Abstract
Water scarcity is the most significant challenge facing semi-arid and arid areas because fresh water is often transferred from other areas to these regions, and then discharged as wastewater. Irrigating agricultural lands and green spaces with treated wastewater (TWW) can be thus regarded as a way to reduce pressure on fresh water resources and lead to the utilization of ecosystem services, such as regulating and cultural ones. The most important factor affecting the expansion and sustainability of these areas is people's participation. Therefore, this study reflected on the weight of locals' willingness and attitudes as one of the most effective factors in the development of irrigation with TWW in peri-urban areas and ecological buffer zones. The main indicators were accordingly extracted from previous research and examined through a survey questionnaire, and then analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM) in the AMOS and LISREL software packages. The indicators were related to individuals' health in product consumption (health), people's activities in farmlands and green spaces (assurance), and users' distance from farmlands (accessibility). The study results revealed that accessibility was the most important factor, and then health and assurance were effective in people's participation in agricultural activities in farmlands irrigated with TWW in peri-urban areas and increasing green-space buffer zones.
HIGHLIGHT
The difficulty of water supply has intensified as a result of this water transfer, as has the challenge of supplying green space and food to residents. The growth of green spaces and agricultural spaces with TWW leads to the utilization of ecosystem services such as regulation and cultural services. Results indicate that accessibility is the most critical factor.
Graphical Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Due to the migration of people from villages to cities and peri-urban areas, a reduction in production and a growth in consumption rates have raised problems to meet public needs, such as food supplies, recreational activities, well-being, etc. (Moseley et al. 2013; Philips 2013). As estimated by the United Nations (UN), 34% of the world's population will be rural, and the remainder will be living in urban or peri-urban areas by 2050 (UN 2014). Given the increase in urbanization, peri-urban areas have come to be a big challenge. In Iran, especially in Tehran, Karaj, and adjacent towns and cities, urbanization has been also expanded and new settlements have been established. This has given rise to more complexity in peri-urban areas such as Kalak-e Bala (bordering Tehran and Karaj) because there are several land uses (namely, settlements, roads, agricultural plots, gardens, and wildlands), having negative effects on water supply, food security, and ecosystems. Many researchers have thus far investigated the challenges facing peri-urban areas from different points of view (Budiyantini & Pratiwi 2016; Shkaruba et al. 2017; Žlender & Ward Thompson 2017). In this sense, one of the biggest challenges is water supply, mainly in drylands such as Iran. Most of the peri-urban areas of megacities in this country are critical regions because they are supplying the required water and green spaces of cities. Besides, these areas include agricultural plots remaining from previous land uses. Supplying water for all these land uses is thus challenging, so expanding green spaces by agricultural activities using treated wastewater (TWW) can protect agricultural plots from urban expansion, develop green spaces, provide recreational places for the public, and reduce pressure on fresh water resources in arid and semi-arid regions (Farhadkhani et al. 2018). Although other strategies have been so far presented for expanding green spaces, such as xeriscaping and the use of superabsorbent polymers (SAPs), they have failed to tackle the mentioned problems because peri-urban areas are so complicated (Shooshtarian et al. 2012). Among these complexities is an ecological disturbance in peri-urban areas, caused by land-use changes and urbanization. Expanding green spaces by community gardens also provides dynamic socio-ecological systems and prepares ecosystem services for people (Lin & Egerer 2020).
To maintain and expand ecosystem services in peri-urban areas, a correct definition of peri-urban areas and ecosystem services must be initially obtained. On the other hand, it is required to survey people's willingness to consume products and do recreational activities in regions irrigated with TWW to use this type of water in maintaining ecosystem services, especially for agricultural purposes. The activities in farmlands irrigated with TWW can thus promote food security, recreational activities, and green spaces, and consequently minimize urbanization. The key factor in the promotion of TWW-based irrigation is people's willingness and attitudes. To this end, the definitions of the peri-urban areas in the Kalak-e Bala region (viz. the peri-urban area of Karaj near Tehran, Iran) were explored, and then people's willingness was examined using some factors.
Of note, a peri-urban area is a zone between urban and rural areas with no specific boundary. It may also include several types of land uses (i.e., industrial, residential, agricultural areas, etc.). Peri-urban land-use structure also varies by region and country. Moreover, it has significant heterogeneity, which depends on geographic and conceptual terms (Thebo et al. 2014; Geneletti et al. 2017; Gonçalves et al. 2017). The definition of peri-urban areas is totally different in industrial or post-industrial countries from that in developing ones, where a peri-urban area is created by chaotic urbanization, which may be caused by the entry of settlements into agricultural areas, national lands, etc. In any case, a peri-urban area is a multifunctional one with several land uses as well as socioeconomic diversity (Joe Ravetz & Sick Nielsen 2013). Local stakeholders, including local people along with political and economic organizations accordingly have major roles in peri-urban changes. Peri-urban characteristics are also related to individuals living in a particular location, whereas they consider themselves as the owners of the place and interfere with creating some characteristics and defining some spaces. This leads to more fragmentation, lack of integrity, and chaos. As well, a fragmented landscape has less value and functionality for users. Therefore, the lack of integrated landscape or connected areas can be the outcome of a deficiency in urban or regional planning (Moseley et al. 2013; Gonçalves et al. 2017; Ruoso & Plant 2018).
Recent transformations of land use due to population growth and migration have accordingly reduced agricultural plots and natural lands, leading to environmental vulnerability, decreased agricultural production, landscape homogeneity, and low quality of urban spaces. They have also caused ‘sound pollution’, ‘visual blight’, ‘biohazards’, ‘protection of nature’, ‘protection of the past’, ‘transformation of adjacent areas’, ‘presence of brownfields’, and ‘social crises’ (von der Dunk et al. 2011; Gonçalves et al. 2017). Alterations in land use in peri-urban areas in order to provide the population's necessities also puts the fringe areas under the pressure of fragmentation, lack of sources, a decline in habitats, and biodiversity loss. As well, ecological promotion in peri-urban areas increases the relationships between fauna and cities, and even enhances biodiversity (Snep et al. 2006). High biodiversity in an urban and peri-urban area is not only effective in ecological quality, but also plays an important role in human well-being. Regular access to green spaces similarly boosts health equality by providing an area for interactions such as exercise or recreational activities. It also brings psychological effects on green-space users called ‘perceived restoratives’ (Moseley et al. 2013; Carrus et al. 2015). No equal access to gardens or green spaces can thus reduce their usage. Citizens tend to have access to vast semi-natural areas, but difficulty in access or long distance diminishes their regular visits. Because of deficiency in semi-natural areas or low variety of activities in peri-urban ones, locals are the most users of these places (Žlender & Ward Thompson 2017). Proportional economic relationships between peri-urban agriculture, services, and recreational activities accordingly promote economy and sustainability in this area (Pribadi & Pauleit 2016). The localization of food production, quick and easy access to recreational areas, and local workforce recruitment can accordingly reduce the consumption of fuel and energy (Tu et al. 2016; Wästfelt & Zhang 2016).
Likewise, peri-urban areas pave the way for diverse products and activities, and consequently increase biodiversity and ecosystem services. As peri-urban areas are an intersection of urban and rural ones, peri-urbanization leads to a reduction in traditional farmlands, fragmentation, and disturbance in the natural cycle of a region (Zasada 2011; Duvernoy et al. 2018; Hamer 2018). Peri-urban agriculture also provides not only ecosystem services, but also economical and non-economical profits for rural individuals (Schaller et al. 2018).
Peri-urban areas are near to cities and agro-industrial zones. As a significant population lives in such areas, a notable amount of wastewater is produced, which can be treated and reused in many fields. TWW from these areas can be thus utilized for woodlands and agricultural lands. It can be also the main source for wetland restoration, green spaces, and other activities. The type of TWW consumption accordingly depends on its quality. As well, reusing TWW will be useful for raising groundwater levels by reducing its consumption (Margenat et al. 2017; Libutti et al. 2018). Organic waste and TWW of urban areas are renewable sources that can even promote agricultural lands or greenbelts around cities. Additionally, they can bring nutrients back to the soil (Wielemaker et al. 2018). Their reuse in agricultural plots or green spaces must be thus operationalized once the soil and water are examined. It will thus reduce brownfields and demolished wetlands, which are inappropriate for agriculture. Utilizing TWW in the forestry of urban and peri-urban areas also leads to the expansion of green spaces and the mitigation of climate change. Nutrient recycling and reductions in landfills can thus diminish methane (CH4) emissions while planting and growing trees increase carbon dioxide (CO2) absorption (Lwasa et al. 2015). Moreover, TWW reuse in agriculture has economic and ecological benefits, i.e., it increases agricultural products and decreases water crisis, particularly in dry regions. It also brings positive effects on the mitigation of global warming. Because of having solutes, TWW can have side effects on some plants, which needs further research (Reznik et al. 2017; Maaloul et al. 2019). Not all peri-urban agricultural activities result in ecosystem services. Livestock and poultry in an industrial scale also provide non-services, which are totally against ecosystem ones, and must be controlled and limited (Zhang et al. 2007,Wei et al. 2018).
All the advantages of using TWW and expanding green spaces are accordingly dependent on people's willingness to consume products irrigated with TWW or their attitudes toward recreation in these areas. Moreover, people's willingness to exploit these spaces depends on their awareness of TWW, community gardens, and green spaces irrigated with TWW. In this study, people's willingness to recreate and farm in peri-urban agricultural plots and gardens irrigated with TWW was thus investigated on a local scale.
Indicators
Three indicators related to people's participation in agricultural activities in farmlands irrigated with TWW in peri-urban areas can be considered as follows:
Health
As mentioned earlier, TWW plays a critical role in ecosystem health. Community gardens irrigated with TWW accordingly provide spaces to produce products needed by locals and reuse wastewater produced by the same individuals. Peri-urban areas also make it possible to provide not only larger agricultural spaces for the public, but also expand green spaces and connectivity of green patches remaining from land-use alterations. These places boost people's healthier dietary patterns, reduce air pollution, augment the quality of recreational activities, etc. The role of these spaces is particularly important in low-income regions (Wang et al. 2014). The ecosystem services provided by these gardens can even increase ecological complexity and biodiversity, provide food for individuals and native species, and elevate social and biological quality. Furthermore, applying nutrients recovered from TWW helps to accelerate biological and ecological cycles (Margenat et al. 2017; Wielemaker et al. 2018; Lin & Egerer 2020).
Accessibility
Another important indicator is people's participation in community gardens and similar projects, which includes three factors: geographic, economic, and informational accessibility. Local organic produce can thus increase social justice (namely, access to recreational activities, food security, fresh air, etc.). Public access to these products will thus make it prosperous and attract more people. In this respect, accessibility can have a direct impact on people's willingness to participate (Mahbubur & Brandon 2012). Peri-urban areas also have irregular structures, which are neither urban nor rural. Lack of structural systems accordingly reduces access to local markets, community gardens, farmers' markets, etc. (Joe Ravetz & Sick Nielsen 2013; Wang et al. 2014).
Assurance
Most community gardens are located on vacant lands in cities and being threatened by developments, which can make a vague future for users. This leads to not being able to acquire permanent land for people and reduces their interest in gardening. The distance of peri-urban areas from the core of cities also makes them adopt different socioeconomic indicators. Land acquisition in such areas is simple, and it is less exposed to severe developments (Geneletti et al. 2017; Diaz et al. 2018). It accordingly gives individuals additional assurance to work on land and earn benefits. On the other hand, many areas are fragmented and have even lost their integrity due to land-use change. This will increase farmers' willingness to sell land and change land use. If people feel confident in the existence and stability of these lands, they will tend to work on them and pay rents. This helps to decrease the expectations of urban development and reduction of agricultural lands, and even put less pressure on traditional and local farmers and villagers. It also expands green spaces through people's participation (Haller 2017). The main assumption raised here is that health has the greatest impact on people's willingness to work in community gardens and public farmlands. Then, distance and assurance matter. As well, health affects both distance and assurance. Moreover, a number of experts from the agriculture, environmental engineering, and ecology fields have been asked about these issues and their opinions have confirmed that the health may have the most significant effect.
Study area
The study area is located in Iran [35.784277°N, 51.041983°E], as one part of District 11 of the city of Karaj, surrounded by Jahan Nama town, Kalak-e Bala village, and Jahan Nama planted forest. This area is near the borderline of the two cities of Tehran and Karaj. Due to the location of the area in the foothills of the Alborz mountain range, runoff moves to the Karaj River and the lower plains, washing upstream sediments and leaving them in the plains. Some runoffs are seasonal and some others are permanent rivers in the region. The existence of main and several sub-rivers have accordingly made this area an agricultural region. Besides, the water requirements of Tehran and Karaj have been the main reason for building the dam on the main river, whose location in the semi-arid area has led to water supply challenges.
