Understanding farmers’ perceptions and choices regarding land application of sewage sludge is key to developing locally accepted strategies for managing its sewage sludge. Semi-structured interviews, with mostly open-ended questions were conducted with 50 fruit and vegetable farmers at the New Jersey Annual Vegetable Meeting in 1999. The in-depth interviews indicated that the application of sewage sludge to land is currently not a common agricultural practice for these growers. Perceived risks, including heavy metals in sewage sludge (soil-build up, crop-uptake), negative public perception, odour complaints, and increase of contaminants in the water supply outweigh economic incentives and soil improvement benefits. When naming benefits and drawbacks, farmers tend to think first of their crop and their land, and do not mention the environment. It is only when they are questioned directly about environmental benefits and risks that they discuss these aspects. Communication efforts should focus on practical information to which farmers can relate.
Berglund, S. & Hall, J. E. (1988) Sludge and slurry disposal techniques and environmental problems - A review. In: Nielsen, V.C., Voorburg, J. H. & L’ Hermite, L. (eds.) Volatile emissions from livestock farming and sewage operations. 60-72Elsevier Applied Science Publishers: London.
2.
California Water Environment Association (CWEA) (1998) Manual of good practice for agricultural land application of biosolids. CWEA: CA.
3.
Chess, C. (1998) Fearing Fear: Communication about agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum 1(1) (www.agbioforum.missouri.edu)
4.
Edgar, W. W., De Michele, G., Reimers, R. S. & O’Dette, R. G. (1998) Assessment of the 1996 disinfection practice survey on biosolids, along with additional information from WEF Disinfection Committee and WEF Residuals/Biosolids Committee. In: Water Environment Federation 71st Annual Conference Exposition (2). Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, VA.
5.
Evanylo, G.K. (1999) Land application of biosolids for agricultural purposes in Virginia. 452-300. Virginia Cooperative Extension: Blacksburg, VA.
6.
Fiorino, D. (1989) Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis9, 293-299.
7.
Fischhoff, B. (1989) A guide to controversy. In: NRC (ed.). Improving risk communication. 269-281. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
8.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994) Interviewing: The art of science. In: Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. 353-361Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
9.
Fuhrhacker, M. & Lence, B. (1997) Sludge management in lower Austria: policy related issues in land application of sewage sludge. In: Proceedings of the specialty conference on management and fate of toxic organics in sludge applied to land. Technical University of Denmark: Copenhagen
10.
Gigliotti, L. (1991) An assessment of attitudes and beliefs about sewage sludge management strategies in New York. HDRUSeries 91-10. Cornell University: Ithaca, NY.
11.
Goldfarb, W., Krogmann, U. & Hopkins, C. (1999) Unsafe sewage sludge or beneficial biosolids: Liability, planning, and management issues regarding the land application of sewage treatment residuals. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review26, 687-768.
12.
Goldstein, N., Glenn, J. & Madtes, C. (1998) Biosolids management update. BioCycle39(1) 69-74.
13.
Govindasamy, R., Italia, J. & Liptak, C. (1997) Quality of agricultural produce: consumer preferences and perceptions. NJAES project no. P--02137-1-97. Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ
14.
Lichtenberg, E. & Zimmerman, R. (1999) Information and farmers’ attitudes about pesticides, water quality, and related environmental effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment1454, 1-10.
15.
Logan, T. J. (1997) Balancing benefits and risks in biosolids. BioCycle38(11), 52-57.
16.
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
17.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
18.
NJ (1997) New Jersey pollutant discharge elimination system. 29 New Jersey Register 1704 from May 5, 1997.
19.
NJ (1999) Sludge quality assurance. 31 New Jersey Register 200 from February 1, 1999.
20.
Nielsen, V. C., Voorburg, J. H. & L’Hermite, L. (eds.) (1988) Volatile emissions from livestock farming and sewage operations. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd: London.
21.
NRC (1996a) Use of reclaimed water and sludge in food production. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
22.
NRC (1996b) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.
23.
Peterson, J. W., Rodriguez, L. & Book, R. E. (1994) Sludge: Benefit or Blight. Identifying Audience Information Needs and Media Preferences. Paper presented at the Media and the Environment conference, April 7-9, in Reno, NV.
24.
Pilawski, T. (1999) Personal communication, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Pretreatment and Residuals: New Jersey
25.
Richards, T. J & Richards, L.Using computers in qualitative research. In: collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (eds.) 211-245. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
26.
Rodriguez, L. & Peterson, J. W. (1996) Sludge under suspicion: explaining perceptions of risks from a relatively ‘unknown’ technology. Journal of Applied Communication80, 12-25.
27.
Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk. Science23280-285.
28.
US (1993) Standards for the use or disposal of sewage sludge, Final 40 CFR Part 503. Federal Register: US 58, 9387-9401.
29.
US (1996) Land area, population, and density for states and counties: 1990. US Census Bureau: US
30.
US (1997) Clean water needs survey report to congress. 1996: assessment of needs for publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities, Correction of combined sewer overflows and management of storm water and non-point source pollution in the United States. Report. No. EPA/832/R-97/003.
31.
Wynne, B. (1989) Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment31(2), 10-15, 33-39.
32.
Zimmerman, R., Bord, R., Mathiowetz, N. & Slovic, P.1991. Survey of public perceptions of environmental risk: New York City sludge management plan. Report for the New York City Sludge Management Program. New York. New York University: NY
