IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i23p9973-d453078.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating the Risks and Benefits of Human Urine-Derived Fertilizer

Author

Listed:
  • Alex Segrè Cohen

    (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA)

  • Nancy G. Love

    (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA)

  • Joseph Árvai

    (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
    Decision Research, Eugene, OR 97401, USA)

Abstract

Ensuring long-term access to nutrients needed for food production is a growing global challenge. Human urine diversion and recycling is a viable and energy-efficient means of recovering nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from wastewater. Before implementation, however, it is critical to understand how communicating differently about human urine-derived fertilizer may influence its public acceptance. This study tests how different strategies of communication (video compared to texts), as well as different amounts of information, impact public acceptance. We also explored how specific characteristics, such as age and education level, may impact the usefulness of the different strategies of communication. The results indicate that short and long videos are the most useful risk communication strategies, and age fully moderates this relationship. This research may serve as a jumping off point for future studies focused on how risk communication strategies may affect consumer acceptance of other emerging food technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Alex Segrè Cohen & Nancy G. Love & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Communicating the Risks and Benefits of Human Urine-Derived Fertilizer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-14, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:23:p:9973-:d:453078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9973/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/23/9973/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuliya Kalmykova & Robin Harder & Helena Borgestedt & Ingela Svanäng, 2012. "Pathways and Management of Phosphorus in Urban Areas," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 16(6), pages 928-939, December.
    2. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. de Vries, 2008. "Audiovisual risk communication unravelled: effects on gut feelings and cognitive processes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 207-221, January.
    4. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    5. Kelly S. Fielding & Sara Dolnicar & Tracy Schultz, 2019. "Public acceptance of recycled water," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(4), pages 551-586, July.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Jing Shi & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2017. "Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 531-544, June.
    7. John, Deborah Roedder & Cole, Catherine A, 1986. "Age Differences in Information Processing: Understanding Deficits in Young and Elderly Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(3), pages 297-315, December.
    8. Panagiotopoulos, Panos & Barnett, Julie & Bigdeli, Alinaghi Ziaee & Sams, Steven, 2016. "Social media in emergency management: Twitter as a tool for communicating risks to the public," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 86-96.
    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. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    2. Anthony G. Patt & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 219-232, March.
    3. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    6. Govindan, Mini & Ram Mohan, M.P., 2021. "Exploring Gender Perceptions of Nuclear Energy in India," IIMA Working Papers WP 2021-11-06, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    7. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    8. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.
    9. Puccinelli, Nancy M. & Goodstein, Ronald C. & Grewal, Dhruv & Price, Robert & Raghubir, Priya & Stewart, David, 2009. "Customer Experience Management in Retailing: Understanding the Buying Process," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 15-30.
    10. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    11. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    12. Berthold, Anne & Cologna, Viktoria & Siegrist, Michael, 2022. "The influence of scarcity perception on people's pro-environmental behavior and their readiness to accept new sustainable technologies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    13. Han, Chunjia & Yang, Mu & Piterou, Athena, 2021. "Do news media and citizens have the same agenda on COVID-19? an empirical comparison of twitter posts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    14. Shuolin Geng & Qi Zhou & Mingjie Li & Dianxing Song & Yanjun Wen, 2021. "Spatial–temporal differences in disaster perception and response among new media users and the influence factors: a case study of the Shouguang Flood in Shandong province," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(2), pages 2241-2262, January.
    15. Zsótér, Boglárka & Nagy, Péter, 2012. "Our Everyday Emotions and Finances – The role money-related attitudes and materialistic orienta-tion play in developing financial culture," Public Finance Quarterly, Corvinus University of Budapest, vol. 57(3), pages 286-297.
    16. Lucia Mannetti & Ambra Brizi & Mauro Giacomantonio & E Tory Higgins, 2013. "Framing Political Messages to Fit the Audience’s Regulatory Orientation: How to Improve the Efficacy of the Same Message Content," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    17. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Angela Aerry Choi & Daegon Cho & Dobin Yim & Jae Yun Moon & Wonseok Oh, 2019. "When Seeing Helps Believing: The Interactive Effects of Previews and Reviews on E-Book Purchases," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1164-1183, December.
    19. Arora, Swapan Deep & Singh, Guninder Pal & Chakraborty, Anirban & Maity, Moutusy, 2022. "Polarization and social media: A systematic review and research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    20. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(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:23:p:9973-:d:453078. 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.