IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i22p15385-d977446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Larissa Nicholas

    (Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK)

  • Keith H. Halfacree

    (Department of Geography, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK)

  • Ian Mabbett

    (Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK)

Abstract

Full-scale pyrolysis of faecal sludge is a credible technology for the safe removal of pathogens and the concurrent creation of biochar, which has been shown to enhance crop productivity. Faecal sludge biochar has the potential to improve acidic, low nutrient soils and crop yield in developing nations more at risk of climate change and food insecurity. Little research has been conducted into public acceptance of faecal sludge biochar as a soil enhancer in agriculture. In this study of the public in Swansea, Wales, an online survey examines their awareness of, and comfort levels of eating food grown using biosolids, wood biochar and faecal sludge biochar. Our findings show that males were almost twice as likely than females to have a positive perception of biosolids (OR 1.91, p value 0.004) and faecal sludge biochar (OR 2.02, p value 0.03). Those in the oldest age group (65+) were almost five times more likely to have a positive view of faecal sludge biochar than the youngest age group (OR 4.88, p value 0.001). Deployment of faecal sludge biochar must overcome a “disgust effect” related to its human faecal origins. This factor must be centrally taken into account when implementing management and policy decisions regarding the land application of biosolids and faecal sludge biochar.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Larissa Nicholas & Keith H. Halfacree & Ian Mabbett, 2022. "Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15385-:d:977446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15385/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15385/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shirish Singh & Mohammed Ali Ibrahim & Sumeet Pawar & Damir Brdjanovic, 2022. "Public Perceptions of Reuse of Faecal Sludge Co-Compost in Bhubaneswar, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Simon Gwara & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo & Chris Buckley, 2021. "Attitudes and Perceptions on the Agricultural Use of Human Excreta and Human Excreta Derived Materials: A Scoping Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-30, February.
    3. Sarah Dryhurst & Claudia R. Schneider & John Kerr & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Gabriel Recchia & Anne Marthe van der Bles & David Spiegelhalter & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 994-1006, August.
    4. Simon Gwara & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo & Chris Buckley, 2020. "Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-25, August.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:50-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Duncan Mara & Jon Lane & Beth Scott & David Trouba, 2010. "Sanitation and Health," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    7. Walter R. Stahel, 2016. "The circular economy," Nature, Nature, vol. 531(7595), pages 435-438, March.
    8. Peter Msumali Rogers & Mathias Fridahl & Pius Yanda & Anders Hansson & Noah Pauline & Simon Haikola, 2021. "Socio-Economic Determinants for Biochar Deployment in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Per Espen Stoknes & Olav B. Soldal & Sissel Hansen & Ingvar Kvande & Sylvia Weddegjerde Skjelderup, 2021. "Willingness to Pay for Crowdfunding Local Agricultural Climate Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    10. Camilo Venegas & Andrea C. Sánchez-Alfonso & Crispín Celis & Fidson-Juarismy Vesga & Mauricio González Mendez, 2021. "Management Strategies and Stakeholders Analysis to Strengthen the Management and Use of Biosolids in a Colombian Municipality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-25, November.
    11. Agnieszka E. Latawiec & Jolanta B. Królczyk & Maciej Kuboń & Katarzyna Szwedziak & Adam Drosik & Ewa Polańczyk & Katarzyna Grotkiewicz & Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, 2017. "Willingness to Adopt Biochar in Agriculture: The Producer’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    12. MacKerron, George J. & Egerton, Catrin & Gaskell, Christopher & Parpia, Aimie & Mourato, Susana, 2009. "Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1372-1381, April.
    13. Matthew Mamera & Johan J. van Tol & Makhosazana P. Aghoghovwia & Gabriel T. Mapetere, 2020. "Community Faecal Management Strategies and Perceptions on Sludge Use in Agriculture," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, June.
    14. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1994. "Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1101-1108, December.
    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. Shoots-Reinhard, Brittany & Goodwin, Raleigh & Bjälkebring, Pär & Markowitz, David M. & Silverstein, Michael C. & Peters, Ellen, 2021. "Ability-related political polarization in the COVID-19 pandemic," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Haruna Sekabira & Ghislain T. Tepa-Yotto & Rousseau Djouaka & Victor Clottey & Christopher Gaitu & Manuele Tamò & Yusuf Kaweesa & Stanley Peter Ddungu, 2022. "Determinants for Deployment of Climate-Smart Integrated Pest Management Practices: A Meta-Analysis Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Nataliya Loiko & Oleg Kanunnikov & Yuriy Litti, 2023. "Use of Alcaligenes faecalis to Reduce Coliforms and Enhance the Stabilization of Faecal Sludge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    5. Foliano, Francesca & Tonei, Valentina & Sevilla, Almudena, 2024. "Social restrictions, leisure and well-being," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Ali Zackery & Joseph Amankwah-Amoah & Zahra Heidari Darani & Shiva Ghasemi, 2022. "COVID-19 Research in Business and Management: A Review and Future Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-32, August.
    7. Espinoza-Delgado, José & Silber, Jacques, 2018. "Multi-dimensional poverty among adults in Central America and gender differences in the three I’s of poverty: Applying inequality sensitive poverty measures with ordinal variables," MPRA Paper 88750, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Garaus, Marion & Hudáková, Melánia, 2022. "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourists’ air travel intentions: The role of perceived health risk and trust in the airline," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    10. Leticia Regueiro & Richard Newton & Mohamed Soula & Diego Méndez & Björn Kok & David C. Little & Roberto Pastres & Johan Johansen & Martiña Ferreira, 2022. "Opportunities and limitations for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture based on the regulatory framework," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(6), pages 2033-2044, December.
    11. Enzo Cumbo & Giuseppe Gallina & Pietro Messina & Giuseppe Alessandro Scardina, 2023. "Filter Masks during the Second Phase of SARS-CoV-2: Study on Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-7, January.
    12. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    13. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    14. Aida El-Far Cardo & Thomas Kraus & Andrea Kaifie, 2021. "Factors That Shape People’s Attitudes towards the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany—The Influence of MEDIA, Politics and Personal Characteristics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Millar, Neal & McLaughlin, Eoin & Börger, Tobias, 2019. "The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 11-19.
    16. Löschel, Andreas & Sturm, Bodo & Vogt, Carsten, 2013. "The demand for climate protection—Empirical evidence from Germany," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 415-418.
    17. Wasiq Khan & Bilal M. Khan & Salwa Yasen & Ahmed Al-Dahiri & Dhiya Al-Jumeily & Khalil Dajani & Abir Hussain, 2022. "COVID-19 Vaccination and Mental Stress within Diverse Sociodemographic Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-19, October.
    18. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    19. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    20. Barrington, D.J. & Sridharan, S. & Shields, K.F. & Saunders, S.G. & Souter, R.T. & Bartram, J., 2017. "Sanitation marketing: A systematic review and theoretical critique using the capability approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 128-134.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15385-:d:977446. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.