Public Perceptions of Faecal Sludge Biochar and Biosolids Use in Agriculture

Hannah Larissa Nicholas (), Keith H. Halfacree and Ian Mabbett
Additional contact information
Hannah Larissa Nicholas: Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
Keith H. Halfacree: Department of Geography, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
Ian Mabbett: Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK

Sustainability, 2022, vol. 14, issue 22, 1-21

Abstract: Full-scale pyrolysis of faecal sludge is a credible technology for the safe removal of pathogens and the concurrent creation of biochar, which has been shown to enhance crop productivity. Faecal sludge biochar has the potential to improve acidic, low nutrient soils and crop yield in developing nations more at risk of climate change and food insecurity. Little research has been conducted into public acceptance of faecal sludge biochar as a soil enhancer in agriculture. In this study of the public in Swansea, Wales, an online survey examines their awareness of, and comfort levels of eating food grown using biosolids, wood biochar and faecal sludge biochar. Our findings show that males were almost twice as likely than females to have a positive perception of biosolids (OR 1.91, p value 0.004) and faecal sludge biochar (OR 2.02, p value 0.03). Those in the oldest age group (65+) were almost five times more likely to have a positive view of faecal sludge biochar than the youngest age group (OR 4.88, p value 0.001). Deployment of faecal sludge biochar must overcome a “disgust effect” related to its human faecal origins. This factor must be centrally taken into account when implementing management and policy decisions regarding the land application of biosolids and faecal sludge biochar.

Keywords: biochar; faecal sludge; land application; public perception; biosolids; Wales (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15385/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15385/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:22:p:15385-:d:977446

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().