International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy
Volume 4, Issue 4, July 2015, Pages: 170-175

Knowledge on Household Biodegradable Waste Management in Bangalore City

Asha Jyothi U. H.1, *, Mamatha B.1, H. S. Surendra2

1Department of Resource Management, Smt. V.H.D. Central Institute of Home Science, Bangalore University, Bangalore, India

2Department of Statistics, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore, India

Email address:

(Asha J. U. H.)

To cite this article:

Asha Jyothi U. H., Mamatha B., H. S. Surendra. Knowledge on Household Biodegradable Waste Management in Bangalore City. International Journal of Sustainable and Green Energy. Vol. 4, No. 4, 2015, pp. 170-175. doi: 10.11648/j.ijrse.20150404.17


Abstract: Waste is not seen as a resource that can be refined or recycled and thereby generate wealth. Instead, it is often treated as the evil leftover that needs to be eliminated. This indiscriminate disposal with little concern leads to many health and environment problems. The objectives of the study were to elicit information on quantity and composition of household waste generated by households in Bengaluru city, to identify the influencing factors on waste generation, to elicit information on the knowledge of waste management at household level from selected homemakers. The sample households for the study were identified through multistage selection. 20 households each from the 40 wards identified were selected randomly for the study. Thus, 800 households were selected for the baseline data collection of the study with the help of questionnaire. Intervention programme was conducted for a period of one month to 80 homemakers through posters, lectures, power point presentation and group discussion regarding role of individuals in waste management. Education has been known to be an empowering tool for people at both the household and society levels. Intervention programme increased the knowledge of the homemakers from moderate to adequate level. Adequate knowledge on the influence of improper waste disposal may encourage people to adopt positive waste management practices.

Keywords: Biodegradable Waste, Waste Management, Knowledge, Demographic Characteristics, Association, Intervention Programme


1. Introduction

The status of development of a country may be categorized in several ways. With respect to its impact on solid waste management, the status of development is categorized on the basic management adapted to the nature and quantities of waste generated and to the availability of technology for handling and processing it UNEP, (2005).

Indian cities will be the locus and engine of economic growth over the next two decades, and the realization of an ambitious goal of 9 percent–10 percent growth in GDP depend fundamentally on making Indian cities much more liveable, inclusive, bankable, and competitive. The income level of the people is the most important factor for waste generation rates (Medina, 2010; World Bank, 2012). Suggested other factors of importance for the waste generation rate is the degree of industrialisation, public habits, local climate and level of urbanization (World Bank, 2012). Solid waste generation is suggested by UNEP to reflect the lives of people and the activities in the country. With that perspective the waste generation would be a combined function of the living standards of the inhabitants and the region’s natural resources (United Nations Environment Program, 2005). Our city is littered with uncollected solid waste and no public place or street is free of litter. Though much recycling takes place by rag pickers and waste collectors, a lot is left to be disposed off. To keep cities clean, citizen involvement is essential to sort waste at source and minimize waste that needs to be collected and disposed. Programme should be implemented to obtain citizens’ cooperation planning commission (2007). Whenever the community has been involved from planning stage, the programme has always become sustainable. While our programme have elaborate guidelines for community involvement, it is obvious that field-level adoption is far from satisfactory planning commission (2007).

The degree of community sensitization and public awareness is low. There is no system of segregation of organic, inorganic and recyclable wastes at household level. Hence, this study was taken up to create community awareness about the likely imperilment of poor waste management and the rudiments of handling the waste through segregating of biodegradable waste material like kitchen & garden waste from other waste generated in the household. This will help in promoting effective management of solid waste generated through proper practices of storing in a separate bag or a bin installed at their respective houses. Also the biodegradable fraction of the waste could be recycled through composting.

2. Objectives

The objectives of the study were to elicit information on quantity and composition of household waste generated by households in Bengaluru city, to identify the influencing factors on waste generation, to elicit information on the knowledge of waste management at household level from selected homemakers.

