Status of Solid Waste Segregation: A Study in Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka state

 

Purushothama K V

Associate Professor of Economics, Pompei College, Aikala, DK.-574141. Karnataka.

*Corresponding Author Email: purushothamakv@yahoo.co.in

 

ABSTRACT:

Waste management includes reduction of the generation of solid waste, regular collection of waste, segregation of waste, transportation of waste and utilization of solid waste rather than concentrating only on disposal of waste like land filling. In recent days waste management is not only the problems of urban local self-governments; it is the challenge to the rural local self-governments also. In rural and urban areas generation of waste is one of the major problems. This study mainly concentrated on collection and segregation of solid wastes.  In my study I found that most of the waste related problems can be solved through regular collection of wastes and segregation of wastes at various stages i.e., from the primary sources to storage sites. Waste segregation saves time, transport costs and also helps to preserve and conserve natural resources. Once solid wastes are segregated at source as degradable and non-degradable, major problem of waste management would be solved. Local institutions should make proper arrangements in order to segregate the wastes and collection of wastes in the entire village.  Besides this each individual should take the initiative in practicing segregation of waste at source.

 

KEYWORDS: Solid Wastes, Waste segregation, Waste sorting, Degradable wastes and non-degradable wastes.

 

 


INTRODUCTION:

Solid waste management is one of the emerging challenges of growth to the global economy. Huge quantities of different types of solid wastes generate every day. Solid waste generation is beyond the control of both developed and developing countries.  Therefore proper waste management method is essential from the point of view of environment, health and resource conservation. Waste management includes reduction of the generation of solid waste, regular collection of waste, segregation of waste, transportation of waste and utilization of solid waste rather than concentrating only on disposal of waste like land filling.

 

In recent days waste management is not only the problems of urban local self-governments; it is the challenge to the rural local self-governments also. In rural and urban areas generation of waste is one of the major problems. The present study analyses the present status of collection and  segregation of solid wastes in rural and urban local governments of Dakshina Kannada district.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

Present study has the following objectives:

1.    To study the present status of collection and segregation of solid wastes in Dakshina Kannada District.

2.    To analyse the problems and challenges of collection and segregation of solid waste in the study area.

 

 

 

Limitations:

·      It focuses only on solid waste management and excluded liquid, gaseous waste and other types of wastes such as industrial hospital, commercial, hazardous, etc.

·      Stratified random sampling method has been adopted to select the 410 Respondents. Simple average method had been applied to analyse the data.

 

Significance of the Study:

This study mainly concentrated on collection and segregation of solid wastes.  In my study I found that most of the waste related problems can be solved through regular collection of wastes and segregation of wastes at various stages i.e, from the primary sources to storage sites. From the point of view of reduction of waste, reuse and recycle of waste and resource conservation this study may give proper guidance.

 

METHODOLOGY:

This study is conducted in Dakshina Kannada District of Karnataka State. This coastal district has five taluks (except newly formed Moodbidri and Kadaba, which were in Mangalore and Puttur taluk respectively) Mangalore, Bantwal, Belthangady, Puttur and Sullia. It has 232 gram panchayats (GPs). Out of which 21 GPs are randomly selected for the study through stratified random sampling method. Among the 10 urban local self-governments two are newly formed. Remained all the eight are selected for the study.

 

Primary information has been collected from rural and urban 410 respondents through direct questionnaire method. Out of which 200 from rural local self-governments and 210 from urban self-governments. Stratified random sampling method has been adopted to select the respondents both in rural and urban areas. Secondary data is obtained from books, Journals, News Papers, reports as well as internet sources.

 

The total population of the district as per 2011 census 20,89,649. The density of population 457 (2011 census). The literary rate of the district 88.62% and second rank in 2014 Karnataka Human Development Report. The average per capita income of the district in 2006-2007 was Rs. 94,145. District has second position in annual income and per capita income next to Bangalore Urban District.

 

The details of data collection are given in the following tables.

