Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Profile of Questionnaire Respondents
3.2. Awareness of Biosolids
3.3. Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Biosolids
3.4. Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Wood Biochar
3.5. Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Faecal Sludge Biochar
3.6. Wariness of Eating from Sludge Biochar and the “Disgust Factor”
- I don’t know enough about it and the name “faecal sludge” makes me feel queasy!
- I think it’s mostly the wording. Faecal sludge sounds obviously disgusting and off putting and like no one would want to eat anything that had been in it.
- It’s just the word faecal. Makes me think of dangerous bacteria
- It could do with some branding work. Maybe de-emphasis faecal?
- Just difficulty to shake the associations with “faecal sludge”, even while trying to think about it rationally-a very visceral recoil away from associating “faecal” with food. I’d rather just not know!
- Just does not sound nice. Not really a rational answer
- It’s probably profoundly illogical, but it just sounds unpleasant. Perhaps the disgust reaction is too ingrained-I think there’s a linguistic aspect here, as “sludge” is such an unpleasant word. Nonetheless, I’m sure that with adequate reassurances and if it benefitted the environment (or at least wasn’t as harmful as aggressive farming techniques using pesticides that deplete the bees, etc) it could be overcome!
- Logically I know it’s safe but the thought of it has a bit of an ick factor
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Biosolids | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Age groups | 18–24 | 15.0% (3) | 20.0% (4) | 65.0% (13) |
25–34 | 20.4% (11) | 11.1% (6) | 68.5% (37) | |
35–44 | 20.2% (19) | 14.9% (14) | 64.9% (61) | |
45–54 | 13.6% (8) | 18.6% (11) | 67.8% (40) | |
55–64 | 33.9% (19) | 10.7% (6) | 55.4% (31) | |
65+ | 9.1% (6) | 18.2% (12) | 72.7% (48) |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Biosolids | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Uncomfortable | Uncomfortable | Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Location | Rural | 7.5% (6) | 17.5% (14) | 12.5% (10) | 17.5% (14) | 45.0% (36) |
Suburban | 4.1% (5) | 11.6% (14) | 18.2% (22) | 30.6% (37) | 35.5% (43) | |
Urban | 2.7% (4) | 15.5% (23) | 14.2% (21) | 32.4% (48) | 35.1% (52) |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Biosolids | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Frequency of organic food consumption | Every day | 17.4% (12) | 14.5% (10) | 68.1% (47) |
At least once a week | 21.2% (31) | 11.0% (16) | 67.8% (99) | |
At least once a month | 19.1% (9) | 14.9% (7) | 66.0% (31) | |
Less than once a month | 20.5% (9) | 13.6% (6) | 65.9% (29) | |
Never | 11.8% (4) | 32.4% (11) | 55.9% (19) |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Wood Biochar | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Uncomfortable | Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Age groups | 18–34 | 5.4% (4) | 13.5% (10) | 10.8% (8) | 70.3% (52) |
35–54 | 3.3% (5) | 14.4% (22) | 15.0% (23) | 67.3% (103) | |
over 55 | 2.5% (3) | 16.4% (20) | 12.3% (15) | 68.9% (84) |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Wood Biochar | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Location | Rural | 2.5% (2) | 13.8% (11) | 83.8% (67) |
Suburban | 3.3% (4) | 19.0% (23) | 77.7% (94) | |
Urban | 4.1% (6) | 12.2% (18) | 83.8% (124) |
Attitudes towards Eating Food grown in SLUDGE Biochar | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Uncomfortable | Uncomfortable | Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Location | Rural | 7.5% (6) | 18.8% (15) | 13.8% (11) | 20.0% (16) | 40.0% (32) |
Suburban | 5.8% (7) | 17.4% (21) | 19.8% (24) | 24.0% (29) | 33.1% (40) | |
Urban | 6.8% (10) | 20.9% (31) | 19.6% (29) | 18.2% (27) | 34.5% (51) |
Attitudes towards Eating Food Grown in Sludge Biochar | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Frequency of organic food consumption | Every day | 17.4% (12) | 17.4% (12) | 65.2% (45) |
At least once a week | 26.0% (38) | 14.4% (21) | 59.6% (87) | |
At least once a month | 31.9% (15) | 14.9% (7) | 53.2% (25) | |
Less than once a month | 27.3% (12) | 25.0% (11) | 47.7% (21) | |
Never | 29.4% (10) | 29.4% (10) | 41.2% (14) |
References
- UNICEF and WHO. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene-Joint Monitoring Programme 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. 2017. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/resources/progress-drinking-water-sanitation-hygiene-2017-update-sdg-baselines/ (accessed on 14 September 2022).
