IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i2p153-d498684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes and Perceptions on the Agricultural Use of Human Excreta and Human Excreta Derived Materials: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Gwara

    (Discipline of Agricultural Economics, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa)

  • Edilegnaw Wale

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa)

  • Alfred Odindo

    (Discipline of Crop Science, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa)

  • Chris Buckley

    (Discipline of Chemical Engineering, Pollution Research Group, School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 4001, South Africa)

Abstract

This study explicates the scope of published literature on the influence of attitudes and perceptions on the intention to use human excreta and human excreta derived materials in agriculture. Using a scoping review methodology, search results from Scopus and Web of Science were screened and synthesized using the DistillerSR web-based application. Out of the 1192 studies identified, 22 published articles met the inclusion criteria. Additional studies were identified by keyword enrichment, hand-searching, and snowballing in other electronic data bases. The benefit perception of the soil health, income, and yield was the main driver for positive attitudes. Perceived health risk and socio-cultural factors were reported as the main barriers to the use of human excreta derived materials in agriculture. Limited information, availability, collection, transport, and storage were the other reported perceived barriers. The influence of socioeconomic and demographic factors on farmers’ attitudes and perceptions was inconclusive, which is potentially attributed to contextual and methodological differences. Social and behavior change communication through community mass campaigns and targeting interventions segregated by socioeconomic and demographic contexts is recommended for development interventions. Future empirical studies could focus on the influence of crop types, treatment processes, food preparation and processing on attitudes and perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:153-:d:498684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/153/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/153/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Druilhe, Zoé & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús, 2012. "Fertilizer subsidies in sub-Saharan Africa," ESA Working Papers 288997, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    2. Mojid, M.A. & Wyseure, G.C.L. & Biswas, S.K. & Hossain, A.B.M.Z., 2010. "Farmers' perceptions and knowledge in using wastewater for irrigation at twelve peri-urban areas and two sugar mill areas in Bangladesh," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 79-86, December.
    3. Sasmal, Joydeb & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2013. "Soil Degradation, Policy Intervention and Sustainable Agricultural Growth," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 52(4), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Niccolò Pampuro & Federica Caffaro & Eugenio Cavallo, 2018. "Reuse of Animal Manure: A Case Study on Stakeholders’ Perceptions about Pelletized Compost in Northwestern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-10, June.
    5. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    6. Benjamin Chapeyama & Edilegnaw Wale & Alfred Odindo, 2018. "The cost-effectiveness of using latrine dehydrated and pasteurization pellets and struvite: Experimental evidence from South Africa," African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 451-461, June.
    7. Jonathan Jared Ignacio & Roy Alvin Malenab & Carla Mae Pausta & Arnel Beltran & Lawrence Belo & Renan Ma. Tanhueco & Marlon Era & Ramon Christian Eusebio & Michael Angelo Promentilla & Aileen Orbecido, 2018. "Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Eco-Toilet Systems in Rural Areas: A Case Study in the Philippines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    9. Ngan Tran-Thi & Rachel J Lowe & Janna M Schurer & Tu Vu-Van & Lauren E MacDonald & Phuc Pham-Duc, 2017. "Turning poop into profit: Cost-effectiveness and soil transmitted helminth infection risk associated with human excreta reuse in Vietnam," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    10. Zhiqiang (Eric) Zheng & Paul A. Pavlou, 2010. "Research Note ---Toward a Causal Interpretation from Observational Data: A New Bayesian Networks Method for Structural Models with Latent Variables," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 365-391, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Cofie, Olufunke & Adamtey, Noah, 2009. "Nutrient recovery from human excreta for urban and peri-urban agriculture," Conference Papers h042722, International Water Management Institute.
    13. Sheahan, Megan & Barrett, Christopher B., 2017. "Ten striking facts about agricultural input use in Sub-Saharan Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 12-25.
    14. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    15. Charles Ogunbode, 2013. "The NEP scale: measuring ecological attitudes/worldviews in an African context," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1477-1494, December.
    16. Moya, Berta & Parker, Alison & Sakrabani, Ruben, 2019. "Challenges to the use of fertilisers derived from human excreta: The case of vegetable exports from Kenya to Europe and influence of certification systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 72-78.
