Skip to Main Content
Table 1

Estimated models for the preferences of farmowners, n = 3,054 choice sets, for buying fertiliser derived from fecal sludge, compared with preferences for cow manure

AttributeModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
Valuep-valueValuep-valueValuep-value
Dry 0.581 < 0.01 0.582 < 0.01 0.579 < 0.01 
FSF − 1.36 < 0.01 − 1.36 < 0.01 − 1.35 < 0.01 
Labeled as organic manure 0.228 < 0.01     
Label organic – omnivorous farmer   0.0620 0.58   
Label organic – vegetarian farmer   0.291 < 0.01   
Label organic – has tractor – large area     0.12 0.42 
Label organic – has tractor – other area     0.239 0.09 
Label organic – no tractor – large area     0.252 0.24 
Label organic – no tractor – other area     0.252 < 0.01 
No smell 0.478 < 0.01     
No smell – omnivorous farmer   0.433 < 0.01   
No smell – vegetarian farmer   0.494 < 0.01   
No smell – has tractor – large area owned     0.126 0.43 
No smell – has tractor – other area     0.228 0.14 
No smell – no tractor – large area owned     0.455 0.07 
No smell – no tractor – other area     0.648 < 0.01 
No health risks 0.558 < 0.01 0.557 < 0.01 0.56 < 0.01 
No risk – omnivorous farmer   0.543 < 0.01   
No risk – vegetarian farmer   0.563 < 0.01   
No risk – has tractor – large area owned     0.211 0.18 
No risk – has tractor – other area     0.396 0.01 
No risk – no tractor – large area owned     0.459 0.05 
No risk – no tractor – other area     0.702 < 0.01 
Price of FSF 0.107 0.05 0.109 0.04 0.108 0.05 
Tea powder texture 0.214 < 0.01 0.21 < 0.01 0.213 < 0.01 
AttributeModel 1
Model 2
Model 3
Valuep-valueValuep-valueValuep-value
Dry 0.581 < 0.01 0.582 < 0.01 0.579 < 0.01 
FSF − 1.36 < 0.01 − 1.36 < 0.01 − 1.35 < 0.01 
Labeled as organic manure 0.228 < 0.01     
Label organic – omnivorous farmer   0.0620 0.58   
Label organic – vegetarian farmer   0.291 < 0.01   
Label organic – has tractor – large area     0.12 0.42 
Label organic – has tractor – other area     0.239 0.09 
Label organic – no tractor – large area     0.252 0.24 
Label organic – no tractor – other area     0.252 < 0.01 
No smell 0.478 < 0.01     
No smell – omnivorous farmer   0.433 < 0.01   
No smell – vegetarian farmer   0.494 < 0.01   
No smell – has tractor – large area owned     0.126 0.43 
No smell – has tractor – other area     0.228 0.14 
No smell – no tractor – large area owned     0.455 0.07 
No smell – no tractor – other area     0.648 < 0.01 
No health risks 0.558 < 0.01 0.557 < 0.01 0.56 < 0.01 
No risk – omnivorous farmer   0.543 < 0.01   
No risk – vegetarian farmer   0.563 < 0.01   
No risk – has tractor – large area owned     0.211 0.18 
No risk – has tractor – other area     0.396 0.01 
No risk – no tractor – large area owned     0.459 0.05 
No risk – no tractor – other area     0.702 < 0.01 
Price of FSF 0.107 0.05 0.109 0.04 0.108 0.05 
Tea powder texture 0.214 < 0.01 0.21 < 0.01 0.213 < 0.01 

Note: We added a dummy variable indicator for FSF to account for any differences between cow manure and FSF not covered in the attributes specified. Out of 2,306 farmowners, only 1,807 participated in the preference modeling study. Each participant was presented with three choice sets (see, e.g., Figure S1). Each choice set had three options to choose. With 1,807 farmowners × 3 choice sets per owner, we get 5,421 choice sets in total. Half of those choice sets (5,421/2 ≈ 2,710) had cow manure as the third option, and the other half had chemical fertilizer. We have n = 3,054 (instead of 2,710) because the cow manure and chemical fertilizer choices were randomly assigned and their allocation was probabilistically but not exactly close to 0.5. Our n was also influenced by the workers who dropped out.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal