IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4489-d790426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Perceptions of Reuse of Faecal Sludge Co-Compost in Bhubaneswar, India

Author

Listed:
  • Shirish Singh

    (Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Mohammed Ali Ibrahim

    (Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Sumeet Pawar

    (WASTE Advisors, Bink 36, Binckhorstlaan 36, Unit C174, 2516 BE The Hague, The Netherlands)

  • Damir Brdjanovic

    (Water Supply, Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Westvest 7, 2611 AX Delft, The Netherlands
    Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 67, 2628 BC Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Although faecal sludge (FS) co-compost contains vital nutrients, there are several barriers limiting adoption and reuse of FS co-compost in agriculture. This study in Bhubaneswar found that health risk and bad odour were the two topmost negative perceptions of FS co-compost reuse. The main factors influencing farmers’ negative perceptions of FS co-compost were bad odour and fear of infection, whereas socio-cultural/religious beliefs and bad odour were the key factors influencing the negative perceptions of urban households practising kitchen gardening (UHPKG). Fear of infection and bad odour were the key factors influencing fertiliser retailers’ negative perceptions, while inadequate information, unavailability, and lack of government policy on FS co-compost reuse were the key factors influencing Farmer Producer Organisations’ negative perceptions. The majority of farmers (95%) and UHPKG (72%) were unwilling to consume food crops grown with FS co-compost, mainly because of feelings of disgust, fear of infection, and religious and socio-cultural beliefs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4489-:d:790426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4489/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4489/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cofie, O. & Adeoti, A. & Nkansah-Boadu, F. & Awuah, E., 2010. "Farmers perception and economic benefits of excreta use in southern Ghana," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 161-166.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Xiaoling, 2017. "Sustainable livelihoods and rural sustainability in China: Ecologically secure, economically efficient or socially equitable?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    2. 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.
    3. Donglin Han & Huiying (Cynthia) Hou & Hao Wu & Joseph H. K. Lai, 2021. "Modelling Tourists’ Acceptance of Hotel Experience-Enhancement Smart Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Fernando Alonso-Marroquin & Ghulam Qadir & Jad Nazha & Vanessa Pino & Arianna Brambilla, 2023. "A User-Friendly and Sustainable Toilet Based on Vermicomposting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-26, August.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Obour, Peter Bilson & Dadzie, Frederick Asankom & Kristensen, Hanne Lakkenborg & Rubæk, Gitte Holton & Kjeldsen, Chris & Saba, Courage Kosi Setsoafia, 2015. "Assessment of farmers’ knowledge on fertilizer usage for peri-urban vegetable production in the Sunyani Municipality, Ghana," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 77-84.

    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:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4489-:d:790426. 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.