Trash2Cook Survey (Chika, Abuja)
Trash2Cook initiative, COOKBLU Project
Executive Summary: Trash2Cook Survey
The Trash2Cook Survey conducted in Chika, Abuja, in 2025, reveals a demographic landscape highly conducive to the COOKBLU project, characterized by a youthful population primarily in the 25–44 age bracket. Females comprise 64.1% of respondents, ensuring that baseline data reflects the perspectives of the primary end-users of household cooking energy. Despite the removal of fuel subsidies, Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)—particularly the 1-burner “camp gas” stove—remains the dominant cooking technology, with 76.0% of those who increased gas usage relying on these single-burner units.
Market readiness for the Trash2Cook initiative is exceptionally high, with 78.3% of the community expressing explicit willingness to adopt the innovation. This openness spans the energy ladder, including 79.7% of “camp gas” users and 88.9% of those using ceramic charcoal stoves, indicating that the project appeals as both a modern upgrade and a cleaner alternative to biomass. Technical feasibility is also strong, as 61.3% of respondents have a suitable space for gas stove installation. The primary barriers to universal adoption are psychological rather than economic; approximately 267 respondents associate gas with the risk of fire or explosions, while others express frustration over the lack of fuel-level predictability. Consequently, successful scaling will depend on addressing these safety perceptions and improving fuel transparency alongside the established formal waste collection infrastructure that already serves 1,839 respondents.
1. Demographic Profile (Age vs. Gender)
Table 1: Demographic Distribution by Age and Gender
| Age Group | Count | Count | Count | (%) | (%) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 18 | 28 | 18 | 46 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 2.4 |
| 18 – 24 years | 92 | 46 | 138 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 7.1 |
| 25 – 34 years | 540 | 267 | 807 | 27.9 | 13.8 | 41.7 |
| 35 – 44 years | 444 | 288 | 732 | 22.9 | 14.9 | 37.8 |
| 45 – 54 years | 110 | 69 | 179 | 5.7 | 3.6 | 9.2 |
| 55 – 64 years | 27 | 7 | 34 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 1.8 |
| 65 years and above | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Total | 1241 | 696 | 1937 | 64.1 | 35.9 | 100.0 |
The demographic profile revealed in Table 1 showcases a youthful and vibrant target population, with a significant “youth bulge” concentrated in the middle age brackets. Specifically, the 25–34 years and 35–44 years cohorts represent the largest segments of the community, suggesting a population that is likely in its peak productive years and highly active in household management. This distribution is ideal for the COOKBLU project, as these age groups are typically more open to technological transitions, such as adopting a mobile-app-based gas service and engaging with the circular economy through the Trash2Cook initiative.
From a gender perspective, the survey revealed that female
respondents nearly doubled the number of male, with 64.1% female and
35.9% male respondents overall. A closer look at the primary target
groups (25–44 years) further shows a very strong female presence, which
is critical for an intervention focused on household cooking. This
gender parity ensures that the baseline data captures a comprehensive
view of community needs, balancing the perspectives of women—who are
traditionally the primary end-users of cooking energy—with those of men,
who often serve as key financial decision-makers in the home. Overall,
the data confirms that the project is positioned to engage a tech-savvy,
gender-inclusive market ready for sustainable energy solutions.
2. Subsidy Removal & Behavior Change
Table 2: Impact of Subsidy Removal on Stove Use
| has_subsidy_removal_affected_stove_use | Ceramic charcoal stove | Ceramic wood burning stove | Electric Pressure Cooker | Electric stove - Induction | Gas cooker 1 burner ‘camp gas’ | Gas cooker 2+ burner | Kerosene stove | Metal charcoal stove | Traditional 3-Stone | NA_ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No change | 0.5% (1) | 0.0% (0) | 0.5% (1) | 1.0% (2) | 69.2% (135) | 24.6% (48) | 0.5% (1) | 2.6% (5) | 1.0% (2) | 0.0% (0) |
| Use more charcoal | 9.1% (2) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 18.2% (4) | 18.2% (4) | 0.0% (0) | 45.5% (10) | 9.1% (2) | 0.0% (0) |
| Use more gas | 0.3% (3) | 0.1% (1) | 0.0% (0) | 0.3% (3) | 76.0% (732) | 21.2% (204) | 0.0% (0) | 1.6% (15) | 0.5% (5) | 0.0% (0) |
| Use more wood | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 0.0% (0) | 9.1% (2) | 90.9% (20) | 0.0% (0) |
| NA | 0.5% (4) | 0.1% (1) | 0.5% (4) | 0.4% (3) | 71.8% (531) | 17.8% (132) | 1.1% (8) | 4.6% (34) | 2.4% (18) | 0.7% (5) |
Table 2 shows a clear pattern that gas cookers remain the dominant stove type regardless of behavioral response to subsidy removal, especially the 1-burner “camp” gas stove. Among households reporting no change, about 69.2% use this stove type, followed by 24.6% using 2+ burner gas cookers, indicating that many households were already reliant on gas and did not alter behavior after subsidy removal. Similarly, among those who reported using more gas, an even larger proportion (76.0%) rely on 1-burner gas stoves, reinforcing the idea that subsidy removal did not deter gas usage for a substantial segment. This suggests either continued affordability, lack of viable alternatives, or strong preference for gas despite subsidy changes.
3. Trash2Cook Readiness
Table 3: Cross-tabulation: Cooking Method vs. Trash2Cook Willingness
| what_is_your_primary_cooking_stove | Maybe | No | Yes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ceramic charcoal stove | 1 (11.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (88.9%) |
| Ceramic wood burning stove | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (100.0%) |
| Electric Pressure Cooker | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (40.0%) | 3 (60.0%) |
| Electric stove - Induction | 3 (37.5%) | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (62.5%) |
| Gas cooker 1 burner ‘camp gas’ | 234 (16.9%) | 47 (3.4%) | 1,106 (79.7%) |
| Gas cooker 2+ burner | 74 (19.3%) | 18 (4.7%) | 292 (76.0%) |
| Kerosene stove | 2 (22.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (77.8%) |
| Metal charcoal stove | 23 (34.8%) | 1 (1.5%) | 42 (63.6%) |
| Traditional 3-Stone | 11 (23.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 35 (76.1%) |
| Total | 348 (18.2%) | 68 (3.5%) | 1,500 (78.3%) |
The table indicates a strong overall willingness to adopt Trash2Cook across all cooking groups, with 78.3% of respondents answering “Yes,” compared to only 3.5% “No” and 18.2% “Maybe,” suggesting broad acceptability of the innovation. Adoption interest is particularly high among users of cleaner fuels such as gas, where 79.7% of 1-burner gas users and 76.0% of 2+ burner users are willing, reflecting openness even among households already using relatively modern energy sources. Similarly, users of traditional and biomass-based stoves—including ceramic charcoal (88.9%), traditional three-stone (76.1%), and kerosene stoves (77.8%)—also show strong willingness, indicating that Trash2Cook may appeal as a cleaner or more efficient alternative across the energy ladder. Notably, electric stove users show slightly more hesitation, particularly induction users (37.5% “Maybe”), which may reflect satisfaction with existing systems or concerns about switching. Meanwhile, the very low proportion of outright rejection across all stove types suggests minimal resistance, with uncertainty (“Maybe”) rather than refusal being the main barrier. Overall, the findings highlight high market readiness and cross-cutting appeal, positioning Trash2Cook as a potentially scalable solution across diverse household energy profiles.
4. Prevalence of Fuel Stacking
Figure 1: Frequency of Multi-Stove Usage (Fuel Stacking)
The chart shows that fuel stacking is overwhelmingly a daily practice, with 80.4% (1,557 households) reporting that they use multiple stoves every day, indicating that reliance on a single cooking technology is rare. This dominant daily pattern suggests that households routinely combine fuels—likely balancing cost, availability, cooking speed, and meal type—rather than transitioning fully to cleaner options. A smaller but still notable share, 15.7% (305 households), engage in fuel stacking weekly, which may reflect more occasional supplementation of primary stoves during specific cooking needs or fuel shortages. In contrast, very few households report infrequent stacking, with only 2.7% doing so monthly and 1.1% mainly during family gatherings, indicating that intermittent or situational multi-stove use is relatively uncommon. Overall, the distribution highlights that fuel stacking is not an exception but a normalized, everyday behavior, underscoring persistent gaps in affordability, reliability, or suitability of single-fuel solutions and suggesting that clean cooking interventions must account for this entrenched practice rather than assume exclusive adoption.
5. Installation Readiness
Figure 2: Suitability of Space for Gas Stove Installation
This doughnut chart illustrates the results of an installation readiness assessment among the respondents. The data shows a significant majority of households are prepared for the transition, with 61.3% (1,190 individuals) indicating they have a suitable place for a gas stove. Conversely, a very small fraction of the population faces immediate physical barriers, as only 3.6% (69 respondents) answered “No” and a negligible 0.4% (8 respondents) fell into the “Other” category. Interestingly, over a third of the dataset—34.8% (675 respondents)—is marked as “NA,” which suggests either a segment of the population where gas installation isn’t applicable or a gap in data collection, where respondents did not respond to the question. Overall, while the technical feasibility for installation appears high among those for whom the question was relevant, the large “NA” slice represents a substantial portion of the surveyed group that remains outside the primary “Yes/No” binary.