Kalak-e Bala, located in Karaj (Figure 1) has a population of about 215,802, including 51 and 49% men and women, respectively. As well, 43% of men and 39% of women are educated (Statistical Center of Iran). This peri-urban area is a combination of traditional agricultural structure, newly established urban blocks, and roads. Most of the agricultural activities in District 11 are gardening and agriculture, relying on greenhouses. Due to the location of this area in the alluvium of the river, it has brought favorable conditions for such activities. Its convenient soil and access to the fresh water of the river or wells are the significant benefits of this area. A military zone is also located in the northwest of this place, and there are farms, gardens, and a river in the southeast, which make this a peri-urban area with various land uses. The defined future greenbelt by the municipality surrounds the town and the village, whose western part is dedicated to sports activities and clubs with real and legal owners. As a result, the focus was laid more on the eastern part of the site. As well, the location of Jahan Nama Forest in the eastern part of the town provided an opportunity to connect green spots and greenbelts to it (Figure 2). To increase green spaces and agricultural products in this area, land use alterations, particularly gardens and farmlands, are prevented since they exist to earn money and turn this area into an urban one. Moreover, the idea of agricultural plots irrigated with TWW was raised to reduce the consumption of river water and drinking water to irrigate gardens. Therefore, the rate of attracting people's participation in these areas and the effective factors in this respect are the subject of this study.
Zone 1,3 Newly established towns. Zone 2 planted forest. Zone 4 is intended for sports and club activities. Zone 5 Village. Zone 6 military zone. Zone 7 Altered land use to housing. Zone 8 Garden and farms.
Zone 1,3 Newly established towns. Zone 2 planted forest. Zone 4 is intended for sports and club activities. Zone 5 Village. Zone 6 military zone. Zone 7 Altered land use to housing. Zone 8 Garden and farms.
METHODS
This study was based on ecosystem services, reflecting on people's willingness to participate in agricultural activities and consume products irrigated with TWW in peri-urban areas. As their participation in agricultural and community activities could be of importance, their willingness was investigated with reference to some effective factors. Three main factors considered in this survey were issues related to individuals' health in product consumption, activities in farmlands and green spaces, and users' distance from farmlands (Firth et al. 2011; Ding et al. 2018; Balogh et al. 2016; de-Magistris & Gracia 2016). Finally, the data were studied using the AMOS and LISREL software packages.
The sample questionnaire was initially designed based on a Likert-type scale and distributed among 30 individuals to test the results by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and estimate their reliability. The final survey questionnaire was then distributed by a group including the authors among locals. Given the unfamiliarity of most respondents with the issue of TWW, in case of need, they received explanations after answering the first question, which was related to the amount of information they had about TWW as the origin of the contamination. The sample size was estimated to be 383, using the Cochran formula (Kotrlik & Higgins 2001). Of note, 1500 individuals were selected randomly from rural, urban, and peri-urban areas in the study setting to be surveyed, and 386 ultimately participated in total. Some efforts were also made to include those living in residential, industrial, and agricultural areas. As well, a number of people having recreational activities at Jahan Nama Park were included. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient estimated for 386 individuals was 0.790. Moreover, 52% of the samples were women and the rest were men, and 82% of all participants were aged 25–44 years old. The educated people in the questionnaire were also considered as those who had a high-school diploma or academic education (Table 1). The initial calculations of the data were done by the SPSS Statistics software and linear regression. Then, modifying and normalizing the data was completed according to the theoretical model, t-values, and standard coefficients.
Individuals data
Number | 386 |
Women | 57% |
Average age (years) | 47 |
Educated | 95% |
Number | 386 |
Women | 57% |
Average age (years) | 47 |
Educated | 95% |
Explanatory variables
Variable . | Measurement Likert scale(s) . |
---|---|
Tendency to work in public farmland: | |
Distance | |
Less than 5 min walking | 5-point |
Around than 10 min walking | 5-point |
More than 20 min walking | 5-point |
Health | |
Knowledge about TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to consume products irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to use household TWW in agriculture | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW in ecosystems | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW on products | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW on fruit | 5-point |
Support the farmers who apply TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to use household TWW in agriculture | 5-point |
Assurance | |
Food security by working in gardens and public farmland irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Communication and cultural awareness for youth | 5-point |
Tendency to work on plots irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Variable . | Measurement Likert scale(s) . |
---|---|
Tendency to work in public farmland: | |
Distance | |
Less than 5 min walking | 5-point |
Around than 10 min walking | 5-point |
More than 20 min walking | 5-point |
Health | |
Knowledge about TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to consume products irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to use household TWW in agriculture | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW in ecosystems | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW on products | 5-point |
Impact of irrigating with TWW on fruit | 5-point |
Support the farmers who apply TWW | 5-point |
Tendency to use household TWW in agriculture | 5-point |
Assurance | |
Food security by working in gardens and public farmland irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Communication and cultural awareness for youth | 5-point |
Tendency to work on plots irrigated with TWW | 5-point |
Explanatory variables
As stated in Motoshita et al. (2015), people's knowledge about the amount of carbon produced by their shopping attitudes can have an effect on their willingness to reduce CO2. People become more sensitive to the consequences of their attitudes and accordingly change their preferences. Therefore, their knowledge about TWW and community gardens would shape their behaviors, so this question was measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to strongly disagree’. This issue was examined in the context of health, since it could play a critical role in the optimal use of water and the design of sustainable spaces. Of note, projects would fail if people did not partake in these sustainable spaces or consume their products. Because of the sensitivity of this issue, more health-related questions were considered, and there were a number of controlling ones to ensure the accuracy of the answers by the respondents.
