environmental survey 2014

2014

TERI

SuRvEyEnvIRonmEnTAL

ii

©The Energy and Resources Institute, 2014All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing to The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi, India, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate organizations. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the address:The Energy and Resources InstituteDarbari Seth Block, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110003, India

This study is funded by aid from the UK Government. However, the views expressed here are not necessarily of the Government of UK.

AdvisorsDr R K Pachauri, Director-General, TERIDr Ligia Noronha, Former Executive Director, TERIDr Annapurna Vancheswaran, Director-SDO, TERI

ReviewerMr Shri Prakash, Distinguished Fellow, TERI

Project TeamDr Bibhu Prasad Nayak, Fellow, TERIMs C Sita Lakshmi, Research Associate, TERIMs Divya Datt, Fellow, TERIDr Nidhi Pande, Assistant Professor, TERI UniversityMs Nidhi Srivastava, Fellow, TERIMr Rahul Singh, Research Associate, TERIMr Saswata Chaudhury, Associate Fellow, TERIDr Shilpi Kapur Bakshi, Fellow, TERIMr Souvik Bhattacharjya, Fellow, TERI

Editorial and Designing TeamMs Arpita Dasgupta, Assistant Editor, TERIMs Hemambika Varma, Editor, TERIMr Santosh Kumar Singh, Graphic Designer, TERIMr R K Joshi, Graphic Designer, TERI

Outreach TeamMs Ahona Datta Gupta, Research Associate, TERIMs Malavika Varma, Research Associate, TERI Mr S S Jeevan, Fellow, TERIMs Zainab Naeem, Research Associate, TERI

Published by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)Website: www.teriin.org

For more informationProject Monitoring CellT E R I Tel. : 2468 2100 or 2468 2111Darbari Seth Block E-mail : [email protected] Complex, Lodhi Road Fax : 2468 2144 or 2468 2145New Delhi – 110 003 Web : www.teriin.orgIndia India +91 • Delhi (0)11

iii

ForewordAknowledgementsExecutive SummaryList of Figures

1. InTRODucTIOn AnD METhODOlOgy 1 1.1 About TERI’s Environmental Surveys 2 1.2 Methodology 2 1.2.1 Selection of Urban Agglomerations 2 1.2.2 Sample Selection in the Cities 4 1.2.3 Limitations of the Survey 5

2. AggREgATE REsulTs FROM ThE suRvEy 7 2.1 Demographic Profile of the Sample 8 2.2 Survey Results 8 2.2.1 Overall Environment 8 2.2.2 Water 10 2.2.3 Waste and Waste Management 11

3. cOIMbATORE 15 3.1 About Coimbatore 15 3.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 16 3.2 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 16 3.4 Survey Results 17 3.4.1 Overall Environment 17 3.4.2 Water 19 3.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 21

4. DElhI 27 4.1 About Delhi 27 4.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 28 4.3 Status of Water and Waste Management 29 4.4 Survey Results 29 4.4.1 Overall Environment 29 4.4.2 Water 32 4.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 34

table of CoNteNt

iv

5. guwAhATI 39 5.1 About Guwahati 39 5.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 40 5.3 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 40 5.4 Survey Results 41 5.4.1 Overall Environment 42 5.4.2 Water 44 5.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 45

6. InDORE 51 6.1 About Indore 52 6.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 52 6.3 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 52 6.4 Survey Results 53 6.4.1 Overall environment 53 6.4.2. Water 56 6.4.3 Waste and waste management 56

7. JAMshEDPuR 61 7.1 About Jamshedpur 61 7.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 62 7.3 Status of Water and Waste Management 62 7.4 Survey Results 63 7.4.1 Overall environment 63 7.4.2 Water 65 7.4.3 Waste and waste management 67

8. KAnPuR 73 8.1 Demographics from Kanpur 74 8.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 74 8.3 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 74 8.4 Survey Results 75 8.4.1 Overall Environment 75 8.4.2 Water 77 8.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 78

9. MuMbAI 83 9.1 About Mumbai 84 9.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 84 9.3 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 84 9.4 Survey Results 85 9.4.1 Overall Environment 85 9.4.2 Water 88 9.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 89

v

10. PunE 95 10.1 About Pune 96 10.2 Demographic Profile of the Sample 96 10.3 Status of Water, Waste, and Waste Management 97 10.4 Survey Results 98 10.4.1 Overall Environment 98 10.4.2 Water 101 10.4.3 Waste and Waste Management 103

11. cOMPARATIvE AnAlysIs AcROss cITIEs 107 11.1 Overall Environment 107 11.2 Water 110 11.3 Waste and Waste Management 111

12. QuEsTIOnnAIRE 115 Appendix 1: Questionnaire 115 Final Survey Questionnaire 115

vii

Rapid urbanization is seen to weaken the linkages of people with nature and is failing to recognize the need to protect the environment. This has resulted in environmental degradation including increased air and water pollution, and problems of waste disposal and its management. Indeed,

cities in India present a sad picture today. However, restricting urbanization is not a solution; rather, it is important to ensure that it proceeds in the right direction causing minimal impacts on the environment.

Citizens or residents of the cities are responsible for minimizing the impact on the environment and promoting a sustainable pattern of living through their behaviour and actions. Urban areas provide opportunities for environmental management by the citizens through measures such as water conservation in homes and localities, recycling of waste, and expansion of public transport. This calls for a more holistic and innovative approach to environmental policy making and implementation.

The responses and perceptions about issues related to the physical environment that citizens live in is extremely relevant for local policy-makers and for reforming existing policies and designing new policies in an informed manner and implementing them successfully. The views of citizens on different issues related to the environment and the daily problems they may face due to environmental degradation provide insights which can help improve the situation in our cities. Given that the government at the national and local level have been designing and formulating new and improved policies, it is important to understand the citizens’ attitudes, perception, awareness, and opinion towards their local environment.

TERI conducts an annual exercise involving a rigorous survey of perceptions, behaviour, opinion and awareness on issues related to the environment, the results of which are very revealing. This survey helps us to understand the level of public concern for the different environmental problems that we face today. It not only captures public attitudes on the issue of the environment, but also aims to provide an understanding of their perceptions on the environment versus development debate.

The focus of TERI Environmental Survey 2014 has been to look at the issues of water and waste in addition to overall environmental concerns. I am very pleased to release the results of this second major survey. We hope that by sharing the findings of this survey, we would be able to contribute, at least in a modest way, towards understanding the underlying realities of urban citizens and what they feel about the environment in general and water issues in particular. I would also like to congratulate my colleagues who have continued their hard work and taken the survey forward with enormous dedication and diligence.

The findings from the survey show considerable diversity in the responses across environmental issues and cities. However, the findings also show that citizens care about the environment and that issues such as waste management and water conservation are assuming a position of very high priority amongst them.

R K PachauriDirector-General, TERI

foreword

ix

we would like to express our gratitude to the Department for International Development (DFID), Government of United Kingdom, for supporting this project. We owe this study to respondents from the eight cities who participated in our survey. We are

grateful to them for their time and views. We take this opportunity to thank Dr R K Pachauri, Director-General, TERI, for his overall

mentoring and encouragement throughout the project. We express our sincere thanks to Dr Ligia Noronha, Former Executive Director, TERI, for her constant guidance. We gratefully acknowledge Dr Annapurna Vancheswaran, Director, Sustainable Development Outreach, TERI, for leading the outreach activities for this study. Mr Shri Prakash, Distinguished Fellow, TERI, provided valuable comments which helped improve this report. We thank our colleagues, Dr Suneel Pandey and Dr Debashish Goswami, for research inputs during the design of the survey.

We acknowledge the services provided by Language No Bar for translating the questionnaire into regional languages and Innovative Consumer Research & Business Consulting for conducting the survey.

Last, but not the least, we thank Ms Kiran Shivpuri and Mr Soy Joseph for their efficient secretarial assistance.

aCkNowledgemeNt

xi

Increasing urbanization and its changing structure has resulted in drastic changes in our local and global environment. Estimates show that cities account for 80% of energy consumption and 75% of carbon emissions world over.1 The increasing population pressure on land in urban

areas also adds to the stress on fresh water, urban green spaces, biodiversity, and air and water quality. Another issue of concern is the disposal of the ever-growing magnitude of urban waste. These issues are inextricably intertwined with basic urban infrastructure — housing, transport system, health infrastructure, and other civic amenities, to name a few. This necessitates a holistic and innovative approach to environmental policy integrated within basic urban planning.

India’s urban population as per 2011 Census was 377.10 million, a growth of 31% over the last decade, and accounting for 31.16% of the country’s total population. This is projected to reach 600 million by the year 2030.2 In a territory as diverse and complex as India, environmental policy making has to be multilevel and participatory, taking into account the changing aspirations and concerns of citizens. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states, “environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level”.3

Citizen surveys are an important tool for making inclusive and informed policy decisions. Insights into awareness, perceptions, and opinions of citizens on environmental issues and interventions are valuable inputs for governments and other relevant agencies in reviewing policies and interventions, and improving their uptake and implementation. TERI Environmental Surveys are a step in this direction.

TERI Environmental Survey 2014 comprised a sample of 11,214 citizens spread over 8 urban agglomerates across the geographical span of India — Coimbatore, Guwahati, Indore, Jamshedpur, Kanpur, Pune and the two most-populated metros of Delhi and Mumbai. In general, the survey focused on the environment, and in particular, issues of water and waste. The survey was conducted between December 2013 and February 2014 through face-to-face interviews in each city using a standardized questionnaire.

overall environmentViews on the overall environment were assessed in terms of perceptions about the state of the environment over time and changes in climatic variables. The survey also attempted to gauge awareness levels and opinion of the people on government policies in different environmental

1 http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/cities.shtml (last accessed on 17 May 2014).2 ShirishSankhe,IreenaVittal,RichardDobbs,AjitMohan,AnkurGulati,JonathanAblett,ShishirGupta,AlexKim,andSudiptoPaul,India’s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth;2010.

3 UnitedNations,Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,ReportoftheUnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopment,AnnexI.NewYork:UnitedNations,1992.

eXeCUtIVe SUmmarY

xii

domains, the role of various actors in environmental protection, and their opinion on the development versus environment debate.

Looking at perceptions on state of the environment, we found that across cities, a large majority of respondents perceived deterioration in air quality. The state of green cover and diversity of birds was also thought to have worsened by the majority in all cities except in Coimbatore and Pune where it was perceived to have been improved. Going by the survey, a greater proportion of respondents perceived an improvement as compared to those who perceived a worsening in drinking water quality (except in Guwahati) and availability (except in Guwahati and Indore). A mixed picture emerged on the issue of waste management. A higher number of respondents from cities, such as Coimbatore, Delhi, Kanpur, and Pune noted an improvement, while the opposite was true in other cities such as Guwahati, Jamshedpur, and Pune. Overall, comparing the perceptions about changes in environmental quality across cities, it can be seen that deterioration in environmental quality across environmental parameters was perceived to be more in Guwahati and Jamshedpur as compared to other cities.

The survey asked respondents for their opinion on climate change and changes in climatic variables such as temperature, precipitation, wind pattern, and incidence of extreme events. A majority of the respondents across the urban agglomerates — adding up to 90% of the total sample — felt that global warming was a reality. The majority in all cities felt that the mean temperature had increased while rainfall had decreased (except in Indore where people felt that it had increased). Responses were more mixed when it came to wind patterns and extreme events, with many respondents across cities saying that they did not know which way the trends were going, especially in the case of extreme events.

When asked about their awareness and perception of government policies across environmental domains, people were, by and large, aware of policies but were concerned about their adequacy and level of implementation. There were however some exceptions, like that in Jamshedpur, where a majority felt that there were no policies for air pollution and a significant number — about 20% or more —felt that there were no policies to address water conservation, pollution, waste management and climate change. A majority of the respondents in Coimbatore and Pune seemed satisfied with the implementation of policies on waste management, air, and water pollution.

Respondents were asked to rank different stakeholders — government, business, consumers, NGOs, and academic institutes — for their roles in environmental management. Though the responses varied by city, in general it may be said that respondents seemed to give a higher rank to the government (except in Jamshedpur) and consumers (except in Kanpur and Delhi), an intermediate rank to NGOs (except in Indore and Pune, where they were given a low rank), and a low rank to business (except in Coimbatore where 36% gave it Rank 2) and academic institutes (except in Kanpur, where over 50% gave them Rank 2).

An overwhelming majority of respondents across cities concurred that poor environmental quality adversely affected health.

The survey also tried to understand peoples’ opinions on the global debate on whether protecting the environment hindered the imperative of development. The majority either felt that the two went hand-in-hand, as was seen in Pune, Coimbatore, and Guwahati or that the environment should be prioritized over development, as seen in Mumbai, Delhi, Kanpur, and Indore. However, it should be noted that about 25% of the respondents in some cities (Mumbai and Delhi) and a higher share in others (Pune and Jamshedpur) felt that development should be prioritized over the environment.

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

xiii

waterSince access to adequate and clean drinking water is one of the most pressing issues in urban India, a number of questions were asked to elicit the views of citizens on major water problems and their solutions. The majority of respondents (over 73%) relied on municipal water supply and 50% treated their drinking water before consumption. It is noteworthy that a significant 32%, mostly from low-income localities, did not treat water before consuming it. Most respondents across cities (except in Coimbatore) agreed that water was being wasted and identified over-consumption, leakages from faucets/taps at houses and losses during distribution as the major reasons. By and large, all respondents realized the need to protect water resources through measures such as rainwater harvesting, improved waste water treatment, residential water conservation, and awareness creation. In particular, more respondents, in the aggregate, felt that awareness and education were ‘very important’ measures in managing water resources as compared to other options.