Table-1: Details of Rural Respondents in Dakshina Kannada District

Sl. No

Taluk

Name of the Panchayat

No. of total respondents

1

Belthangady

Ujire

40

2

Bantwal

Vittal

40

3

Mangalore

Kemral

40

4

Puttur

Kadaba

40

5

Sullia

Subramanya

40

Total

5

5

200

 

Table-2: Details of Urban Respondents in Dakshina Kannada District

Sl. No

Name of the Urban Local Government

Total No. of household Respondents

1

Mangalore City Corporation

50

2

Puttur City Municipal Council

30

3

Ullala City Municipal Council

30

4

Bantwal Town Municipal Councils

20

5

Moodbidri Town Municipal Councils

20

6

Mulki Town Municipal Councils

20

7

Belthangady Town Panchayat

20

8

Sullia Town Panchayat

20

Total Respondents

210

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Review of literature mainly highlights the meaning and importance of waste segregation.

 

Patro (2012) Waste segregation means division of waste into dry and wet waste. Dry waste includes paper, cardboard, glass, ton, cans, plastic and other materials. Wet waste, on the other hand, refers to organic wastes such as vegetable peels, food wastes, etc.

 

Patro (2012) Waste sorting is the process by which waste is separated into different elements. Waste sorting can occur manually at the household and collected through curbside collection schemes or automatically separated in materials recovery facilities or mechanical biological treatment systems.

 

Khan and Naved (2003) Segregation of wastes is preferable at the source itself. Recovery, recycling and reduction all become easy for segregated waste components. Components such as paper, cardboards, plastics and metals should be separated out for recycling or reuse. Biodegradable wastes such as food wastes and yard wastes should be separated, as these are suitable for composting. Bags or containers may be identified suitable through color codes for sorting different types of wastes separately prior to its transportation and disposal.

Khan and Naved (2003) Many of the segregated components can be sold off to earn significant revenues substantially offsetting the cost of waste management.

 

Waste management process starts at household level by segregating the wastes as degradable and non-degradable (wet and dry wastes). Several studies have mentioned the significance of waste segregation at source.

 

Potimamaka (2008) observed that more than 50 percent householders do not segregate wastes. In his study the conclusion is households practices were not appropriate towards solid waste management and people must be taught to deal with solid waste by separating it in their homes, schools and work places.

 

Subhash (2010) in his book “Solid Waste management” suggested that segregation of waste at Source should be mandatory for all. Chain of segregation should not be broken from household to landfill sites organic garbage should be composed. Special attention should be given to lower income group localities particularly vulnerable and critical sites. Solid waste management is an obligatory function of urban local bodies in India. Infrastructure development is not in a position to keep pace with population growth and requirement leading to low level of waste collection efficiency. Lack of financial resources, organizational weakness, improper choice of technology and public apathy towards waste management has made this service far from satisfactory. In future, as the economy improves, the increase in quantity of garbage due to population increase will be reinforced by the rise of per capita income. Additionally, with relative prosperity, more of non-biodegradable waste would be produced in future.

 

Nag and Vizayakumar (2005) suggested the separation of waste as degradable and non-degradable either at the source or during dumping reduces the health hazards. Industrial solid waste contaminates water during rainy season. From domestic, livestock and municipal solid wastes usually contain 20% or more moisture in an average. Water either by sprinkling, quenching or flashing but mainly from rain washes the soluble and degradable part of the solid wastes in the dumps and mixes with other water bodies.

 

Chandorkar and Nagoba (2003) stated that the key to minimization and effective management of health-care waste is segregation (separation) and identification of the waste. Appropriate handling, treatment and disposal of waste by reduce costs and do much to protect public health. Segregation should always be the responsibility of the waste producer, should take place as close as possible to where the waste is generated and should be so maintained in storage areas and during transport. The same system of segregation should be in force throughout the country.

 

Manjith (Jagbir Singh ed., 2011) conducted a study in Patiala city Punjab on Municipal Solid Waste Management. He suggested that in order to encourage the citizens, the municipal authority shall organize awareness programmes for the segregation of waste and shall promote the recycling or reuse of segregated material. The municipal authority shall undertake a phased programme to ensure that the community participates in waste segregation. For this purpose, regular meeting at quarterly intervals shall be arranged by the municipal authorities with representatives of local residents, welfare associations and non-governmental organizations. He also suggested that storage facilities shall be so designed that waste stored is not exposed to the open atmosphere and it shall be aesthetically acceptable and user friendly.

 

Some operations commonly employed for material separation are –Density separation, Electric and magnetic Fields separation and densification. Density separation includes Air Classifiers, Inertial Separation and Floatation. Densification method includes size reduction, shredders, glass crushers, wood grinders and size separation.

 

Data Analysis:

The following table shows the data of segregation of wastes at various stages by the local self-governments.