The other particular factor in peri-urban agriculture is communication between local and regional scales. Stakeholders should thus have access to the area. The public access level can accordingly have a significant impact on their participation (Sanz Sanz et al. 2018). To shorten the food supply and localize food production, urban and peri-urban agriculture has been thus introduced as new solutions. These are accompanied by a reduction in distance, increased production, and higher food security (Viljoen & Bohn 2009). The study area here included several land uses, viz. rural, urban, agricultural, industrial, etc. The accessibility by all the inhabitants in this region to people's agricultural spaces and community gardens also depended on their distance from them because of the deficiency of public transportation in the suburban areas compared with cities. To help the respondents reach better perceptions, the questions related to distance were asked by intervals based on walking per minute. People's assurance in working in irrigated agricultural areas with TWW was also measured by their willingness to pay rents and expenses and even acquaint their children with these spaces. The individuals' willingness to pay rents could thus play a vital role in their behaviors toward products and spaces (de-Magistris & Gracia 2016). The explanatory variables of this study are listed in Table 2. Moreover, the structural equation modeling (SEM) of the relationship between these three indicators is illustrated in Figure 3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data analysis
The questionnaire items were based on a five-point Likert-type scale, here divided into three categories for the ease of comparison after data collection, expressed by agreement, abstention, and disagreement. The results as sorted by the highest weight received in standard regression weight are presented in Table 3. Accordingly, the relationships and the effectiveness of each of the axes were studied by the analysis of data, SEM (Figure 4), and maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) through the AMOS software package (Table 4, Table 5; Banerjee & Chaudhury 2010; Ding et al. 2018; Young et al. 2020). The data were also analyzed in LISREL to ensure the accuracy of the analyses performed. First, the measurement model for the latent variable, i.e., people's willingness to work in public farmlands and its three indicators (namely, health, distance, and assurance) were determined, and then, SEM was fitted to the given assumption and all variables. Due to a large number of outliers in three items, their alpha values became less than 0.5, so they were removed from the analysis. Other outliers were also excluded by linear regression in the SPSS Statistics software (here, the unanswered questions and the data within the acceptable range of +3 to −3).
Standardized regression weights
Question number . | Indicator . | Weights . |
---|---|---|
10 | Accessibility | 0.919 |
6 | Health | 0.880 |
3 | Accessibility | 0.871 |
4 | Assurance | 0.818 |
15 | Health | 0.517 |
17 | Health | 0.502 |
12 | Health | 0.483 |
5 | Assurance | 0.439 |
13 | Health | 0.375 |
14 | Health | 0.338 |
16 | Health | 0.330 |
1 | Health | 0.321 |
7 | Assurance | 0.233 |
8 | Accessibility | 0.213 |
Question number . | Indicator . | Weights . |
---|---|---|
10 | Accessibility | 0.919 |
6 | Health | 0.880 |
3 | Accessibility | 0.871 |
4 | Assurance | 0.818 |
15 | Health | 0.517 |
17 | Health | 0.502 |
12 | Health | 0.483 |
5 | Assurance | 0.439 |
13 | Health | 0.375 |
14 | Health | 0.338 |
16 | Health | 0.330 |
1 | Health | 0.321 |
7 | Assurance | 0.233 |
8 | Accessibility | 0.213 |
Descriptive results
The SEM in Figure 4 indicates which variables are related to people's willingness to community gardens irrigated with TWW and in which ways. The measurement model included three PRS items and 14 observed variables, which had an appropriate model fit (N: 386, X2 = 77.62, df = 66, X2/DF = 1.178, robust CFI = 0.98, and robust RMSEA = 0.042). The most effective relationship was also between distance and assurance (1.00), which was indirect and positive. However, the effect of distance and assurance of health was similar, equal to 0.36 and 0.35, respectively. These values were much less than the effect of distance and reliability on each other (Figure 4). The p-value in Table 6 shows that all coefficients are acceptable and their values are less than 0.05. Of note, p as an error coefficient above 0.05 was unacceptable. If the values were less than 0.05, it meant that all coefficients with a 99% confidence interval were acceptable. The underlined t-values in Table 6 have a greater effect on the hidden variables based on the t-test outcomes.