On water policy, the survey made an attempt to understand if people were aware of government subsidies in water tariffs and if they were open to a reduction in these. Over 70% of the surveyed people confirmed that supply of water was being subsidized, though the level of awareness was slightly higher amongst men as compared to women and in high-income and middle-income localities as compared to low-income localities. Many respondents in Mumbai, Pune, Guwahati and a majority in Coimbatore had no knowledge about the subsidy. Over 50% of the respondents who were aware of the subsidy felt that water should be charged at cost to discourage its wastage though 35% were against the removal of subsidy. In Indore, Kanpur, Guwahati, Pune, and Mumbai most respondents felt that consumers should pay the actual cost of water while in Delhi, Coimbatore and Jamshedpur, the majority felt that water should be subsidized. In general, a higher proportion of respondents from high-income and middle-income localities favoured cost-based supply in comparison with respondents from low-income localities. When asked to choose the ideal billing system— from fixed charges, metered supply, and consumption-slab based rates — for water supply to households, over 45% were in favour of metered billing of water while about 37% chose fixed charges. There was a large diversity of views across cities; while opinion was divided in Guwahati and Mumbai, respondents in Indore and Coimbatore mostly preferred fixed charges and those in Jamshedpur, Pune and Delhi mostly chose metered billing based on consumption.

When asked about how well different stakeholders were discharging their responsibility in managing water resources in their opinion, except in Kanpur and Jamshedpur, most respondents seemed satisfied. In Kanpur, the majority was dissatisfied with all stakeholders except the state government. In Jamshedpur, a large majority appeared dissatisfied with the central and state governments while in Delhi, a small majority was dissatisfied with the central and local governments. A significant proportion of people in Guwahati, Jamshedpur and Coimbatore did not know enough about the work being done by NGOs.

waste and waste managementManagement of solid waste and e-waste is one of the most challenging tasks in urban India. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the negative impacts of improper waste management on human health. Close to 90% felt that improper waste management imposed ‘severe’ (67%) to ‘moderate’ (23%) health hazards. There seemed to be consensus on this among respondents across localities.

xiv

Proper collection of waste constitutes the basis of waste management, so citizens were asked whether waste was being collected from their doorsteps. On the whole, close to 50% of the people did not have garbage collected from their houses. This was higher for respondents from low-income localities. While the majority in Kanpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, Delhi, and Mumbai said that waste was being collected from their homes, the majority in Indore and Jamshedpur reported that this was not the case. Respondents were asked for their opinion on the strategy that was best suited to manage the problem of solid waste. About 60% felt identified the need to generate less in the first place, followed by 25% who chose waste segregation. Most of the respondents in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, Coimbatore, and Delhi chose the first option while the majority in Guwahati, Pune and Mumbai opted for the second.

Despite awareness on the issue, over 50% of respondents were not willing to segregate their own waste into biodegradable and non-degradable categories. There were wide variations across cities, localities, and gender. While the majority of respondents in Kanpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, and Mumbai said they were willing to segregate waste, the majority in the remaining four urban agglomerates were not. Interestingly, respondents from high-and-low income localities had a similar opinion on this while more respondents from middle-income localities expressed their willingness to segregate waste. Willingness to segregate waste was higher amongst women (56%) than men (45%). Most of those who were not willing to segregate viewed the task as the responsibility of the municipal body, followed by roughly an equal number of people who thought the task was cumbersome and required more space. Again, opinion was about equally divided about whether the charges for waste disposal should vary with volume (47%) or remain fixed (43%). In Guwahati and Indore, a large majority opted for volumetric-charges while in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Coimbatore a large majority chose fixed fees as the ideal billing mechanism.

Most respondents across cities were aware of the hazards posed by e-waste. Across cities, such waste was largely being repaired and reused, or sold in the second-hand market. With regard to small IT products such as cartridges and pen drives, in most cities only a small proportion of respondents — ranging between 0.1% and 4.3% of the sample— disposed of these items along with their garbage. However, in Indore and Pune, almost 14% and 20% of the respondents, respectively, were doing so.

The survey also sought the views of people on ways to encourage recycling. People felt that recycling could be further encouraged through greater effort to create awareness (31%), pick up recycles from curb-side (25%), and charge deposits on recyclable products (25%). Women in general seemed to place more emphasis on awareness than men. For a majority of respondents from Jamshedpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, and Mumbai, awareness creation was the favourite choice while majority of respondents in Kanpur and Delhi felt that charging deposit fees on recyclable items and picking up of recyclables from curb side would be more effective measures. Many in Indore and Mumbai saw the need for a law requiring recycling.

Citizens were also asked who they felt had the greatest responsibility to manage the city’s garbage. Over 40% of the respondents identified the municipal authority and 24% pointed to individual households, while about 25% said that it was the combined responsibility of all stakeholders. While the first option was chosen by the majority in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Coimbatore, the second was favoured by most in Pune and Mumbai. In Guwahati and Delhi, most respondents opted for the third option.

There was an overwhelming positive response for a ban on the use of polythene bags in all cities and by all income groups, except in Kanpur where a majority of respondents from low- income localities were not in favour of the ban.

xv

Introduction and MethodologyFigure 1.1: Cities included in the survey 3

Aggregate Results from the SurveyFigure 2.1: Demographic profile of respondents 8Figure 2.2: Perceived change in the state of the environment over the last five years 9Figure 2.3: Perceived change in various climatic variables 9Figure 2.4: Opinion and awareness on environmental policies 9Figure 2.5: Ranking of the stakeholder groups working towards improving the

environment 10Figure 2.6: Relative importance of various options in protecting water resources 10Figure 2.7: Disposal of electrical and electronic waste 11

CoimbatoreFigure 3.1: Demographic profile of respondents 16Figure 3.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment over the past five years 17Figure 3.3: Changes in the climatic variables 18Figure 3.4: Awareness and opinion on government policies to address different

environmental concerns 18Figure 3.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in

improving the environment- 19Figure 3.6: Health problems associated with poor quality of environment 19Figure 3.7: Major reasons for wastage of water 19Figure 3.8: Readiness to pay actual cost of water among the respondents 20Figure 3.9: Method of Treatment of drinking water 20Figure 3.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 20Figure 3.11: Reasons cited for willingness and unwillingness to segregate wastes

at household level 21Figure 3.12: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use 22Figure 3.13: Greatest responsibility to dispose solid waste/garbage 22Figure 3.14: Fate of electrical and electronic waste 22

lISt of fIgUreS

UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 3 rd June 2014 (4 P.M. )

xvi

DelhiFigure 4.1: Demographic profile of the respondents 28Figure 4.2: Perception about changes in the state of environment in Delhi over

past five years 30Figure 4.3: Perception about changes in the climatic variables in Delhi over past five years 30Figure 4.4: Awareness about government policies to address environmental concerns 31Figure 4.5: Ranking of the stakeholder groups working towards improving the

environment 31Figure 4.6: Perception about the environment–development debate 32Figure 4.7: Environmental problem perceived to have most visible impact on health 32Figure 4.8: Percentage of respondents on the wastage of water and its reasons in Delhi: 32Figure 4.9: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water in Delhi 33Figure 4.10: Importance of different measures for conservation of water 33Figure 4.11: Best strategy to manage the waste in city 34Figure 4.12: Willingness for segregation of household waste 34Figure 4.13: Percentage of households selling/sending various household items for

recycling or re-use 35Figure 4.14: Views on the factors that motivate to recycle/reuse 35Figure 4.15: Stakeholders with greatest responsibility for the disposal of waste in the city 36Figure 4.16: Disposal of household e-waste 36

GuwahatiFigure 5.1: Demographic profile of the respondents 40Figure 5.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment in Guwahati over the past

five years 42Figure 5.3: Perceived changes in the climatic variables 42Figure 5.4: Awareness and opinion on government policies to address different


improving the environment 43Figure 5.6: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 44Figure 5.7: Major reasons for wastage of water in Guwahati 44Figure 5.8: Readiness to pay actual cost of water 44Figure 5.9: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 45Figure 5.10: Degree of negative impacts of improper solid waste management on

human health 45Figure 5.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Guwahati 46Figure 5.12: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use 46Figure 5.13: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 46Figure 5.14: Greatest responsibility to dispose Guwahati’s solid waste/garbage 46Figure 5.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Guwahati 47


xvii

IndoreFigure 6.1: Demographic profile of the respondents 52Figure 6.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment in Indore over the

past five years 53Figure 6.3: Changes in the climatic variables 54Figure 6.4: Government policies to address different environmental concerns 54Figure 6.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in

improving the environment 54Figure 6.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 55Figure 6.7: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 55Figure 6.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Indore 55Figure 6.9: Readiness to pay actual cost of water 56Figure 6.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 56Figure 6.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Indore 57Figure 6.12: Reasons for refusing to segregate wastes at household level 57Figure 6.13: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 57Figure 6.14: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage 57Figure 6.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Indore 58

JamshedpurFigure 7.1: Demographic profile of respondents in Jamshedpur 62Figure 7.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment over the past five years 63Figure 7.3: Changes in the climatic variables 64Figure 7.4: Awareness and opinion on government policies to address different


improving the environment 65Figure 7.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 65Figure 7.7: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 65Figure 7.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Jamshedpur 66Figure 7.9: Willingness to pay actual cost of water 66Figure 7.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 66Figure 7.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Jamshedpur 67Figure 7.12: Reasons for reluctance to segregate wastes at household level 67Figure 7.13: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use 67Figure 7.14: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 68Figure 7.15: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage 68Figure 7.16: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Jamshedpur 68

UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 3 rd June 2014 (4 P.M. )

xviii

KanpurFigure 8.1: Demographic profile of the respondents 74Figure 8.2: Changes in the state of environment in Kanpur over the past five years 75Figure 8.3: Changes in the climatic variables 76Figure 8.4: Government policies to address different environmental concerns 76Figure 8.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in

improving the environment 76Figure 8.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 77Figure 8.7: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 77Figure 8.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Kanpur 77Figure 8.9: Readiness to pay actual cost of water 78Figure 8.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 78Figure 8.11: Reasons for refusing to segregate waste at household level 79Figure 8.12: Greatest responsibility for solid waste management 79Figure 8.13: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use 79Figure 8.14: Disposal of electronic waste 80Figure 8.15: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 80

MumbaiFigure 9.1: Demographic profile of respondents in Mumbai 84Figure 9.2: Changes in the state of environment in Mumbai over the past five years 85Figure 9.3: Changes in climatic variables 86Figure 9.4: Awareness regarding government policies to address various

environmental problems 86Figure 9.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in

improving the environment 87Figure 9.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 87Figure 9.7: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water supply 88Figure 9.8: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 88Figure 9.9: Major components of waste in respondent households 89Figure 9.10: Best strategy to minimize waste 89Figure 9.11: Reasons for refusing to segregate wastes at household level 90Figure 9.12: Billing mechanism for waste management/disposal 90Figure 9.13: Commodities sold/recycled by households 90Figure 9.14: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in Mumbai 91Figure 9.15: Promotion of recycling 91

PuneFigure 10.1: Demographic profile of respondents 96


xix

Figure 10.2: Perception about changes in the state of environment in Pune over past five years 98

Figure 10.3: Perception about changes in the climatic variables in Pune over past five years 98Figure 10.4: Awareness about government policies addressing environmental concerns 99Figure 10.5: Sources of information on environmental issues 99Figure 10.6: Ranking of the stakeholder groups working towards improving the

environment 100Figure 10.7: Perception about the environment–development debate 100Figure 10.8: Perception on health impacts of environmental pollution 100Figure 10.9: Major reasons for wastage of water: respondents could choose multiple

options as reasons 101Figure 10.10: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water 101Figure 10.11: Preferred water billing mode 102Figure 10.12: Importance of different measures for conservation of water 102Figure 10.13: Major components of the households waste 103Figure 10.14: Willingness for segregation of household waste 103Figure 10.15: Items that the households sell/send for recycling or reuse 104Figure 10.16: What people do with their household e-waste 104Figure 10.17: Measure to promote recycling/reuse 104Figure 10.18: Greatest responsibility for the disposal of solid waste 105

Comparative Analysis across CitiesFigure 11.1: Perception of change in environmental quality 107Figure 11.2: Perception on climate change 108Figure 11.3: Perceptions on changes in climatic variables 108Figure 11.4: Awareness and perception on environmental quality 109Figure 11.5: Aggregate (weighted) ranking of different stakeholders in

environmental responsibility 109Figure 11.6: Perceptions on the tradeoff between environmental protection

and development 109Figure 11.7: Awareness regarding subsidy in water tariffs 110Figure 11.8: Views on whether water tariffs should be based on cost of supply 110Figure 11.9: Preferred billing mechanism 110Figure 11.10: Perceptions about performance of stakeholders in water management 111Figure 11.11: Willingness to segregate waste 112Figure 11.12: Percentage breakup of respondents’ response to reasons for not

segregating waste 112Figure 11.13: Percentage breakup of respondents’ response to reasons for

segregating waste 112

1

Half of the world’s population lives in cities and this share will increase as the coming decades are likely to witness rapid urbanization, especially in developing countries.1 India’s urban population as per 2011 Census was 377.1 million, accounting for 31.16%

of India’s total population. Urbanization in India has been on an upward trend with 31% growth in urban population over the last decade. The 2011 Census of India shows that absolute increase in urban population has surpassed the increase in rural population for the first time.2 The urban population in India is projected to reach 600 million by the year 2030.3

Estimates show that cities account for 80% of energy consumption and 75% of carbon emissions world over.4 Besides emissions, increasing pressure on land in urban areas adds to stress on fresh water, biodiversity, open spaces, and air and water quality. Increasing pollution and problems associated with disposal of waste and its management are other environmental challenges that urban areas have to deal with. While increasing urbanization poses great stress on natural resources and the environment, urban areas also provide opportunities for environmental management through measures such as recycling of waste and expansion of public transport.5 Thus, urbanization needs a more holistic and innovative approach to environmental policy making and implementation.

In a territory as diverse and complex as India, environmental policy making has to be multilevel and participatory, taking into account the changing aspirations and concerns of citizens. Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states, “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.”6 According importance to the perception and actions of citizens is a step towards such a participatory approach.

Citizen surveys are an important tool for making inclusive and informed policy decisions. The surveys can provide valuable insights into citizens’ awareness, perceptions, and opinions on environmental issues and interventions that can assist government in framing or reviewing policies, and improving uptake and implementation. TERI Environmental Surveys are conducted with these objectives in mind. It is hoped that the findings can feed directly into policy and implementation measures of all tiers of the government as well as other concerned agencies, for

1 http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/cities.shtml(Lastaccessedon2May2014)2 CensusofIndia2011,http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/india/Rural_Urban_2011.pdf3 ShirishSankhe,IreenaVittal,RichardDobbs,AjitMohan,AnkurGulati,JonathanAblett,ShishirGupta,AlexKim,andSudiptoPaul,India’s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth,2010.

4 http://www.un.org/en/sustainablefuture/cities.shtml(Lastaccessedon2May2014)5 Integrating the Environment in Urban Planning and Management: Key Principles and Approaches for Cities in the 21st

Century6 United Nations, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Report of the United Nations Conference onEnvironmentandDevelopment,AnnexI.UnitedNations,NewYork,1992.

IntroductIon and Methodology

1

I n t roduct ion and Methodo logy

2

a sustainable urban India.

1.1 About TERI’s Environmental SurveysTERI has initiated an annual exercise to assess public attitude towards the environment. Focusing on the cognitive, affective, and behavioural aspects of attitude, these surveys are conducted to gauge perception, awareness, opinion, and behaviour of people towards the environment in India. The first environmental survey was a pilot survey conducted using an online platform in two selected geographical areas of India — the National Capital Region (NCR) and the State of Karnataka.7 The second survey was conducted using face-to-face interviews in the six most populous metropolitan areas of India — Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai.8 The findings from the surveys were released in 2012 and 2013 around World Environment Day. The findings of the survey drew significant interest and attention by the media and citizens at large.

In order to take this endeavour forward, TERI Environmental Survey 2014 has covered eight urban agglomerates across the geographical span of India, namely Coimbatore, Guwahati, Indore, Jamshedpur, Kanpur, Pune, and the two most populated metros — Delhi and Mumbai (Figure 1.1). In general, the survey focused on the overall environment, and in particular on water- and waste-related issues.

1.2 MethodologyThe survey comprised a sample of 11,214 citizens spread across the selected 8 urban agglomerates of India. The survey was conducted between December 2013 and February 2014, through face-to-face interviews in each city using a standardized questionnaire. Apart from English, the survey was translated into five other languages — Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam, Marathi, and Assamese. The survey was carried out by Innovative Consumer Research & Business Consulting (ICRB) on behalf of TERI.

The questionnaire was designed to elicit respondents’ general perception, awareness, opinion, and behaviour on environmental issues — similar to the 2013 TERI Environmental Survey — and also included some specific questions focusing on issues of water and waste. The questionnaire also required respondents to provide details on age, education, income, occupation, and gender to be able to study how responses vary by these parameters. The detailed questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

1.2.1 Selection of Urban Agglomerations Eight urban agglomerates were selected for the survey to get a good spread of geographical coverage while ensuring a mix of metro and non-metro regions. As per the 2011 Census, there are 475 urban agglomerations in India.9 These were ranked by population and classified in to six geographical

7 http://www.teriin.org/pdf/Environmental-Survey.pdf (Lastaccessedon4May2014)8 http://www.teriin.org/files/TERI_env_survey.pdf (Lastaccessedon4May2014)9 In the Census of India 2011, an urban area has been defined as: 1. All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee, etc. 2. All other places which satisfied the following criteria: i) A minimum population of 5,000;


3

zones, i.e., north, east, west, south, north-east, and central. The top two urban agglomerates in terms of population were selected, excluding the six — Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad — that were covered in TERI’s 2013 Environmental Survey. Of these 12 urban agglomerations, 6 were shortlisted, 1 from each zone, taking into consideration the relative salience of waste generation and water shortage. The final selected urban agglomerations were Pune, Kanpur, Jamshedpur, Indore, Guwahati, and Coimbatore. In addition, the two most populated urban agglomerations — Mumbai and Delhi — were selected for the survey in order to include the largest metropolitans (million plus) in the sample as well as to have some continuity with respect to the 2013 TERI Environmental Survey. This selection represents the rapidly changing urban scenario of the country where fast-growing cities are joining the league of metros as hubs for major economic activities.

Throughout this report, the term ‘city’ or its name is used for the urban agglomeration that it is associated with. The sample size for Delhi and Mumbai was fixed at 1,500 each. For the other cities, a sample of 0.056% of their respective total population in 201110 was considered (Table 1.1).

ii) at least 75% of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and iii) a density of population of at least 400 persons per sq. km. The first category of urban units is known as Statutory Towns while the second category of Towns (as in point 2) is

known as Census Town. An urban agglomeration is a continuous urban spread constituting a town and its adjoining outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physically contiguous towns together with or without outgrowths of such towns. See, http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/1.per cent20Dataper cent20Highlight.pdf (Lastaccessedon4May2014)

10 http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_results_paper1_india.html (Lastaccessedon4May2014)

Figure 1.1: Cities included in the survey

I n t roduct ion and Methodo logy

4

Table 1.1: Sample cities, population, and number of samples collected from each city

Sample Cities Population (as per 2011 census) Sample Size Rounded-off Figures (0.056% of the population of the urban agglomeration)

City Urban Agglomeration

Second-tier cities

Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) 10,61,447 21,51,466 1,200

Guwahati (Assam) 9,63,429 9,68,549 539

Indore (Madhya Pradesh) 19,60,631 21,67,447 1,244

Jamshedpur (Jharkhand) 6,29,659 13,37,131 750

Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) 27,67,031 29,20,067 1,651

Pune (Maharashtra) 31,15,431 50,49,968 2,830

Metro cities

A fixed sample of 1,500

Delhi 1,10,07,835 1,63,14,838 1,500

Mumbai 1,24,78,447 1,84,14,288 1,500

3,39,83,910 4,93,23,754 11,214

Source: Census 2011; available at http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/prov_results_paper1_india.html (Last accessed on 4 May 2014)

1.2.2 Sample Selection in the CitiesThe objective of the study was to survey citizens representing diverse socio-economic segments of society. The sample locations in city were classified under the following: � Low-income localities (including slums/ villages/jhuggi-jhopri cluster/unauthorized colonies) � Middle-class localities � High-income localities

A common method to classify the population of a region by its socio-economic status is to use property tax zones or categories that divide areas according to the price of land.11 We adopted this method and used property tax zones to identify high-, medium-, and low-income categories in Delhi, Mumbai, Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Indore, where data on property tax zones was available. The income classification was based on Easterly12 who defines the middle class as that lying between the 20th and 80th percentile on the consumption distribution, the upper class as

11 There may be other ways of classifying a population into different classes. One way to define the socio-economic classes is by using the Engel coefficient as the boundary line. FAO (2001) defined Engel coefficient as the share of expenditure on food, beverages and tobacco of the total expenditure. An Engel coefficient above 59%t denotes poverty, 50–59% means adequately fed and clothed, 40–50% stands for ease, while people living with 30–40% Engel Coefficient are rich, and those below 30% are the richest. Another classification defines the ‘Middle’ consumption class as that which lies between 75% and 125% of the median per capita consumption. See, Satyaki Roy, Trends and Pattern in Consumption Expenditure. New Delhi: Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, 2011.

12 Easterly 2001.


5

one lying above the 80th percentile, and the lower class as lying below the 20th percentile. Within each category, colonies and households were selected randomly.

For Guwahati, Pune, and Coimbatore, property tax zones were not available. In these cities, the local municipal corporation and other local agencies were consulted to arrive at different socio-economic zones.

1.2.3 Limitations of the SurveyThe survey sample in each city was designed to get a mix of various income categories (as proxied by localities in different property tax zones). In the final sample, around 43% of the respondents were from low-income localities in the city that included slums, villages, jhuggi-jhopri clusters, and unauthorized colonies, followed by 33% from high-income localities and 24% from middle-income localities. In addition to localities, all survey responses were analysed on the basis of education, occupation, age group, and gender. A major limitation that emerged in the sample is the relatively small share of women as compared to men. We found that several enumerators faced a problem in getting women to respond to the questionnaire, especially when men were available in the house. As a result, the male–female ratio of the survey (70:30) was skewed towards males — more in some cities than others. At the same time, it is worth mentioning that in most cases, we did not find a perceptible difference in the responses of men and women, and where these differences were significant, they have been highlighted while discussing the findings.

7

This chapter combines responses from all 8 urban agglomerates to see what the 11,000 plus people surveyed across the country were saying about environmental issues. The survey was limited in size and spread, which imposes restrictions on how far these results can be

generalized. But, given that it was designed to get a mix of geographical coverage, metro and non-

aggregate results froM the survey

2

key Highlights � On the whole, a large majority felt that air quality had worsened and the number of bird

species had declined in their cities. However, a majority of people felt that drinking water availability and quality as well as waste management in their cities had improved.

� A vast majority of respondents (90%) felt that climate change was a reality and a majority out of those felt that average temperatures had risen and rainfall levels had gone down over time.

� Close to 40% of the respondents felt that environment and development went hand in hand. More than 30% respondents opined that the government should prioritize environment over development.

� Most respondents were aware of relevant governmental policies across environmental issues but a vast majority felt that these were either inadequate or not well implemented.

� In terms of efforts to improve environment, over 40% of the respondents ranked the government the highest followed by general consumers (by nearly 30%). Nearly one-third of respondents felt that academic/research organizations were putting in the least effort to address environmental concerns.

� Over 70% of respondents were aware of water being subsidized. Of those who were aware, over half felt that water should be charged as per usage, while 35% were against it.

� Almost 90% of respondents felt that improper waste management imposed severe to moderate health hazards.

� Generating less waste was seen as the best strategy to address the problem of waste management by around 60% of respondents, followed by segregation of waste by 25%.

� More than 50% of respondents were not willing to segregate their waste into biodegradable and non-degradable.

� Over 80% of respondents were aware of the problem of e-waste, and most respondents either repaired or re-used electronic goods. Very few respondents disposed of electronic goods along with household garbage.

� Around 86% of respondents felt that polythene bags should be banned.

Aggregate Resu l t s f rom the Survey

8

metro cities, and represents a diversity of socio-economic segments of society, it may not be too unrealistic to say that the overall results represent the general perception of urban Indian citizens on major environmental issues.

2.1 demographic Profile of the SampleThe total size of the sample across the 8 urban agglomerates was 11,214 respondents. These respondents were selected from different parts of the eight cities representing various property tax categories as a proxy for the level of income. About 43% of the respondents came from low-income localities, 24% from middle-income localities, and 33% from high-income localities. The distribution of the sample across age group, educational qualification, and occupations are depicted in Figure 2.1. Youth constituted a large percentage of the sample respondents, with 21% of the respondents belonging to the age group of 18–24 and 36% belonging to the age group of 25–34. Around 23% of the respondents were in the age group of 35–44 and the balance 20% were over 45 years of age. The distribution of respondents according to their educational qualification shows that 32% of the respondents had studied up to higher secondary and diploma, followed by 31% in the category of under graduates and above. Around 23% of the respondents had middle and secondary education and the remaining 14% had only primary education.

The occupational pattern of the sample respondents varied considerably, with about 33% in the category of regular salaried (private) employment followed by self-employment/business (19%). Students and housewives constituted 13% and 15% of the respondents respectively. About 9% of the respondents were employed in regular salaried (government), 5% worked as casual/daily wage workers and the remaining 6% were unemployed and retired from service.

2.2 Survey results

2.2.1 Overall EnvironmentIn general, the respondents showed a great deal of awareness and concern about the state of the environment. Over 90% felt that the quality of the environment had an immediate impact

Up to primary

High Income

Housewife

Middle and secondary

Middle Income

Student

Higher secondary/diploma

Low Income

Casual / daily wage worker

Undergraduate and above

Regular salaried (government)

Regular salaried (private)

Self-employed/Business

Retired Unemployed

Age

Occupation

Locality

Education

14%

23%

32%

31%

15%

13%

5%

9%

33%

19%

3% 3%

21%

36%

23%

12%

6%2%

33%

24%

43%

18-24 years 25-34 years

35-44 years

55-64 years

45-54 years

Above 65 years

Figure 2.1: Demographic profile of respondents


9

on health. While close to 40% felt that the environment and development went hand in hand with no apparent trade-offs, a significant proportion (over 30%) thought that the government should prioritize environment over development. It is worth noting that a higher proportion of women (48%) as compared to men (36%) felt that the objectives of environmental protection and development went hand in hand.

When asked about their perception on various environmental issues, a large majority felt that air quality had worsened and that the number of bird species in their cities had declined. On a positive note, the majority of people felt that drinking water availability and quality as well as waste management in their cities had improved (Figure 2.2). However a slightly higher percentage of women (28% and 30%) noted deterioration in drinking water quality and availability as compared to men (24% and 24%). The responses varied, though marginally, across localities for some of the indicators. Interestingly, the proportion of those who perceived an improvement in indicators such as air quality, drinking water quality and availability, and tree/forest cover, was higher in high-income localities when compared to the other two localities. On the other hand, the proportion of those who stated that trends were getting worse — for all indicators except number of bird species — was higher in low- or middle-income localities. There was no substantial variation in perceptions regarding changes in environmental quality by education.

An overwhelming majority of respondents (90%) felt that climate change was a reality. Of these respondents, over 80% felt that average temperatures had risen and over 63% felt that average rainfall levels had gone down over time (Figure 2.3).

Across environmental issues, most respondents were aware of relevant governmental policies but the vast majority felt that these were either not adequate or not properly implemented (Figure 2.4). Some of these responses varied across localities, albeit marginally, with a larger proportion of respondents from middle- and low-income localities, 33% and 30% respectively, stating that policies to control air pollution were well implemented in compared to respondents from high-income localities (25%).

In terms of ranking efforts of various stakeholders’ — government, business, consumers, non-profits, and academic/research organization — in environmental management, over 40% of respondents ranked

Figure 2.3: Perceived change in various climatic variables

Frequency of extreme events

Intensity of extreme events

Wind pattern

Rainfall

Temperature

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Increase Decrease No ChangeExtreme patterns Don’t know

Figure 2.4: Opinion and awareness on environmental policies

Groundwater usage

Water supply

Water pollution

Air Pollution

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Exist and well implemented

No govt policy exists Dont know

Exist but inadequate or not implemented

Figure 2.2: Perceived change in the state of the environment over the last five years

Waste and waste management

Number of bird species in your city

Green cover in your area

Ground water availability

Surface water quality and availability

Drinking water availability

Drinking Water Quality

Air Quality

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No change Better Worse No direct experience Don’t know


10

Figure 2.5: Ranking of the stakeholder groups working towards improving the environment

Academic /research organisations

Non profit organisations

Consumers (like you and me)

Business

Government

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 4Rank 3 Rank 5

the government at the top, followed by general consumers (about 29%). A large number of people (over 30%) felt that academic/research organizations were putting in the least effort amongst stakeholders to address environmental concerns (Figure 2.5).

