IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v151y2017icp84-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer perceptions and use of organic waste products as fertilisers – A survey study of potential benefits and barriers

Author

Listed:
  • Case, S.D.C.
  • Oelofse, M.
  • Hou, Y.
  • Oenema, O.
  • Jensen, L.S.

Abstract

Processing of organic waste can improve its nutrient availability and content, and thereby increases the agricultural value of the waste when used as fertilisers, while contributing to a more bio-based, ‘circular’ economy. It is therefore important to guide future policies on waste management and on the development of industries related to processing of organic wastes from agriculture, industry and households. However, there is a lack of understanding of the decision-making processes underlying the use of processed and unprocessed organic waste-based fertilisers by farmers. We conducted a survey asking farmers in Denmark about their current use of organic fertiliser, their interest in using alternative types in the future, and their perception of most important barriers or advantages to using organic fertilisers.

Suggested Citation

  • Case, S.D.C. & Oelofse, M. & Hou, Y. & Oenema, O. & Jensen, L.S., 2017. "Farmer perceptions and use of organic waste products as fertilisers – A survey study of potential benefits and barriers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 84-95.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:151:y:2017:i:c:p:84-95
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.11.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16308022
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.11.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edwards, Joel & Othman, Maazuza & Burn, Stewart, 2015. "A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 815-828.
    2. Bailey, Alastair & Bertaglia, Marco & Fraser, Iain & Sharma, Abhijit & Douarin, Elodie, 2009. "Integrated Pest Management Portfolios in UK Arable Farming: Results of a Farmer Survey," MPRA Paper 14764, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Bennamoun, Lyes & Arlabosse, Patricia & Léonard, Angélique, 2013. "Review on fundamental aspect of application of drying process to wastewater sludge," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 29-43.
    4. Nunez, Jennifer & McCann, Laura M.J., 2004. "Crop Farmers' Willingness to Use Manure," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19932, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    6. Asai, Masayasu & Langer, Vibeke & Frederiksen, Pia & Jacobsen, Brian H., 2014. "Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: A study in Denmark," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 55-65.
    7. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    8. Allen M. Featherstone & Barry K. Goodwin, 1993. "Factors Influencing a Farmer's Decision to Invest in Long-Term Conservation Improvements," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(1), pages 67-81.
    9. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    10. Jacobsen, Brian, 2011. "Costs of slurry separation technologies and alternative use of the solid fraction for biogas production or burning – a Danish perspective," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 1(2), pages 1-12.
    11. Lipp, Judith, 2007. "Lessons for effective renewable electricity policy from Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5481-5495, November.
    12. Mao, Chunlan & Feng, Yongzhong & Wang, Xiaojiao & Ren, Guangxin, 2015. "Review on research achievements of biogas from anaerobic digestion," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 540-555.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    3. Guerzoni, Marco & Jordan, Alexander, 2016. "“Cursed is the ground because of you”: Religion, Ethnicity, and the Adoption of Fertilizers in Rural Ethiopia," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201605, University of Turin.
    4. Alfons Weersink & Murray Fulton, 2020. "Limits to Profit Maximization as a Guide to Behavior Change," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 67-79, March.
    5. Alexander Jordan & Marco Guerzoni, 2021. "“Cursed is the ground because of you”:," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 853-890, July.
    6. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    7. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Seymour, Greg & Doss, Cheryl & Marenya, Paswel & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Passarelli, Simone, "undated". "Women’s Empowerment and the Adoption of Improved Maize Varieties: Evidence from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236164, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Theriault, Veronique & Smale, Melinda & Haider, Hamza, 2016. "Gender Differences in the Adoption of Cereal Intensification Strategy Sets in Burkina Faso," Food Security International Development Working Papers 245896, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    10. Theriault, Veronique & Smale, Melinda & Haider, Hamza, 2017. "How Does Gender Affect Sustainable Intensification of Cereal Production in the West African Sahel? Evidence from Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 177-191.
    11. Kreft, Cordelia & Huber, Robert & Wuepper, David & Finger, Robert, 2021. "The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    12. Alexander Jordan & Marco Guerzoni, 2020. "The pain of a new idea: Do Late Bloomers response to Extension Service in Rural Ethiopia?," Papers 2006.02846, arXiv.org.
    13. Adnan, Nadia & Nordin, Shahrina Md & bin Abu Bakar, Zulqarnain, 2017. "Understanding and facilitating sustainable agricultural practice: A comprehensive analysis of adoption behaviour among Malaysian paddy farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 372-382.
    14. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    15. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    16. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Pardey, Philip G. & Alston, Julian M. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2010. "The Economics of Innovation and Technical Change in Agriculture," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 939-984, Elsevier.
    18. Arslan, Aslihan & McCarthy, Nancy & Lipper, Leslie & Asfaw, Solomon & Cattaneo, Andrea, 2013. "Adoption and Intensity of Adoption of Conservation Farming Practices in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 147461, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    19. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura M., 2017. "Farmers’ Adoption of Pressure Irrigation Systems and Scientific Scheduling Practices: An Application of Multilevel Models," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258458, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Singh, Nirvikar, 2015. "Punjab’s Agricultural Innovation Challenge," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4716p3vr, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:151:y:2017:i:c:p:84-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.