3. Methodology

The sample households for the study were identified through multistage selection. First four zones namely east, west, south and Bommanahalli were selected from the total of eight zones of Bengaluru. 20 households each from the 40 wards identified were selected randomly for the study. Thus, 800 households were selected for the baseline data collection. Questionnaire was the tool used to collect the required information. A handout on various methods of waste management at household level was developed and handed over to the participating respondents. Intervention Programme for a period of one month was conducted on 10 percent of the total sample comprising of 80 homemakers through Posters, Lectures, PowerPoint presentation and group Discussion regarding role of individuals in waste management

4. Results and Discussion

The major portion of the municipal solid waste of Bengaluru city consists of organic or biodegradable waste (60%). This was followed by recyclable waste in the form of plastics (14%), and paper (12%). Small quantities of other recyclable waste generated are glass, metal, card board, rubber, bio medical waste and miscellaneous. The Biodegradable waste which when mixed with other types of neither waste neither decomposes completely nor can the recyclables can be recycled as it is contaminated with organic waste.

Waste management is a complex process that requires a lot of information from various sources such as factors on waste generation and waste quantity forecasts. It was observed that 35.9 percent of the homemakers are in the age group of 26 – 35 years while 26 percent of them are in the age group of 36 -45 years (Table 1a).

Table 1a. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Homemakers (N = 800)

Category Respondents
Number Percent
Age group ( years)
16-25 167 20.9
26-35 287 35.9
36-45 209 26.1
46+ 137 17.1
Educational level
Up to 5th Std 80 10.0
6-10th Std 182 22.7
PUC/Diploma 201 25.1
Graduate 249 31.1
PG/Professional 88 11.1
Number of Children
None 183 22.9
One 197 24.6
Two 297 37.1
Three 123 15.4
Occupational Status
Government 30 3.7
Private 200 25.0
Self Employed 75 9.4
Professional 31 3.9
Homemaker 464 58.0

Source: Field Study

Table 1b. Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Homemakers (N = 800)

Category             Respondents
Number Percent
Household Size ( Members)
2 - 3 206 25.7
4 – 5 520 65.0
6+ 74 9.3
Family Income/Month
Rs. 2,001 – 5,000 201 25.1
Rs. 5,001 – 15,000 236 29.5
Rs. 15,001 – 25,000 169 21.11
Above 25,001 194 24.3
Type of Family
Nuclear 592 74.0
Joint 156 19.5
Extended 52 6.5
Type of House
Independent house 290 36.2
Compound House 180 22. 5
Row 131 16.4
Storied 123 15.4
Apartment 76 9.5
Type of Ownership
Own 418 52.2
Rented 253 31.6
Leased 107 13.4
Quarters 22 2.8

Source: Field Study.

With regards to the educational qualification of the samples, all the respondents had some form of formal education. Occupational status of the surveyed families revealed that in more than half of the households, the women were full time homemakers. The numbers of children per household in 37.1 percent of the families were two children and one child in 24.6 percent of the households.

When operations related to promotion of waste management systems are considered it is observed that generation of waste and planning was found to be influenced by different factor. The household size was found to be relatively small across the sample with 4 -5 members in 65 percent of the households followed by 2 -3 members in 25.7 percent of the households (Table 1b).

The income of the families ranged from Rs 2,000 to above Rs 25,000. The sample households were almost equally distributed between the different income groups. It was revealed that 36.2 percent of the families were residing in independent houses. With regards to ownership of the house, it was observed that a little more than half of the surveyed households lived in own houses followed by tenants (31.6%).