2.2.2 WaterFocusing on water issues, the majority (over 73%) relied on municipal water supply though it is noteworthy that about 10% of people relied each on packaged water and groundwater/bore well. Often, groundwater is used to supplement municipal sources of supply; hence reliance on groundwater in cities is likely to be much larger than indicated here. Over 50% of respondents indicated that they were treating their drinking water before consumption though a significant 32% did not do so. A larger percentage of respondents from high-income localities (68%) reported to be treating their water before drinking as compared to respondents from middle-income (46%) and low-income (40%) localities. By and large, all respondents realized the importance of various measures to protect water resources including rainwater harvesting, improved waste water treatment, residential water conservation (including improving home and garden practices), and awareness and education amongst citizens. In particular, it is worth noting that more respondents felt that awareness and education was ‘very important’ in managing water resources as compared to other options (Figure 2.6).

On the policy front, over 70% of the surveyed people confirmed that the supply of water was being subsidized, though the level of awareness was slightly lower for women (67%) as compared to men (74%). There were variations across localities with 78% of the respondents of high-income localities stating that water was being subsidized as against 74% among middle-income and 66% among low-income localities. While most people were open to change towards more cost- and use-based supply, there was also a large proportion that was reluctant to change. Larger proportion of respondents from high- and middle-income localities, 43% and 41% respectively, favoured cost-based supply in comparison with respondents from low-income localities (34%). A larger proportion of respondents (close to 50%) with education till higher secondary were in favour of metered consumption. Over 50% of the respondents who were aware of the subsidy felt that water should be charged at cost to discourage its wastage though 35% were against the removal of the subsidy. Over 45% were in favour of metered billing of water while about 37% felt that supply of water to households should be based on fixed charges.

Figure 2.6: Relative importance of various options in protecting water resources

Awareness and education

Residential water conservation

Improved wastewater treatment

Rainwater harvesting

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Important ImportantNot Important

Somewhat ImportantNo Opinion


11

2.2.3 Waste and Waste ManagementOn the issue of waste, close to 50% of the people did not have garbage collected from their houses. This was higher for respondents from low-income localities (56%) than high- and middle-income localities, 44% and 45%, respectively. Once again, people showed a lot of awareness about the issue. Close to 90% felt that improper waste management imposed ‘severe’ (67%) to ‘moderate’ (23%) health hazards. There seemed to be consensus on this among respondents across localities.

About 60% felt that the best strategy to manage household waste was to generate less of it in the first place; this was followed by 25% who felt that waste segregation was the best solution to managing waste. A small percentage, about 4%, felt that imposition of user-charges would be the best strategy. Despite awareness on the issue, over 50% of respondents did not seem willing to segregate their own waste into biodegradable and non-degradable. Interestingly, respondents from high- and low-income localities had a similar opinion on this. However, more than 50% of respondents from middle-income localities expressed their willingness to segregate waste. It needs to be mentioned however that the willingness to segregate waste was higher amongst women (56%) than men (45%). Most of those who were not willing to segregate viewed the task as the responsibility of the municipal body, followed by roughly an equal number of people who thought the task was cumbersome and required more space. Most of those who were willing to segregate were either already doing so or wanted to in the interest of the environment (Table 2.1). Again, opinion was about equally divided on whether the cost of waste disposal should vary with volume (47%) or remain fixed (43%).

Table 2.1 Willingness to segregate waste and reasons chosen by respondents

Not willing to segregate No. of Respondent

Wiling to segregate No. of Respondent

Cumbersome task 1,696 It is good for the environment 1,894

Will require more space to keep two separate bins 1,721 I can use biodegradable waste to compost 1,658

It is the local civic authority’s/municipal corporation’s responsibility

1,959 I already segregate my household waste 1,898

Even if I segregate waste, it is not collected separately by the civic authorities

388

5,764 5,450

People were in general cognizant of the problems associated with electronic waste; over 80% said they knew of the hazards it posed. Only a negligible proportion of respondents said that they disposed of electronic waste with household garbage. It was interesting to observe that the share of primary-educated respondents, who were aware of the problems of electronic waste, was greater than share of respondents who were at least graduates. The general trend seemed towards repairing and re-using household appliances and small and large Figure 2.7: Disposal of electrical and electronic waste

Awareness and education

Residential water conservation

Improved wastewater treatment


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Important ImportantNot Important

Somewhat ImportantNo Opinion


12

electronic appliances, such as mobile phones and computers. With small electronic products such as pen drives and toners, people were, in about equal proportion, giving them away to kabadiwalas, domestic helps, etc.; selling them at second-hand markets or getting them repaired. Responses varied across localities with larger proportion of respondents from low-income localities stating that they repaired and re-used electronic waste (44% against 37% in high-income for sized IT and telecom items).

The main motive to sell waste, in general, seemed to be the money that it generated. People felt that greater recycling could be encouraged through greater effort to create awareness (31%), pick up recyclable materials from curb side (25%), and charge deposits on recyclable products (25%). Women in general seemed to place more emphasis on awareness than men. About 38% of the women respondents said that waste recycling could be improved through greater awareness creation as against 28% men. Over 40% of the respondents felt that the municipal authority had the biggest responsibility to manage waste while 24% felt that it was primarily a household responsibility. About 25% felt that it was the combined responsibility of all stakeholders.

Close to 86% felt that polythene bags should be banned.

Western Ghats, Palakkad-Coimbatore Highway

Coimbatore

15

3.1 about Coimbatore

coimbatore is a major industrial city located in the western part of the State of Tamil Nadu. The city is the administrative capital of Coimbatore district. As per the 2011 Census of India, the city has a population of 1,050,721 with female–male ratio of 997:1,000. Population

coIMbatore

3

key Highlights � Most of the respondents felt that waste management as well as the quality and availability

of surface water had improved over the last five years. The number of respondents who found an improvement in air quality and drinking water quality was roughly equal to those who found a worsening in these parameters.

� Nearly all the respondents felt that climate change was a reality and a large majority felt that temperatures had risen and rainfall had decreased in recent years.

� Almost all respondents felt that environmental protection and development went hand-in- hand.

� While 44% of the total respondents felt that policies to address air pollution existed and were well implemented, 37% felt that policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented. In the case of waste management and water supply, most respondents felt that policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented.

� In terms of efforts to improve the environment, almost equal number of people assigned first rank to the government, consumers, and not-for-profit organizations.

� A majority of the respondents felt that water was not being wasted. � A large majority (90%) of the respondents were not aware that water supply was subsidized.

Among the respondents who were aware that water was subsidized, 68% believed that consumers should not be charged the actual cost of water.

� A majority (64%) of those surveyed felt that waste management had improved in last five years.

� Generating less waste was seen as the best strategy to address the problem of waste management by 80% of respondents, followed by segregation of waste by 14%.

� Over 70% of the respondents were willing to segregate waste before disposing. � Nearly all the respondents were aware of the problem of e-waste and were either repairing/

reusing electronic goods or selling these in the second-hand market. � Nearly all respondents agreed with the idea of banning the use of polythene bags.

16

Co imbato re

density of the city is 10,052 per square km, while the average literacy rate is 82.43%. The principal languages spoken in the city are Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada. About 8% of the city population lives in slums. The primary industries in the city are engineering and textile, and the city has more than 25,000 small, medium, and large industries.1

3.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample size in Coimbatore was 1,200, which is about 9% of total sample (across 8 cities).

The educational distribution of the sample is represented in Figure 3.1. It shows that almost half of the respondents (45%) had up to primary level education, 32% were under graduates (UGs), and above 18% were educated at higher secondary or diploma level, while 5% of the sample respondents had middle and secondary education.

There was a significant representation of the age group between 25 and 34 years (28%), followed by the 35 to 44 years age-group (22%), and finally the age-group of 18–24 years (18%). Respondents were distributed amongst different occupations ranging from house-wives (42%), self-employed/business (15%), regular salaried (private companies) (14%), students (7%), casual/daily wage worker (9%), and unemployed (4%).

The sample in Coimbatore had 38% respondents from low-income localities that included slums, 32% from middle-income, and 30% from high-income localities.

3.2 Status of water, waste, and waste managementBeing an industrial city and urban agglomeration, air pollution and degradation of water bodies are major environmental issues in Coimbatore. In addition, the lack of a proper waste management infrastructure is a growing environmental challenge.

There are two major sources for drinking water supply in Coimbatore City: the Siruvani and the Pilloor schemes. The corporation is responsible for the distribution of water supply. The entire water supply from Siruvani takes place as a result of gravitational forces. On the other hand, water supply from the Pilloor scheme takes place through pumping. A separate scheme has

1 http://www.psgtech.edu/acbe.php (last accessed on 20 March 2014).

45.4%

5.4%

17.5%

31.7%

17.6%

27.9%

22.0%

15.8%

11.2%

5.5%

Age Locality

Education

29.8%

31.9%

38.3%

Up to primary

18-24


25-34


35-44

55-64


45-54 Above 65

High Income

Housewife

Middle Income

Student

Low Income




Self-employed/business

Retired Unemployed

Occupation

15.4%

14.3%

2.6%9.3% 6.5%

41.7%

3.8%6.4%



17

been sanctioned, for which work is under progress under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) to augment the Pilloor water supply scheme.2 However, to reduce the demand–supply gap in water supply, Coimbatore Municipal Corporation has approached the central government to undertake a new project. Under this project, the corporation is planning to clean the water tanks and improve the water quality stored in those tanks through fencing of tanks, building of community toilets, and waste water treatment.3

The Municipal Corporation of the city has put in place some infrastructure to collect the waste generated (601 MT per day) on a daily basis through 2,545 Sanitary Workers. The collected waste is transported and dumped at the dumpsite located at Vellalore-Kurichi Village. The Public Health Department of the corporation monitors activities, and such as door-to-door collection, street sweeping, cleaning of open drains, secondary collection, transportation of the waste collected at the source to the transfer stations. On the other hand, the Engineering Department is responsible for the construction of a transfer station, setting up and maintenance of processing plants and incineration plants, along with management of the disposal sites in an environment-friendly manner. The modernization of solid waste management (SWM) in Coimbatore is taking place under JNNURM.4

3.4 Survey results

3.4.1 Overall EnvironmentRespondents were asked to rate specific environmental indicators in their surrounding areas. Across all indicators, a majority of the respondents perceived that the situation had improved in the city. While about 70% of the respondents felt that surface water quality and availability had improved, 64% reported that waste and waste management had improved However, in case of air quality, around 41% of the respondents felt that air quality had improved and a similar percentage perceived it to have worsened. Similarly, in case of drinking water quality and availability, a similar proportion perceived it to have improved and worsened, respectively (Figure 3.2). The responses varied across localities in the city for some of the indicators. Larger proportion of the respondents in high- and middle-income localities stated that the

2 Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation: www.ccmc.gov.in (last accessed on 22 March 2014).3 http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/coimbatore-tanks-to-get-a-new-lease-of-life/article5515149.ece

(last accessed on 31 March 2014).4 https://www.ccmc.gov.in/ccmc/index.php/services/34-top-menu-links/top-menu-cat/97-solid-waste-management

(last accessed on 1 March 2014).

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90% 105%

air quality

drinking water

quality

drinking water

availability

surface water

ground water

tree cover

bird species

waste &

management

waste

No Change Better Worse No Direct experience Don't Know

11.58

12.67

19.42

24.67

13.92

11.33

18.67

13

Figure 3.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment over the past five years

18

Co imbato re

state of the environment had worsened in the city over last five years for all indicators except the number of bird species and surface water quality and availability.

The survey revealed that almost all respondents (98.8%) irrespective of their age, gender, education or occupation, felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. In terms of specific climatic parameters, almost 87% of the respondents felt that rainfall had decreased and 74% reported that temperature had increased. On extreme events, close to 49% of the respondents indicated a decrease in the intensity of climatic events, while 39% felt that their pattern had become more erratic (Figure 3.3).

Respondents were asked about their awareness regarding different environmental policies and to reveal their perception about the efficacy and adequacy of such policies. Almost 44% of the total respondents felt that policies to address air pollution existed and were being well implemented, while 37% felt that policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented. A larger proportion of respondents from high- and middle-income localities (39% and 33%, respectively) felt that policies concerning air pollution were not well implemented in comparison to the respondents from low-income localities (29%). For water pollution, the opinion was divided with 45% viewing that policies were not well implemented and 31% stating otherwise. However, a smaller percentage of respondents from high-income localities (23%) stated that polices concerning water pollution were not well implemented in comparison to middle- and low-income localities (37 % and 32%, respectively). In case of waste management, 52% felt that policies existed and were well implemented, while 21% said that there was absence of government policy. In case of water supply, as high as 66% respondents perceived that policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented. Similarly, in case of forest conservation and climate change, 52% and 53% respondents, respectively, felt that policies existed but were either inadequate or not properly implemented (Figure 3.4).

Respondents in Coimbatore identified television (92%) and local/regional newspapers (89%) as the most important sources of environment-related information.

Respondents were also asked to rank different groups of stakeholders based on their effort to improve the environment (with Rank 1 assigned to the group making the greatest effort and Rank 5 to the group making the least). Almost 26% respondents assigned the first rank to the government, followed by consumers (25%) and non-profit organizations (NPOs) (25%). Businesses

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

No government policy exist Policy exist and well implemented

Policy exist but, are not implemented Policy exist but, are inadequate

Don't know

Figure 3.4: Awareness and opinion on government policies to address different environmental concerns

Figure 3.3: Changes in the climatic variables

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Temperature

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events

Increase Decrease Extreme Patterns No Change at all Don't Know


19

were accorded Rank 1 by the least number of respondents (11%). However, 37% of the respondents ranked NGOs at Rank 5 followed by academics (35%) in terms of their efforts in improving the environment (Figure 3.5).

These responses also varied by education. A higher proportion of those educated till higher secondary level gave a lower rank to the government vis-à-vis the 20% respondents who were educated till middle or secondary levels. Similarly, a higher proportion (43%) of those educated till higher secondary level gave a higher rank to business as compared to the 29% who were educated up to middle or secondary levels.

The survey also attempted to gauge public perception about the relationship between objectives of environmental protection and development. Almost all (97%) respondents felt that environmental protection was not against the objectives of development and the two went hand-in-hand.

Highlighting the inherent linkage between health and environment, a large majority (85.5%) felt that the quality of the surrounding environment had an immediate impact on human health. About 41% respondents attributed a variety of respiratory illnesses to poor environmental quality and another 43% identified water-borne diseases as the most common health hazard caused due to poor quality of the environment (Figure 3.6).

The survey also asked the respondents to identify the environmental issues having the most visible health impact. While 58% respondents identified poor water quality as the most important factor behind health problems, 41% respondents identified air quality.

3.4.2 WaterOne of the themes of the environmental survey this year was related to water management. The survey in Coimbatore revealed that the majority (79%) of respondents felt that water was not being wasted at all. However, 13% of the respondents reported that leakage from taps/faucets in houses was the main

Figure 3.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in improving the environment

Water-borne diseases (43.0%)Skin diseases (13.6%)Others (0.4%)All (0.9%)None(1.2%)Respiratory illnesses (40.9%)

43.0%13.6%

0.4%1.2%0.9%

40.9%

Figure 3.6: Health problems associated with poor quality of environment

Figure 3.7: Major reasons for wastage of water

Leakages from taps/faucets in

your house (13.3%)

Leakages during distribution (0.8%)

Too much water used where less

is required (7%)

Water is not being wasted (78.5%)

I don’t know (0.4%)

13.3%

0.8%

7%

78.5%

0.4%

0% 20% 40% 60%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

AcademicNPOConsumers

80% 100%

BusinessGovernment

20

Co imbato re

reason behind water wastage; this fraction was higher (about 25%) amongst the middle- and secondary-class educated respondents. On the other hand, 7% respondents thought that too much water was being used where less was required (Figure 3.7).

The surveyed population showed limited knowledge about provision of subsidies in water supply; only 10% of the surveyed population was aware that the price charged to them for water supply was subsidized by the government. This awareness varied significantly across the localities with 20% in high-income localities, 12% in middle-income localities, and 1% in low-income localities stating that they were aware of the subsidy on water charges. However, about 68% of those who were aware of subsidized water supply were of the opinion that users should not be charged the actual cost of water. This response varied across occupation groups. More than 50% of the respondents — who were aware of subsidized water supply — from the regular salaried (government) and retired group were not in favour of charging the actual cost of water while the majority of casual/daily wage earners (80%) who were aware of subsidized water supply felt that consumers should be charged the actual cost of water (Figure 3.8). Responding to the question on the ideal billing mechanism for water consumption, as high as 61% of respondents preferred fixed charges vis-à-vis 36% who preferred metered consumption as a billing mechanism.

The survey highlighted that in Coimbatore, municipal supply was the major source of drinking water for most (93%) of the respondents. However, 59% of the respondents undertook some treatment on that water supply to make it safer for drinking. This varied across localities with all the respondents from high-income localities treating the water before drinking whereas for middle-income localities this proportion was 52% and for low-income localities it was only 33%. The most common way of purifying water was found to be boiling (65%) followed by the use of water filter/reverse osmosis (Figure 3.9).

The survey sought to qualitatively — through public perception rating — measure the relevance of different water conservation measures. While 65% of the respondents perceived improving water treatment as being a `very important’ water conservation measure, another 30% perceived it to be `important’. However, over 70% of the respondents thought that creating awareness, residential water conservation, and rain water harvesting were important measures towards water conservation (Figure 3.10). Close to 30% of those educated up to middle school or

Figure 3.8: Readiness to pay actual cost of water among the respondents

32.5%

67.5%

Yes (32.5)

No (67.5%)

Boil (64.9%)

Water filter/RO (32.3%)

Other (2.8%)

64.9%

32.3%

2.8%

Figure 3.9: Method of treatment of drinking water

Figure 3.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rain Harvesting

Improving Water

Treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating

awareness

Very Important Important Somewhat important

No opinion Not Important


21

secondary level felt that rain water harvesting was very important for protecting water resources, while only 14% of those who had received only primary education had a similar perception.

As water conservation is the responsibility of different stakeholder groups, respondents were asked to rate stakeholders based on how well they fulfilled their responsibilities towards water conservation. The state government was given a poor rating by 33% of the respondents. About 18% of the respondents rated the central government as `poor’ while 51% rated it as having performed `moderately well’. About 37% respondents believed that individual citizens and local governments/municipal bodies had performed ‘moderately well’ in this respect.

3.4.3 Waste and Waste ManagementIn Coimbatore, only 53% respondents reported that garbage was being collected from their homes. The percentage was even lower amongst women (50%) as compared to men (56%). The response on garbage collection varied across respondents based on their educational qualification and/or occupation. While majority of respondents with qualification ‘up to primary’ and ‘middle and secondary’ reported that garbage was not being collected from their homes, the majority of respondents with higher educational background (‘higher secondary or diploma’ and ‘undergraduate and above’) stated the opposite. Similarly, a majority of the casual/daily wage earners (62%) and unemployed (67%) respondents reported that garbage was not being collected from their homes (for other occupations, a majority said that it was been collected from their homes). While a majority of respondents from middle- and high-income localities, 86% and 84%, respectively, said that garbage was being collected from their houses, almost all of the respondents in low-income localities said that this was not being done.

The survey also tried to assess public perception on the severity of health impact due to improper solid waste management. Almost all respondents in Coimbatore felt that the impact of improper solid waste management on human health was severe.

According to the respondents, the best strategy to manage waste was to generate less waste at the household level itself (80%). A total of 18% respondents felt that segregation could help in managing solid waste. About 73% respondents expressed their willingness to segregate wastes before disposal. Among those who were willing to segregate, 51% said that their main motive was the resulting positive impact on the environment. Another 25% of those willing to segregate said that they could use bio-degradable wastes to make compost. Among those unwilling to segregate waste, the majority (61%) attributed their reluctance to the cumbersome nature of the task, while another 33% referred to lack of space (Figure 3.11).

50.86%

25.20%

23.95%

0% 14% 28% 42% 56%

good for the environment

use the biodegradeable

wastes to make compost

already do segregate

61.30%

32.82%

2.79%

3.10%

0% 14% 28% 42% 56% 70%

Cumbersome task

require more space

civic authority's responsibility

waste not collected seperatel

by the civic authorities

Figure 3.11: Reasons cited for willingness and unwillingness to segregate wastes at household level

22

Co imbato re

The survey also sought to gauge public perception about waste management charges. In Coimbatore, 62% of the survey respondents felt that the same fees should be charged to all households irrespective of the amount of waste produced, while 38 per cent suggested that the fees should vary with the amount of waste generated.

The survey also went into perceptions on waste recycling. On the composition of waste sold/sent for recycling/reuse, the majority (43%) reported that it was mainly metallic items followed by newspaper and magazines (31%), glass items (15%), and cardboard including tetra-packs (12%) (Figure 3.12).

Respondents were also asked to identify reasons for recycling and reuse. In Coimbatore, 57% of respondents said that they undertook recycling for generating money, while 41% respondents said that they did so as part of their responsibility to conserve resources and environmental management.

Respondents were asked to identify the stakeholder group with greatest responsibility for disposing of city’s solid waste and garbage. Close to 70% felt that it was the local municipality or other government agencies. On the other hand, 25% respondents thought that all stakeholders including individual citizens/households and private companies along with government agencies should take the responsibility (Figure 3.13).

The survey also dealt with the issue of electronic waste explicitly. In Coimbatore, almost all respondents (99%) were aware of the problem of e-waste. When asked about common disposal methods for major electronic product categories, 51% respondents said that they reused their household appliances after repairing these. Likewise, 43% and 26% respondents repaired and reused small IT and telecom products (such as CDs, printer/toner cartridges, etc.) and sized IT and telecom products (such as computers, laptops, etc.), respectively. Almost 29% of the respondents, who were undergraduates, reported that they recycled small IT and telecom products as against only 19.6% of respondents educated up to the primary level. However, 43% respondents

Figure 3.12: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use

Figure 3.13: Greatest responsibility to dispose solid waste/garbage

Figure 3.14: Fate of electrical and electronic waste

43.42%

15.08%

11.58%

31.25%

0.08%

0.08%

3.33%

0% 14% 28% 42% 56%

Metallic items

Glass items

Cardboard including

tetra packs

Paper, magazines

and newspapers

Electronic waste

Broken furniture/

household items

None

Individuals/Households (2.8%)

Municipality or other government

department/agencies (69.0%)

Private companies (3.3%)

All of the above(24.9%)

2.8%

3.3%

24.9%69.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sized IT &

Telecom

Small IT &

Telecom

Household

appliances

Give it away Store it at home

sell it in second hand market Get it repaired and reuse it


23

said that they preferred to sell sized IT and telecom products in the second-hand market. Another 30% respondents stored the sized IT and telecom products at their home (Figure 3.14).

Almost 95% of the respondents agreed with the idea of a ban on the use of polythene bags.

India Gate

Delhi

27

4.1 about delhi

Delhi, the national capital of India, is the second largest city and the largest urban agglomeration in the country.1 Delhi is part of The National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. NCT of Delhi with a geographical area of 1,483 sq. km has 16.8 million people of

1 http://pibmumbai.gov.in/scripts/detail.asp?releaseId=E2011IS3 (last accessed on 12 April 2014).

delhI

4

key Highlights � The state of waste management and drinking water, both quality and availability, in the city

were perceived to have improved by more than 50% of respondents. Air quality, however, was stated by over 50% of respondents, to have worsened.

� Over 90% of respondents stated that climatic changes were occurring, 95% felt that temperature was increasing, and 64% stated that rainfall was declining.

� Only 15% citizens viewed that there was no conflict between the objectives of environmental protections and development. Over 50% favoured prioritizing environment over development.

� General awareness about government policies on various aspects of environment was found to be high across environmental issues; the majority view was the policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented.

� Amongst different stakeholders that contribute to improving environment, the government was ranked the highest by a maximum number of respondents.

� Among reasons for wastage of water, 70% stated that citizens use more than what was required.

� Nearly all the respondents were aware of the subsidized cost of water, but only 17% expressed their willingness to pay the actual cost of water.

� Generating less waste was seen as the best strategy for managing waste, followed by improving recycling capacity. But, only 35% of the respondents were willing to segregate waste.

� Almost all the respondents were aware of the problem of e-waste and a very small percentage of the respondents reported that they were throwing away household appliances, e-waste, small IT, and sized IT products.

� When asked about measures to promote recycling, 52% felt that a charge in the form of a deposit or fee on recyclable items would be a good incentive.

� Ninety seven per cent of the respondents were in favour of a ban on use of polythene bags.

28

De lh i

which 97.5% are an urban population.2 As per the Census of 2011, with 16.3 million people, Delhi is second only to Mumbai with its population of 18.4 million. The urban agglomeration of Delhi includes cities from its neighbouring states, i.e., Noida and Ghaziabad from Uttar Pradesh and Gurgaon and Faridabad from Haryana, and together has a population of 21.6 million.

The estimated per capita income in Delhi for the year 2012–13 at current prices is Rs 2.01 lakh, which is the highest in the country and is three times the national average.3 The literacy rate in Delhi is 56.34% as per 2011 census and the city state has also seen a substantial improvement in sex ratio from 821 in 2001 to 866 in 2011.4 The density of population for Delhi (11,297 per sq. km) is more than three times of national average.5 Delhi also has the distinction of being the city with largest number of vehicles in the country. As on 31 March 2013, Delhi has 77.7 lakhs registered vehicles that include 24.7 lakh cars and 49.6 lakh motorcycles.6

4.2 demographic Profile of the Sample

The sample size in Delhi constituted 1,500 respondents selected from different parts of the city representing residential locations across the property tax categories. The sample for Delhi constituted 13%. The total survey sample (across all the 8 cities) covered in the survey. The distribution of sample across different socio-economic categories, such as age-group, educational qualification, and occupations are depicted in Figure 4.1. Youth constituted a large percentage of the sample respondents. Majority of the respondents (32%) were from the age group of 25–34, followed by the 18–24 age-group (28%). Around 19% of the respondents were in the age group of 35–44, 11% in the age group of 45–54, 7% in the age group of 55–64, and the remaining 3% were above 65 years (Figure 4.1).

Distribution of respondents according to their educational qualification shows

2 Census of India, 2011: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/default.aspx (last accessed on 30 April 2014).3 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-12/news/42011594_1_capita-income-2-28-lakh-sound-economic-

situation (last accessed on 30 April 2014).4 Economic Survey of Delhi 2012–13, p. 3. Available at http://delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DoIT_Planning/ES2012-13/EN/

Introduction.pdf (last accessed on 30 April 2014).5 Economic Survey of Delhi 2012–136 Delhi Statistical Handbook 2013, p. 202 .http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/4d90e9004113b00ea16ee9136af50

79a/sbook.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-764539459&CACHEID=4d90e9004113b00ea16ee9136af5079a (last accessed on 30 April 2014).

Figure 4.1: Demographic profile of the respondents

27.9%

32.0%

19.4%

11.0%

6.9%2.7%

10.6%

25.0%

32.7%

31.7%25.2%

30.1%6.3%

4.2%

18.1%

1.5%1.5%

Age

Education Occupation

33.3%

11.7%

55.0%Locality

Middle Income



Unemployed

18-24 25-34 35-44

55-6445-54 Above 65

High Income

Low Income

Up to primary




Housewife Student



Retired

13.2%


29

that 33% of the respondents had studied up to higher secondary and diploma, followed by 32% of under-graduates and above. Around 25% of the respondents had studied up to middle and secondary school and the remaining 10% studied only up to primary school.

The occupational pattern of the sample respondents varied considerably with 30% in the category of regular salaried (private) employment, followed by 25% of self-employed and businessmen. Students and housewives constituted 18% and 13% of the respondents, respectively. Only 6% of the respondents were employed in regular salaried (government), 4% worked as casual/daily wage workers, and the remaining 4% were unemployed and retired from service (2% each). More than half of the respondents (55%) were drawn from low-income localities, followed by 33% from high-income and 12% from middle-income localities (Figure 4.1).

