Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya

Received: 6 October 2026     Accepted: 17 October 2026     Published: 29 October 2026
Views:       Downloads:
Abstract

Despite abundant cattle-dung resources, household biogas adoption remains low across Kenya’s arid and semi-arid pastoral zones. Only 0.5% of Narok County households use biogas as their primary cooking fuel, and prior research has not examined how efficiently pastoralist households can mobilize this feedstock. This study assessed feedstock-mobilization efficiency and its determinants among pastoralist households in Mt. Suswa, Narok County, Kenya, using a non-experimental, cross-sectional design grounded in Production and Efficiency theories. A census of 150 livestock-keeping households was attempted, and 114 complete questionnaires (76.0%) were analyzed. Potential biogas yield was derived from herd size, assuming 9.0 kg of dung per head per day and 50% collection efficiency. It was modelled as an ex-ante resource-mobilization frontier using a Battese–Coelli Translog stochastic frontier with an inefficiency-effects component. Likelihood-ratio tests favored the stochastic Translog specification over both OLS and Cobb-Douglas. Mean mobilization efficiency was 67.04%, revealing a 32.96% structural gap, and 28.1% of households fell below 60% efficiency. Returns to scale were strongly diminishing (0.55 under individual grazing and 0.38 under communal grazing). A significant negative water-access-by-grazing-distance interaction pointed to compounding spatial constraints. Livestock maintenance cost and grazing distance raised the frontier, while communal grazing lowered it by 24.68%. Cultural compatibility with dung-derived energy reduced inefficiency, whereas formal education increased it, a pattern interpreted through life-cycle and Chayanovian accounts of livestock accumulation. Modern cooking-energy use and technology awareness showed marginal, opposing effects. Closing half the efficiency gap could yield about 208 m³ of additional biogas per household annually, displacing roughly 1.26 tonnes of firewood worth KES 18,303. These results suggest that clean-energy deficit stems from spatial, environmental, and institutional frictions. Biogas policy should therefore target household-level mobilization constraints, through culturally anchored extension, co-location of water and energy infrastructure, and localized paddocking, rather than aggregate biomass availability.

Published in International Journal of Agricultural Economics (Volume 11, Issue 5)
DOI 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15
Page(s) 201-216
Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright

Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Cattle Dung, Biogas, Resource Mobilization Efficiency, Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Translog Frontier, Pastoralist Households, Mt. Suswa, Kenya