It was found that, kitchen waste mostly consisting of biodegradable waste like vegetable peels, spoiled food and fruits, and food remains after consumption, are generated daily in 90.7 percent of the households (table 2). Narayana (2009), observed that unlike in western countries, the solid waste of Asian cities is often comprised of 70-80% organic matter, dirt and dust. Sivakumar (2010) observed that the food waste is usually the predominant component in the waste stream due to the habit of fresh food consumption and composition of all other types of waste are low in all households

Table 2. Type of Waste Generated in the House (N = 800)

No Type of Waste @                 Waste Generated (%)
Daily Monthly Occasional Total
1 Kitchen 90.7 2.0 7.3 100
2 Plastic 46.0 26.0 28.0 100
3 Garden 13.8 34.9 51.3 100
4 Metal 5.0 21.8 73.2 100
5 Tins 4.5 21.9 73.6 100
6 Cans 7.9 19.6 72.5 100
7 Glass 11.0 30.5 58.5 100
8 Ceramics 6.1 15.8 78.1 100
9 Paper 40.9 30.8 28.3 100
10 Books 19.5 29.4 51.1 100
11 Newspaper 31.3 35.6 33.1 100
12 Textiles 7.5 23.8 68.7 100
13 Electronic Items 5.4 12.5 82.1 100
14 Others 6.3 5.9 87.8 100

Source: Field Study, @ Multiple Responses.

Table 3. Source of Knowledge on Segregation of Waste (N = 800).

Type of Media @ Usefulness of Source (%) Preferential Ranking
Full Extent Partial Extent Not at all Total Average
Electronic media 50.4 40.4 9.2 100 70.6 1
Print media 23.6 52.1 24.3 100 49.7 8
Meeting/Lectures/Talks 23.4 52.9 23.7 100 49.9 7
Family/Relatives/Members 35.3 52.5 12.2 100 61.6 5
Friends/Neighbours 40.9 46.6 12.5 100 64.2 4
Self Motivation 46.0 48.8 5.2 100 70.4 2
Health Personnel 47.9 38.5 13.6 100 67.2 3
Others 16.6 70.1 13.3 100 51.7 6

Source: Field Study, @ Multiple Responses.

It was found from table 3 that, 70.6 percent of the households got information from electronic media in the form of internet, radio and audio tapes played by BBMP waste carrier vehicles. 50.4 percent of the households felt that the information given is complete enough for them to understand about waste segregation and its uses. The results corroborates with the findings of Afroz, Hanaki and Tuddin, (2010) that the majority obtained their knowledge about recycling from newspaper and television

Table 4. Knowledge about Waste and its Disposal (N = 800).

Aspects @ Response Respondents (%)
Yes No
Knowledge about Waste disposal Waste generation can be reduced 17.4 82.3
Willing to know about household waste management 27.1 72.9
Want to learn composting waste at home 22.3 77.7
Waste can cause Environmental Problems 10.3 89.7
Waste can cause health problems 13.1 86.9
Awareness on how BBMP disposes waste Landfills 51.4 48.6
Incineration 77.0 23.0
Composting 68.3 31.7
Others 86.0 14.0

Source: Field Study, @ Multiple Responses.

Majority (89.7%) of the households did not know that waste can cause environmental problems (table 4). Negative response was obtained from 86.9 percent of the households with regards to health problems caused due to improper waste disposal techniques. This finding contradicts with Yoada, Chirawurah and Adongo (2014) study that 83% of the respondents were aware that improper waste management contributes to disease causation like malaria and diarrhoea.

Table 5a. Association between Demographic characteristics and Knowledge level on Waste Management (N= 800).

Characteristics Category Sample (n) Knowledge level χ 2Value
Moderate Adequate
N % N %
Age group ( years) 16-25 167 63 37.7 104 62.3 4.76 NS
26-35 287 128 44.6 159 55.4
36-45 209 74 35.4 135 64.6
46+ 137 56 40.9 81 59.1
Educational level Up to 5th Std 80 45 56.3 35 43.7 45.55*
6-10th Std 182 98 53.9 84 46.1
PUC/Diploma 201 73 36.3 128 63.7
Graduate 249 65 26.1 184 73.9
PG/Professional 88 40 45.5 48 54.5
Occupational status Government 30 10 33.3 20 66.7 2.40 NS
Private 200 75 37.5 125 62.5
Self employed 75 29 38.7 46 61.3
Professional 31 15 48.4 16 51.6
Home maker 464 192 41.4 272 58.6
Number of Children None 183 64 35.0 119 65.0 10.64*
One 197 76 38.6 121 61.4
Two 297 116 39.1 181 60.9
Three 123 65 52.9 58 47.1
Combined   800 321 40.1 479 69.9  

Source: Field Study, * Significant at 5% Level, NS : Non-Significant.