- Jiménez, B.; Drechsel, P.; Koné, D.; Bahri, A.; Raschid-Sally, L.; Qadir, M. Wastewater, sludge and excreta use in developing countries: An overview. In Wastewater Irrigation and Health; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gwenzi, W.; Munondo, R. Long-term impacts of pasture irrigation with treated sewage effluent on nutrient status of a sandy soil in Zimbabwe. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 82, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haller, L.; Hutton, G.; Bartram, J. Estimating the costs and health benefits of water and sanitation improvements at global level. J. Water Health 2007, 5, 467–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mara, D.; Lane, J.; Scott, B.; Trouba, D. Sanitation and health. PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Strande, L.; Brdjanovic, D.; Ronteltap, M. Faecal Sludge Management: Systems Approach for Implementation and Operation; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Mondini, C.; de Nobili, M.; Leita, L.; Roig, A. Land application of biosolids. Soil response to different stabilization degree of the treated organic matter. Waste Manag. 2004, 24, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esrey, S.A.; Andersson, I.; Hillers, A.; Sawyer, R. Ecological Sanitation for Food Security; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency: Stockholm, Sweden, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, C.; Lane, A.; Oreszczyn, S.; Schiller, F.; Yoxon, M. Recycling organic waste resources to land—communicating the issues. In Proceedings of the ISWA/APESB 2009 World Congress, Turning Waste into Ideas, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–15 October 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Defra. Sewage Sludge in Agriculture: Code of Practice for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 2018. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sewage-sludge-in-agriculture-code-of-practice/sewage-sludge-in-agriculture-code-of-practice-for-england-wales-and-northern-ireland (accessed on 18 November 2020).
- European Parliament and European Council. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Text with EEA relevance). 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L0851 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Drechsel, P.; Qadir, M.; Wichelns, D. Wastewater: Economic asset in an urbanizing world. In Wastewater Economic Asset in an Urbanizing World; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 1–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahel, W.R. The circular economy. Nature 2016, 531, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steen, I. Phosphorus availability in the 21st century: Management of a non-renewable resource. Phosphorus Potassium 1998, 217, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
- Cordell, D.; Drangert, J.O.; White, S. The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smil, V. Phosphorus in the Environment: Natural Flows and Human Interferences. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2000, 25, 53–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Biochar for Environmental Management, 2nd ed.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- EBC. European Biochar Certificate—Guidelines for a Sustainable Production of Biochar; European Biochar Foundation (EBC): Arbaz, Switzerland, 2012; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, R.; Mahmood, I.B. Characterization of human manure-derived biochar and energy-balance analysis of slow pyrolysis process. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1619–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crombie, K.; Mašek, O.; Sohi, S.P.; Brownsort, P.; Cross, A. The effect of pyrolysis conditions on biochar stability as determined by three methods. GCB Bioenergy 2013, 5, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Glaser, B.; Haumaier, L.; Guggenberger, G.; Zech, W. The ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon: A model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften 2001, 88, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gwenzi, W.; Chaukura, N.; Mukome, F.N.D.; Machado, S.; Nyamasoka, B. Biochar production and applications in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities, constraints, risks and uncertainties. J. Environ. Manage. 