 

Table-3: Local Govts. who Segregate Wastes at Various Stages in Dakshina Kannada District

Response

Rural

%

Urban

%

Total

 %

Yes

16

55

6

21

22

76

No

5

17

2

7

7

24

Total

21

72

8

18

29

100

Source: Primary data

 

The above data shows that out of 21 randomly selected Grama Panchayaths 16 are insisting to segregate waste at source. Only 5 i.e 24 percent collect wastes without sorting. Among the 8 urban local governments 6 are giving priority to segregate waste at source. Remained 2 ULBs don’t segregate waste at any stage. Total 76 percent of local governments segregate wastes at various levels.

 

In order to understand the influence of social factors on waste segregation data has been analysed on the basis of different categories of respondents such as general, Backward, Schedules castes and Scheduled Tribes. Which is given in Table-5.

 

 

Table-4: Respondents of Different Categories who Segregate/Do not Segregate Waste at Source in Dakshina Kannada District

Category

Yes

%

No

%

Total

%

General

167

41

58

14

225

55

Backward

66

16

41

10

107

26

SC

31

8

12

3

43

10

ST

23

6

12

3

35

9

Total

287

70

123

30

410

100

Source: Primary data

 

 

Among the total 410 respondents 225 belongs to general category, i.e. 55 percent, 107 i.e. 26 percent backward class, 43 i.e. 10 percent are SCs and remained 35 i.e. 9 percent are STs. Among the 225 general category respondents 167 i.e. 74 percent people segregate waste at their home. It is 62 percent among backward classes, 72 percent among SCs and 66 percent among STs.

 

In India many local governments have provided waste bins to the households in order to encourage them for segregating w3aste at source. The table-6 shows whether people expect free supply of waste bins from the Local Governments or not?

 

Table-5: Respondents who Expect Free Supply of Waste Bins from the Local Governments in Dakshina Kannada District

Response

Rural

%

Urban

%

Total

Total %

Yes

84

42

113

54

197

48

No

116

58

97

46

213

52

Total

200

100

210

100

410

100

Source: Primary data

 

Out of 200 rural respondents 84 (42%) are expecting free waste bins from the panchayaths to segregate the waste. But out of 210 urban respondents 113 (54%) are expecting waste bins from their local governments. Some people refuse waste bins because waste collectors not collecting wet wastes daily. They expect daily collection of waste particularly wet wastes.

 

Waste collectors can create more awareness among the people for segregating wastes. It is found that some local governments collect only segregated wastes and refuse to collect mixed wastes. The Table-7 shows the respondents feedback on waste collectors who insist/do not insist to segregate waste at household level.

 

Table-6: Respondents Feedback on Waste Collectors who insist/do not insist to Segregate Waste at Household level

Response

Rural

%

Urban

%

Total

Total %

Yes

94

47

92

44

186

72

No

4

2

68

33

72

28

Total

98

46

160

76

258

100

Source: Primary data

 

Among the 200 percent rural respondents 98 i.e. 49 percent are getting door-to-door waste collection service. In urban area it is 76 percent. The above data shows that out of 98 rural respondent only 4 (4%) say that their waste collectors do not insist to segregate waste at source. Among 160 urban respondents only 92 i.e. 57.5 percent only say that their waste collectors insist to segregate waste at source.

 

Findings:

·      Both rural and urban local self-governments give equal priority for segregation of wastes. Those who don’t have either their own storage/landfill sites or small sites are not segregating wastes at any stage

·      Category wise there is no significance difference in segregating wastes. It shows that on an average more than 70 percent respondents are segregating wastes at source.

·      Compare to rural respondents number of urban respondents expect free supply of waste bins from the local bodies.

·      Grama Panchayaths did not give much priority for Door-to-door waste collection service compared to ULBs. But compare to the ULGs waste collectors at Panchayath level give more priority for waste segregation at primary level.

 

Suggestions:

·      Local governments should have their own storage/landfill sites. Priority must be given at primary level to segregate waste.

·      Local governments should give incentives to the rag pickers and scrap dealers, so that most of the non-degradable wastes can be recycled. It will also reduce total volume of wastes.

·      Local Governments should follow decentralized waste management system. It will create more awareness among the local people and also enhance their accountability. All the institutions should have their own land to store, manage and dispose wastes.

·      More plastic collecting Centre’s (Plastic Soudha) must be constructed. All the Panchayaths should open e-waste Centers at their premises.