It can be inferred from table 5a that whatever the age and occupation of the homemakers knowledge does not have any effect on the waste management at household level. This findings to certain extends negates the findings of Nguyen (2010) were Negative correlation was found between household size and positive correlation between Age, education, family income and number of children in the household.

It was found that education and number of children has statistically significant influence on knowledge associated with waste management. This finding corresponds with the finding of Samuel (2006), found that level of education had statistical significant influence on the knowledge of environmental sanitation. Jatau (2013) implied that level of education has statistically significant influence on the knowledge of improper waste management on health. Otitoju (2014), disclose education is a powerful tool that should be used towards building a more sustainable society. The way humans respond and co-operate on waste management issues is influenced by their education. Individuals need to be given the necessary knowledge in the scheme in order to ensure maximum participation.

Table 5b. Association between Demographic characteristics and Knowledge level on Waste Management (N= 800).

Characteristics Category Sample (n)           Knowledge level χ 2Value
Moderate Adequate
N % N %
Household size (members) 2-3 206 87 42.2 119 57.8 3.53 NS
4-5 520 198 38.1 322 61.9
6+ 74 36 48.7 38 51.3
Family Income/ month Rs.2,001-5,000 201 108 53.7 93 46.3 25.49*
Rs.5,001-15,000 236 96 40.7 140 59.3
Rs.15,001-25,000 169 51 30.2 118 69.8
Above Rs.25,000 194 66 34.0 128 66.0
Type of Family Nuclear 592 221 37.3 371 62.7 11.24*
Joint 156 81 51.9 75 48.1
Extended 52 19 36.5 33 63.5
Type of House Apartment 76 33 43.4 43 56.6 4.58 NS
Storied 123 46 37.4 77 62.6
Row 131 58 44.3 73 55.7
Compound house 180 79 43.9 101 56.1
Independent 290 105 36.2 185 63.8
Type of Ownership Own 418 170 40.7 248 59.3 14.03*
Rented 253 93 36.8 160 63.2
Leased 107 41 38.3 66 61.7
Quarters 22 17 77.3 5 22.7
Combined   800 321 40.1 479 69.9  

Source: Field Study, * Significant at 5% Level, NS : Non-Significant.

It can be established that as the family income increases better the knowledge the homemakers will possess on waste management (table 5b). Ezebilo and Animasaun (2011) imply that respondents who have more money were more likely to pay more for private solid waste management services. People who have more money often have more capacity to consume food that are packaged in quick to disposal containers are more likely to be affected when solid waste services are ineffective.

Table 6. Knowledge level of Homemakers on Waste Management (N = 80).

Knowledge Level Category Classification of Respondents χ 2 Value
Pre test Post test
Number Percent Number Percent
Inadequate ≤ 50 % Score 29 36.3 0 0.0 70.25**
Moderate 51-75 % Score 41 51.2 21 26.3
Adequate > 75 % Score 10 12.5 59 73.7
Total   80 100.0 80 100.0  

Source: Intervention programme, ** Significant at 1% level, χ2 (0.01, 2df) = 15.086.

Knowledge level of the homemakers before and after participation in the intervention programme was assessed (table 6). It can be observed that, in pre interventions, 36.3 percent of the homemakers were having score of less than 50% indicating that the homemakers possessed inadequate knowledge. Post intervention revealed that the knowledge level increased to moderate level (26.3%) and adequate knowledge (73.7%). Chi-square analysis revealed that in the post intervention; the homemakers had enhanced information on household waste management.