2015, 150, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latawiec, A.E.; Królczyk, J.B.; Kuboń, M.; Szwedziak, K.; Drosik, A.; Polańczyk, E.; Grotkiewicz, K.; Strassburg, B.B.N. Willingness to adopt biochar in agriculture: The producer’s perspective. Sustainability 2017, 9, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Melo, T.M.; Bottlinger, M.; Schulz, E.; Leandro, W.M.; de Oliveira, S.B.; Filho, A.M.D.A.; El-Naggar, A.; Bolan, N.; Wang, H.; Ok, Y.S.; et al. Management of biosolids-derived hydrochar (Sewchar): Effect on plant germination, and farmers’ acceptance. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 237, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gwara, S.; Wale, E.; Odindo, A.; Buckley, C. 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 2020, 12, 6490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, P.M.; Fridahl, M.; Yanda, P.; Hansson, A.; Pauline, N.; Haikola, S. Socio-Economic Determinants for Biochar Deployment in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Energies 2021, 15, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoknes, P.E.; Soldal, O.B.; Hansen, S.; Kvande, I.; Skjelderup, S.W. Willingness to Pay for Crowdfunding Local Agricultural Climate Solutions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tate, P. Communications Plan on Biosolids/Research Findings; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Beecher, N. Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling:Developing Public Participation and Earning Trust. Water Intell. Online 2004, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason-Renton, S.A.; Luginaah, I. Conceptualizing waste as a resource: Urban biosolids processing in the rural landscape. Can. Geogr. 2018, 62, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naylor, L. Biosolids-Meeting the Challenge for Public Acceptance: The Municipal Agricultural Interface. In Proceedings of the 70th National Conference Water Environment Federation, Chicago, IL, USA, 29 October 1997; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Beecher, N.; Harrison, E.; Goldstein, N.; McDaniel, M.; Field, P.; Susskind, L. Risk perception, risk communication, and stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research. J. Environ. Qual. 2005, 34, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, K.G.; Robinson, C.H.; Raup, L.A.; Markum, T.R. Public attitudes and risk perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 98, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venegas, C.; Sánchez-Alfonso, A.C.; Celis, C.; Vesga, F.-J.; Mendez, M.G. Management Strategies and Stakeholders Analysis to Strengthen the Management and Use of Biosolids in a Colombian Municipality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitehouse, S.; Tsigaris, P.; Wood, J.; Fraser, L.H. Biosolids in Western Canada: A Case Study on Public Risk Perception and Factors Influencing Public Attitudes. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 179–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekane, N.; Barquet, K.; Rosemarin, A. Resources and Risks: Perceptions on the Application of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Land in Sweden, a Case Study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 647780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Pawar, S.; Brdjanovic, D. Public Perceptions of Reuse of Faecal Sludge Co-Compost in Bhubaneswar, India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sax, L.J.; Gilmartin, S.K.; Bryant, A.N. Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Res. High. Educ. 2003, 44, 409–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dillman, D.; Smyth, J.; Christian, L. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- MacKerron, G.J.; Egerton, C.; Gaskell, C.; Parpia, A.; Mourato, S. Willingness to pay for carbon offset certification and co-benefits among (high-)flying young adults in the UK. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1372–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuidgeest, M.; Hendriks, M.; Koopman, L.