Literature DB >> 30847582

Socioeconomic, agricultural, and individual factors influencing farmers' perceptions and willingness of compost production and use: an evidence from Wadi al-Far'a Watershed-Palestine.

Suha Al-Madbouh1, Issam A Al-Khatib2, Majed I Al-Sari3, Jumana I Salahat4, Baraa Y A Jararaa5, Lars Ribbe6.   

Abstract

In Palestine, open dumping and/or burning the waste, including agricultural waste, are prevalent practices resulting in emitting leachate and acidifying greenhouse gases. Composting the agricultural waste can reduce emissions and provide 'compost' as an organic fertilizer and soil amendment; yet, it has not been implemented at the national level. To develop a local marketing strategy for compost, this study views a need to identify farmers' perceptions and willingness of compost production and use in agriculture and examine various socioeconomic, agricultural, and individual factors shaping them. The case of Wadi al-Far'a watershed (WFW) is investigated, where farmers practice inappropriate waste disposal and overuse of agrochemicals. A semi-structured questionnaire is administered to 409 farmers through face-to-face interviews. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, Chi-square test, and binary logistic regression are used for data analysis. High acceptance level (84%) is disclosed among farmers in WFW for the hypothetical idea of producing and using compost. Farmers also have high, yet lower, willingness level (63.6%) of the more salient option of producing compost themselves and using it in agriculture. Tenure systems, large cultivated areas, rainfed irrigation, and lack of access to training sessions inhibit farmers' acceptance of the idea of compost production (overall p value = 0.000). Large cultivated areas and rainfed irrigation is also associated with farmers' unwillingness to produce compost, besides high household monthly income, animal or mixed animal-plant farming, experience in compost production, and use of pesticides (overall p value = 0.000).

Keywords:  Agricultural waste; Compost; Farmers’ perceptions; Farmers’ willingness; Palestine; Socioeconomic factors

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30847582     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-019-7350-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  9 in total

1.  A study on the attitudes and behavioural influence of construction waste management in occupied Palestinian territory.

Authors:  Majed I Al-Sari; Issam A Al-Khatib; Marios Avraamides; Despo Fatta-Kassinos
Journal:  Waste Manag Res       Date:  2011-10-04

2.  Solid waste characterization, quantification and management practices in developing countries. a case study: Nablus district - Palestine.

Authors:  Issam A Al-Khatib; Maria Monou; Abdul Salam F Abu Zahra; Hafez Q Shaheen; Despo Kassinos
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 6.789

3.  Agricultural waste utilisation strategies and demand for urban waste compost: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Ethiopia.

Authors:  Abebe Nigussie; Thomas W Kuyper; Andreas de Neergaard
Journal:  Waste Manag       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 7.145

4.  Factors affecting the sustainability of solid waste management system-the case of Palestine.

Authors:  Ammar J Al-Khateeb; Majed I Al-Sari; Issam A Al-Khatib; Fathi Anayah
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 2.513

5.  Performance of co-composting sewage sludge and organic fraction of municipal solid waste at different proportions.

Authors:  Difang Zhang; Wenhai Luo; Yun Li; Guoying Wang; Guoxue Li
Journal:  Bioresour Technol       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 9.642

6.  Assessment of compost quality and usage for agricultural use: a case study of Hebron, Palestine.

Authors:  Majed I Al-Sari; Mohammed A A Sarhan; Issam A Al-Khatib
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 2.513

7.  Usage of pumice as bulking agent in sewage sludge composting.

Authors:  Chuandong Wu; Weiguang Li; Ke Wang; Yunbei Li
Journal:  Bioresour Technol       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 9.642

8.  Statistics review 14: Logistic regression.

Authors:  Viv Bewick; Liz Cheek; Jonathan Ball
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2005-01-13       Impact factor: 9.097

9.  The yuck factor: when disgust meets discovery.

Authors:  Charles W Schmidt
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 9.031

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.