Results of model validation
Q numbers . | Estimate . | S.E. . | C.R. . | P . | Label . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
m | <– > | s | .355 | .081 | 4.386 | *** | par_12 |
m | <– > | a | 1.148 | .184 | 6.237 | *** | par_13 |
s | <– > | a | .364 | .086 | 4.214 | *** | par_14 |
e2 | <– > | e3 | .356 | .091 | 3.889 | *** | par_15 |
e4 | <– > | e6 | .158 | .070 | 2.254 | .024 | par_16 |
e3 | <– > | e4 | .389 | .093 | 4.171 | *** | par_17 |
e5 | <– > | e6 | .591 | .131 | 4.496 | *** | par_18 |
e2 | <– > | e4 | .394 | .094 | 4.174 | *** | par_19 |
e14 | <– > | e16 | 1.195 | .259 | 4.619 | *** | par_20 |
e6 | <– > | e13 | .239 | .090 | 2.658 | .008 | par_21 |
e1 | <– > | e15 | −.083 | .037 | −2.271 | .023 | par_22 |
Q numbers . | Estimate . | S.E. . | C.R. . | P . | Label . | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
m | <– > | s | .355 | .081 | 4.386 | *** | par_12 |
m | <– > | a | 1.148 | .184 | 6.237 | *** | par_13 |
s | <– > | a | .364 | .086 | 4.214 | *** | par_14 |
e2 | <– > | e3 | .356 | .091 | 3.889 | *** | par_15 |
e4 | <– > | e6 | .158 | .070 | 2.254 | .024 | par_16 |
e3 | <– > | e4 | .389 | .093 | 4.171 | *** | par_17 |
e5 | <– > | e6 | .591 | .131 | 4.496 | *** | par_18 |
e2 | <– > | e4 | .394 | .094 | 4.174 | *** | par_19 |
e14 | <– > | e16 | 1.195 | .259 | 4.619 | *** | par_20 |
e6 | <– > | e13 | .239 | .090 | 2.658 | .008 | par_21 |
e1 | <– > | e15 | −.083 | .037 | −2.271 | .023 | par_22 |
Results sorted by maximum likelihood estimates weight (abstained answers are not mentioned)
No. . | Q No. . | Question Subject . | Responses in % . | Description . | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed . | Disagreed . | ||||
1 | 10 | Work in a TWW garden more than 20 minutes walking away | 24% | 43% | More than 20 min walking is not acceptable for people. |
2 | 6 | Work in a garden and consume product that is irrigated with TWW | 32% | 47% | Most surveyed people are reluctant or unable to comment due to lack of information. |
3 | 3 | Suitability of the public farmlands irrigated with TWW that can be harvested daily | 25% | 46% | People do not have a positive opinion about public farmlands irrigated with TWW. |
4 | 4 | Working in a community garden (subject of TWW was not raised in it) | 26% | 30% | People are not very eager to work on community gardens or abstained. |
5 | 15 | The role of TWW in the health of ecosystems | 52% | 11% | Agreed that applying TWW in irrigation has a positive effect on ecosystem health. |
6 | 17 | Reusing TWW of houses in agricultural irrigation by people | 43% | 31% | In people's opinion irrigating agricultural plots by TWW from houses is suitable |
7 | 12 | Effect of TWW on the health of products | 31% | 36% | People agreed that it has an effect on products, positive or negative |
8 | 5 | People's willingness to pay rent for public farmlands or gardens | 26% | 30% | People were not eager to pay for public farmlands |
9 | 13 | People's opinion about irrigating trees with TWW | 47% | 20% | People's opinion about irrigating green spaces by TWW was positive. |
10 | 14 | People's willingness to support farmers who irrigate their plots with TWW | 48% | 12% | People were eager to support farmers who apply TWW in their farms. |
11 | 16 | People's willingness to use their own house TWW in their garden | 53% | 20% | In people's opinion irrigating with TWW from their own house is suitable. |
12 | 7 | Familiarity of children and teenagers with agriculture and horticulture irrigated with TWW | 61% | 35% | People were interested in getting youth familiar with gardens irrigated by TWW. |
13 | 8 | Work in a garden that is less than 10 minutes’ walking away | 42% | 25% | Near garden and farms were more suitable for them. |
14 | 1 | Familiarity of people with TWW | 4% | 64% abstained | Only 4% of surveyed people were familiar with TWW |
3 Questions have been omitted because of overlapping |
No. . | Q No. . | Question Subject . | Responses in % . | Description . | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed . | Disagreed . | ||||
1 | 10 | Work in a TWW garden more than 20 minutes walking away | 24% | 43% | More than 20 min walking is not acceptable for people. |