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Rademakers, J. A Comparison of a Postal Survey and Mixed-Mode Survey Using a Questionnaire on Patients’ Experiences With Breast Care. J. Med. Internet Res. 2011, 13, e68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hill, N.; Brierley, J.; MacDougall, R. How to Measure Customer Satisfaction; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Black, M.; Fawcett, B. The Last Taboo: Opening the Door on the Global Sanitation Crisis. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2008, 19, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jewitt, S. Geographies of shit: Spatial and temporal variations in attitudes towards human waste. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2011, 35, 608–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esrey, S.A.; Gough, J.; Rapaport, D.; Sawyer, R.; Simpson-HÈbert, M.; Vargas, J.; Winblad, U. Ecological Sanitation; Department for Natural Resources and the Environment: Stockholm, Sweden, 1998; p. 100. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Geest, S. Akan Shit: Getting Rid of Dirt in Ghana. Anthropol. Today 1998, 14, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parizeau, K. Urban political ecologies of informal recyclers[U+05F3] health in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Heal. Place 2015, 33, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Curtin, R.; Presser, S.; Singer, E. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opin. Q. 2000, 64, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Moore, D.L.; Tarnai, J. Evaluating Nonresponse Error in Mail Surveys. In Survey Nonresponse; Groves, R.M., Dillman, D.A., Eltinge, J.L., Little, R.J.A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 197–211. [Google Scholar]
- Singer, E.; Groves, R.M.; Corning, A. Differential Incentives: Beliefs about Practices, Perceptions of Equity, and Effects on Survey Participation. Public Opin. Q. 1999, 63, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyder, J. Surveys on Surveys: Limitations and Potentialities. Public Opin. Q. 1986, 50, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandel, D.; Raveis, V.; Logan, J. Sex differences in the characteristics of members lost to a longitudinal panel: A speculative research note. Public Opin. Q. 1983, 47, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bista, K. Examining Factors Impacting Online Survey Response Rates in Educational Research: Perceptions of Graduate Students. Online Submiss. 2017, 13, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Porter, S.R.; Whitcomb, M.E. Non-response in student surveys: The role of demographics, engagement and personality. Res. High. Educ. 2005, 46, 127–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanch, D.C.; Hall, J.A.; Roter, D.L.; Frankel, R.M. Medical student gender and issues of confidence. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008, 72, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irani, L. Understanding gender and confidence in CS course culture. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 2004, 36, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steger, M.A.E.; Witt, S.L. Gender Differences in Environmental Orientations: A Comparison of Publics and Activists in Canada and the U. S. West. Polit. Q. 1989, 42, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Percept. Risk 2016, 19, 689–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flynn, J.; Slovic, P.; Mertz, C.K. Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks. Risk Anal. 1994, 14, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dryhurst, S.; Schneider, C.R.; Kerr, J.; Freeman, A.L.J.; Recchia, G.; van der Bles, A.M.; Spiegelhalter, D.; van der Linden, S. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 994–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncker, L.C.; Matsebe, G.N. Prejudices and attitudes toward reuse of nutrients from urine diversion toilets in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 33rd WEDC International Conference: Access to Sanitation and Safe Water: Global Partnerships and Local Actions, Accra, Ghana, 7–11 April 2008; pp. 108–113. [Google Scholar]
