Search for: All records

Urine diversion systems, which include waterless urinals and urine-diverting flush toilets, offer opportunities to conserve water, recover nutrients, promote circular economies, and improve sustainability. While technical development of these systems is critical, understanding stakeholder perceptions is equally important for their successful innovation, implementation, and adoption. This study conducts an exploratory analysis of stakeholder perceptions at U.S. academic institutions regarding how urine diversion technologies fit within the broader array of water conservation technologies and factors that influence decision-making related to urine diversion in buildings. We surveyed 65 stakeholders, including executive leaders, administrators, facilities managers, building managers, and sustainability professionals—key groups responsible for the adoption and maintenance of such systems but underrepresented in prior research. Participants reported a high level of awareness of water conservation technologies and varying degrees of implementation. Across all technologies, low-flush fixtures had the highest rate of implementation and waterless urinals had the highest rate of implementation and subsequent removal due to maintenance and infrastructure challenges. Participants also indicated that compliance with plumbing codes was the most critical factor when considering the implementation of urine diversion systems, followed by efficacy and cost-savings, and water conservation and nutrient recovery were among the least important factors. Future studies should focus on aligning urine diversion systems with building codes and regulations, mitigating clogging and odors to improve acceptance and adoption, and estimating costs and benefits when deciding on their implementation. 

This paper evaluates the U.S. regulatory review of three emerging biotechnology products according to parameters, practices, and endpoints of assessments that are important to stakeholders and publics. First, we present a summary of the literature on variables that are important to non-expert publics in governing biotech products, including ethical, social, policy process, and risk and benefit parameters. Second, we draw from our USDA-funded project results that surveyed stakeholders with subject matter expertise about their attitudes towards important risk, benefit, sustainability, and societal impact parameters for assessing novel agrifood technologies, including biotech. Third, we evaluate the regulatory assessments of three food and agricultural biotechnology case studies that have been reviewed under U.S. regulatory agencies and laws of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, including gene-edited soybeans, beef cattle, and mustard greens. Evaluation of the regulatory review process was based on parameters identified in steps 1 and 2 which were deemed important to both publics and stakeholders. Based on this review, we then propose several policy options for U.S. federal agencies to strengthen their oversight processes to better align with a broader range of parameters to support sustainable agrifood products that rely on novel technologies. These policy options include 1) those that would not require new institutions or legal foundations (such as conducting Environmental Impact Statements and/or requiring a minimal level of safety data), 2) those that would require a novel institutional or cross-institutional framework (such as developing a publicly-available website and/or performing holistic sustainability assessments), and 3) those that would require the agencies to have additional legal authorities (such as requiring agencies to review biotech products according to a minimal set of health, environmental, and socio-economic parameters). Overall, the results of this analysis will be important for guiding policy practice and formulation in the regulatory assessment of emerging biotechnology products that challenge existing legal and institutional frameworks.