Back to all articles
“Ick Factor”?
One of the significant ideas that’s emerged from our social research efforts stems from a concept we term “ascribed attitudes.” When we compared people’s personal responses to urine recycling with what they believed others would think, we learned that oftentimes the people say they themselves don’t really have any problem with the idea of using urine as a fertilizer, but they think “others” will find it “icky” or taboo. For example, one focus group participant said:
“I think most people view urine as a waste product, that stinks, that is dirty, that needs to go far away…. I think this group, perhaps is more aware of the situation, so it doesn’t have quite that effect… but the larger population?”
Most of the farmers we talked with expressed cautious interest in urine-derived fertilizers personally, but were worried about potential anxieties on the part of their customers. One farmer said:
“I think all people should be on board with trying to figure out how…[to recycle urine] in the safest way possible, but I also think there should be a lot of awareness and reasoning around it so that it doesn’t affect the farmers who are trying to reach markets… where people might have some concerns about it.”
Among many of our other interviewees, such as legislators and planners, there was a similar refrain that although they found the idea intriguing, we ought to talk to “so-and-so” whose take might be different. The prevalence of “ascribed attitudes” suggests to us that more people may be accepting of urine diversion than anticipated if they have good information and the opportunity to come together and discuss their ideas.
As we move towards broader implementation of urine diversion and recycling, we hope to engage more people in “cross-knowledge” dialogue or exchange of ideas. In this way we can gather a wide range of perspectives on strategies for scaling up urine-recycling and also help attitudes transform as people learn from one another.
