Survey Methodology:
Twenty households were randomly selected from rural areas to participate in the survey. The following
criteria were used to select study participants:
1. Primary Cooking Fuel: Families primarily using wood and/or kerosene for cooking, with
minimal use of LPG.
2. Duration: 1 months
3. Family Size: Families with an average size of 2–5 people.
4. Decision Maker's Age: The decision-maker responsible for cooking and fuel choices is between
the ages of 23 and 50.
Feedback Summary:
Cost-Efficiency:


80% of participants found ethanol cooking fuel cost-effective.
Long-term savings outweigh initial investment.
Convenience:



85% found ethanol fuel convenient.
Fuel ATM booths offer easy fuel access with ATM cards.
Easy lighting and flame control were appreciated.
Environmental Impact:


95% satisfied with environmental benefits.
Reduced smoke emission led to better indoor air quality.
Cooking Performance:


75% reported similar or better cooking performance.
Faster cooking times and consistent flame were noted.
Safety:



90% felt ethanol fuel was safer.
No direct contact with Ethanol as fuel cannister automatically connects with stove
Reduced fire hazards and cleaner combustion were cited.
Conclusion: Overall, the feedback from the participants indicates a high level of satisfaction with the
use of ethanol cooking fuel. The majority of the families found it to be cost-effective, convenient, and
environmentally friendly. Additionally, they reported positive experiences regarding cooking
performance and safety. Based on this feedback, ethanol cooking fuel appears to be a promising
alternative for clean and sustainable cooking solutions.