Risk and benefit judgment of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture: An exploratory investigation in Rwanda and Uganda

Abstract

This research explores the use of psychometric techniques to improve understanding of psychological mechanisms underlying judgment of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture including other excreta-related activities. Participants consisted of environmental health students, smallholder farmers, and traders in rural and urban Rwanda and Uganda. The finding reveals an inverse relationship between risk and benefit judgments. This relationship holds for the three groups of participants with significant risk and benefit correlations of p < .0001. This finding is consistent with other studies in showing that affect plays a key role in risk perception, judgment, and decision-making. Building on this finding, we conclude that individuals with high risk and low benefit judgment for excreta-related practices would eschew them or emphasize strict standards. Individuals with a high benefit and low risk judgment would engage in excreta management practices regardless of the actual risks involved. This finding is relevant for risk communication and risk management as it indicates that individuals do not rely only on risk management information they receive concerning excreta and related risks but also depend, to an extent, on their feelings about these substances when making judgments and decisions regarding the purpose for using excreta as fertilizer and the level of exposure they can tolerate and manage.

Sustainable rice production in the Mekong River Delta: Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of the integrated technology package “One Must Do, Five Reductions” (1M5R)

“…The study finds that socioeconomic characteristics and personal needs, as well as environmental factors such as soil properties, irrigation water, access to agricultural inputs, market demands, weather conditions, and extension activities all influenced the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (Bopp et al, 2019). Recently, factors such as farmers’ perception of how easy the practice is to apply (Wehmeyer et al, 2020), benefit perceptions (Connor et al, 2020; Ekane et al, 2016), and perceptions of farmer satisfaction and expectations from the introduction process (Wehmeyer et al, 2020) have also been shown to affect the level of adoption of new agricultural technologies and practices.…”

Resources and Risks: Perceptions on the Application of Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Land in Sweden, a Case Study

“…Unlike the productive use of sewage sludge in agriculture, topsoil production, and covering landfills with sewage sludge are generally acceptable practices despite the potential risks these practices may have on the environment (SOU, 2020:3). Even the application of other resources such as cattle manure and pig slurry on agricultural land is relatively more acceptable, even though these substances have been shown to also pose risks to human and environmental health (Pell, 1997;Köpke et al, 2007;Polprasert, 2007;Zhang, 2011;Dufour et al, 2012;Ekane et al, 2016;Pedersen et al, 2019).…”

“…Further, this shift challenges the notion that mere utility of an innovation leads to acceptance and adoption of that innovation (O'Keefe et al, 2015;Ekane, 2020). For instance, in the case of the use of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture Ekane et al (2016) show that individuals do not rely only on risk management information they receive concerning excreta and related risks but also depend, to an extent, on their feelings about these substances when making judgments and decisions regarding the purpose for using excreta as fertilizer and the level of exposure they can tolerate and manage. This is explained by the inverse relationship between risk and benefits in a person's mind (Slovic, 2000;Slovic et al, 2002Slovic et al, , 2004Ekane et al, 2016).…”

“…Wastes of human origin in general and sewage sludge in particular are marked by strong or negative images by virtue of their nature and characteristics. These negative sensory images and properties evoke disgust and stigma (Angyal, 1941;Fallon, 1981, 1987;Rockefeller, 1998;De Barra, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Rozin et al, 2015;Ekane et al, 2016). As a result, the mere thought of the origin and content of sewage sludge and the practice of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural land particularly for food crop production renders the practice shunned and avoided (Ekane et al, 2016).…”

“…These negative sensory images and properties evoke disgust and stigma (Angyal, 1941;Fallon, 1981, 1987;Rockefeller, 1998;De Barra, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Rozin et al, 2015;Ekane et al, 2016). As a result, the mere thought of the origin and content of sewage sludge and the practice of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural land particularly for food crop production renders the practice shunned and avoided (Ekane et al, 2016). Further, the anticipation of harm or fear of contamination and the feeling of disgust regarding the practice engenders consequences for the body and psyche, respectively (Rozin and Fallon, 1987).…”