Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Risk and benefit judgment of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture: An exploratory investigation in Rwanda and Uganda
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden.
Decision Research (DR), Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Decision Research (DR) and University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA.
Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI).
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, ISSN 1080-7039, E-ISSN 1549-7860, Vol. 22, no 3, 639-666 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This research explores the use of psychometric techniques to improve understanding of psychological mechanisms underlying judgment of excreta as fertilizer in agriculture including other excreta related activities. Participants consisted of environmental health students, smallholder farmers and traders in rural and urban Rwanda and Uganda. The finding reveals an inverse relationship between risk and benefit judgments. This relationship holds for the three groups of participants with significant risk-benefit correlations of p<.0001. This finding is consistent with other studies showing that affect plays a key role in risk perception, judgment and decision making.

Building on this finding, we conclude that individuals with high risk and low benefit judgment for excreta related practices would eschew them or emphasize strict standards. Individuals with a high benefit and low risk judgment would engage in excreta management practices regardless of the actual risks involved. This finding is relevant for risk communication and risk management as it indicates that individuals do not rely only on risk management information they receive concerning excreta and related risks but also depend to an extent on their feelings about these substances when making judgments and decisions regarding the purpose for using excreta as fertilizer and the level of exposure they can tolerate and manage.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 22, no 3, 639-666 p.
Keyword [en]
Excreta, Fertilizer, Affect, Risk, Benefit, Judgment
National Category
Economics Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-28869DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2015.1100515ISI: 000371914500005Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84960369901OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-28869DiVA: diva2:890884
Available from: 2016-01-05 Created: 2016-01-05 Last updated: 2016-09-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Westlund, Hans
By organisation
JIBS, Economics
In the same journal
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
EconomicsEcology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 173 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf