Next Article in Journal
Multi-Scenario Land Use Change Dynamic Simulation and Carbon Stock Assessment of Man–Nature in Border Mountainous Areas
Previous Article in Journal
Influence of Additives on Solar-Controlled Anaerobic and Aerobic Processes of Cow Manure and Tomato Waste
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/su17041691
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks and Barriers to Agricultural Plastic Waste Management in Al-Kharj Governorate, Saudi Arabia

by
Muhammad Muddassir
1,
Bader Alhafi Alotaibi
1,* and
Emad S-Aljohani
2
1
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Society, College of Food and Agriculture Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Food and Agriculture Science, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(4), 1691; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041691
Submission received: 7 January 2025 / Revised: 24 January 2025 / Accepted: 31 January 2025 / Published: 18 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the agricultural sector, plastic is widely used for enhancing crop production and farm incomes. Fruit and vegetable production under greenhouses and tunnels makes abundant use of plastic which mostly turns into agricultural plastic waste. Understanding perceived barriers to recycling plastic and farmers’ perception of environmental risk associated with plastic is crucial in the formulation and implementation of effective agricultural interventions for promoting the recycling of agricultural plastic waste to sustain the natural environment. Therefore, a study was conducted to assess farmers’ perceived barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste and their perceptions of environmental risks associated with plastic. Data were collected from fruit and vegetable growers situated in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia, using a simple random sampling approach with the help of a pre-tested paper-based questionnaire. The farmers’ education level, age, farm size, and contact with extension offices significantly influenced their perceptions of the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural waste. Moreover, education and farm size significantly influenced their perceptions of high cost as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. In addition, age and farm size significantly influenced their perceptions of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste. The study recommends that recycling programs through the active involvement of agricultural extension and environmental agencies should be implemented to promote the recycling of agricultural plastic waste to reduce environmental risks. The government should provide recycling facilities in the study area, enhancing their availability and affordability to farmers.

1. Introduction

From the 1940s to 1950s, plastic production was started at an industrial level. According to the latest data, approximately, more than 50% of all plastics ever produced are accumulating in landfills or the environment [1]. Synthetic plastic materials are extremely durable [2,3] but, when exposed to the environment, plastics are broken into microplastics and nanoplastics [3,4]. It has been estimated that trillions of tons of plastics are floating in the world’s oceans, with microplastics accounting for approximately 92% of this [5,6]. Plastic is elevating environmental issues and has recently been perceived as a global threat.
To meet the global food demand and achieve food security goals, modern farming systems depend on plastic products which are used for crop mulch, greenhouses, storing, transportation, packaging, labeling, piping, and tunnels. The international market for plastic used for agriculture purposes, worth more than USD 5.8 billion in 2012, is projected to grow 7.6% per year [7]. There are no alternative materials available that are efficiently used in agriculture [8].
Among all types of plastics, some plastic products used in agriculture are low value and single use that deteriorate the environment. Moreover, single-use plastic materials are challenging to reuse and sometimes difficult to remove from the field completely [9]. As a consequence, globally, 12.5 million tons of plastic is used for farming activities globally [10]. Globally, more than 2 million tons of plastic mulch is used for agricultural purposes [11]. The high cost of recycling, the cost of transportation, and the lack of recycling facilities may lead to dumping and open burning of plastic waste onsite [12]. Subsequently, it deteriorates the natural ecosystem through the emission of detrimental substances into soil, air and water [9].
The dumping and burning of agricultural plastic waste into water channels and soil destroy aquatic organisms and reduce soil quality and crop production (Liu et al., 2014). Plastic-borne soil pollution decreases infiltration, harms biota, and adversely influences root development [13]. The vertical migration of microplastic and nanoplastic from agricultural plastic waste contaminates groundwater that poses health risks for humans if it is used for drinking purposes [14]. The plastic residuals mixed up with crop straw, after being eaten by cattle, sheep, and other livestock, can cause gastrointestinal dysfunction, physical deterioration, or even cause cattle to die [15]. Throughout the available literature, plastic fragments are classified into three categories: large microplastics (1–5 mm), mesoplastics (5–25 mm), and macroplastics (>25 mm) [16]. Their direct or indirect release to the natural environment potentially threatens terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and function. They adversely affect human health by entering into marine and non-marine food [17].
Plastic-borne pollution is a human-made problem [18]. There is no effective technique to eradicate microplastic from the natural ecosystem [19]. Several studies have been conducted regarding the awareness of microplastic and properties of plastic [20], the flow process of microplastic in the natural ecosystem [21], and environmental risks associated with plastic [22]. Farmers are intensively using plastic materials and releasing massive quantities of plastic into the environment [23]. Social and behavioral research on plastic pollution is underexplored. Other studies in Australia, China, and Portugal investigated societal attitudes and perceived impacts on environmental risks [19,24,25].
The agricultural sector in Saudi Arabia contributes almost 4.3% to the non-oil GDP and 21.1% of total waste. The total waste that is produced in agriculture, as well as through consumption, causes environmental issues [26]. One of the crucial components of Saudi Vision 2030 is the application of innovative technical solutions to protect the environment and agricultural sector. For instance, cultivating vegetable crops under controlled environments, including temperature and humidity, such as greenhouses, includes artificial protection with direct environment control such as HVAC systems or indirect control by using fabric and plastic coverings [27]. The Kingdom is witnessing significant research and development efforts in protected agriculture and environmental control technologies. The National Center for Sustainable Agriculture Research and Development (NCARD) and King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology have launched various greenhouse projects. Agricultural Development Fund (ADF) programs facilitate adopting greenhouse solutions within an investment plan valued at over USD 1 billion by 2025 [27]. Saudi Aramco operates recycling of high-density polyethylene from a wastewater evaporation pond. The Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture National Center for Waste Management (MWAN), and the Saudi Investment Recycling Company (SIRC) operate various projects of plastic recycling [26]. In Saudi Arabia, plastic waste and garbage are collected by private or social funds and disposed of in landfills. The waste management system in Saudi Arabia has poor waste disposal services and transfer charges and it has been estimated that most landfills in Saudi Arabia are expected to be full in the coming years and unable to be used. The recycling facilities for plastic waste in Saudi Arabia are still in the early stages and driven by unofficial sectors. Waste recycling in Saudi Arabia ranges from 10% to 15% because of the unofficial sectors. The poor disposal services and lack of recycling facilities for plastic waste in Saudi Arabia could escalate soil, air, and water pollution in agricultural fields [28].
However, to our best knowledge, few studies have addressed farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with plastic in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the understanding of farmers’ perception of environmental risks is crucial because both plastic and microplastic are evident in the modern farming system and the wider environment. Perception is used to clarify how individuals understand reality and their experience to distinguish and inform their reactions to construct behavior and actions [29]. Understanding farmers’ perceptions of plastic pollution is critical in planning extension and awareness programs and campaigns. These activities assist in empowering farmers to make their own decisions regarding utilizing plastic on their farms [30]. The bottom-up approach is required to reduce plastic-borne pollution and interventions are much needed to tackle environmental risks. Therefore, a quantitative study was conducted to assess farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with plastic in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia. The study also aims to explore their perceptions of the lack of recycling facilities and the high cost of recycling agricultural plastic waste as barriers to recycling plastic. Analyzing farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste and perceived barriers to recycling plastic could also help inform the relevant agricultural, environmental institutions, and policymakers in designing effective environmental programs for farmers to facilitate the recycling facilities at low cost.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The Alkharj governorate was selected as a study area (Figure 1). It is an agricultural-rich region situated around 100 km from Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The Riyadh region covers an area of 404,240 km2 and has a population of 8 million, 31.8% of the total population live in rural areas [31]. Geographically, the Riyadh region covered 19 governorates: Al-Diriyah, Alkharj, Al-Dwadmy, Al-Quway’iyah, Wadi Al-Dawaser, Al-Aflaj, Al-Zulfi, Shaqra, Hotat Bani Tameem, Afeef, Al-Saleel, Dharma, Al-Muzahmeya, Rammah, Thadig, Hraymla, Al-Hareeq, and Al-Ghat [32]. The Riyadh region has the potential to grow several crops, including barley, fodder, winter potatoes, greenhouse tomatoes, and palm trees [31]. More than 67% of the area is mainly irrigated by groundwater [33]. The remaining area is irrigated by treated water [34].
Out of the 19 governorates of the Riyadh region, the Al-Kharj governorate was selected as a study area. According to the General Authority of Statistics report [35], Al-Kharj represents approximately 4% of the Riyadh region’s population. The annual average temperature of the governorate in winter ranges from 5 °C to 18 °C and 31 °C to 48 °C in summer. Moreover, the annual rainfall ranges between 95 and 185 mm [36]. The agricultural land of the Al-Kharj governorate is significantly favorable for growing vegetables in open fields and greenhouses (tomatoes, cucumber, pepper, squash, lettuce, eggplant, watermelon, and cantaloupe) [31]. Currently, farmers are widely growing vegetables and fruits under both plastic mulching film and greenhouses [37]. The major sources of irrigated agricultural land are groundwater wells. Additionally, some areas of agricultural land are irrigated by natural springs [38].
Sustainability 17 01691 g001
Figure 1. Map of the study area [39].
Figure 1. Map of the study area [39].
Sustainability 17 01691 g001