- Woldetsadik, D.; Drechsel, P.; Keraita, B.; Itanna, F.; Gebrekidan, H. Farmers’ perceptions on irrigation water contamination, health risks and risk management measures in prominent wastewater-irrigated vegetable farming sites of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Decis. 2018, 38, 52–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gwara, S.; Wale, E.; Odindo, A.; Buckley, C. Attitudes and Perceptions on the Agricultural Use of Human Excreta and Human Excreta Derived Materials: A Scoping Review. Agriculture 2021, 11, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curtis, V. Don’t Look, Don’t Touch: The Science behind Revulsion; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rozin, P.; Haddad, B.; Nemerof, C.; Slovic, P. Psychological aspects of the rejection of recycled water: Contamination, purification and disgust. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2015, 10, 50–63. [Google Scholar]
- Ekane, N.; Mertz, C.K.; Slovic, P.; Kjellén, M.; Westlund, H. Risk and benefit judgment of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture: An exploratory investigation in Rwanda and Uganda. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2016, 22, 639–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oaten, M.; Stevenson, R.J.; Case, T.I. Disgust as a Disease-Avoidance Mechanism. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 135, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Shawaf, L.; Lewis, D.M.G.; Buss, D.M. Sex Differences in Disgust: Why Are Women More Easily Disgusted Than Men? Emot. Rev. 2018, 10, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tybur, J.M.; Bryan, A.D.; Lieberman, D.; Hooper, A.E.C.; Merriman, L.A. Sex differences and sex similarities in disgust sensitivity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 51, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schienle, A.; Schäfer, A.; Stark, R.; Walter, B.; Vaitl, D. Gender differences in the processing of disgust- and fear-inducing pictures: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 2005, 16, 277–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prokop, P.; Fančovičová, J. The association between disgust, danger and fear of macroparasites and human behaviour. Acta Ethol. 2010, 13, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olatunji, B.O.; Moretz, M.W.; McKay, D.; Bjorklund, F.; de Jong, P.J.; Haidt, J.; Hursti, T.J.; Imada, S.; Koller, S.; Mancini, F.; et al. Confirming the Three-Factor Structure of the Disgust Scale—Revised in Eight Countries. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 2009, 40, 234–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Curtis, V.; Aunger, R.; Rabie, T. Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 271 (Suppl. 4), S131–S133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fessler, D.M.; Arguello, A.P.; Mekdara, J.M.; Macias, R. Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: A test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism. Appetite 2003, 41, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eickmeier, K.; Hoffmann, L.; Banse, R. The 5-factor disgust scale: Development and validation of a comprehensive measure of disgust propensity. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 2019, 35, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Björklund, F.; Hursti, T.J. A Swedish translation and validation of the Disgust Scale: A measure of disgust sensitivity. Scand. J. Psychol. 2004, 45, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamera, M.; van Tol, J.J.; Aghoghovwia, M.P.; Mapetere, G.T. Community Faecal Management Strategies and Perceptions on Sludge Use in Agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chess, C. Fearing fear: Communication about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum 1998, 1, 17–21. [Google Scholar]
Aware of Biosolids? | |||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||
Gender | Male | 60.8% (59) | 39.2% (38) |
Female | 36.5% (91) | 63.5 (158) | |
Age group (years) | 18–24 | 20.0% (4) | 80.0% (16) |
25–34 | 25.9% (14) | 74.1% (40) | |
35–44 | 35.1% (33) | 64.9% (61) | |
45–54 | 49.2% (29) | 50.8% (30) | |
55–64 | 51.8% (29) | 48.2% (27) | |
65+ | 63.6% (42) | 36.4% (24) | |
Location | Rural | 51.3% (41) | 48.8% (39) |
Suburban | 46.3% (56) | 53.7% (65) | |
Urban | 36.5% (54) | 63.5% (94) | |
Frequency of organic food consumption | Every day | 53.62% (37) | 46.4% (32) |
At least once a week | 41.1% (60) | 58.9% (86) | |
At least once a month | 38.3% (18) | 61.7% (29) | |
Less than once a month | 36.4(16) | 63.6% (28) | |
Never | 52.9% (18) | 47.1% (16) |