5. Conclusion

Various kinds of waste are generated by the households on a daily basis. It was found that kitchen waste comprising of biodegradable waste was generated every day in majority of the houses. Electronic media was the main source for disseminating knowledge on waste segregation followed by self motivation with a concern for environment. The overall message received through the different sources for waste segregation was reduction and recycling of waste. Age, education and occupation of the homemakers, household size, type of family and type of ownership had positive significant influence on the knowledge level of homemakers on waste management. Post intervention programme, the knowledge on household waste management increased from moderate to adequate level.

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement to University Grants Commission of India for providing study leave through Faculty development programme for completing the study.


References

  1. AfrozRafia,Keisuke HanakiandRabbah Tuddin, (2010), The Role of Socio-Economic Factors on Household Waste Generation: A Study in a Waste Management Program in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Volume: 5, Issue: 3, pp 183-190http://www.medwelljournals.com/fulltext/?doi=rjasci.2010.183.190dated 05.01.2015
  2. Ezebilo Eugene E and Emmanuel D. Animasaun (2011), Economic Valuation of Private Sector Waste Management Services, Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 4, No. 4, Pp 38-46http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/viewFile/10504/8227dated 06.01.2015.
  3. Jatau Audu Andrew (2013), Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Associated with Waste Management in Jos South Metropolis, Plateau State, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol 4 No 5, Pp 121 -127.http://mcser.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/viewFile/667/690 dated 04.01.2015.
  4. Medina Martin, (2010), Solid Wastes, Poverty and the Environment in Developing Country Cities Challenges and Opportunities, Working Paper No. 2010/23, UNU-WIDERhttp://www.rrojasdatabank.info/2010-23.pdfdated 18.05.2014
  5. Narayana Tapan, (2009). Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: From Waste Disposal to Recovery of Resources. Waste Management, Journal of Waste Management, 29(3), PP-1163-1166.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18829290retrieved on 30.12.2014
  6. Nguyen, Phuc Thanh, (2010), A study on evaluation methodologies for household solid waste management toward a sustainable society in Vietnam, Journal of Vietnamese Environment.https://oa.slub-dresden.de/ejournals/jve/thesis/view/6dated 09.09.2014
  7. Otitoju Tunmise A, (2014), Individual Attitude toward Recycling of Municipal Solid Waste in Lagos, Nigeria, American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), Volume-03, Issue-07, pp-78-88.http://www.ajer.org/papers/v3%287%29/L0377888.pdfdated 05.01.2015
  8. Planning Commission of India, (2007), Report of The Steering Committee on Water Resources For Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012).
  9. Top of Form. http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/strgrp11/str11_wtr.doc
  10. Samuel, E.S (2006), Environmental Sanitation Knowledge among Primary School pupils in Idemili North Local Government Area of Anambra State, Journal of Environmental Health (3) 1, PP 5 – 12.
  11. Sivakumar. K, and M. Sugirtharan, (2010), Impact of Family Income and Size on Per Capita Solid Waste Generation: A Case Study in Manmunai North Divisional Secretariat Division of Batticaloa, J Sci.Univ.Kelaniya 5 (2010): 13-23.file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Asha/My%20Documents/Downloads/4087-14603-1-PB.pdfdated 10.08.2014.
  12. UNEP, (2005), Solid Waste Management (Vol. I), United Nations Environment Programme International Environmental Technology Centre. CalRecovery, Inc.
  13. The World Bank, 2012. What a Waste - a global review of solid waste management, Washington: The World Bank, and How we classify countries. [Online]http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications Accessed 06 08 2012.
  14. Yoada Ramatta Massa, Dennis Chirawurah and Philip Baba Adongo (2014), Domestic waste disposal practice and perceptions of private sector waste management in urban Accra, BMC Public Health 2014, 14, Pp 697http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/697dated 04.01.2015.

Article Tools
  Abstract
  PDF(200K)
Follow on us
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931