| Title | Market Feasibility of Faecal Sludge and Municipal Solid Waste-Based Compost as Measured by Farmers' Willingness-to-Pay for Product Attributes: Evidence from Kampala, Uganda |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 13364 |
| Authors | Danso, GK; Otoo, M; Ekere, W; Ddungu, S; Madurangi, G |
| Title | Market Feasibility of Faecal Sludge and Municipal Solid Waste-Based Compost as Measured by Farmers' Willingness-to-Pay for Product Attributes: Evidence from Kampala, Uganda |
| Year | 2017 |
| Published | Resources-Basel, 6, 3 |
| Abstract | There is a great potential to close the nutrient recycling loop, support a circular economy' and improve cost recovery within the waste sector and to create viable businesses via the conversion of waste to organic fertilizers. Successful commercialization of waste-based organic fertilizer businesses however largely depends on a sound market. We used a choice experiment to estimate farmers' willingness-to-pay (WTP) for faecal sludge and municipal solid waste-based (FSM) compost in Kampala, Uganda and considered three attributesfortification, pelletization and certification. Our results reveal that farmers are willing to pay for FSM compost and place a higher value on a certified' compost product. They are willing to pay US $0.4 per kg above the current market price for a similar certified product, which is 67 times higher than the cost of providing the attribute. Farmers are willing to pay US $0.127 per kg for pelletized' FSM compost, which is lower (0.57 times) than the cost of providing the attribute. On the other hand, farmers require US $0.089 per kg as a compensation to use fortified' FSM compost. We suggest that future FSM compost businesses focus on a certified and pelletized' FSM product as this product type has the highest production cost-WTP differential and for which future businesses can capture the highest percentage of the consumer surplus. The demand for FSM compost indicates the benefits that can accrue to farmers, businesses and the environment from the recycling of organic waste for agriculture. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
6369
|
Mallory, A; Holm, R; Parker, A A Review of the Financial Value of Faecal Sludge Reuse in Low-Income Countries(2020)Sustainability, 12, 20 | |
| 5837
|
Bekchanov, M; Mirzabaev, A Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil health(2018) | |
| 25301
|
Yesaya, M; Mpanang'ombe, W; Tilley, E The Cost of Plastics in Compost(2021) | |
| 21371
|
Keng, ZX; Chong, S; Ng, CG; Ridzuan, NI; Hanson, S; Pan, GT; Lau, PL; Supramaniam, CV; Singh, A; Chin, CF; Lam, HL Community-scale composting for food waste: A life-cycle assessment-supported case study(2020) | |
| 22204
|
Roy, ED; Esham, M; Jayathilake, N; Otoo, M; Koliba, C; Wijethunga, IB; Fein-Cole, MJ Compost Quality and Markets Are Pivotal for Sustainability in Circular Food-Nutrient Systems: A Case Study of Sri Lanka(2021) | |
| 22920
|
Majbar, Z; El Madani, FZ; Khalis, M; Lahlou, K; Ben Abbou, M; Majbar, E; Bourhia, M; AL-Huqail, AA; El Askary, A; Khalifa, AS; Ouahmane, L; Taleb, M; El Haji, M; Rais, Z Farmers' Perceptions and Willingness of Compost Production and Use to Contribute to Environmental Sustainability(2021)Sustainability, 13.0, 23 | |
| 5265
|
Rashid, MI; Shahzad, K Food waste recycling for compost production and its economic and environmental assessment as circular economy indicators of solid waste management(2021) | |
| 4748
|
Ofei-Quartey, MNL; Appiah-Effah, E; Akodwaa-Boadi, K; Ampaw, B; Taylor, TS; Millogo, ZEN Enhancing the economic potential of organic waste by co-composting using ratio modelling toward a circular economy(2023)Journal Of Material Cycles And Waste Management, 25, 3 | |
| 17042
|
Oldfield, TL; White, E; Holden, NM The implications of stakeholder perspective for LCA of wasted food and green waste(2018) | |
| 27945
|
Gwara, S; Wale, E; Odindo, A; Buckley, C Why do We Know So Much and Yet So Little? A Scoping Review of Willingness to Pay for Human Excreta Derived Material in Agriculture(2020)Sustainability, 12.0, 16 |