References
[1] Energy and Petroleum Regulatory Authority. (2024). 2023–2024 energy statistics and sector performance report. Government of Kenya.
[2] World Population Review. (2024). Electricity prices by country 2024.
[3] Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis. (2023). Kenya economic report 2023: Cost of living and the economy. KIPPRA.
[4] World Bank. (2023). Kenya economic update: Overcoming economic headwinds (No. 28). The World Bank Group.
[5] International Renewable Energy Agency. (2022). Renewable energy market analysis: Africa and its regions. IRENA.
[6] World Health Organization. (2021). Household energy use and health: Fact sheets. World Health Organization.
[7] Ministry of Energy and Petroleum, & Clean Cooking Association of Kenya. (2021). National clean cooking study and baseline pricing metrics in rural agricultural zones. Ministry of Energy and Petroleum.
[8] Ministry of Energy. (2020). Kenya bioenergy strategy 2020–2027. Government of Kenya, State Department for Energy.
[9] Kimutai, G., Langat, B., & Kiprop, S. (2024). Economic impact of biogas adoption on rural household expenditures in Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 19(1), 22–37.
[10] SNV Netherlands Development Organisation. (2019). Global status of household biodigesters.
[11] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
[12] Gadirli, M., Aliyev, A., & Ibrahimov, R. (2024). Optimization of feedstock supply chains for sustainable biogas production. Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 12(1), 45–58.
[13] Jameel, M., Hussain, A., & Khan, S. (2024). Efficiency of conversion systems in small-scale biogas digesters. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 61, Article 103112.
[14] International Livestock Research Institute. (2022). Livestock population and density mapping in Kenya's ASALs (ILRI Research Report).
[15] Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2019). 2019 Kenya population and housing census: Volume IV - Distribution of population by socio-economic characteristics. Government of Kenya.
[16] Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20(2), 325–332.
[17] Cobb, C. W., & Douglas, P. H. (1928). A theory of production. The American Economic Review, 18(1), 139–165.
[18] Christensen, L. R., Jorgenson, D. W., & Lau, L. J. (1973). Transcendental logarithmic production frontiers. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 55(1), 28–45.
[19] Aigner, D., Lovell, C. A. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6(1), 21–37.
[20] Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–290.
[21] Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
[22] Ando, A., & Modigliani, F. (1963). The "life cycle" hypothesis of saving: Aggregate implications and tests. The American Economic Review, 53(1), 55–84.
[23] Modigliani, F., & Brumberg, R. H. (1954). Utility analysis and the consumption function: An interpretation of cross-section data. In K. K. Kurihara (Ed.), Post-Keynesian economics (pp. 388–436). Rutgers University Press.
[24] Chayanov, A. V. (1966). The theory of peasant economy (D. Thorner, B. Kerblay, & R. E. F. Smith, Eds.). Richard D. Irwin. (Original work published 1925).
[25] Little, P. D., McPeak, J., Barrett, C. B., & Kristjanson, P. (2006). Challenging stereotypes: The multiple dimensions of poverty in pastoral areas of East Africa. Development and Change, 37(3), 587–611.
[26] Moreda, T. (2023). The social dynamics of access to land, livelihoods and the rural youth in an era of rapid rural change: Evidence from Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 128, Article 106616.
[27] Gbadeyan, O. J., Muthivhi, J., Linganiso, L. Z., Deenadayalu, N., & Alabi, O. O. (2024). Biogas production and techno-economic feasibility studies of setting up household biogas technology in Africa: A critical review. Energy Science & Engineering, 12(10), 4788–4806.
[28] Juma, I. M. (2018). Assessing the uptake of biogas as a source of clean energy for cooking by low-income households in Kibera slum, Kenya [Master's thesis, University of Nairobi]. University of Nairobi Digital Repository.
[29] Clemens, H., Bailis, R., Nyambane, A., & Ndung'u, V. (2018). Africa Biogas Partnership Program: A review of clean cooking implementation through market development in East Africa. Energy for Sustainable Development, 46, 23–31.
[30] Ong'ayo, A. (2016). Socio-economic factors influencing biogas technology adoption among households [Working paper].
[31] Kumar, R. (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
[32] County Government of Narok. (2023). County integrated development plan (CIDP) 2023–2027. Government of Kenya.
[33] Mt. Suswa Conservancy. (2020). Household census and livestock statistics register. Mt. Suswa Community.
[34] Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
[35] Rukmana, D. (2014). The encyclopedia of housing (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[36] Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
[37] Salmons, J. (2023). Doing qualitative research online (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
[38] Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Economic survey 2023. Government of Kenya.
[39] Gupta, K. K., Aneja, K. R., & Rana, D. (2016). Current status of cow dung as a bioresource for sustainable development. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 3(1), Article 28.
[40] Ngetich, K., Kiprop, S., & Langat, B. (2023). Estimation of biomass feedstock collection efficiency in pastoralist systems of Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 9(2), 154–168.
[41] Scheftelowitz, M., Thrän, D., & Ehrig, R. (2016). Determination of volatile solids and biogas potential in agricultural residues. Bioresource Technology, 214, 432–439.
[42] KENPRO. (2023). Biogas production potential from livestock waste in Kenya. Kenya Projects Organization.
[43] Coelli, T. J., Rao, D. S. P., O'Donnell, C. J., & Battese, G. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
[44] Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
[45] Geels, F. W. (2005). Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cite This Article
  • APA Style

    Naini, P. A., Ombok, M. O., Ogada, J. O. (2026). Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural Economics, 11(5), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Naini, P. A.; Ombok, M. O.; Ogada, J. O. Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya. Int. J. Agric. Econ. 2026, 11(5), 201-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Naini PA, Ombok MO, Ogada JO. Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya. Int J Agric Econ. 2026;11(5):201-216. doi: 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15