2.2. Sampling and Data Collection

The target population consisted of 1244 farmers in the districts selected. The list of farmers was formulated according to their national address and numbers. A simple random sampling technique was used to select 141 farmers who were growing crops in greenhouses (11% of the target population). Before data collection, a pilot survey was conducted with 30 farmers in the study area. The authors modified some questions based on the findings of the pre-test and the study objectives. A paper-based questionnaire was used to collect data from September to November 2023. The questionnaire consisted of six sections. The first section consisted of the demographic characteristics of the farmers, including education, age, farm size, and extension contact. The second section included questions related to the amount of plastic used in agriculture. The third section of the survey consisted of questions related to the farmers’ concerns about the amount of plastic. The fourth section of the survey included questions related to the recycling of plastic. The fifth section of the survey included questions related to the disposal methods of agricultural plastic waste. The sixth section of the survey included questions related to the perceived barriers to recycling. The seventh section of the survey included questions related to perceived environmental risks associated with plastic. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Deanship of Graduate Studies at King Saud University (KSU-HE-22602).

2.3. Instrument

The amount of plastic mulch used in agriculture was measured by using an ordinal scale (decreased = 1; same = 2; increased = 3). Farmers’ concerns about the amount of plastic were measured using an ordinal scale (not at all = 1; somewhat concerned = 2; concerned = 3; extremely concerned = 4). Recycling of plastic and disposal methods were measured on a nominal scale (no = 1; yes = 2). Barriers to recycling were measured using an ordinal scale (low = 1; medium = 2; high = 3). Farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with plastic were measured using 16 items and each respondent was asked to rate their perception of environmental risks associated with plastic. A five-point Likert scale was used (very low = 1; low = 2; medium = 3; high = 4; and very high = 5). The items and scales of measurement used in the questionnaire were derived and modified from previous research conducted on environmental risks [9,40,41]. Moreover, the findings of the pilot study were also helpful in designing items and variables according to the local situation.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 30) was used to analyze the survey responses. In terms of descriptive statistical analyses, the percentage of the responses was calculated. Inferential statistical analyses including one-way ANOVA were used to measure the differences in recycling barriers and environmental risk perception in terms of the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents.

2.5. Validity and Reliability

Several phases were followed to verify the content validity and reliability (internal consistency) of the research instrument. First, a panel of environmental experts reviewed the instrument to enhance its content validity. The panel aimed to ensure that the questionnaire items would provide information suited to the research objectives. Second, a group of researchers and faculty members from the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology at King Saud University reviewed the survey questionnaire. The instrument’s reliability was calculated, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated (0.98).

3. Results

3.1. Farmers’ Demographics

Among the literate respondents, the majority of the respondents (44%) had obtained a diploma. Only 20.6%, 19.9%, and 15.6% of the respondents had secondary, college, and primary education, respectively (Figure 2a). The majority of the respondents (57.4%) were more than 35 years old. Only 34.8% and 7.8% of the respondents belonged to the age groups 31–35 years and below 30 years of age, respectively (Figure 2b).
The majority (42.6%) of the respondents had a large amount of agricultural land (more than 20 acres). Around 30% of the respondents had 11–20 acres of agricultural land. Only 27.7% of the respondents had less than 10 acres of land (Figure 3a). The majority of respondents (50.4%) were used to visiting the agricultural extension office monthly, whereas 28.4% and 21.3% of the respondents were used to visiting the agricultural extension office fortnightly and once in six months, respectively (Figure 3b).
The majority of the respondents (46.8%) observed an increase in plastic use on their farms, whereas 28.4% and 24.8% of the respondents observed a decrease in and the same quantity of plastic used on their farms, respectively. The majority of the respondents (42.6%) seemed extremely concerned about the amount of plastic used on their farms. Only 24.1%, 22%, and 11.3% of the respondents seemed concerned, somewhat concerned, and not concerned at all, respectively (Figure 4).
The data given in Figure 5 illustrate that no respondents (100%) recycle plastic waste on their farms. Only 11.3% of the respondents transferred plastic waste to another place for recycling.
The majority of the respondents (87.2%, 73% and 55.3%) used to bury plastic on their farms, buried plastic in another place, and burned plastic in another place, respectively, whereas 46.8% and 29.1% of the respondents used to throw plastic into dustbins and burned plastic on their farms, respectively (Figure 6).
The majority of the respondents (45.4%) highly perceived the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste, whereas 36.95% and 17.7% of the respondents had low and moderate perception of the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste, respectively (Figure 7a). The majority of the respondents (59.6%) highly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste, whereas 27.7% and 12.8% of the respondents had moderate and low perception of the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste (Figure 7b).
Table 1 shows the farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste. All responses were arranged in descending order by the average score. The results indicated that the average score ranged from a maximum of 3.52 to a minimum of 3.05. The statement “Plastic residuals decrease soil quality” ranked first with an average score of 3.52. On the other hand, the statement of “Plastic residuals decrease soil fertility” ranked last by an average score of 3.05.

3.2. The One-Way ANOVA Comparison for Differences in Farmers’ Perceived Barriers to Recycling Agricultural Plastic Waste in Terms of Demographic Characteristics

Table 2 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA that was run to find differences in farmers’ perceived barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste. The results of one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference related to the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier based on their level of education (F = 6.13; p = 0.001). The size differences between the means of the groups were high (ηp2 = 0.11). The group who obtained a diploma had a higher mean (mean = 2.69) than other groups. This means that farmers with diplomas highly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Results also demonstrate a significant difference related to the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier based on their age group (F = 18.35; p = 0.000). The size differences between the means of the groups were large (ηp2 = 0.21). The group of farmers who were more than 35 years old had a higher mean (mean = 2.72) than other groups. This means that older farmers perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Findings present a significant difference related to the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier based on their farm size (F = 15.65; p = 0.000). The size differences between the means of the groups were large (ηp2 = 0.18). The group who held more than 20 acres of agricultural land had a higher mean (mean = 2.68) than other groups. This means that large-scale farmers highly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Findings illustrate a significant difference related to the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier based on their visits to the agricultural extension office (F = 3.70; p = 0.027). The size differences between the means of the groups were small (ηp2 = 0.05). The farmers who visited the extension office fortnightly had a higher mean (mean 2.65) than other groups. This means that farmers who visited extension offices fortnightly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Findings reveal a significant difference related to the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling plastic based on their level of education (F = 4.29; p = 0.006). The size differences between the means of the groups were moderate (ηp2 = 0.08). The group who obtained a diploma had a higher mean (mean = 2.25) than other groups. This means that farmers with diplomas highly perceive the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Findings present a significant difference related to the high cost of recycling as a barrier based on their farm size (F = 26.93; p = 0.000). The size differences between the means of the groups were large (ηp2 = 0.281). The group who owned less than 10 acres of agricultural land had a higher mean (mean = 2.64) than other groups. This means that small-scale farmers highly perceived the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste.

3.3. The One-Way ANOVA Comparison for Differences in Farmers’ Perceived Environmental Risks Associated with Plastic in Terms of Demographic Characteristics

Table 3 shows the result of the one-way ANOVA that was run to find differences in farmers’ perceived environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste on their farms. The results of one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference related to perceived environmental risks based on their age group (F = 3.696; p = 0.027). The size differences between the means of the groups were large (ηp2 = 0.051). The older farmers had a higher mean (mean 2.64) than other groups. This means that older farmers perceived high environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste.
Findings illustrated a significant difference related to perceived environmental risk based on their farm size (F = 4.239; p = 0.016). The size differences between the means of the groups were large (ηp2 = 0.058). The small-scale farmers had a higher mean (mean = 2.79) than other groups. This means that small-scale farmers perceived high environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste.

4. Discussion

The current study aimed to assess farmers’ perceived barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste and their environmental risk perceptions. In addition, this article provides a deeper understanding of perceived environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste produced by plastic mulch and other materials used in agricultural activities by examining the socio-economic factors that drove farmers’ perception in the study area. Understanding the perceived barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste among farmers is the initial step toward the adoption of sustainable and eco-friendly farming practices.

4.1. Farmers’ Perceptions About Plastic Amount, Their Concerns About Agricultural Plastic Waste

Findings revealed that the majority of the farmers in the study area noticed an increase in the use of plastic for agricultural purposes. The present results are consistent with the findings of King et al. [40], showing that the use of plastics on farms was gradually increasing due to their availability in the market. Plastic materials are crucial for several agricultural tasks, but their negative impact on the environment has become a major issue of concern. Findings showed that the majority of the respondents were highly concerned about the amount of plastic waste produced by agricultural activities. The present results are aligned with the findings of King et al. [40] who found that Irish farmers were highly concerned about the amount of plastic produced by agricultural activities. Moreover, they expressed their willingness to take steps to reduce usage of plastic in agriculture [42].
The findings of the study reveal that the high cost of recycling and lack of plastic recycling facilities are major barriers to recycling plastic waste. A study from India reported that a lack of proper recycling facilities and high cost of recycling for farmers were major obstacles to recycling plastic materials used for agricultural purposes [43].

4.2. Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks Associated with Agricultural Plastic Waste

The negative impact of agricultural plastic waste on soil quality was identified as an environmental risk. The predominant use of conventional polyethylene film for mulching has created an urgent need for effective disposal and recycling methods to minimize the environmental impact. Common practices such as burning or burying plastic waste are unsustainable and harmful, prevalent due to limited awareness and inadequate infrastructure for proper waste management in agricultural areas globally [40]. Improper disposal of plastic waste, such as burning or burying it on farmland, presents a significant danger to the environment and soil. These unsustainable methods can result in soil contamination, which impacts soil microorganisms and their ability to support healthy plant growth [44,45].
Inferential statistical analysis revealed that demographic factors significantly influence farmers’ perception of a lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. These factors included: education, age, farm size, and visits to the extension department. Moreover, farmers’ education and farm size significantly influence their perceptions of the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. Furthermore, farmers’ age and farm size significantly influenced their perceptions of environmental risk associated with agricultural plastic waste.

4.3. Differences in Farmers’ Perceptions of the Lack of Recycling Facilities as a Barrier According to Education and Age

Farmers who have higher levels of education had a higher perception than the farmers with low levels of education. This means educated farmers are willing to recycle agricultural plastic waste if recycling facilities are provided. The findings of the present study are consistent with Satapathy et al. [43] who reported that the lack of recycling facilities reduced the recycling of agricultural plastic waste in India. Educated farmers might understand that recycling plastic reduces environmental pollution such as soil, water, and air pollution. Education enables individuals to perceive environmental issues and may motivate them to adopt environmentally friendly agricultural practices [46,47]. Therefore, farmers who understand the impacts of environmental pollution might be more conscious and perceive the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier in the study area.
Older farmers perceived high the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. High perceptions among older farmers reflect their intentions towards environmental problems [40]. These findings are aligned with those of King et al. [40] who revealed that older farmers perceived a significant lack of recycling facilities. Older farmers have high farming experience and rank themselves as more likely to perceive environmental problems caused by the lack of recycling facilities [48]. Concerning farmers’ prior experience, the surveyed older respondents stated that they had experienced difficulties in disposing and recycling of agricultural plastic waste. Moreover, they agreed that the lack of recycling facilities in the study area increased environmental and plastic pollution.

4.4. Differences in Farmers’ Perceptions of the Lack of Recycling Facilities as a Barrier According to Farm Size

The farmers who owned a large amount of agricultural land highly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. This is logical, as a large amount of agricultural land requires a huge amount of plastic to grow crops. It is possible that huge amounts of agricultural plastic waste are produced after harvesting. Extra land may be required to store and dispose of it. Therefore, management of plastic waste may become more difficult. Huge amounts of plastic after harvesting could accelerate environmental problems and reduce crop production [40]. Onsite storage of plastic waste ends its life. The storage of plastic mulch onsite may increase its weight 200% due to contamination from soil and it may become difficult to recycle [49]. This mostly happens due to the lack of recycling facilities [49].
These issues may drive farmers’ perception of the facilities of plastic recycling. Therefore, recycling facilities are necessary to manage agricultural plastic waste otherwise plastic pollution could pollute natural resources such as soil, water, and air [50,51,52].
The findings of the study contradict those of King et al. [40] who found that large-scale agricultural land holders seemed less worried about the huge amount of plastic and might have a lower perception of the lack of recycling facilities. Larger-scale farmers surveyed by King et al. [40] may afford transport costs and easily transfer agricultural plastic waste to other stations for recycling. They might be situated in an area where recycling facilities are available.

4.5. Differences in Farmers’ Perceptions of the Lack of Recycling Facilities as a Barrier According to Visits to the Extension Office

The farmers who visited the extension office fortnightly highly perceived the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. Farmers who visited the extension office fortnightly in the study area might understand agronomic and environmental advantages of recycling processes. They might attend training and workshops related to the advantages of recycling agricultural plastic waste. Information-seeking behavior may increase perceptions and awareness of recycling facilities [53]. Concerning farmers’ prior experience, the surveyed farmers stated that they gain more knowledge from the extension office about agricultural plastic waste management.
After gaining knowledge from the extension department, farmers might highly perceive the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste in their areas [53].
In fact, the extension office provides recycling facilities in various parts of the world by building partnerships with environmental agencies. For instance, Carver County Environmental Services, Revolution Plastics, and the University of Minnesota Extension Office recycled 22,000 pounds of agricultural plastic waste in 2022. Farming communities were persuaded to recycle agricultural plastic waste at low cost [54].
The agricultural extension in the current study area may provide recycling facilities in the future to accomplish Saudi Green Initiative goals. The Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture (MEWA) is currently focusing on solid waste management, hazardous waste management, and medical waste management [55]. MEWA may implement a policy regarding recycling agricultural plastic waste in the future based on the target set by the National Center for Waste Management (MWAN) to recycle 35 percent of all types of waste by 2035 [56]. During previous decades, the extension department mainly focused on the advantages of using plastic mulch in agriculture [57]. Currently, the world is facing plastic pollution [15]. In this situation, the extension department started to launch recycling programs [54]. Therefore, the extension office in the current study area may plan a recycling program accompanied by recycling facilities in the future.

4.6. Differences in Farmers’ Perceptions of the High Cost of Recycling as a Barrier According to Education Level and Farm Size

Highly educated farmers perceived the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. This means educated farmers understand economic factors related to recycling agricultural plastic waste [58]. Educated farmers hold more knowledge about recycling costs and tend to increase the recycling of agricultural plastic waste [40]. Concerning farmers’ prior experience, the surveyed farmers stated that increases in plastic collection fees make recycling difficult and farmers feel it is unfair to pay high costs for recycling agricultural plastic waste [59]. It is understandable that the high cost of recycling demotivates farmers toward recycling agricultural plastic waste. For instance, farmers in Ireland were less inclined to recycle agricultural plastic waste due to high costs [40].
Regarding farm size, small-scale landholders perceived the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling plastic. It is understandable that small-scale farmers might own limited resources and be dependent on low farm income [49]. The high cost of recycling might push them to burn and dump agricultural plastic waste in the soil, which ultimately deteriorates soil [17]. Deteriorated soil could cause low production [52]. The fear of low production may force them to highly perceive the high cost of recycling as a barrier. King et al. [37] found that small-scale landholders seemed more worried about the amount of plastic used in agricultural activities. Small-scale landholders might not be able to afford storage of agricultural plastic waste due to limited land area. These difficulties may drive their perception towards the cost of recycling.

4.7. Differences in Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks Associated with Agricultural Plastic Waste According to Age and Farm Size

Older farmers perceived high environmental risks associated with plastic used in agricultural activities. The current findings contradict those of King et al. [40] who found that younger farmers in Ireland perceived high environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste. Young farmers hold more knowledge about agricultural waste management and environmental risks [60]. It is possible that the younger farmers in Ireland might have more access to various sources of information such as social media, electronic media, and so on. Therefore, King et al. [40] suggested scaling up Irish farmers’ knowledge about management of agricultural plastic waste and its potential impacts on the environment. Small-scale farmers in the study area hold a high perception of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste. These findings oppose those of Ahmad et al. [61] who found high perception of environmental risks among larger-scale landholders due to high awareness. Meanwhile, King et al. [40] found that small-scale farmers seemed more worried about plastic used in agriculture as compared to large-scale landholders and might perceive high environmental risks associated with plastic. The current findings oppose those of Elijah and Odiyo [62] who found that small-scale farmers seemed less worried about environmental risks. High perception among smallholders might be because of high information acquisition. More information enhances the likelihood of recycling and may increase environmental risk perception [63]. Small-scale farmers are usually directly linked with agriculture [64] and rely on farm incomes. Increases in plastic-related environmental risks could decrease their farm incomes by reducing crop yield [64]. Complete dependency on farm incomes and fear of low productivity may drive farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks.

5. Conclusions

This study assesses farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks and perceived barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Most of the farmers in the study area noticed an increase in the use of plastic for agricultural purposes and were highly concerned about the amount of plastic waste produced by agricultural activities. The negative effect of agricultural plastic waste on soil quality is ranked first as a perceived environmental risk. The findings suggest that most of the farmers perceived the lack of recycling facilities and the high cost of recycling as barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
The farmers’ education level, age, farm size, and contact with extension offices significantly influenced their perceptions related to the lack of recycling facilities as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. Farmers’ education and farm size significantly influenced their perceptions related to the high cost of recycling as a barrier to recycling agricultural plastic waste. Moreover, age and farm size significantly influenced farmers’ perception of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste.
The findings of the study may have several policy implications. First, policymakers must understand the major barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste. Initiatives should be put in place to educate the farming community regarding environmental risks associated with plastic and the correct management of agricultural plastic waste. Combined efforts should be made by governments, policymakers, agricultural extension departments, and environmental departments in order to initiate recycling programs. Recycling facilities should be provided to farmers at low cost. Moreover, new research should be conducted to explore the practical viability and potential of biodegradable plastic as an alternative to traditional plastic in farming systems. Note that the current study selected fruit and vegetable growers only from the Al-Kharj governorate. The findings of the study may not be generalizable to farmers of other geographical regions. It is therefore suggested that a similar study should be conducted in other regions of Saudi Arabia that are more prone to environmental risks associated with plastic. The findings of the future study should be used for policymaking to stimulate environmentally friendly and sustainable agricultural practices at the farm level and, in turn, to attain one of the core objectives of the country’s 2030 vision for a sustainable environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and B.A.A.; methodology, B.A.A. and E.S.-A.; data curation, M.M.; formal analysis, B.A.A. and M.M.; investigation, M.M.; resources, B.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, B.A.A., M.M. and E.S.-A.; writing—review and editing, B.A.A. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Researchers Supporting Project (number RSP2025R443), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Deanship of Graduate Studies at King Saud University (KSU-HE-22602).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by the Researchers Supporting Project (number RSP2025R443), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shah, A.A.; Hasan, F.; Hameed, A.; Ahmed, S. Biological degradation of plastics: A comprehensive review. Biotechnol. Adv. 2008, 26, 246–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gewert, B.; Plassmann, M.M.; MacLeod, M. Pathways for degradation of plastic polymers floating in the marine environment. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2015, 17, 1513–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ter Halle, A.; Ladirat, L.; Gendre, X.; Goudouneche, D.; Pusineri, C.; Routaboul, C.; Tenailleau, C.; Duployer, B.; Perez, E. Understanding the fragmentation pattern of marine plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5668–5675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Eriksen, M.; Lebreton, L.C.; Carson, H.S.; Thiel, M.; Moore, C.J.; Borerro, J.C.; Galgani, F.; Ryan, P.G.; Reisser, J. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: More than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Van Sebille, E.; Wilcox, C.; Lebreton, L.; Maximenko, N.; Hardesty, B.D.; Van Franeker, J.A.; Eriksen, M.; Siegel, D.; Galgani, F.; Law, K.L. A global inventory of small floating plastic debris. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 124006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Transparency, M. Phenolic Resins (Resol, Novolac and Others) Market for Wood-Adhesives, Molding Compounds, Laminates, Insulation and Other Applications: Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share. Growth Trends Forecast. 2013. Available online: http://www.reportlinker.com/p02114363/Phenolic-Resins-Resol-Novolac-and-Others-Market-for-Wood-adhesives-Molding-Compounds-Laminates-Insulation-and-Other-Applications---Global-Industry-Analysis-Size-Share-GrowthTrends-and-Forecast-2013---2019.html (accessed on 30 January 2025).
  8. Razza, F.; Cerutti, A.K. Life cycle and environmental cycle assessment of biodegradable plastics for agriculture. In Soil Degradable Bioplastics for a Sustainable Modern Agriculture. Green Chemistry and Sustainable Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Muise, I.; Adams, M.; Côté, R.; Price, G. Attitudes to the recovery and recycling of agricultural plastics waste: A case study of Nova Scotia, Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 109, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. FAO. Assessment of Agricultural Plastics and Their Sustainability—A Call for Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  11. Le Moine, B. Worldwide Plasticulture—A focus on films. In Proceedings of the 21st CIPA Congress, Arcachon, France, 28–31 May 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brodhagen, M.; Goldberger, J.R.; Hayes, D.G.; Inglis, D.A.; Marsh, T.L.; Miles, C. Policy considerations for limiting unintended residual plastic in agricultural soils. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 69, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, E.; He, W.; Yan, C. ‘White revolution’ to ‘white pollution’—Agricultural plastic film mulch in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 091001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wanner, P. Plastic in agricultural soils—A global risk for groundwater systems and drinking water supplies?—A review. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zeng, L.S.; Zhou, Z.F.; Shi, Y.X. Environmental problems and control ways of plastic film in agricultural production. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 295, 2187–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, J.; Hong, S.; Song, Y.K.; Hong, S.H.; Jang, Y.C.; Jang, M.; Heo, N.W.; Han, G.M.; Lee, M.J.; Kang, D. Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013, 77, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Barboza, L.G.A.; Vethaak, A.D.; Lavorante, B.R.; Lundebye, A.-K.; Guilhermino, L. Marine microplastic debris: An emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kramm, J.; Völker, C. Understanding the Risks of Microplastics: A Social-Ecological Risk Perspective; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  19. Deng, L.; Cai, L.; Sun, F.; Li, G.; Che, Y. Public attitudes towards microplastics: Perceptions, behaviors and policy implications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 163, 105096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Andrady, A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011, 62, 1596–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kooi, M.; Besseling, E.; Kroeze, C.; Van Wezel, A.P.; Koelmans, A.A. Modeling the fate and transport of plastic debris in freshwaters: Review and guidance. In Freshwater Microplastics: Emerging Environmental Contaminants? The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer Nature: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 58, pp. 125–152. [Google Scholar]
