IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6490-d397690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Gwara

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

  • Edilegnaw Wale

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

  • Alfred Odindo

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

  • Chris Buckley

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

Abstract

Challenges associated with rapid population growth, urbanization, and nutrient mining have seen increased global research and development towards ‘waste to wealth’ initiatives, circular economy models, and cradle-to-cradle waste management principles. Closing the nutrient loop through safe recovery and valorization of human excreta for agricultural use may provide a sustainable method of waste management and sanitation. Understanding the market demand is essential for developing viable waste management and sanitation provision business models. The pathways and processes for the safe recovery of nutrients from human excreta are well-documented. However, only anecdotal evidence is available on the willingness to pay for human excreta-derived material in agriculture. This review closes this gap by identifying and synthesizing published evidence on farmers’ willingness to pay for human excreta-derived material for agricultural use. The Scopus and Web of Science search engines were used to search for the literature. The search results were screened, and the data were extracted, charted, and synthesized using the DistillerSR web-based application. The findings show that understanding willingness to pay for human excreta-derived material is still a nascent and emerging research area. Gender, education, and experience are common factors that influence the farmers’ willingness to pay. The findings show that pelletization, fortification, labeling, packaging, and certification are essential attributes in product development. The wide-scale commercialization can be achieved through incorporation of context-specific socioeconomic, religious and cultural influences on the estimation of willingness to pay. Promoting flexible legislation procedures, harmonization of regional legislations, and creating incentives for sustainable waste recovery and reuse may also promote the commercialization of circular nutrient economy initiatives. More empirical studies are required to validate willingness to pay estimates, especially using the best practice for conducting choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6490-:d:397690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6490/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6490/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    3. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    4. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    5. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth, 2017. "Correlation and scale in mixed logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Jinhua Zhao & Catherine L. Kling, 2004. "Willingness to Pay, Compensating Variation, and the Cost of Commitment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(3), pages 503-517, July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    10. Ewa Zawojska & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Re-examining empirical evidence on stated preferences: importance of incentive compatibility," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 374-403, October.
    11. Nityanand Singh Maurya, 2012. "Is human excreta a waste?," International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(3/4/5/6), pages 325-332.
    12. 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.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    14. Nancy E. Bockstael & Kenneth E. McConnell, 1980. "Calculating Equivalent and Compensating Variation for Natural Resource Facilities," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(1), pages 56-63.
    15. Di Mario, L. & Rao, Krishna C. & Drechsel, Pay, 2018. "The enabling environment and finance of resource recovery and reuse," IWMI Books, Reports H048695, International Water Management Institute.
    16. 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.
    17. Niroomand, Naghmeh & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2018. "A comparison of stated preference methods for the valuation of improvement in road safety," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 138-149.
    18. Vusumuzi Malele & Khumbulani Mpofu & Mammo Muchie, 2019. "Bridging the innovation chasm: Measuring awareness of entrepreneurship and innovation policies and platforms at the universities of technology in South Africa," African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 783-793, November.
    19. Bente Halvorsen & Kjartan Sœlensminde, 1998. "Differences between Willingness-to-Pay Estimates from Open-Ended and Discrete-Choice Contingent Valuation Methods: The Effects of Heteroscedasticity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 262-282.
    20. Otoo, Miriam & Drechsel, Pay, 2018. "Resource recovery from waste: business models for energy, nutrient and water reuse in low- and middle-income countries," IWMI Books, International Water Management Institute, number 284165.
    21. Korhonen, Jouni & Honkasalo, Antero & Seppälä, Jyri, 2018. "Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 37-46.
    22. Kassie, Girma T. & Abdulai, Awudu & Greene, William H. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Abate, Tsedeke & Tarekegne, Amsal & Sutcliffe, Chloe, 2017. "Modeling Preference and Willingness to Pay for Drought Tolerance (DT) in Maize in Rural Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 465-477.
    23. Elizabeth Tilley & Isabel Günther, 2016. "The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer on Toilet Use in eThekwini, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    24. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Robinson, Jackie & Whitty, Jennifer A. & Kaneko, Shinji & Nguyen, The Chinh, 2015. "Attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments: A case study in a developing country," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 22-33.
    25. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    26. Katherine Tully & Clare Sullivan & Ray Weil & Pedro Sanchez, 2015. "The State of Soil Degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa: Baselines, Trajectories, and Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-30, May.
    27. Hamed Taherdoost, 2016. "Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research," Post-Print hal-02546799, HAL.
    28. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    29. Di Mario, L. & Rao, Krishna C. & Drechsel, Pay, 2018. "The enabling environment and finance of resource recovery and reuse," Book Chapters,, International Water Management Institute.
    30. Boscow Okumu & Edwin Muchapondwa, 2017. "Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services in Kenya: Implication for design of PES Schemes and Participatory Forest Management," Working Papers 693, Economic Research Southern Africa.
    31. Peter M. Allen, 2001. "A Complex Systems Approach To Learning In Adaptive Networks," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 149-180.
    32. Mateusz Lewandowski, 2016. "Designing the Business Models for Circular Economy—Towards the Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-28, January.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.

    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, 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.
    2. Logar, Ivana & Brouwer, Roy & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Does attribute order influence attribute-information processing in discrete choice experiments?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    6. Koşar, Gizem & Ransom, Tyler & van der Klaauw, Wilbert, 2022. "Understanding migration aversion using elicited counterfactual choice probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 123-147.
    7. Nguyen, Thanh Cong & Le, Hoa Thu & Nguyen, Hang Dieu & Le, Thanh Ha & Nguyen, Hong Quang, 2021. "Estimating economic benefits associated with air quality improvements in Hanoi City: An application of a choice experiment," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 420-433.
    8. Esther W. de Bekker‐Grob & Mandy Ryan & Karen Gerard, 2012. "Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 145-172, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Dardanoni, Valentino & Guerriero, Carla, 2021. "Young people' s willingness to pay for environmental protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    11. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    12. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    13. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Mesfin G. Genie & Mandy Ryan & Nicolas Krucien, 2023. "Keeping an eye on cost: What can eye tracking tell us about attention to cost information in discrete choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 1101-1119, May.
    16. Gordillo, Fernando & Elsasser, Peter & Günter, Sven, 2019. "Willingness to pay for forest conservation in Ecuador: Results from a nationwide contingent valuation survey in a combined “referendum” – “Consequential open-ended” design," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 28-39.
    17. Harold, Jason & Bertsch, Valentin & Fell, Harrison, 2021. "Preferences for curtailable electricity contracts: Can curtailment benefit consumers and the electricity system?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    18. Kolstoe, Sonja & Naald, Brian Vander & Cohan, Alison, 2022. "A tale of two samples: Understanding WTP differences in the age of social media," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    19. Walsh, Sharon & O'Shea, Eamon & Pierse, Tom & Kennelly, Brendan & Keogh, Fiona & Doherty, Edel, 2020. "Public preferences for home care services for people with dementia: A discrete choice experiment on personhood," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).

    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:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6490-:d:397690. 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.