Comparison Category | Reference Category | z Value | Pr(>|z|) | Odds Ratio | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | 3.714 | 0.0002 | 41.38 | 13.67–285.73 |
Rural | Urban | 2.129 | 0.0333 | 13.32 | 5.55–67.81 |
65+ | 18–24 | 2.403 | 0.0163 | 481.43 | 19.25–4.2 × 10−8 |
45–54 | 25–34 | 2.54 | 0.0111 | 55.27 | 10.73–2.9 × 10−3 |
55–64 | 2.786 | 0.0053 | 88.02 | 13.93–7.7 ×10−3 | |
65+ | 3.523 | 0.0004 | 344.69 | 30.93–1.1 × 10−5 | |
45–54 | 35–44 | 2.086 | 0.0370 | 17.58 | 6.04–157.93 |
55–64 | 2.374 | 0.0176 | 25.37 | 7.63–311.71 | |
65+ | 3.264 | 0.0011 | 73.50 | 15.53–1807.78 |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Biosolids | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Uncomfortable | Uncomfortable | Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Gender | Female | 4.4% (11) | 15.3% (38) | 17.3% (43) | 30.9% (77) | 32.1% (80) |
Male | 4.1% (4) | 12.4% (12) | 9.3% (9) | 21.6% (21) | 52.6% (51) |
Comparison Category | Reference Category | t Value | p Value | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Male | Female | 2.846 | 0.004 | 1.912 | 1.23–3.02 |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Wood Biochar | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Uncomfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Gender | Female | 14.9% (37) | 15.7% (39) | 4.0% (10) | 65.5% (163) |
Male | 14.4% (14) | 6.2% (6) | 2.1% (2) | 77.3% (75) |
Attitude towards Eating Food Grown in Wood Biochar | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Frequency of organic food consumption | Every day | 0.0% (0) | 8.7% (6) | 91.3% (63) |
At least once a week | 5.5% (8) | 11.0% (16) | 83.6% (122) | |
At least once a month | 2.1% (1) | 21.3% (10) | 76.6% (36) | |
Less than once a month | 2.3% (1) | 15.9% (7) | 81.8% 3(6) | |
Never | 5.9% (2) | 26.5% (9) | 67.6% (23) |
Comparison Category | Reference Category | t Value | p Value | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Everyday | At least once a week | 2.46 | 0.014 | 2.58 | 1.25–5.75 |
At least once a month | 2.64 | 0.008 | 3.29 | 1.38–8.23 | |
Less than once a month | 2.55 | 0.011 | 3.20 | 1.33–8.09 | |
Never | 3.13 | 0.002 | 4.54 | 1.78–11.99 |
Attitudes towards Eating Food Grown in Sludge Biochar | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Very Uncomfortable | Uncomfortable | Neutral | Slightly Comfortable | Very Comfortable | ||
Gender | Female | 7.2% (18) | 21.7% (54) | 19.3% (48) | 22.5% (56) | 29.3% (73) |
Male | 5.2% (5) | 11.3% (11) | 15.5% (15) | 16.5% (16) | 51.5% (50) |
Attitudes towards Eating Food Grown in Sludge Biochar | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Age group | 18–24 | 65.0% (13) | 10.0% (2) | 25.0% (5) |
25–34 | 20.4% (11) | 18.5% (10) | 61.1% (33) | |
35–44 | 28.7% (27) | 17.0% (16) | 54.3% (51) | |
45–54 | 30.5% (18) | 18.6% (11) | 50.8% (30) | |
55–64 | 23.2% (13) | 16.1% (9) | 60.7% (34) | |
65+ | 12.1% (8) | 24.2% (16) | 63.6% (42) |
Independent Variable | Comparison Category | Reference Category | t Value | p Value | OR | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | Female | 2.999 | 0.003 | 2.024 | 1.28–3.22 |
Age | 65+ | 18–24 | 3.289 | 0.001 | 4.88 | 1.90–12.67 |
25–34 | 2.919 | 0.004 | 4.09 | 1.59–10.64 | ||
35–44 | 2.489 | 0.013 | 3.11 | 1.27–7.68 | ||
45–54 | 2.062 | 0.039 | 2.67 | 1.05–6.87 | ||
55–64 | 2.939 | 0.003 | 4.15 | 1.61–10.82 |
Attitudes towards Eating Food Grown in Faecal Sludge Biochar | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Negative | Neutral | Positive | ||
Attitudes towards eating food grown in wood biochar | Negative | 75.0% (9) | 0.0% (0) | 25.0% (3) |
Neutral | 40.4% (21) | 51.9% (27) | 7.7% (4) | |
Positive | 21.1% (60) | 13.0% (37) | 66.0% (188) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nicholas, H.L.; Halfacree, K.H.; Mabbett, I. Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215385
Nicholas HL, Halfacree KH, Mabbett I. Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215385
Chicago/Turabian StyleNicholas, Hannah Larissa, Keith H. Halfacree, and Ian Mabbett. 2022. "Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215385
APA StyleNicholas, H. L., Halfacree, K. H., & Mabbett, I. (2022). Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture. Sustainability, 14(22), 15385. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215385