    17. Danso, G. K. & Otoo, Miriam & Ekere, W. & Ddungu, S. & Madurangi, Ganesha, "undated". "Market feasibility of faecal sludge and municipal solid waste-based compost as measured by farmers’ willingness-to-pay for product attributes: evidence from Kampala, Uganda," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048217, International Water Management Institute.
    18. Howard White & Hugh Waddington, 2012. "Why do we care about evidence synthesis? An introduction to the special issue on systematic reviews," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 351-358, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    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. 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.
    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. Dinko Đurđević & Saša Žiković & Paolo Blecich, 2022. "Sustainable Sewage Sludge Management Technologies Selection Based on Techno-Economic-Environmental Criteria: Case Study of Croatia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-23, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Celestin Banamwana & David Musoke & Theoneste Ntakirutimana & Esther Buregyeya & John Ssempebwa & Gakenia Wamuyu-Maina & Nazarius M. Tumwesigye, 2023. "Excreta Disgust and Adaptive Use of Ecological Sanitation By-Products: Perspectives of Rural Farmers in Burera District, Rwanda," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(18), pages 1-11, September.
    7. Nimni Pannila & Madushan Madhava Jayalath & Amila Thibbotuwawa & Izabela Nielsen & T.G.G. Uthpala, 2022. "Challenges in Applying Circular Economy Concepts to Food Supply Chains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    3. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    4. Fujimoto, Takefumi & Suzuki, Aya, 2021. "Do Fertilizer and Seed Subsidies Strengthen Farmers' Market Participation? the Impact of Tanzania NAIVS on Farmers' Purchase of Agricultural Inputs and Their Maize-Selling Activities," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315044, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Lukas D. Filser & Fábio Francisco Silva & Otávio José Oliveira, 2017. "State of research and future research tendencies in lean healthcare: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 799-816, August.
    6. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Kun Lu & Gang Li, 2021. "Finding citations for PubMed: a large-scale comparison between five freely available bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9519-9542, December.
    7. Esther Prieto-Jiménez & Luis López-Catalán & Blanca López-Catalán & Guillermo Domínguez-Fernández, 2021. "Sustainable Development Goals and Education: A Bibliometric Mapping Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    8. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    9. Weisheng Chiu & Thomas Chun Man Fan & Sang-Back Nam & Ping-Hung Sun, 2021. "Knowledge Mapping and Sustainable Development of eSports Research: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    10. Berta Moya & Ruben Sakrabani & Alison Parker, 2019. "Realizing the Circular Economy for Sanitation: Assessing Enabling Conditions and Barriers to the Commercialization of Human Excreta Derived Fertilizer in Haiti and Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Andreea Mironescu & Alina Moroșanu & Anca-Diana Bibiri, 2023. "The regional dynamics of multilingual publishing in web of science: A statistical analysis of central and eastern european journals and researchers in linguistics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1133-1162, February.
    12. Gerhard Reichmann & Christian Schlögl, 2022. "On the possibilities of presenting the research performance of an institute over a long period of time: the case of the Institute of Information Science at the University of Graz in Austria," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3193-3223, June.
    13. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Percentile and stochastic-based approach to the comparison of the number of citations of articles indexed in different bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 223-252, April.
    14. Gordana Budimir & Sophia Rahimeh & Sameh Tamimi & Primož Južnič, 2021. "Comparison of self-citation patterns in WoS and Scopus databases based on national scientific production in Slovenia (1996–2020)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2249-2267, March.
    15. Krah, Kwabena & Michelson, Hope & Perge, Emilie & Jindal, Rohit, 2019. "Constraints to adopting soil fertility management practices in Malawi: A choice experiment approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Holden, Stein T., 2018. "The Economics of Fertilizer Subsidies," CLTS Working Papers 9/18, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    17. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    18. Gerson Pech & Catarina Delgado, 2020. "Assessing the publication impact using citation data from both Scopus and WoS databases: an approach validated in 15 research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 909-924, November.
    19. Adrian Mallory & Rochelle Holm & Alison Parker, 2020. "A Review of the Financial Value of Faecal Sludge Reuse in Low-Income Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    20. Matthew Harsh & Ravtosh Bal & Alex Weryha & Justin Whatley & Charles C. Onu & Lisa M. Negro, 2021. "Mapping computer science research in Africa: using academic networking sites for assessing research activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 305-334, January.

    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:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:153-:d:498684. 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.