    Copy | Download

  • @article{10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15,
      author = {Parsariro Agnes Naini and Maurice Ochieng Ombok and Job Ochieng Ogada},
      title = {Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya},
      journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Economics},
      volume = {11},
      number = {5},
      pages = {201-216},
      doi = {10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15},
      url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15},
      eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijae.20261105.15},
      abstract = {Despite abundant cattle-dung resources, household biogas adoption remains low across Kenya’s arid and semi-arid pastoral zones. Only 0.5% of Narok County households use biogas as their primary cooking fuel, and prior research has not examined how efficiently pastoralist households can mobilize this feedstock. This study assessed feedstock-mobilization efficiency and its determinants among pastoralist households in Mt. Suswa, Narok County, Kenya, using a non-experimental, cross-sectional design grounded in Production and Efficiency theories. A census of 150 livestock-keeping households was attempted, and 114 complete questionnaires (76.0%) were analyzed. Potential biogas yield was derived from herd size, assuming 9.0 kg of dung per head per day and 50% collection efficiency. It was modelled as an ex-ante resource-mobilization frontier using a Battese–Coelli Translog stochastic frontier with an inefficiency-effects component. Likelihood-ratio tests favored the stochastic Translog specification over both OLS and Cobb-Douglas. Mean mobilization efficiency was 67.04%, revealing a 32.96% structural gap, and 28.1% of households fell below 60% efficiency. Returns to scale were strongly diminishing (0.55 under individual grazing and 0.38 under communal grazing). A significant negative water-access-by-grazing-distance interaction pointed to compounding spatial constraints. Livestock maintenance cost and grazing distance raised the frontier, while communal grazing lowered it by 24.68%. Cultural compatibility with dung-derived energy reduced inefficiency, whereas formal education increased it, a pattern interpreted through life-cycle and Chayanovian accounts of livestock accumulation. Modern cooking-energy use and technology awareness showed marginal, opposing effects. Closing half the efficiency gap could yield about 208 m³ of additional biogas per household annually, displacing roughly 1.26 tonnes of firewood worth KES 18,303. These results suggest that clean-energy deficit stems from spatial, environmental, and institutional frictions. Biogas policy should therefore target household-level mobilization constraints, through culturally anchored extension, co-location of water and energy infrastructure, and localized paddocking, rather than aggregate biomass availability.},
     year = {2026}
    }
    

    Copy | Download

  • TY  - JOUR
    T1  - Resource Mobilization Efficiency of Household Biogas Potential in a Pastoral Economy: The Case of Mt. Suswa, Kenya
    AU  - Parsariro Agnes Naini
    AU  - Maurice Ochieng Ombok
    AU  - Job Ochieng Ogada
    Y1  - 2026/10/29
    PY  - 2026
    N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15
    DO  - 10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15
    T2  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
    JF  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
    JO  - International Journal of Agricultural Economics
    SP  - 201
    EP  - 216
    PB  - Science Publishing Group
    SN  - 2575-3843
    UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20261105.15
    AB  - Despite abundant cattle-dung resources, household biogas adoption remains low across Kenya’s arid and semi-arid pastoral zones. Only 0.5% of Narok County households use biogas as their primary cooking fuel, and prior research has not examined how efficiently pastoralist households can mobilize this feedstock. This study assessed feedstock-mobilization efficiency and its determinants among pastoralist households in Mt. Suswa, Narok County, Kenya, using a non-experimental, cross-sectional design grounded in Production and Efficiency theories. A census of 150 livestock-keeping households was attempted, and 114 complete questionnaires (76.0%) were analyzed. Potential biogas yield was derived from herd size, assuming 9.0 kg of dung per head per day and 50% collection efficiency. It was modelled as an ex-ante resource-mobilization frontier using a Battese–Coelli Translog stochastic frontier with an inefficiency-effects component. Likelihood-ratio tests favored the stochastic Translog specification over both OLS and Cobb-Douglas. Mean mobilization efficiency was 67.04%, revealing a 32.96% structural gap, and 28.1% of households fell below 60% efficiency. Returns to scale were strongly diminishing (0.55 under individual grazing and 0.38 under communal grazing). A significant negative water-access-by-grazing-distance interaction pointed to compounding spatial constraints. Livestock maintenance cost and grazing distance raised the frontier, while communal grazing lowered it by 24.68%. Cultural compatibility with dung-derived energy reduced inefficiency, whereas formal education increased it, a pattern interpreted through life-cycle and Chayanovian accounts of livestock accumulation. Modern cooking-energy use and technology awareness showed marginal, opposing effects. Closing half the efficiency gap could yield about 208 m³ of additional biogas per household annually, displacing roughly 1.26 tonnes of firewood worth KES 18,303. These results suggest that clean-energy deficit stems from spatial, environmental, and institutional frictions. Biogas policy should therefore target household-level mobilization constraints, through culturally anchored extension, co-location of water and energy infrastructure, and localized paddocking, rather than aggregate biomass availability.
    VL  - 11
    IS  - 5
    ER  - 

    Copy | Download

Author Information
  • Sections