2 | 6 | Work in a garden and consume product that is irrigated with TWW | 32% | 47% | Most surveyed people are reluctant or unable to comment due to lack of information. |
3 | 3 | Suitability of the public farmlands irrigated with TWW that can be harvested daily | 25% | 46% | People do not have a positive opinion about public farmlands irrigated with TWW. |
4 | 4 | Working in a community garden (subject of TWW was not raised in it) | 26% | 30% | People are not very eager to work on community gardens or abstained. |
5 | 15 | The role of TWW in the health of ecosystems | 52% | 11% | Agreed that applying TWW in irrigation has a positive effect on ecosystem health. |
6 | 17 | Reusing TWW of houses in agricultural irrigation by people | 43% | 31% | In people's opinion irrigating agricultural plots by TWW from houses is suitable |
7 | 12 | Effect of TWW on the health of products | 31% | 36% | People agreed that it has an effect on products, positive or negative |
8 | 5 | People's willingness to pay rent for public farmlands or gardens | 26% | 30% | People were not eager to pay for public farmlands |
9 | 13 | People's opinion about irrigating trees with TWW | 47% | 20% | People's opinion about irrigating green spaces by TWW was positive. |
10 | 14 | People's willingness to support farmers who irrigate their plots with TWW | 48% | 12% | People were eager to support farmers who apply TWW in their farms. |
11 | 16 | People's willingness to use their own house TWW in their garden | 53% | 20% | In people's opinion irrigating with TWW from their own house is suitable. |
12 | 7 | Familiarity of children and teenagers with agriculture and horticulture irrigated with TWW | 61% | 35% | People were interested in getting youth familiar with gardens irrigated by TWW. |
13 | 8 | Work in a garden that is less than 10 minutes’ walking away | 42% | 25% | Near garden and farms were more suitable for them. |
14 | 1 | Familiarity of people with TWW | 4% | 64% abstained | Only 4% of surveyed people were familiar with TWW |
3 Questions have been omitted because of overlapping |
Maximum likelihood estimates, regression weights
Gardens irrigated with TWW . | S.E. . | T test for different of means . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | Estimate . | t . | P . | |
Q17 | Health | 1.000 | |||
Q16 | Health | .940 | .329 | 2.862 | .004 |
Q15 | Health | 1.583 | .397 | 3.986 | *** |
Q14 | Health | .993 | .340 | 2.920 | .004 |
Q13 | Health | 1.388 | .437 | 3.171 | .002 |
Q12 | Health | 1.675 | .440 | 3.810 | *** |
Q6 | Health | 2.977 | .570 | 5.227 | *** |
Q1 | Health | .955 | .341 | 2.801 | .005 |
Q4 | Assurance | 1.000 | |||
Q5 | Assurance | .485 | .100 | 4.843 | *** |
Q7 | Assurance | .414 | .164 | 2.519 | .012 |
Q10 | Distance | 1.000 | |||
Q8 | Distance | .266 | .126 | 2.112 | .035 |
Q3 | Distance | .946 | .073 | 12.915 | *** |
Gardens irrigated with TWW . | S.E. . | T test for different of means . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | . | Estimate . | t . | P . | |
Q17 | Health | 1.000 | |||
Q16 | Health | .940 | .329 | 2.862 | .004 |
Q15 | Health | 1.583 | .397 | 3.986 | *** |
Q14 | Health | .993 | .340 | 2.920 | .004 |
Q13 | Health | 1.388 | .437 | 3.171 | .002 |
Q12 | Health | 1.675 | .440 | 3.810 | *** |
Q6 | Health | 2.977 | .570 | 5.227 | *** |
Q1 | Health | .955 | .341 | 2.801 | .005 |
Q4 | Assurance | 1.000 | |||
Q5 | Assurance | .485 | .100 | 4.843 | *** |
Q7 | Assurance | .414 | .164 | 2.519 | .012 |
Q10 | Distance | 1.000 | |||
Q8 | Distance | .266 | .126 | 2.112 | .035 |
Q3 | Distance | .946 | .073 | 12.915 | *** |
These four items had more weight and the rest were as follows (Table 3). The rest of the questions were based on the weight obtained as follows. Q1 is the first and foremost that showed how much familiar people were with TWW. The results indicated that only 4% of the respondents were familiar, and the rest had no idea in this respect. These results made authors give a brief overview of the individuals. It should be noted that the results could have been different if the respondents had more accurate information on the subject.