6. Current Waste Disposal Baseline
Table 4: Baseline Waste Disposal Methods
| trash2cook_what_is_your_waste_disposal_method | n |
|---|---|
| Formal collection | 1839 |
| NA | 27 |
| Open burning | 20 |
| Open dumping | 11 |
| Informal recycling | 10 |
| Formal collection,Informal recycling | 9 |
| Open burning,Formal collection | 8 |
| Informal recycling ,Formal collection | 7 |
| Formal collection,Open burning | 6 |
| Other | 2 |
| Formal collection,Open dumping | 1 |
| Open burning,Open dumping | 1 |
| Other,Formal collection | 1 |
Table 4 reveals a highly centralized waste management landscape where formal collection is the overwhelming norm, serving 1,839 respondents. This dominant method accounts for the vast majority of the total sample, indicating a robust infrastructure or high compliance with official disposal services. While the infrastructure is strong, a small but diverse set of secondary behaviors exists, including environmentally harmful practices like open burning and open dumping, as well as informal recycling, though these figures are marginal (ranging from 10 to 20 instances each). Interestingly, the data captures overlapping behaviors through “multi-select” responses, showing that some households supplement formal collection with burning or informal recycling, likely due to service gaps or specific waste types. With only 27 “NA” responses and 2 “Other” entries, the table provides a comprehensive snapshot of a community that is largely integrated into a formal waste management system but still maintains minor, fragmented reliance on traditional or informal disposal methods.
7. Child Exposure to Smoke
Figure 3: Primary Stove Types in Households with Children Under 5
Figure 3 provides a critical look at cooking technologies used in homes that have children age 5 and below, showing a strong preference for gas-based solutions which significantly reduces the risk of indoor air pollution for young children. The data reveals that a combined 87.2% of these households utilize gas, with the single-burner “camp gas” cooker being the most prevalent at 58.0% (312 households), followed by larger multi-burner gas stoves at 29.2% (157 households). Despite this positive trend toward cleaner fuels, a small but significant portion of the population—approximately 10.7%—still relies on biomass fuels like charcoal or wood, including the 7.2% using metal charcoal stoves and 3.5% using traditional 3-stone fires, which are known for high smoke emissions. Modern electric alternatives, such as induction stoves and electric pressure cookers, remain in the extreme minority at less than 1% combined. Overall, while the majority of children in this survey are protected from heavy smoke exposure by gas usage, the continued presence of traditional solid-fuel methods highlights a lingering public health challenge for a tenth of the surveyed households.
8. Seasonality (Wet Season Fuel Use)
Figure 4: Primary Fuel Usage During the Wet Season
Figure 4 demonstrates a nearly universal reliance on Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) during the wet season among the surveyed population, with 92.8% (1,798 households) identifying it as their main fuel source. This overwhelming preference for gas during the wet season likely reflects its reliability and ease of storage compared to biomass fuels, which are difficult to keep dry and ignite in high humidity. Traditional solid fuels like Charcoal (3.5%) and Wood (2.5%) maintain only a marginal presence, totaling just 6% of the sample, while modern Electric (0.7%) and Kerosene (0.5%) options are negligible. The data suggests that for the vast majority of these households, LPG is serving as a stable energy bedrock that remains resilient against seasonal weather changes.
9. Top 11 Perceived Barriers (Negative Opinions of Gas)
Table 5: Community Barriers to Gas Adoption
| negative_opinions_about_cooking_with_gas | n |
|---|---|
| It cause fire explosion | 120 |
| It cause fire out break | 81 |
| Explosion | 30 |
| None | 22 |
| It doesn’t give signer before it finish | 20 |
| It cause explosion | 16 |
| Fire explosion | 10 |
| Gas explosion | 10 |
| Nothing | 10 |
| It doesn’t give sign before it finish | 8 |
| It doesn’t give signer before the gas finishies | 8 |
Table 5 highlights that safety concerns, specifically the fear of fire outbreaks and explosions, are the primary psychological hurdles preventing universal gas adoption. Aggregating the various mentions of “fire explosion,” “outbreak,” and “gas explosion” reveals that nearly 267 respondents—the vast majority of those with negative opinions—associate gas cooking with high-risk accidents. Beyond physical safety, a recurring secondary concern is the lack of predictability regarding fuel levels, with approximately 36 respondents noting that gas “doesn’t give a sign before it finishes,” suggesting a need for better monitoring tools or gauges. While a small subset (32 respondents) reported “None” or “Nothing,” the data clearly indicates that for the skeptical minority, the barrier to switching is not necessarily economic or logistical, but rather a deeply rooted perception of danger and a lack of transparency in fuel consumption.