4.3 Status of water and waste management The rapid urbanization of Delhi along with the level of growth in economic activities in the city and its surrounding areas has stressed its natural environment significantly. Among the environmental problems, air pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and municipal waste are major environmental challenges that the city is facing. Delhi faces multiple challenges concerning water that includes huge demand–supply gap, poor quality of water supply, inequities in water supply levels, depletion of ground water, and water pollution.7 The entire 48 km stretch of River Yamuna in Delhi is highly polluted due to the release of untreated sewerage as well as industrial effluents.8 The water quality monitoring results of the drains in the city found pollution levels to be above the stipulated standards for all parameters such as BOD, COD, and TSS (ibid.). Delhi generates around 8000 MT municipal solid waste daily9 and this is expected to increase to 17,000–25,000 MT per day by 2021 (GNCTD, 2010). The estimated volume of e-waste in the city is 20,000 MT per year in 2012 which is much higher than the hazardous wastes (5,000 MT per annum) or healthcare waste (65 MT per annum) (GNCTD, 2010).

4.4 Survey results

4.4.1 Overall EnvironmentThe perception of citizens concerning different aspects of environment in the city showed mixed trends. The state of waste management and drinking water, both quality and availability, in the city were perceived to have improved by 65%, 54%, and 50%, respectively, over the last five years whereas air quality in the city was stated to have worsened by more than 50% of the respondents (56%). About 16% of the respondents thought the state of waste and waste management had worsened. About 15% and 29% of the respondents shared similar views about drinking water availability and quality, respectively. Surface water and tree cover in the city was also perceived to have worsened by 47% and 46% of the respondents, respectively, during last five years. Looking at the perception on change in the number of bird species in the city is concerned, 39% of respondents stated that diversity had plummeted whereas 14% stated that it was getting better. The perception

7 GNCTD, 2010.8 GNCTD, 2013.9 http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/environment/Environment/Home/Environmental+Issues

Waste+Management (last accessed on 1 May 2014).

30

De lh i

on the trends in ground water was found to be divided with more or less similar percentage stating contrary views (Figure 4.2).

Perception about various environmental indicators varied, though marginally, across gender, localities, age group, education, and occupation. A smaller proportion of women respondents — 44% and 60% — felt that drinking water quality and waste management, respectively, had improved as compared to 52% and 66% of men. A higher percentage of respondents from low- and middle-income localities (57% and 62%) felt that air quality in the city was getting worse when compared to high-income localities (51%). Views on drinking water quality also varied across localities with a smaller percentage (42%) stating that it was getting better when compared to low- and middle-income localities (53% and 61%). The response on the state of drinking water availability also varied with 61% from middle-income, 57% from low-income, and 45% from high-income localities stating that it was getting better. A larger percentage of respondents from lower-middle and upper-middle localities stated that the green cover had worsened in the city over the years. A larger percentage of men (48%) thought that the green cover had worsened than women (37%); however, a much higher proportion of women (close to 51%) indicated a decline in the number of bird species in the city as compared to (36%) men.

When asked about their perception about climate change or global warming, 91% of the respondents stated that such changes were occurring. As far as the perceptions of the citizens on changes in various climatic variables are concerned, 95% of the citizens stated that temperatures were increasing over the years and 64% stated rainfall was declining. The response on wind patterns were mixed with 39% stating a decline and 36% stating extreme patterns. A large percentage of respondents stated that they did not see any change or expressed their ignorance on the intensity and frequency of extreme events in the city (Figure 4.3).

Interestingly, general awareness about government policies on various aspects of environment was found to be fairly high in the city with a significant percentage of the respondents having some or the other opinion on policies. However, the opinion on adequacy of the policies or their implementation was divided and varied across the sectors (Figure 4.4). On policies concerning air pollution, 40% of the respondents felt that the policies were not implemented and 30% stated that policies were well implemented, whereas 14% found the policy inadequate. For water pollution,

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

air quality

drinking water quality

drinking water availability

surface water

ground water

tree cover

bird species

waste & waste management

No Change Better Worse No Direct Expenses Don't Know

Figure 4.2: Perception about changes in the state of environment in Delhi over past five years

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

temperature

rainfall

wind pattern

intensity of extreme events

frequency of extreme events

Increase Decrease Extreme patterns No Change Don't Know

Figure 4.3: Perception about changes in the climatic variables in Delhi over past five years


31

31% of the respondents stated that the policies to deal with air pollution though in existence, were not implemented, whereas 25% felt that they were well implemented. Almost 30% of respondents viewed the policies to address water pollution in the city as inadequate (Figure 4.4). The awareness as well as perception varied across education and residential localities for some of the indicators. For example, 58% of the respondents from middle-income localities stated that the policies on groundwater usage were well implemented, whereas only 35% of respondents from high-income localities and 42% from low-income localities share similar views. In general, respondents with higher educational qualification were found to be more aware about the policies.

Television was the most important source of information for the surveyed citizens on environmental issues as stated by 76% of the respondents, followed by national newspapers (41%), and regional newspapers (22%). Internet and informal conversations were chosen by 18% and 16% respondents, respectively, as the most important sources of information on environmental issues. Only 4% of the respondents indicated magazines as a source of information on environmental issues. Though the capital city hosts numerous seminars, conferences, and other national and international events on environment, a very small fraction of respondents looked at these events as sources of information on environment. Similarly, an insignificant proportion of respondents stated research publications and school/college curriculum as sources of information on environment and related matters. However, almost all respondents stating seminars and research publication belonged to undergraduate and above educational categories and high-income localities. Television as a source of information was chosen by respondents from across different socio-economic categories.

As regards the perception of citizens on the efforts made by different stakeholders to improve the city environment, government agencies were given Rank 1 by 31% of the respondents. Business and academic institutions were also accorded Rank 1 by 21% respondents each, while consumers and non-profit agencies were given Rank 1 by 18% and 10% of the respondents, respectively.

The survey sought to understand the opinion of citizens on environmental protection versus the development debate and found interesting responses. Only 15% of the citizens opined that there was no conflict between the objectives

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Climate change

Forest conservation

Waste management

Water conservation

Groundwater usage

Water supply

Water pollution

Air pollution

No Government policy exist Policy exists and well implemented

Policy exist, but not implemented

Don't Know

Policy exist but, inadequate

Figure 4.4: Awareness about government policies to address environmental concerns


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government Business Consumers Non-Profit Organisations

Academic/Rese arch Institutions

32

De lh i

of environmental protection and development and therefore both went hand in hand (Figure 4.6). Almost 79% saw some conflicts between the objectives, with 52% prioritizing environment over development and 27% stating that development should be prioritized.

The responses varied across different socio-economic categories. A higher percentage of respondents from middle-income localities (41%), when compared to high- and low-income localities (24% and 26%, respectively), stated that development should be prioritized over the environment. Only 4% of respondents from middle-income localities stated that environmental protection and development could go hand in hand whereas 13% and 21% of respondents from low-income and high-income localities, respectively, had similar views. With regard to education, more than 57% of the primary-educated respondents reported that the government should prioritize environment over development.

Almost 99% of the respondents agreed that the quality of environment had an immediate impact on health. When asked about the environmental problem having the most visible impact on people’s health in city, 79% of the respondents pointed towards air quality, 13% stated water quality, and the remaining 8% selected waste (Figure 4.7).

4.4.2 WaterThe survey attempted to gauge the opinion of the citizens on wastage of water in the city and the reasons for the same. Almost 95% of the respondents felt that water was being wasted and only 5% viewed otherwise (Figure 4.8). Among reasons for wastage, 70% stated that the pattern of usage by the citizens caused wastage as people use more than what was actually required. Leakages from the taps/faucets at home were identified as a reason by 60% of the respondents whereas leakages during distribution were cited as the cause of wastage by more than 50% of the respondents (57%).

27.4%

52.1%

14.9%

0.9%4.7%

Yes, Government should prioritize

development

Yes, should

enviornmenal protection

Government prioritize

No, development & enviornmental

protection go hand in hand

Can't say Don't Know

Figure 4.6: Perception about the environment-development debate

79.1%

12.7%

8.3%

Air Quality

Water Quality

Waste

No Problem

Figure 4.7: Environmental problem perceived to have most visible impact on health

Figure 4.8: Percentage of respondents on the wastage of water and its reasons in Delhi1

60 57

70

50.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Leakages from

taps/faucets in

your house

Leakages

during

distribution

Too much

water used

where less is

required by us

as consumers

Water is not

being wasted

I don’t know

1 Respondents could select multiple options in response to this question.


33

By and large, a majority of respondents identified municipal supply as the major source of drinking water though about 34% men — as compared to 24% women — identified bottled water as an important source of drinking water. The response varied across localities. For instance, municipal supply as a source of drinking water was reported by 68% of the respondents in high-income localities whereas it was 48% for middle-income and 56% for low-income localities. More women respondents (62%) than men (49%) also reported to be treating water before use. The respondents were asked questions about subsidy on water tariff, as well as pricing and billing mechanism of water to assess their perceptions and views on such issues. Around 99% of the respondents stated that they were aware of such a provision by the government.

However, when asked whether they should pay the actual cost of water that reflected the scarcity value of water, 76% of the respondents replied in negative. Only 17% expressed their willingness to pay the actual cost of water and 7% did not have any opinion on this (Figure 4.9). Most of the respondents expressing their willingness to pay the actual cost of water were from high-income localities and from educational groups of higher secondary and diploma or undergraduate and above.

On the preferred billing mode for water charges, 58% stated that the water bills should be metered/consumption-based whereas 23% preferred fixed charges/flat rates. Around 19% preferred slab-rate billing mechanisms with a low rate up to a certain level of consumption and a higher rate beyond that.

Respondents were asked to rank different water conservation measures in order of their importance to conserve water in the city. All the four measures — rainwater harvesting, improving waste water treatment, residential water conservation, and creating awareness and educating citizens — were ranked ‘very important’ or ‘important’ by a majority of the citizens (Figure 4.10). Creation of awareness among the citizens on water conservation was opted as ‘very important’ by 38% of the respondents and ‘important’ by 43% of the respondents. Similarly, residential water conservation was viewed as ‘very important’ by 40% of respondents and ‘important’ by 46% respondents. Rainwater harvesting and improving waste water treatment was viewed as ‘important’ by 57% and 48% respondents, respectively, whereas these two measures were considered ‘very important’ by 29% and 28% respondents, respectively.

A higher proportion (60%) amongst respondents who were undergraduates or above reported that rainwater harvesting was an important strategy for water conservation as compared to 45% amongst those having primary education.

Figure 4.9: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water in Delhi

17.4%

75.9%

6.7%

Yes

No

Can't Say

Figure 4.10: Importance of different measures for conservation of water

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

rainwater harvesting

improving waste water

treatment

residential water

conservation

creating awareness and

educating citizens

Not Important Somewhat Important No Opinion

Important Very Important

34

De lh i

The survey sought the opinion of citizens on the role of different stakeholders in the city in fulfilling their responsibilities towards conserving water resources; the responses were mixed for all the stakeholders except the local government, i.e., municipal corporations and state government. Fifty-one per cent rated the performance of local government in fulfilling their responsibility as ‘very well’ and 35% rating it as ‘moderately well’. Around one-fifth of the respondents rated the local government’s performance as ‘poorly’ (14%) or ‘very poorly’ (7%). Fifty-one per cent of the respondents stated that the state government (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) was performing ‘moderately well’ in this regard. The responses on the central government, NGOs, and individual citizens were mixed, though a large percentage stated that they were doing ‘very well’ or ‘moderately well’.

4.4.3 Waste and Waste Management

As far as the pattern of household waste disposal is concerned, a large percentage of respondents (87%) stated that garbage was being collected from their homes and the remaining 13% took it to a central point. Though, almost all respondents from middle-income localities stated that garbage was being collected from their homes, it was found to be 89% for high income and 82% for low-income localities. It is important to note that no respondent indicated burning their household waste as a method for disposal. Organic waste (96%) and paper/paper bags/tetra pack cartoons (3%) comprised a major portion of waste generated in the households surveyed.

When asked about their opinion on the best strategy to manage waste in the city, 75% of the respondents selected generating less waste and 14% favoured improving waste recycling (Figure 4.11).Only 6% thought segregating of waste could help whereas the remaining 5% felt levying a user charge could be the best strategy to manage waste in the city.

In order to understand the perception of citizens on the impact of improper waste management on their health, the survey included relevant questions for the respondents. The responses suggest that 88% of the respondents felt improper waste management had severe health impacts with another 9% stating the impact to be moderate.

Segregation of waste is an important step towards better management of waste. The survey attempted to understand the willingness of the citizens to segregate their household waste into bio-degradable and non-biodegradable categories before disposing it. It was found that only 35% of the respondents were willing to segregate waste. The survey also asked the respondents to

Figure 4.11: Best strategy to manage the waste in city

75.3%

6.3%

13.5%

4.9%

Generate less waste

Segregation of waste

Improve waste recycling capacity

User Charges

25 23

40

12

22 25

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

its

cum

be

rso

me

req

uir

es

mo

re

spa

ce

mu

nic

ipa

l's

resp

on

sib

ility

no

use

as

no

t

colle

cte

dse

pa

rate

ly

goo

d fo

r

en

viro

nm

en

t

ma

kin

g co

mp

ost

alr

ea

dy

seg

rega

tin

g

65% not willing to segregate waste 35% willing to segregate

Figure 4.12: Willingness for segregation of household waste


35

state the reasons behind their willingness or unwillingness to segregate waste (Figure 4.12). The respondents who said no for segregating their waste cited different reasons for this response: 25% found it cumbersome, 23% thought it required more space, 40% felt it is the responsibility of the municipal corporation, and 12% believed that segregation at home was futile as it was not being collected separately. Among those who expressed their willingness to segregate, 53% were already segregating at home, 25% thought biodegradable waste could be used as compost, and 22% were willing to do so for the environment.

When asked about their opinion on the fee structure for waste management for residential households, 52% of the respondents stated that the fee should be based on the volume of waste generated by the households whereas 46% preferred a flat rate where all households are charged a uniform fee irrespective of the waste amount generated.