  22. Remy, F.; Collard, F.; Gilbert, B.; Compère, P.; Eppe, G.; Lepoint, G. When microplastic is not plastic: The ingestion of artificial cellulose fibers by macrofauna living in seagrass macrophytodetritus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 11158–11166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pazienza, P.; De Lucia, C. The EU policy for a plastic economy: Reflections on a sectoral implementation strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dilkes-Hoffman, L.S.; Pratt, S.; Laycock, B.; Ashworth, P.; Lant, P.A. Public attitudes towards plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 147, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Soares, J.; Miguel, I.; Venâncio, C.; Lopes, I.; Oliveira, M. Public views on plastic pollution: Knowledge, perceived impacts, and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 412, 125227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Expert-Roundtable. Circular Economy in the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia; The National Center for Waste Management: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, 2023.
  27. Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture MEWA. Innovation in the Agriculture Sector in Saudi Arabia. Technology Adoption Roadmap; Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2023.
  28. EcoMENA. Solid Waste Management in Saudi Arabia. 2022. Available online: https://www.ecomena.org/ (accessed on 25 November 2024).
  29. Fetterman, D.M. Emic/etic distinction. SAGE Encycl. Qual. Res. Methods 2008, 1, 249. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ingman, M.; Santelmann, M.V.; Tilt, B. Agricultural water conservation in China: Plastic mulch and traditional irrigation. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2015, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. General Authority for Statistics GAS. Detailed Results of Agricultural Census; General Authority of Statistics: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2018.
  32. General Authority for Statistics GAS. Demographics of Saudi Arabia; General Authority of Statistics: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2019.
  33. Baig, M.B.; Alotibi, Y.; Straquadine, G.S.; Alataway, A. Water resources in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Challenges and strategies for improvement. In Water Policies in MENA Countries; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ouda, O.K. Treated wastewater use in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and initiatives. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2016, 32, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. General Authority for Statistics. Demographics of Saudi Arabia; General Authority for Statistics: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2020.
  36. Presidency of Meteorology and Environment PME. The Meteorology of Al-Kharj; Presidency of Meteorology and Environment: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2020.
  37. Algahtani, O.S.; Salama, A.S.; Iliyasu, A.M.; Selim, B.A.; Kheder, K. Monitoring Urban and Land Use Changes in Al-Kharj Saudi Arabia using Remote Sensing Techniques. In Proceedings of the Progress in Systems Engineering: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Systems Engineering, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 19–21 August 2015; pp. 515–523. [Google Scholar]
  38. Faridi, M.R.; Sulphey, M. Food security as a prelude to sustainability: A case study in the agricultural sector, its impacts on the Al Kharj community in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Abd El Karim, A.; Alogayell, H.M.; Alkadi, I.I.; Youssef, I. Mapping of GIS-land use suitability in the rural–urban continuum between Ar Riyadh and Al Kharj Cities, KSA based on the integrating GIS Multi Criteria Decision Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process. Environments 2020, 7, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. King, C.D.; Stephens, C.G.; Lynch, J.P.; Jordan, S.N. Farmers’ attitudes towards agricultural plastics—Management and disposal, awareness and perceptions of the environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 864, 160955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. EPA. PLASTICS: Attitudes and Behaviours in Ireland; Johnstown Castle, Co.: Wexford, Ireland, 2022.
  42. Satapathy, S. An analysis of barriers for plastic recycling in the Indian plastic industry. Benchmarking Int. J. 2017, 24, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Anunobi, T. Hazardous effects of plastic wastes on land biodiversity: A review. Zoologist 2022, 20, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huo, Y.; Dijkstra, F.A.; Possell, M.; Singh, B. Plastics in soil environments: All things considered. Adv. Agron. 2022, 175, 1–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meyer, A. Does education increase pro-environmental behavior? Evidence from Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 116, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Diendéré, A.; Nguyen, G.; Del Corso, J.-P.; Kephaliacos, C. Modeling the relationship between pesticide use and farmers’ beliefs about water pollution in Burkina Faso. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 151, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Alotaibi, B.A.; Kassem, H.S.; Nayak, R.K.; Muddassir, M. Farmers’ beliefs and concerns about climate change: An assessment from southern Saudi Arabia. Agriculture 2020, 10, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. LeMoine, B.E.L.; Trovati, G.; Casallo, I.M.; Amate, J.J.; Zlatar, K.; Butlewski, K.; Ojanpera, M.; Picuno, P. Reducing the plastic footprint of agriculture. In Proceedings of the European Innovation Partnership for Agriculture Productivity and Sustainability Network, Brussels, Belgium, 19–20 May 2021. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sun, X.; Hu, Z.; Li, M.; Liu, L.; Xie, Z.; Li, S.; Wang, G.; Liu, F. Optimization of pollutant reduction system for controlling agricultural non-point-source pollution based on grey relational analysis combined with analytic hierarchy process. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 370–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Singh, S.; Kumar, B.; Sharma, N.; Rathore, K.S. Organic farming: Challenge for chemical pollution in aquatic ecosystem. In Handbook of Research on the Adverse Effects of Pesticide Pollution in Aquatic Ecosystems; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 408–420. [Google Scholar]
  51. Manono, B.O. New Zealand dairy farm effluent, irrigation and soil biota management for sustainability: Farmer priorities and monitoring. Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1221636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Muddassir, M.; Al Shenaifi, M.S.; Kassem, H.S.; Alotaibi, B.A. Adoption of improved maize production technologies in Punjab Province, Pakistan. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 24, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carver County Minnesota. Agricultural, Marine and Greenhouse Plastic Recycling; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2023.
  54. Ministry of Environment, Water and Agriculture. Waste Recycling; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2023. Available online: https://www.spa.gov.sa/en/N2028886 (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  55. Environmental Protection Agency EPA. Best Practice Guidelines for the Preparation of Resource & Waste Management Plans for Construction & Demolition Projects; Environmental Protection Agency: Wexford, Ireland, 2022.
