What do consumers think about recycling human urine as fertiliser? Perceptions and attitudes of a university community in South India

Abstract

Sanitation systems based on source separation and valorisation of human urine can improve the environmental sustainability of wastewater management. Yet, the social acceptability of such new, resource-oriented sanitation practices have not been assessed systematically. We attempt to address this research gap by reporting the findings of a survey conducted at a South Indian university that evaluated support for urine recycling among 1252 Indian consumers. We place our findings in the context of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, quantify consumer attitude to urine recycling through an exploratory numerical approach, and identify explanatory factors that shape consumer beliefs and perceptions. Overall, a moderately positive attitude was observed: 68% stated human urine should not be disposed but recycled, 55% considered it as fertiliser, but only 44% would consume food grown using it. While 65% believed using urine as crop fertiliser could pose a health risk, majority (80%) believed it could be treated so as to not pose a risk. The respondents' 'willingness to consume' urine-fertilised food was found to be strongly influenced by their willingness to pay. Consumer environmental attitudes, as evaluated using the New Ecological Paradigm scale, did not influence their attitude towards urine recycling behaviour. We thus believe that simply appealing to people's environmental sensitivities is not enough for introducing environmentally-friendly technologies like urine recycling, but that more targeted marketing messages are needed. We find sufficient support among our surveyed consumers for urine recycling but highlight that further research is needed to identify what information and agency will help translate positive attitudes into action and behaviour.

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

“…The NEP challenged these principles by incorporating a measure of the nature of society-environment interactions and the reality of limits to growth while integrating environmental attitudes, values, beliefs, and worldviews [58]. Various modifications have been made to the NEP to capture validity, psychometric soundness, and cultural differences [59][60][61]. This review is, therefore, guided by these theoretical underpinnings to understand the role of attitudes and perceptions on the social acceptance of using HEDM in agriculture.…”

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

“…The information matrix, however, relies on the parameter distribution of the assumed model. Therefore, the efficiency of the model to be estimated depends on the accuracy of information priors using Bayesian efficient designs [140,141]. The research evidence in this area concludes that efficient design may outperform both orthogonal and D-optimal designs [130,141,142], albeit with sensitivity to the specification of the prior distribution.…”

“…Therefore, the efficiency of the model to be estimated depends on the accuracy of information priors using Bayesian efficient designs [140,141]. The research evidence in this area concludes that efficient design may outperform both orthogonal and D-optimal designs [130,141,142], albeit with sensitivity to the specification of the prior distribution. The guidelines on specifying priors include literature reviews, expert judgment, context analysis, focus group discussions, and pilot surveys [130,143].…”

The preliminary evaluation of differential characteristics and factor evaluation of the microbial structure of rural household toilet excrement in China

“…Some experts also believe that agricultural management and health planning can be transformed by placing a greater emphasis on recycling human waste (Simha et al 2018). However, less is known regarding the essential composition of toilet waste after septic tank treatment and whether it meets the sanitary treatment standards.…”