The survey included questions on the behavioural responses towards recycling or reuse of waste. Paper, magazines, and newspapers were the most commonly sold products as indicated by the respondents (95%). Glass items, metallic items, and cardboard including tetra packs were other major products usually sold/sent for recycling/reuse by their households as stated by 85%, 82%, and 66% of the respondents, respectively. Electronic waste and other items such as broken furniture, etc., were sold by 19% of respondents while 12% claimed that they sent it for recycling.

An attempt was made to understand the factors that motivated households to recycle or reuse waste. Almost 42% respondents stated that they did so to conserve resources whereas 25% stated the money from selling of the recyclable products was the main incentive. The understanding that the landfill space is limited in the city and hence more and more waste needs to be recycled is the reason stated by 13% of the respondents whereas 12% viewed that they do so as the law required them to recycle (Figure 4.14). The concern for resource conservation as a motivation for recycling was higher among respondents from middle-income localities (58%) than respondents from both high- and low-income localities — 42% and 39%, respectively.

When asked about their opinion on measures that would promote recycling further, 52% of the respondents viewed that a charge in the form of a deposit or fee on recyclable items would incentivize users to send products for recycling whereas 42% respondents felt that there should be some mechanism to pick up recyclables from curb side. Awareness creation and introducing laws to make recycling mandatory were measures chosen by a small percentage of the respondents (3% and 2% respectively).

82 85

66

95

1912

0102030405060708090

100

Meta

llic it

ems

Glass

item

s

Cardboard

inclu

ding te

tra p

acks

Paper, m

agazines a

nd newsp

apers

Electro

nic waste

Broken fu

rnitu

re/house

hold it

ems

Figure 4.13: Percentage of households selling/sending various household items for recycling or reuse

Figure 4.14: Views on the factors that motivate to recycle/reuse

42.1%

8.1%

25.0%

12.7%

12.0%

0.1% 0.1%

Conserve Resources

Family Activity

Getting Money from

Selling Recyclable Products

landfill Space is limited

Required by Law

Mandated by RWA

Don't Know

36

De lh i

The survey attempted to assess the views of citizens on which stakeholder(s), according to them, had the greatest responsibility in disposing solid waste and garbage. Responses on this issue are presented in Figure 4.15. Around 66% of the respondents viewed that all three individuals/households, municipality, and private companies have shared responsibilities in disposing waste. However, 26% of the respondents stated that municipality has the greatest responsibility whereas 6% stated that it was the responsibility of private companies. Only 2% of the respondents found individual citizens and households responsible for disposing the city’s waste and garbage (Figure 4. 15). Around 41% of respondents from high-income localities fixed the responsibility to manage waste with the municipality whereas 14% from middle-income and 20% from low-income households expressed similar views.

The respondents were asked about their awareness regarding the problems of e-waste and how they disposed such waste. Almost 99% of the respondents were aware of the problem of e-waste. A very small percentage of respondents stated that they threw e-waste — 1% for household appliances, 3% for small IT and telecom products, and 0.3% for sized IT and telecom products — along with the household garbage (Figure 4.16). Fifty-two per cent respondents repaired and reused household appliances whereas 9% and 37% of the respondents did so for small IT and telecom products and sized IT and telecom products, respectively. A higher proportion of women (19%) reported to repairing and reusing small IT and telecom products than men (6.5%). Selling goods in the second-hand market was another means of disposal adopted by respondents for household appliances (41%), small IT and telecom products (51%), and sized IT and telecom products (14%). Around 40% and 23% of the respondents reportedly gave away their sized and small IT and telecom products, respectively.

When asked whether the use of polythene bags should be banned in the city, an overwhelming majority (97%) were in favour of the measure.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sized IT &Telecom

products

Small IT and Telecom

products

Household appliances

Throw with household garbage Give it away Store it home

Sell It in second hand market Get it repaired

Figure 4.16: Disposal of household e-waste

Figure 4.15: Stakeholders with greatest responsibility for the disposal of waste in the city

19.5%

15.6%

0.9%

64.0%

Individuals/households

Municipality or other government

agencies

Private companies

All of the above

River Brahmaputra

Guwahati

39

5.1 about guwahati

guwahati is the largest city in the State of Assam in the north-eastern part of India. It is often referred to as the ‘Gateway of North Eastern Region’ of the country. The city lies between the banks of the Brahmaputra river and the foothills of the Shillong plateau.

As per the 2011 Census of India 2011, the population of Guwahati city in 2011 was 9,63,429, with a male to female ratio of 52:48. The population of the Guwahati Metropolitan area was 9,68,549, of which 5,05,542 were males and 4,63,007 females. The population density in Guwahati is 4,445

guwahatI

5

key Highlights � More than 50% of respondents felt that the quality of all environmental indicators — air

quality, tree cover, surface and ground water quality and availability, waste and waste management, and number of bird species — had worsened over the last five years.

� Eighty-nine per cent of respondents felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. The majority (about 85%) felt that temperatures had risen and rainfall had declined.

� Nearly all respondents felt that the objectives of protecting the environment and development went hand in hand.

� Nearly 50% of the respondents of the upper-middle class and high-income localities were not aware of any government policies relating to the environment as compared to around 30% in the low-income category.

� An equal number of respondents gave a high rank to the government, consumers, and academic institutions in terms of their efforts for improving the environment.

� Over 60% of respondents felt that water was being wasted and almost half of the respondents attributed this to leakage from faucets/taps at houses.

� Over 75% of the surveyed population was aware that the price charged to them for water consumption was being subsidized. About 80% of these respondents were of the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water.

� Nearly 50% of the respondents chose segregation of waste as the best strategy to manage waste and a high majority was willing to segregate waste before disposal.

� Very few respondents indicated disposing of electronic waste with household garbage. Most of the respondents repaired and reused these goods.

� Ninety-six per cent of the surveyed population was in favour of a ban on polythene bags.

40

Guwahat i

persons per sq. km.1 The average literacy rate of Guwahati city is 91.11% with male and female literacy being 92.89% and 89.16%, respectively.2

5.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample from Guwahati constitutes about 5% out of the total survey sample from across 8 cities. The sample was divided evenly among low-income/poor, middle-income, and high-income areas.

The educational distribution of the sample is represented in Figure 5.1, showing that almost 29% of the respondents were undergraduates and above, 39% were educated till higher secondary and diploma, 20.10% till middle and secondary level (Class X), while up to 12% up to primary school.

Age distribution is depicted in Figure 5.1 and it shows that there was a significant representation of the age group between 25 and 34 years (36%), followed by the age group 35 to 44 years(25%).

The occupational distribution of the sample shows that respondents were distributed amongst different occupations from self-employed/business (22%), regular salaried (private companies) (16%), students (8%), regular salaried government (10%), and housewives (37%). Looking at the distribution of sample respondents from different localities in the city, 35% were from low-income localities, 33% from high-income, and 32% from middle-income localities.

5.3 Status of water, waste, and waste managementAccording to the Guwahati Development Department, currently only 40% of the population has access to a central-piped water supply system. The present production capacity is 110.85 MLD, while actual production of water is 73.4 MLD (66%). Out of around 74 MLD of potable water produced, 72 MLD is drawn from the River Brahmaputra and the balance of about 1.5 MLD is pumped from deep tube wells installed at various locations by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC). Most of the treatment plants are old and damaged due to which they

1 http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-1112/ijsrp-p1127.pdf (last accessed on 2 April 2014).2 http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/191-guwahati.html (last accessed on 2 May 2014).


11.7%

20.4%

38.6%

29.3%

15.6%

36.0%25.0%

16.3%

6.3%

0.7%

21.7%

16.1%

9.8%

4.3%

7.6%

36.5%

3.0%0.9%

Age

OccupationEducation

Locality

33.2%

31.5%

35.3%

Up to primary

18-24 High Income

HousewifeMiddle and secondary

25-34 Middle Income

Student


35-44

Low Income55-64



45-54 Above 65




Retired Unemployed


41

are running much below their actual capacities. Table 5.1 present the features of the water supply system.3

Table 5.1: Salient features of the present water supply system

Particulars Quantities

Present production capacity 110.85 MLD

Present actual production 73.4 MLD

Estimated unaccounted for water 40%

Overall per capita water availability at households 35 lpcd

Maximum supply hours 2–3 hours per day

Source: http://auiip.nic.in/wss.html Notes: MLD = million per litres, Lpcd = litres per capita per day

The Government of Assam has envisaged improvements in the water supply sector to provide access to potable water to 100% of the residents of the Guwahati Metropolitan Area (GMA). The City Development Plan (CDP) for Guwahati, prepared under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), envisions providing safe and sustainable water to its citizens at an appropriate pricing with the ultimate goal of providing 24-hour water across the city.

There is around 500 TPD solid waste generated daily in Guwahati. There are six Conservancy Divisions manned by 860 conservancy workers/officers. Currently, solid waste management is being handled by a joint venture between the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) and Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. The collection of waste is being done at primary and secondary levels. At the primary level, it involves door-to-door collection through thelas and auto vans for 1 lakh households along with street sweeping and collection of garbage. Secondary collection involves collecting from bins and collection points to dump sites through vehicles, compactors, and open trucks. The West Boragaon dumpsite is the only disposal ground of the city. A composting unit for 200 TPD is on the anvil, out of which a capacity of 50 TPD, has been completed and is operational. A waste–to-energy plant for 6 MW is yet to be started. Major problems in solid waste management faced by GMC4 are: � Door-to-door collection not as conceptualized due to apathy of citizens � Narrow roads not favourable for positioning bins � Dearth of staff for conservancy � There is no concept of transfer stations for collection of garbage from neighbourhoods to

major roads � Lack of civic sense among the general public; drains and major water bodies are used as

garbage bins

5.4 Survey results

3 http://auiip.nic.in/wss.html (last accessed on 17 May 2014).4 http://www.icrier.org/pdf/guwahati.pdf (last accessed on 23 April 2014).

42

Guwahat i

5.4.1 Overall EnvironmentIn order to understand how citizens of Guwahati perceived their natural surroundings to have changed over the last five years, they were asked to rate specific environmental indicators. Across all indicators, the situation was perceived to have deteriorated in the city by a majority of the respondents. Almost 64% of the respondents perceived that air quality had worsened, while about 54% and 70%, respectively, felt that drinking water quality and drinking water availability had worsened. A higher proportion of women (57%) indicated that drinking water quality had worsened than men (51%).

Again, almost 62% of the respondents reported that tree and green cover had worsened over the last five years. When asked about waste and waste management, nearly 54% of the respondents perceived the situation had worsened (Figure 5.2). The response varied across the localities, though marginally. For several of the indicators, a larger proportion of respondents from middle-income localities stated that trends were worsening over the years, when compared to views of respondents from high- and low-income localities. The perception of a deterioration of environmental indicators appeared to increase with education. For example, a higher proportion of undergraduates and above (68% and 80%) perceived deterioration in air quality and surface water quality as compared to those educated up to the primary level (50% and 61%), respectively.

As high as 89% of the respondents in Guwahati felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. This trend was mostly consistent across age groups (except the above 65 age category) as well as responses across localities.

When asked to rate different climate variables and how they had changed, almost 86% of the citizens interviewed felt that the temperature had increased, while a significant number (85%) reported that rainfall had decreased. On extreme events, almost 36% responded that their intensity had increased, while 47% felt that their pattern had become more erratic. Over 65% of respondents also felt that the wind pattern had become erratic (Figure 5.3).

To assess the level of awareness amongst citizens on government policies related to environment, the

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Quality

Drinking water

quality

Drinking water

availability

Surface water quality

and availability

Ground water

availability

Tree cover/

green cover

Number of

bird species

Waste and waste

management


Figure 5.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment in Guwahati over the past five years

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events

Increase Decrease Extreme PatternsNo Change at all Don't Know

Figure 5.3: Perceived changes in the climatic variables


43

survey respondents were asked about their knowledge on policies related to different environmental issues and their perception about their implementation and adequacy. It was also seen that for a majority of these issues, there was a significant lack of awareness among the people. For instance, almost 45% of the total respondents were not aware of any government policy related to air pollution, while 35% felt that policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented. Across environmental issues, there was a perception that policies existed but were inadequate or not well implemented (Figure 5.4). A larger percentage of respondents from low-income localities viewed that the policies addressing a variety of environmental issues in the city were inadequate when compared with respondents from high- and middle-income localities. The perception of inadequacy of policies appeared to increase with education in the case of water supply, in particular.

On sources of information on environment for the respondents, television and local regional newspapers were identified to be most favoured options by amongst as high as 78% and 67% of respondents.

Respondents were asked to rank different groups according to their efforts in improving the environment (with Rank 1 to be assigned to those making the greatest efforts and Rank 5 for the group making the least efforts). The rankings were very evenly distributed. According to the respondents in Guwahati, academic institutions, the government, and consumers were making the maximum effort to improve the environment — all three were given a Rank 1 and 2 by nearly 25% of the respondents. Business was ranked low by most people. About 30% of the population also felt that the government was doing the least in terms of protecting the environment (Figure 5.5).

On the question of whether protecting the environment went against the objectives of development, an overwhelming 99% of the surveyed people felt that these objectives went hand in hand.

Highlighting the inherent linkage between health and environment, almost all survey respondents felt that the quality of the surrounding environment had an immediate effect on human health. Nearly 42% of the respondents attributed respiratory illnesses, water-borne diseases,

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

No Government policy exist Policy exist and well implemented


Don't Know


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government Business Consumers (like you and me)

Non profit organization Academic institutions/research organizations


44

Guwahat i

and skin diseases to poor environmental quality (Figure 5.6).

Also, the survey respondents were asked to select an environmental problem, which according to them had the most visible impact on people’s health. Over 50% of the people identified poor water quality as the main problem, while 33% picked on poor air quality.

5.4.2 WaterSince one of the underlying themes of this year’s environmental survey was water and related issues, an effort was made to understand the viewpoint of citizens of Guwahati about the major reasons of water wastage in their city. More than 60% of the respondents felt that water was being wasted while 38% felt that there was no water wastage. A number of people felt that leakage from taps/faucets in the house was the major source of wastage. This was particularly echoed by respondents from low-income localities (55%). However, only 23% of the people from middle- and high-income areas felt that leakage from taps/faucets in the house was the major source of wastage. Nearly 17% felt that leakage during distribution and excessive use of water was responsible for wastage (Figure 5.7).