·      In order to encourage the segregation of waste at source local governance has to conduct more awareness programmes to the public, elected representatives, local clubs and associations, educational institutions.

·      Local government should insist householders and others to segregate wastes at source, similarly waste collectors also should collect separately from them as degradable (Wet waste) and non-degradable (Dry Waste) waste.

 

CONCLUSION:

To promote the welfare of the society efficient waste management system is inevitable. Study has identified that the rural areas are less polluted compared to urban areas. But it is not safe. Waste generation particularly non degradable wastes (Plastic, tin, glass, electrical, electronic and other metal wastes) have been increasing rapidly. Therefore it should be nipped in the bud. Most of the Grama Panchayaths are very much cautious about the issue. Waste segregation saves time, transport costs and also helps to preserve and conserve natural resources. Once solid wastes are segregated at source as degradable and non-degradable, major problem of waste management would be solved. Local institutions should make proper arrangements in order to segregate the wastes and collection of wastes in the entire village. Besides this each individual should take the initiative in practicing segregation of waste at source. Study observed lack of motivation and propaganda regarding the reduction and classification of waste. In Dakshina Kannada District many rural householders resorted to pipe compost, vermin composting and small pit compost. Besides this we can see many ‘plastic houses’ to store waste plastics, which are installed by local organizations and grama panchayaths. Many grama panchayaths provided free pipes to the householders to install pipe compost at their own kitchen gardens. Recently Ramakrishna Mission in Mangaluru giving wide publicity about ‘Pot Compost’ which is more economical and easy to adopt than pipe compost and vermin composting.

 

REFERENCES:

1.     Abbasi S.A and Ramaswamy E.V, Solid Waste Management with Earthworms, New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 2001.

2.     Agarwal Sunitha and Lalitha Arora, Domestic Waste Management, Jaipur: Avishkar Publishers, Distributors, 2012.

3.     Anand Subash, ‘recycling of solid waste materials’, Singh Jagbir and Ramanathan R (Ed.), Solid Waste Management-Present and Future Challenges, Bangalore: I.K. International Publishing House, 2010.

4.     Hosetti B.B., Prospectus and Perspectives of Solid Waste Management, New Delhi: New Age International Publishers, 2006.

5.     Jagbir Singh and L Ramanathan (Ed.), Solid Waste Management, Bangalore: I.K. Inter National Publishing House, 2011.

6.     Khan H Iqbal and Ahsan Naveed, Text Book of solid wastes Management, Bangalore: CBS Publishers and Distributor Pvt. Ltd., 2003.

7.     Nag A and Vizaya kumar K (2005), Ref. Nag A andVizaya kumar K, Environmental Education and Solid Waste Management, New Age International (P) Ltd Publishers, New Delhi, 2005.

8.     Nanjundiah (2017). “ Managing Municipal Solid waste-Some Suggestions” . Southern Economist, Volume 56, No. 4, June 15, 2017, P. No. 7-10.

9.     Patro Lingaraj, Solid Wate Management, New Delhi: Sonali Publications, 2012.

10.   Pothimamaka J (2008); “ Community learning process: A model of Solid Waste reduction and separation, “Environment Asia.(www.tshe.org/EA) PP 43-48.

11.   Purushothama K V ( 2015) “ Plastic a Cancer in Nature: trends problems and policies in India” Research Journal of Humanities and social Sciences. Volume 06, Issue 03, July-September 2015. P. No. 209-212.

12.   Purushothama K V (2018) “ Implementation of Solid waste Management by the Local Governments: A Study in Dakshina Kannada District, International Journal of Social Science and economic Research, Volume:03, Issue:11, Nov.2018, P.No.6468-6478.

13.   Ramachandra T.V., Management of Municipal Solid Waste, New Delhi: Capital Publishing Company, 2006.

14.   Sinha Udayaprakash, Economics of Social sector and environment, New Delhi: Concept publishing company, 2007.

15.   Somashekara K.K., An Economic Evaluation of Solid Waste Management Services in Cities: A Case Study of Mangalore City Corporation, Unpublished Phd. Thesis, Mangalore University, 2010.

 

 

 

 

Received on 29.12.2018       Modified on 14.01.2019

Accepted on 16.01.2019      ©AandV Publications All right reserved

Res.  J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2019; 10(1): 184-188.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2019.00031.7