Discussion
The results showed that expert opinions were different from the views of ordinary people. In an expert-centered view, health was the most critical factor in peri-urban agriculture, but accessibility was more important for ordinary people than health. Therefore, the results did not correspond to the study assumption. The most influential factor was accessibility, suggesting that users did not tend to have faraway public farmlands or gardens. Since peri-urban areas are bordering cities, villages, and towns, people visit these places for recreational activities. As demonstrated in one study, peri-urban areas were heterogeneous, and increasing requirements for peri-urban recreational activities relied on landscapes and sense of place (Komossa et al. 2019). It was expected that the inhabitants of farther areas would also tend to have recreational activities in these areas, especially public farmlands or community gardens. However, accessibility had a negative effect on their tendency. People also had positive opinions about green spaces irrigated with TWW. It is hoped that they also become interested in recreational activities in these places. As shown in Figure 4, assurance and accessibility have a significant effect on each other. However, their impact on health is the same, and so is the effect of health on them. Local users who are less than 10 minutes away from the farms and are not too close to their homes are more likely to be active in public farmlands in peri-urban areas. It would be more desirable if these lands were irrigated with the TWW of their own homes. It can be concluded that the reason has roots in people's opinions about TWW. As confirmed in one study, the paucity of lay knowledge about TWW had effects on people's willingness to consume products irrigated with TWW, supporting the results of the present survey (Garin et al. 2020). Contradictions were also evident in the responses of people about TWW and they more trusted in irrigating with TWW of their own houses. Based on the people's responses, the application of TWW could contribute to ecosystem health, and they could support farmers if they irrigated their farmlands with TWW. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the public generally has a positive view of irrigation with TWW. People are also interested in consuming products irrigated with TWW and are somehow aware of the impact of irrigation with TWW and the health of ecosystems. Nevertheless, only 32% of the respondents wanted to participate in the production and consumption of products, so health was not considered as an influential factor, but accessibility became more critical.
Economic programs for public projects such as public gardens can also be estimated based on the budget and the willingness of people to participate. The larger the number of users, the more expenses can be provided by public participation. In community gardens and public farmlands managed by people, it is better to cover part of the maintenance cost by the public. In this study, only 26% of the respondents were willing to pay participation fees, but it is not optimistic to suggest that the participation rate will increase over time. In total, less than 30% of people were willing to work on public agricultural lands and pay rents. However, 61% of the respondents thought that children and teenagers would be better acquainted with agriculture and horticulture irrigated with TWW. Therefore, people themselves were less inclined to work in these spaces, but they tended to get their children and the next generation acquainted to work there, which showed public assurance. The more the people's assurance in these spaces, the more the lands will be allocated to these activities. It will also lead to the expansion of green lands, reduce land-use change, and increase patches and corridors.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study indicated that health was not the main factor affecting people's willingness to participate in peri-urban agriculture areas irrigated with TWW, but accessibility had a significant role in the activity of people in public peri-urban farmlands and community gardens. Because of access, local people will be the biggest users of these spaces. With proper planning, transportation, and design, the number of users is expected to grow. The health of crops and soil should be thus monitored by experts to prevent soil and groundwater contamination, which may occur due to insufficient public information about TWW, so experts should be always present during water treatment and production processes. However, people are unaware of TWW, they know it can help ecosystems, but their willingness to produce or consume products irrigated with TWW in agricultural lands is low. Although these lands provide food security for people and boost ecology, they should be promoted by increasing awareness and creating a desire to work in this field.
There were some limitations in this study. It was prospective, and the respondents did not have practical experience of activity and presence in agricultural plots irrigated with TWW, so they answered the questions assuming how they would react if such an atmosphere existed. The answers could be different if these people had been active in such an environment or had been familiar with it at least once and used products irrigated with TWW. Only 4% of the people surveyed were familiar with TWW, which had effects on their responses.
This study needs to be deepened by expanding the study area and surveying non-local people. Investigating farther distances and people's willingness to work in farmlands irrigated with TWW, and consume and buy their products, as well as reflecting on perceived risks by people are thus of importance. Educating and informing future generations about the value of water consumption, wastewater treatment and its reuse, and investigating the type of products irrigable with TWW according to the amount of refining, can be further researched.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.