Attitudes of food consumers at universities towards recycling human urine as crop fertiliser: A multinational survey dataset.

We present here a data set generated from a multinational survey on opinions of university community members on the prospect of consuming food grown with human urine as fertiliser and about their urine recycling perceptions in general. The data set comprises answers from 3,763 university community members (students, faculty/researchers, and staff) from 20 universities in 16 countries and includes demographic variables (age bracket, gender, type of settlement of origin, academic discipline, and role in the university). Questions were designed based on Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour to elicit information about three components of behavioural intention-attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. Survey questions covered perceived risks and benefits (attitudes), perceptions of colleagues (injunctive social norm) and willingness to consume food grown with cow urine/faeces (descriptive social norm), and willingness to pay a price premium for food grown with human urine as fertiliser (perceived behavioural control). We also included a question about acceptable urine recycling and disposal options and assessed general environmental outlook via the 15-item revised New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. Data were collected through a standardised survey instrument translated into the relevant languages and then administered via an online form. Invitations to the survey were sent by email to university mailing lists or to a systematic sample of the university directory. Only a few studies on attitudes towards using human urine as fertiliser have been conducted previously. The data described here, which we analysed in "Willingness among food consumers at universities to recycle human urine as crop fertiliser: Evidence from a multinational survey" [1], may be used to further understand potential barriers to acceptance of new sanitation systems based on wastewater source separation and urine recycling and can help inform the design of future sociological studies.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article.
(© 2021 The Author(s).)