173.2046.99 Lecturer183.3850.38 Medical practitioner376.9557.33 Businessman9918.6175.94 Others12824.06100 Monthly income (USD) 150 and below27753.3753.37 151–$3009818.1171.48
301–$4507313.1084.59 451–$6005610.0294.61
Above 600325.39100
Household size
1–1042479.2279.22
11–209417.4496.66
21 and above183.34100

### Table 2.

Socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state.

Source: Authors, 2019.

Table 2 shows that a majority of the respondents (87%) are males. This is because based on the culture of people in the study area, normally males occupy the position of household head; even in a situation when the father (the head) has died, it is the younger brother of the deceased or the first born in the family, not the mother, who emerges as a new head of the family. Because the belief is that, men are stronger than women economically, socially and educationally. Therefore, a woman emerges as a household head only by chance when there is no able man in the family to look after the affairs of the family. Furthermore, Table 2 shows that most of the respondents (61%) are within the age of middle adulthood stage (31–60 years). This is because on average, the normal marriage age for males (who are mostly the family head) begins from 25 years and above. The table further indicates that about 75% of the respondents are married, due to the fact that married people are regarded as responsible for overseeing the family affairs. The remaining 25% are regarded as single person comprising the divorced, widowed and separated. Regarding the family size, most of the respondents (80%) argued that the size of their family members is within the range of 1–10, the range in which the number of the average family size in Bauchi state reported earlier in [49] falls (i.e. 8) and this study found the average size of a household to be 8 (see Table 1). In addition, the categories of the education level attainment shows that those who attended school up to the Diploma/NCE level have the highest rate (35%) followed by those with the degree certificate (23%). Those who claimed that they did not attend a formal school at all constitute about 10% of the respondents. Only 8% of the respondents claimed to have attended school at a postgraduate level. Regarding the occupation of the respondents, of all those that have chosen a stated category, teaching job (at primary or secondary levels) obtained the highest proportion (about 20%). This is because teaching job at either primary or secondary school levels is one of the easy to find jobs for both semi-professional (Diploma/NCE) and professional (Degree and above) workers. About 11% of the respondents argued that they do not have a standard job; they are more of casual workers. Additionally, the 24% of the respondents, which constitutes the other occupation category as specified by the respondents themselves, comprises: tailoring, butcher, mechanic, welding, building construction, civil servant, businessman, journalist, sheep and cattle rearing. Others are: carpenter, porter, sewing, blacksmith, commercial driver, prison service and wood cutter. At Last, on average, most of the respondents (53%) argued that they usually earned a monthly income that is below \$150. This clearly indicates the high rate of poverty in the state especially in the rural areas of the state.

Furthermore, among the factors that can shape the household pattern of energy consumption and switching are the characteristics of the building in which the household live. Table 3 contains the information of the home characteristics of the households.

CharacteristicsFrequency(%)CUM
Home ownership
Self-owned home
Non self-owned home
421
114
78.69
21.31
78.69
100
Number of rooms
1–5
6–10
11–15
16 and above
305
112
106
13
56.90
20.90
19.54
2.43
56.90
77.80
97.34
100
Home size (ft2)
1–24
25–49
50–74
75–99
100 and above
35
138
300
27
36
6.53
25.75
55.97
5.04
6.72
6.53
32.28
88.25
93.29
100
Home location
Urban area
Rural area
289
248
53.82
46.18
46.18
100

### Table 3.

Households’ home characteristics in Bauchi state.

Source: Authors, 2019.

Table 3 shows that about 79% of the respondents argued that they live in their self-owned home; this is especially in rural areas and some of the urban areas whereby most of the houses are simple and traditional, mostly made of up mud, such kind of houses are easy to possess or built. Furthermore, a majority of the respondents (about 57%) claimed that the number of rooms in their home is within the range of 1–5 rooms. These include: bedrooms, sitting rooms, and any other type of rooms that are usually found at homes. On the size of plot in which the home was built, a majority of the respondents (56%) argued that the size of the plot in which their homes was built is within the range of 50–74 sq. ft. This implies that households in Bauchi state live in a relatively large house. At Last, on the location of the respondents, 53% argued that they live in urban areas, while the remaining 47% live in rural areas of the state.

However, the information on the pattern of household fuel source, quantity of energy consumption and the amount of fuel expenditure is shown in Table 4.