  56. McCraw, D.; Motes, J.E. Use of Plastic Mulch and Row Covers in Vegetable Production; Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service; Oklahoma State University: Stillwater, OK, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  57. Xu, X.; Mola-Yudego, B.; Selkimäki, M.; Zhang, X.; Qu, M. Determinants of farmers’ waste generation and disposal in rural areas of central China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 9011–9021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Chen, S. British dairy farmers’ management attitudes towards agricultural plastic waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle. Polym. Int. 2022, 71, 1418–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kontogeorgos, A.; Tsampra, M.; Chatzitheodoridis, F. agricultural policy and the environment protection through the eyes of new farmers: Evidence from a country of southeast Europe. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 19, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ahmad, D.; Afzal, M.; Rauf, A. Environmental risks among rice farmers and factors influencing their risk perceptions and attitudes in Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21953–21964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Elijah, V.T.; Odiyo, J.O. Perception of environmental spillovers across scale in climate change adaptation planning: The case of small-scale farmers’ irrigation strategies, Kenya. Climate 2019, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shah, F.; Wu, W. Use of plastic mulch in agriculture and strategies to mitigate the associated environmental concerns. Adv. Agron. 2020, 164, 231–287. [Google Scholar]
  63. G.O.K., Government Printer. Agricultural Sector Transformation and Gowth Strategy 2019–2029; G.O.K., Government Printer: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019.
  64. KNBS, Government Printer. Counting Our People for Implementation of Vision 2030; KNBS, Government Printer: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009.
Sustainability 17 01691 g002
Figure 2. Education and Age of the respondents.
Figure 2. Education and Age of the respondents.
Sustainability 17 01691 g002
Sustainability 17 01691 g003
Figure 3. Farm size and visits to the extension office.
Figure 3. Farm size and visits to the extension office.
Sustainability 17 01691 g003
Sustainability 17 01691 g004
Figure 4. Amount of plastic used for agriculture purposes and farmers’ concerns about amount of plastic used in agriculture.
Figure 4. Amount of plastic used for agriculture purposes and farmers’ concerns about amount of plastic used in agriculture.
Sustainability 17 01691 g004
Sustainability 17 01691 g005
Figure 5. Recycling of agricultural plastic waste.
Figure 5. Recycling of agricultural plastic waste.
Sustainability 17 01691 g005
Sustainability 17 01691 g006
Figure 6. Disposal practices for agricultural plastic waste.
Figure 6. Disposal practices for agricultural plastic waste.
Sustainability 17 01691 g006
Sustainability 17 01691 g007
Figure 7. Barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Figure 7. Barriers to recycling agricultural plastic waste.
Sustainability 17 01691 g007
Table 1. Farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste.
Table 1. Farmers’ perceptions of environmental risks associated with agricultural plastic waste.
VariablesVery LowLowMediumHighVery HighMeanSDRank
%%%%%
Plastic residuals decrease soil quality20.613.54.316.345.4 3.52 1.63 1st
Plastic residuals decrease plant growth22.014.92.115.645.4 3.48 1.67 2nd
Plastic residuals negatively affect human eyes22.712.16.419.939.0 3.40 1.62 3rd
Plastic residuals decrease absorption of nutrients28.410.62.19.948.9 3.40 1.77 4th
Plastic residuals damage plant’s roots24.115.612.85.741.8 3.26 1.67 5th
Plastic residuals increase temperature and gases in the environment32.611.34.35.746.1 3.21 1.81 6th
Plastic residuals negatively impact on animal health22.019.912.86.439.0 3.21 1.63 7th
Plastic residuals damage soil texture and soil pollution30.516.34.33.545.4 3.17 1.79 8th
Plastic residuals cause problems in water absorption32.611.34.310.641.1 3.16 1.77 9th
Plastic residuals negatively impact on human health32.612.15.08.541.8 3.15 1.78 10th
Plastic residuals cause water pollution31.915.65.03.544.0 3.12 1.79 11th
Plastic residuals imbalance water supply to soil33.315.63.55.042.6 3.08 1.80 12th
Plastic residuals cause air pollution35.513.53.54.343.3 3.06 1.82 13th
Plastic residuals cause other environmental pollution31.219.14.32.842.6 3.06 1.78 14th
Plastic residuals decrease soil fertility32.619.12.81.444.0 3.05 1.81 15th
Table 2. One-way ANOVA differences in farmers’ perceived barriers to plastic recycling according to their demographic characteristics.
Table 2. One-way ANOVA differences in farmers’ perceived barriers to plastic recycling according to their demographic characteristics.
VariablesLack of Recycling FacilitiesHigh Cost of Recycling
MeanSDFp-ValueMeanSDFp-Value
Education
Primary school n = 22 2.59 0.66 6.13 0.001 1.50 0.80 4.29 0.006
Secondary school n = 29 2.20 0.77 2.20 0.77
Diploma n = 62 2.69 0.61 ηp2 = 0.11 2.25 0.92 ηp2 = 0.08
Bachelor n = 28 2.14 0.70 2.03 0.92
Age
Below 30 n = 11 1.72 0.46 18.35 0.000 1.72 0.90 1.31 0.27
31–35 years n = 49 2.20 0.88 ηp2 = 0.21 2.20 0.79
More than 35 years n = 81 2.72 0.44 2.06 0.96
Farm size
Less than 10 acres n = 39 2.64 0.53 15.65 0.000 2.64 0.70 26.93 0.000
11–20 acres n = 42 2.00 0.85 ηp2 = 0.18 1.40 0.49 ηp2 = 0.28
More than 20 acres n = 60 2.68 0.53 2.20 0.95
Visits to agricultural extension department
Once in six months n = 302.600.62 3.70 0.027 2.03 0.96
Monthly n = 712.300.74 2.00 0.93 0.43 0.65
Fortnightly n = 402.650.66ηp2 = 0.05 2.15 0.87
Table 3. One-way ANOVA differences in farmers’ perceived environmental risk associated with agricultural plastic waste according to their socio-economic characteristics.
Table 3. One-way ANOVA differences in farmers’ perceived environmental risk associated with agricultural plastic waste according to their socio-economic characteristics.
VariablesPerceived Environmental Risk Associated with Agricultural Plastic Waste
MeanSDFSig 2-Tail
Age
Below 30 years n = 11 2.27 0.90 3.696 0.027
31–35 years n = 49 2.28 0.76
More than 35 years n = 81 2.64 0.76 ηp2 = 0.051
Education
Primary school n = 22 2.31 0.94 0.728 0.537
Secondary school n = 29 2.55 0.73
Diploma n = 62 2.56 0.73
Bachelor n = 28 2.31 0.94
Farm size
Less than 10 acres n = 39 2.79 0.57 4.239 0.016
11–20 acres n = 42 2.35 0.72
More than 20 acres n = 60 2.38 0.90 ηp2 = 0.058
Visits to agricultural extension department
Once in six months n = 30 2.46 0.77 0.470 0.626
Fortnightly n = 40 2.40 0.87
Monthly n = 71 2.54 0.75
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muddassir, M.; Alotaibi, B.A.; S-Aljohani, E. Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks and Barriers to Agricultural Plastic Waste Management in Al-Kharj Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041691

AMA Style

Muddassir M, Alotaibi BA, S-Aljohani E. Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks and Barriers to Agricultural Plastic Waste Management in Al-Kharj Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2025; 17(4):1691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041691

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muddassir, Muhammad, Bader Alhafi Alotaibi, and Emad S-Aljohani. 2025. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks and Barriers to Agricultural Plastic Waste Management in Al-Kharj Governorate, Saudi Arabia" Sustainability 17, no. 4: 1691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041691

APA Style

Muddassir, M., Alotaibi, B. A., & S-Aljohani, E. (2025). Farmers’ Perceptions of Environmental Risks and Barriers to Agricultural Plastic Waste Management in Al-Kharj Governorate, Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 17(4), 1691. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17041691

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop