Background: Indoor residual spraying was a long standing malaria prevention and control strategyrnin the world. In Ethiopia, it was initiated in 1959 with the global malaria eradication campaign. Thisrnintervention is still one of the pillar malaria prevention and control strategies in the country.rnHowever, the acceptance of the intervention by the community is becoming a challenge.rnObjectives: The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and perception of the communityrnabout malaria in general and vector control methods focusing on indoor residual spraying inrnparticular, factors that affect its acceptance by the community, and finally to determine re-plasteringrnrate after IRS.rnMethods: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted using interviewer-administeredrnquestionnaire. The study was conducted during March-April 2010 in Lume district, Oromia regionrncentral eastern part of Ethiopia. 807 house holds were selected from these 6 kebeles by systematicrnrandom sampling technique using proportional allocation to size. Focus group discussions (FGDs)rnand in-depth interviews were also held to supplement the quantitative data. The quantitative datarnwas managed by Epi-info version 6 and SPSS version 11 statistical softwares.rnResults: From 776 respondents, 87% of them have at least heard about malaria (called â€œbusaâ€ inrntheir local language. One of the typical sign of malaria i.e. â€œFeverâ€ was mentioned as sign ofrnmalaria by only 41% of the respondents. Mosquito bite was mentioned as a factor for malariarntransmission by about 80% of the respondents. Respondents who can read and write including thosernattended formal education were found 1.65 times more likely of making their house to be sprayedrnthan those who canâ€™t read and write [AOR=1.62, 95% CI: (1.05-2.49)]. Households that have heardrnthe announcement were found six times more likely of making their house to be sprayed than thosernwho donâ€™t [AOR=6.5, 95% CI: (2.92-14.46)]. Households that perceived increment of nuisancernannoyance were found five times more likely of re-plastering the sprayed wall than those whornperceived the decrement [AOR=4.98, 95% CI: (1.97-12.62)]. In general, of the 100% targetedrnhouseholds, more than 16% were left unsprayed; among the sprayed ones about 7% were notrnwilling; and more than 20% have re-plastered the sprayed walls with in few days of spray.rnConclusions: This study revealed that there is lack of knowledge on malaria prevention and controlrnin the community. Communicating the community about what is going to be done in certain periodrnregarding the intervention was seen to have an impact on the performance. The study also indicatedrnthat there is a serious concern regarding the side action of the chemical particularly DDT on housernnuisances that the hard science should address besides to checking its efficacy on mosquito.