CharacteristicsFrequency(%)CUM
Main cooking fuel
Firewood
Kerosene
Electricity
Gas
378
114
12
31
70.65
21.31
2.24
5.79
70.65
91.96
94.21
100
Main source of lighting fuel
Semi-electrical
Electricity
53
127
352
9.96
23.87
66.17
9.96
33.83
100
Average firewood consumption monthly(bundle)
1–19
20–39
40–59
60 and above
62
287
43
57
13.81
63.92
9.57
12.69
13.81
77.73
87.53
100
Average kerosene consumption monthly (litre)
1–15
16–30
31–45
46 and above
99
84
15
14
46.70
39.62
7.08
6.60
46.70
90.57
93.40
100
Average monthly expenditure on electricity (USD)
9 and below
10–19
20–29
30 and above
366
47
4
6
86.52
11.11
0.95
1.42
86.52
97.63
98.58
100
Number of energy use devices at home
Zero
1–10
11–20
21–30
Above 30
10
243
151
54
77
1.87
45.42
28.22
10.09
14.39
1.87
47.29
75.51
85.60
100

### Table 4.

Household energy consumption pattern in Bauchi state.

Source: Authors, 2019.

Table 4 exhibits the pattern of households’ energy consumption behaviour in Bauchi state. Based on the responses from the selected samples, a majority of the respondents (more than 70%) argued that their main fuel source for cooking is firewood. This is not surprising, but it reflects the clear picture of the situation in Bauchi state whereby the majority of households in the state especially rural areas adopt firewood as the main source of cooking fuel. This is also tally with the information provided in [50]. Furthermore, 21% of the respondents argued that they use kerosene as the major source of fuel for cooking; about 6% of the respondents use gas as the main cooking fuel source, and it is only less than 3% of the respondents claim to be using electricity as their main source of cooking fuel, mainly in the urban areas of the state. This pattern of main cooking fuel adoption is mostly due to the culture, availability and affordability. On the main source of lighting, about 10% of the respondents argued that they rely majorly on traditional source of lighting such as: traditional lamp, kerosene and charcoal. Another category of respondents (24%) argued that they rely mostly on semi-electric source of lighting such as: battery torch light and rechargeable lanterns to source light for home use. However, the majority of the respondents argued that they rely mostly on the available electricity as their main source of lighting. This implies that most of households in Bauchi state despite the interruption in the supply of the electricity rely mostly on electricity as their main source of lighting especially urban dwellers.

### 4.3 Correlation analysis of factors influencing household energy consumption in Bauchi state, Nigeria

In this section, a correlation analysis was conducted in order to explore the nature of the correlation that exists among variables used in this study. Usually, a negative value indicates negative relationship between variables and a positive value indicates positive relationship between variables. Table 5 exhibits the correlation values for variables in this study.

HSZAGEEDUHHSINCRUMLECPFWHPSFWQPKRKRQXECHSZ
AGE1.00
EDU−0.051.00
HHS0.29−0.091.00
INC0.280.260.191.00
RUM0.19−0.090.420.121.00
LEC−0.030.25−0.060.19−0.081.00
PFW0.10−0.130.010.01−0.01−0.071.00
HPS0.050.030.050.160.100.14−0.021.00
FWQ0.09−0.070.210.060.220.05−0.13−0.011.00
PKR0.06−0.08−0.060.01−0.01−0.160.150.04−0.221.00
KRQ0.24−0.010.050.120.15−0.080.010.060.04−0.071.00
XEC−0.090.19−0.080.08−0.150.11−0.050.13−0.06−0.050.091.00
HSZ0.190.120.260.270.390.170.030.120.09−0.040.110.031.00

### Table 5.

Variables correlation matrix.

Source: Authors, 2019.

Note: AGE = age; EDU = education; HHS = household size; INC = income; RUM = number of rooms; LEC = hours of electricity supply; PFW = price of firewood/bundle; HPS = home appliances; FWQ = firewood quantity; PKR = kerosene price per litre; KRQ = kerosene quantity; XEC = monthly expenditure on electricity; HSZ = home size.

Table 5 indicates the nature and magnitudes of correlations that exist between the socio-economic characteristics of households in Bauchi state and the quantity of energy consumption by households in the state. For instance, the correlation matrix exhibits that there is a negative relationship between the quantity of firewood and the price of firewood (r = −0.13), firewood quantity and level of education attainment (r = −0.07), price of kerosene and the quantity of kerosene (r = −0.07), and hours of electricity and the kerosene quantity (r = −0.08). Furthermore, negative relationships were found between monthly expenditure on electricity and variables such as: household size, price of firewood and price of kerosene (with the correlation values: −0.08, −0.05 and −0.05, respectively). All these sings conform to a priori expectations.

On the other hand, Table 5 indicates that there is a positive relationship between firewood quantity and the household size (r = 0.22), kerosene quantity and the variables such as: household size, income and firewood price (with the correlation values: r = 0.05, 0.08 and 0.01, respectively). Additionally, positive relationships were found to exist between monthly expenditure on electricity and other variables such as: education, income and kerosene quantity. The values of the correlation coefficients are: 0.19, 0.08 and 0.09, which are clear supports for a priori expectations and also support the findings of previous studies [1, 6, 29, 30].

## 5. Discussion of findings

The study found that the monthly average consumption of firewood is about 35 bundles; this implies that on average, every household in Bauchi state uses more than one bundle of firewood everyday. Furthermore, the study found that the monthly average income of a household is little bit more than USD 200, with the maximum value of USD 600. This implies that most of the household in Bauchi state belong to the poor income group. Additionally, the study found that average weekly hours of electricity supply is only 27 hours; this clearly reflects the nature of inadequate supply of electricity in the area, which is one of the factors that likely contributes to the high rate of biomass fuel use as the main source of energy by households in the state. Similarly, the reported average number of rooms in the building in which each household lives is six. This number constitutes bedrooms, rest room, sitting rooms and fallows. Additionally, the number of energy use devices possesses at home such as: bulbs, fans, ACs, televisions and radios among others shows an average value of 15 pieces of these items, which is clearly a reflection of low rate of modern energy use by households in the study area.

Furthermore, a majority of the respondents are males. This is because based on the culture of people in the study area, normally males occupy the position of household head; even in a situation when the father (the head) has died, it is the younger brother of the deceased or the first born in the family, not the mother, who emerges as new head of the family. Because the belief is that, men are stronger than women economically, socially and educationally. Therefore, a woman emerges as a household head only by chance when there is no able man in the family to look after the affairs of the family. The study further found that about 75% of the respondents are married, due to the fact that married people are regarded as responsible for overseeing the family affairs. In addition, the occupation of the respondents indicates that of all those that have chosen a stated category, teaching job (at primary or secondary levels) obtained the highest proportion. This is because teaching job at either primary or secondary school levels is one of the easy to find jobs for both semi-professions and professional workers.

Furthermore, the factors that can shape the household pattern of energy consumption and switching are the characteristics of the building in which the household live. The study found that about 79% of the respondents live in their self-owned home; this is especially in rural areas and some of the urban areas whereby most of the houses are simple and traditional, mostly made of up mud, such kind of houses are easy to possess or built. Moreover, a majority of the respondents (about 57%) claimed that the number of rooms in their home is within the range of 1–5 rooms. These include: bedrooms, sitting rooms, and any other type of rooms that are usually found at homes. On the size of plot in which the home was built, a majority of the respondents (56%) argued that the size of the plot in which their homes was built is within the range of 50–74 sq. ft.

Based on the responses from the selected samples, a majority of the respondents argued that their main fuel source for cooking is firewood. This is not surprising, but it reflects the clear picture of the situation in Bauchi state whereby a majority of households in the state, especially rural areas, adopts firewood as the main source of cooking fuel. This is also tally with the information provided in [50]. Furthermore, 21% of the respondents argued that they use kerosene as the major source of fuel for cooking; about 6% of the respondents use gas as the main cooking fuel source, and it is only less than 3% of the respondents claim to be using electricity as their main source of cooking fuel, mainly in the urban areas of the state. This pattern of main cooking fuel adoption is mostly due to the culture, availability and affordability. On the main source of lighting, about 10% of the respondents argued that they rely majorly on traditional source of lighting such as: traditional lamp, kerosene and charcoal. Another category of respondents (24%) argued that they rely mostly on semi-electric source of lighting such as: battery torch light and rechargeable lanterns to source light for home use. However, the majority of the respondents argued that they rely mostly on the available electricity as their main source of lighting.

## 6. Conclusions

This study conducted an exploration and descriptive analyses of the socio-economic characteristics of households and the pattern of their energy consumption (cooking and lighting fuel consumption) in Bauchi state, Nigeria. The study explored that the average monthly income of a typical household in Bauchi state is about USD 225. The study found that a majority of households in Bauchi state use firewood as their main source of cooking fuel. On the other hand, most of the households use electricity for lighting. Furthermore, it was found that there is a positive relationship between income and the consumption of energy by households. Similarly, the same positive relationship was found to exist between household size and the consumption of firewood. On the other hand, the price of a particular energy source has a negative relationship with its consumption. Therefore, there is a need for government to discourage the high rate of firewood use as the main source of cooking fuel by embarking on the policies that will ensure the switch away of household firewood fuel to other cleaner source of cooking fuel such as electricity and gas.

## Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest reported by the authors.

## References

1. 1. Danlami AH. An analysis of household energy choice and consumption in Bauchi state, Nigeria [thesis]. School of Economics Finance and Banking: Universiti Utara Malaysia; 2017
2. 2. Eakins J. An analysis of the determinants of household energy expenditures: empirical evidence from the Irish household budget survey [PhD thesis]. UK: University of Surrey; 2013
3. 3. Danlami AH, Islam R, Applanaidu SD. An analysis of the determinants of household energy choice: A search for conceptual framework. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy. 2015;5(1):197-205
4. 4. Barness F, Floor M. Rural energy in developing countries: A challenge for economic development. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 1996;21:497-530
5. 5. Yamamoto S, Sie A, Sauerborn R. Cooking fuels and the push for cleaner alternatives: A case study from Burkina Faso. Global Health Action. 2009;2:156-164
6. 6. Danlami AH. An intensity of household kerosene use in Bauchi state, Nigeria: A tobit analysi. Nigerian Journal of Management Technology & Development. 2017;8(2):1-13
7. 7. Jan I, Khan H, Hayat S. Determinants of rural household energy choices: An example from Pakistan. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2012;21:635-641
8. 8. Danlami AH, Applanaidu SD, Islam R. Movement towards the adoption of non-traditional household lighting fuel energy in developing areas. Biofuels. 2017;10(5):623-633. DOI: 10.1080/17597269.2017.1338125
9. 9. Nlom JH, Karimov AA. Modeling fuel choice among households in northern Cameroon. In: WIDER Working Paper Series, 2014/038. 2014
10. 10. Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN). National Energy Policy Document; 2003
11. 11. Emmelin A, Wall S. Indoor air pollution: A poverty-related cause of mortality among the children of the world. Chest. 2007;132:1615-1623
12. 12. Schirnding VY, Bruce N, Smith K, Ballard-Tremeer G, Ezzati M, Lvovsky K. Addressing the impact of household energy and indoor air pollution on the health of the poor implications for policy action and intervention measures. In: Working Group 5, a Paper Prepared for WHO on Macroeconomics and Health. 2002. Available from: http://www.who.int/indoorair/publications/impact/en/index.html
13. 13. Hong CJ. Health Aspects of Domestic Use of Biomass and Coal in China: Indoor Air Pollution from Biomass Fuel. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1991. pp. 43-77
14. 14. WHO. Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel. In: Report of WHO Consultation; June 1991; Geneva. 1991
15. 15. Ritchie J, Mcdougal G, Claxto D. Complexities of household energy consumption and conservation. Journal of Consumer Research. 1981;8:233-242
16. 16. Lee LY. Household energy mix in Uganda. Energy Economics. 2013;39:252-261
17. 17. Ganchimeg G, Havrland B. Economic analysis of household energy consumption: The case of herders in Mongolia. Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica. 2011;44:197-203
18. 18. Wilkinson P, Smith KR, Joffe M, Haines A. A global perspective on energy: Health effects and injustices. Lancet. 2007;370:965-978
19. 19. Smith KR, Rogers J, Cowlin SC. Household Fuels and Ill Health in Developing Countries: What Improvements Can be Brought by LP Gas? Paris: World LP Gas Association and Intermediate Technology Development Group; 2005
20. 20. Danlami AH, Applanaidu SD, Islam R. Axiom of the relative income hypothesis and household energy choice and consumption in developing areas: Empirical evidence using Verme model. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences. 2018;39:422-431
21. 21. Özcan KM, Gülay E, Üçdoğruk S. Economic and demographic determinants of household energy use in Turkey. Energy Policy. 2013;60:550-557
22. 22. Couture S, Garcia S, Reynaud A. Household energy choices and fuelwood consumption: An econometric approach using French data. Energy Economics. 2012;34:1972-1981
23. 23. Osiolo HH. Enhancing Household Fuel Choice and Substitution in Kenya; 2010
24. 24. Heltberg R. Factors determining household fuel choice in Guatemala. Environment and Development Economics. 2005;10:337-361
25. 25. Laureti T, Secondi L. Determinants of households’ space heating type and expenditures in Italy. International Journal of Environmental Research. 2012;6(4):1025-1038
26. 26. Jingchao Z, Kotani K. The determinants of household energy demand in rural Beijing: Can environmentally friendly technologies be effective? Energy Economics. 2011;34:381-388
27. 27. Mensah T, Adu G. An Empirical Analysis of Household Energy Choice in Ghana. Uppsala Working Paper Series No 6; 2013
28. 28. Suliman MK. Factors affecting the choice of households’ primary cooking fuel in Sudan. In: Research Report Presented to the Economic Research Forum, Cairo, Egypt. 2010
29. 29. Danlami AH. Determinants of household electricity consumption in Bauchi state, Nigeria. Hyperion Economic Journal. 2017;5(1):16-28
30. 30. Danlami AH. Assessment of factors influencing firewood consumption in Bauchi state, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management. 2017;14(1):99-109
31. 31. Danlami AH, Applanaidu SD, Islam R. An analysis of household cooking fuel choice: A case of Bauchi state, Nigeria. International Journal of Energy Sector Management. 2018;12(2):265-283. DOI: 10.1108/IJESM-05-2016-0007
32. 32. Danlami AH, Applanaidu SD, Islam R. From biomass cooking fuel source to modern alternative for Bauchi state households: A preliminary analysis. Biofuels. 2017;8(3):323-331. DOI: 10.1080/17597269.2016.1226724
33. 33. Song N, Arguilar FX, Shifley SR, Goerndt ME. Factors affecting wood energy consumption by U.S. households. Energy Economics. 2012;34:389-397
34. 34. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide. New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
35. 35. Kofarmata YI, Danlami AH. Determinants of credit rationing among rural farmers in developing areas: Empirical evidence based on micro level data. Agricultural Finance Review. 2019;79(2):158-173. DOI: 10.1108/AFR-03-2018-0023
36. 36. Danlami AH. Examination of determinants of demand for fertilizer in Tofa local government area, Kano state. Nigerian Journal of Management Technology & Development. 2014;5(2):1-14
37. 37. Danlami AH, Islam R, Applanaidu SD, Tsauni AM. An empirical analysis of fertiliser use intensity in rural sub-Saharan Africa evidence from Tofa local government area, Kano state, Nigeria. International Journal of Social Economics. 2016;43(12):1400-1419
38. 38. Danlami AH, Applanaidu SD, Islam R. A micro level analysis of the adoption and efficiency of modern farm inputs use in rural areas of Kano state, Nigeria. Agricultural Research. 2018;8(3):392-402. DOI: 10.1007/s40003-018-0373-z
39. 39. Roscoe JT. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1975
40. 40. Bartlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins C. Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal. 2001;19(1):43-50
41. 41. Jeff. How to Determine a Sample Size: Tipsheet #60. University Park, PA: Penn State Cooperative Extension. 2001. Available from: http://www.extension.psu.edu/evaluation/pdf/TS60.pdf
42. 42. Watson SC. A primer in survey research. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education. 1998;46(1):31-40
43. 43. Rao RS. Area Sampling (Market Research). 2009. Available from: http://www.citeman.com/4713-area-sampling-market-research.html [Accessed: 07 February 2016]
44. 44. Valliant R, Dever JA, Kreuter F. Practical Tools for Designing and Weighting Survey Samples. London: Springer; 2013
45. 45. Sekaran U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 4th ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2003
46. 46. OECD. Glossary of Statistical Terms. Paris: OECD; 2007
47. 47. Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research Methods for Business Students. 5th ed. England: Pearson Education; 2009
48. 48. NBS. Annual Abstract: Federal republic of Nigeria. 2012. Available from: http://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng [Accessed: February 2016]
49. 49. Uneze E, Tajudeen I, Iweala O. Cost-Effectiveness and Benefits-Cost Analysis of Some Water Interventions (The Case of Bauchi State, Nigeria); 2013
50. 50. Akpan M, Akpan M, Wakili A, Wakili A, Akosim C, Akosim C. Fuel wood consumption pattern in Bauchi state: A guide for energy planners in Nigeria. ASSET: An International Journal (Series A). 2010;7(1):1-11

Written By

Abubakar Hamid Danlami and Rabi’ul Islam

Submitted: May 22nd, 2019 Reviewed: September 7th, 2019 Published: March 25th, 2020