ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2021
Horticultural products irrigated with treated sewage: are they acceptable?
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public acceptance of treated sewage (TS) reuse in agriculture is a key element in successful implementation of TS reuse projects, but relevant research on the topic is limited. This study examined public willingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP) for agricultural products derived by irrigation with TS in Lorestan province, Iran, applying the contingent valuation (CV) method. The agricultural products determined for the study included corn, peaches, apricots, and plums, while TS was introduced in three qualities [Q1, complete TS treatment (i.e., physical treatment, aeration, and chemical treatment); Q2, partial TS treatment (i.e., physical treatment and aeration); and Q3, no TS treatment]. With reference to WTA, products irrigated with Q1 TS received 62.7% positive responses, while products irrigated with Q2 TS and Q3 TS received 21.3% and 17.0% positive responses, respectively. With reference to WTP, data showed that if the price of products derived by irrigation with TS was less than that of products irrigated with fresh water, some people would be willing to pay for these products (52.0% positive responses versus 48.0% negative responses). Awareness had a significantly positive impact on WTA1 and WTA2 (products irrigated with Q1 TS and Q2 TS, respectively) as well as on WTP1, WTP2, and WTP3 (products irrigated with Q1 TS, Q2 TS, and Q3 TS, respectively). Similarly, information sources had a significantly positive effect on WTP1, WTP2, and WTP3. Overall, individuals with high levels of health risk perception and high awareness showed high WTA, while non-processed corn and men were associated with low WTA. Concerning WTP, individuals with high awareness and those who had access to information sources showed high WTP, while men were associated with low WTP. Information about the importance of TS reuse, reduction of prices of products derived by irrigation with TS, and promotion of public confidence in TS are essential to increase public WTA and WTP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34043166What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.