ArticleWaste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA2026
Quantifying non-marketed compost benefits for application in horticulture.
Article in Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA, 2026. 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
Knowledge of the true social benefits of pro-environmental activities is limited due to the difficulty of evaluating and quantifying the non-market benefits of such actions. Valuing non-marketed compost benefits and impacts is difficult because they do not have market prices, as they are not bought and sold (i.e. traded) in markets. This article fills this gap by quantifying the non-market benefits of compost use in agriculture. As an initial contribution, this study applied revealed preference methods to quantify the economic values of important non-marketed compost benefits to plant and soil systems in tree and shrub nursery production. The estimated benefits were compared for compost produced using two windrow composting methods, namely: aerobic or thermophilic composting and fermentative or static pile inoculated composting. Specific compost benefits considered included: (i) medium in potting soil mix; (ii) Nitrogen Phosphorus and Potassim (NPK) nutrient supply; (iii) improved nursery plant yield/performance; (iv) disease, pest and weed control and (v) reduced branch pruning. Total economic value, aggregated for the compost benefit types considered, was lower for thermophilic compost applied (CAD$192 per tonne per year) than for fermentative compost (CAD$385 per tonne per year), due to lower fermentative compost production cost. Among the compost benefit types considered, improved nursery plant yield and performance accounted for the highest proportion of quantified benefits; 75% of total economic value for thermophilic compost and 93% for fermentative compost. Further studies considering all important compost benefits beyond those considered in this study, and compost use in other agricultural production systems will be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.