Around 80% of the surveyed population was aware that the price charged to them for water consumption was subsidized by the government. This awareness varied significantly across localities — 95% from high-income, 79% from low-income, and 60% from middle-income localities. About 80% of those who were aware of the subsidy had the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water to reflect the scarcity value of water and discourage its wastage (Figure 5.8). Surprisingly, a higher proportion (90%) of those educated up to the primary level indicated that citizens should pay the actual price of water as compared to the 71% of the surveyed undergraduates.

Municipal supply was the only source of drinking water as stated by all the respondents in the city. Thirty-five per cent of the respondents reported that they treated water before drinking. The practice of treating drinking water was more prevalent in high-income localities (75%) as compared to middle-income (18%) and low-income (11%) localities.

79.6%

14.7%

5.7%

Yes

No

Can't Say

Figure 5.8: Readiness to pay actual cost of water

30%

17% 16%

38%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leakages

from taps/

faucets

in homes

Leakages

during

distribution

Too much

water used

where less

is required

Water is

not being

wasted

I don’t know

Figure 5.7: Major reasons for wastage of water in Guwahati

12.5%

29.4%

16.3%

41.8%Respiratory illnesses

Water-borne diseases

Skin diseases

All

Figure 5.6: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health


45

To gauge people’s perception on the importance of different water conservation measures, the survey respondents were asked to rate various measures on a scale of relevance (from ‘very important’ to ‘not important’). Creating awareness was perceived by the majority, nearly 50% of the surveyed population, as the most important measure for protecting water resources. More women (57%) thought that awareness creation was very important in conserving water resources than men (45%). Forty five per cent perceived residential water conservation, improving waste water treatment, and rainwater harvesting as equally important sources of water resource protection (Figure 5.9).

Since water conservation measures fall under the purview of a number of stakeholder groups, survey respondents were asked to rate how well each of these groups were fulfilling their tasks. By and large, a large number of respondents felt that none of the groups were fulfilling their responsibility very well.

Also, most of the respondents had no opinion on the functioning of NGOs, while only 25% felt that NGOs were contributing very well or moderately well in protecting water resources. The majority felt that the local government/municipal corporation contributed moderately well in the protection of water resources. About 45% had the same opinion about the state and the central government. Overall perceptions about the role of the state and central governments were similar.

5.4.3 Waste and Waste ManagementThe majority, nearly 60%, of the survey respondents identified organic waste to be the major component of their household garbage followed by paper and plastic.

People were generally aware of the linkage between human health and improper solid waste management. About 74% of the respondents felt that the impact of improper solid waste management on human health was severe, while 23% rated impacts as being moderate (Figure 5.10).

According to almost 39% of the surveyed population, the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste was to generate less waste in the first place. A total of 48% felt that segregation of waste could help in managing the problem of solid waste disposal, and over 85% of those surveyed were willing to do this. Of those who supported segregation of waste before disposal, nearly 50% felt that this was good for the environment. About 35% of the respondents said that they already segregated waste (Figure 5.11).

On the issue of a fee for waste management, a majority of the survey respondents (82%) felt that it should vary depending on the amount of waste being generated. On the other hand, 18% of the surveyed population suggested that the same fee should be charged to all


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rainwater

harvesting

Improving

wastewater

treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating

awareness

Not Important Somewhat important No opinion


Figure 5.10: Degree of negative impacts of improper solid waste management on human health

74%

23%

3%

Severe

Moderate

Low

46

Guwahat i

households, irrespective of how much waste they produced.

Most households in Guwahati were recycling/reusing waste material. Of the surveyed respondents, a large fraction (88%) recycled or reused paper, magazines, and newspapers. Most of the households were also recycling/reusing metallic and glass items as well as cardboard and tetra pack cartons (Figure 5.12).

Survey respondents were also asked about their opinion regarding strategies to encourage recycling and re-use practices amongst the public. A large proportion (54%) felt that creating awareness among the general public could greatly promote such practices (Figure 5.13).

According to 64% of the respondents surveyed in Guwahati, the responsibility for disposing of the city’s solid waste and garbage rested equally with the local municipality and other government agencies, individuals, and private companies. About 19% felt that only individuals needed to take up this responsibility, while 16% felt that the greatest onus was on the municipality (Figure 5.14). This response was nearly uniform across age, gender, locality, and occupation.

Citizens were asked about commonly produced electronic waste and how it was being disposed of. Around 63% of the respondents stated that they were aware of the problems associated with the disposal of e-waste. This response varied across localities with a larger proportion of respondents from high- and middle-income localities (85% and 78%, respectively) found to be aware of the same in comparison to respondents from low-income localities (29%). Very few households in Guwahati said that they disposed electrical and electronic waste with household garbage. A large proportion of respondents (54% and 41%) repaired and reused household

38.8%

48.1%

10.4%

2.0% 0.7%

Generate less amount of waste in house


Improve waste recycling capacity

User charges

Others

Figure 5.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Guwahati

73%

61% 63%

88%

53%

40%

0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Metallic items Glass items Cardboard including tetra packs

Paper, magazines and newspapers Electronic waste

Broken furniture/household items None Others, please specify


11% 7% 14% 11% 54% 0.37%

2.97%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Charge deposit fee on recyclable items Pick up recyclables from curb side

Law requiring recycling Periodic revision in prices of recyclable products

Creating awareness More convenient centres/locations for recycling

Provide bins for recycling

Figure 5.13: Measures to promote recycling/re-use

19%

16%

1%64%


Municipality or other Government

agencies

Private companies

All of the above

Figure 5.14: Greatest responsibility to dispose Guwahati’s solid waste/garbage


47

appliances and small IT and telecom products, respectively. Sized IT and telecom waste computers and laptops were usually sold in the second-hand market (46%). A relatively smaller percentage of respondents (18%) did the same with household appliances. Nearly 20% of the surveyed households disposed of electrical and electronic waste by giving them away (Figure 5.15).

On the question of banning polythene bags, almost 96% of the surveyed population was in favour of the measure.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sized IT & Telecom such

as computers, laptops

Small IT & Telecom such

as toner cartridges, CDs


Give it away Store it at home

Sell in second-hand market Repair and reuse

Figure 5.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Guwahati

Patalpani Waterfall

Indore

51

Indore

6

key Highlights � A higher percentage of respondents felt that air quality, drinking water quality, and ground

water availability had worsened in the last five years as compared to those who found it to have improved. However, a higher percentage of respondents perceived tree cover, surface water, and drinking water availability to have improved than those who reported a deterioration.

� A high majority of the respondents felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. Almost 80% and 69% of the citizens interviewed felt that temperature and rainfall had increased, respectively.

� Sixty-five per cent of the respondents felt that the government must prioritize environment protection over development objectives.

� Most of the respondents felt that policies pertaining to air pollution, water pollution, water supply, water conservation, and waste management existed and were well implemented. In some areas, such as forest conservation, respondents felt that policies existed but were inadequate or not well implemented.

� In terms of ranking the efforts made by stakeholders in protecting the environment, 50% and 36% assigned Rank 1 to consumers and governments, respectively. The least number of respondents (5%) assigned Rank 1 to NPOS and academic institutions.

� Leakage of water during distribution was identified as the primary cause of wastage of water by a majority, followed by leakages from taps/faucets in homes.

� Over 90% of the respondents were aware of the subsidized price of water, and 92% were of the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water.

� The best strategy, according to almost 50% of the respondents, to manage the problem of solid waste, was to improve waste recycling capacity, followed by generating less waste at the household level.

� A majority of the respondents felt that mandatory laws pertaining to recycling can greatly promote re-use.

� Only 58% of the survey respondents expressed willingness to segregate waste before disposal.

� People were aware of the problem of e-waste. Very few respondents said that they threw e-waste along with the household garbage.

� Almost 90% of the surveyed population felt that polythene bags must be banned.

52

I ndo re

6.1 about Indore

Indore, located on the southern edge of the Malwa Plateau, is the largest city in Madhya Pradesh. The city lies on the Saraswati and Khan rivers on an elevated plain with the Vindhyachal range to the south. Hailed as being a part of the fastest growing economic regions in India, the city is

home to numerous small-, medium-, and large-scale manufacturing and service industries, such as automobile, pharmaceutical, software, and textile trading. As per of the 2011 Census of India, the population of Indore in 2011 was 1,960,631, of which there were 10,20,883 and 9,39,748 males and females, respectively. The urban/metropolitan population was 21,67,447, of which 11,29,348 were males and 1,038,099 were females. Indore has an average literacy rate of 87.38% with a male and female literacy of 91.84% and 82.55%, respectively.

6.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample from Indore constituted about 11% of the total survey sample from across 8 cities. Almost 48% of the respondents were educated up to the undergraduate and above levels, 21% were educated till higher secondary and diploma, and 25% were educated up to the middle and secondary level (Class X). There was a significant representation of the age-group of 35–44 years (34%), followed by the age-group of 25–34 years (27%), and the age-group of 18–24 years (19%).

The occupational distribution of respondents from Indore comprised regular salaried (government) (23%), regular salaried (private) (20%), student population (16%), housewives (13%), and self-employed/ involved in business (12%). Respondents from low-income localities constituted 35% of the total city sample while 33% were from high-income and 32% from middle-income localities (Figure 6.1).

6.3 Status of water, waste, and waste managementThe Indore Municipal Corporation is responsible for functions pertaining to water supply, sewerage, storm-water drainage, waste collection and disposal, and sanitation in the city. Water supply in the city is handled by two departments; one that looks into locally sourced water and the other that draws its water from the Narmada river. The estimated water supply in Indore is 252.5 million litres per day.

5.9%

25.5%

20.7%

47.9%

19.1%

26.7%

33.9%

14.3%

5.0%

1.0%

12.5%

20.3%

23.1% 5.9%

16.2%

13.3%

3.0%5.0%

Age

OccupationEducation

Locality

32.9%

32.1%

35.0%

Up to primary

18-24 High Income

Housewife


25-34 Middle Income


35-44

Low Income55-64



45-54 Above 65




Retired

Student

Unemployed



53

The Indore Municipal Corporation has taken multiple initiatives in order to efficiently utilize water. In 2000, the Indore Municipal Corporation established a Rainwater Harvesting and Recharging Department to create awareness among citizens and assist them in adopting water harvesting techniques. There are several such initiatives in residential and institutional buildings as well. However, despite such initiatives, the quality of water is a crucial issue in the city. In a recent analysis of water-borne bacterial pathogens from surface water, various water samples taken from different sources in Indore were found to have significant impurities and highlighted the need to control fecal pollution of water bodies.1

The city generates a total sewage of 200 million litre per day (MLD), out of which the Indore Municipal Corporation is treating only 90 MLD of sewage. The remaining is disposed of without treatment into River Khan. The total quantity of municipal solid waste generated in Indore is to the tune of 600 metric tons per day which is collected through private operators under the control of Indore Municipal Corporation. The civic body is trying to identify more transfer stations for proper municipal solid waste management under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) project.2

6.4 Survey results

6.4.1 Overall environmentThe citizens of Indore were asked about their perception on the environment over the last five years. More than 50% of the respondents felt that air quality (51%), drinking water quality (48%), and ground water availability (38%) had worsened in the last five years. In contrast to this, a considerable section of the respondents felt that tree cover/green cover (35%), surface water quality and availability (43%), and drinking water availability (56%) had improved over the past five years. Fewer women (26%) and (53%) perceived an improvement in drinking water quality and availability, respectively a compared to 33% and 57% of men. In terms of waste and waste management and the number of birds/bird species found in the city, 38% and 27%, respectively, responded by saying that they had no direct experience in these domains. The responses varied across

1 Sohani Smruti and Iqbal Sanjeeda, “Microbiological Analysis of Surface Water in Indore, India”, Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Vol. 1(ISC-2011) (2012), pp. 323–325.

2 The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) is a massive city-modernization scheme launched by the Government of India under Ministry of Urban Development. The mission aims to encourage reforms and fast-track planned development of identified cities with a focus on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms, community participation, and accountability of urban local bodies/parastatal agencies towards citizens.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Quality

Drinking water

quality

Drinking water

availability


and availability

Ground water

availability

Tree cover/

green cover

Number of

bird species

Waste and waste

management

No Change Better Worse No Direct Experience Don't Know

Figure 6.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment in Indore over the past five years

54

I ndo re

localities for some of the indicators. Amongst those who felt that surface water quality and availability had worsened, most were from low-income localities (44%). A larger proportion of respondents from high-income localities stated that the forest and tree cover in the city had improved as compared to middle-income and low-income localities (Figure 6.2).

As high as 87% of the respondents in Indore felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. While responses varied across different age groups, a majority of people in each age group agreed with the occurrence of climate change. Disaggregating at the occupational level, it was observed that as high as 93% of the casual/daily wage workers believed that climate change was occurring.

In terms of changes in climate variables, a majority of respondents felt that there had been a rise in temperature (80%) and rainfall (69%). A high percentage of respondents (63%) reported a change in the wind pattern. Also, a majority (38%) of the students feel that there has been a reduction in the intensity of extreme events.

Respondents were asked about their awareness of government policies related to environment and their opinion on implementation and adequacy of such policies. Around one-third of the respondents in Indore felt that policies pertaining to air pollution (32%), water pollution (36%), water supply (32%), water conservation (41%), and waste management (31%) existed and were well implemented. However, as high as 55% and 45% of the citizens of Indore felt that there were no policies for climate change and groundwater usage, respectively. Twenty six per cent respondents were of

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Increase Decrease Extreme Patterns

No Change at all Don't Know


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government Business

Consumers (like you and me) Non profit organisation

Academic institutions/research organisations


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change



Don't Know

Figure 6.4: Government policies to address different environmental concerns


55

the opinion that policies concerning forest conservation were either inadequate or not implemented (Figure 6.4).

The two most preferred sources of information on environment for the respondents were national newspapers and television at 50% and 42%, respectively.

Respondents were asked to rank different stakeholder groups according to their efforts in improving the environment (with Rank 1 to be assigned to those making the greatest efforts and Rank 5 for the group making the least efforts). Almost 50% and 36% chose consumers and government, respectively, for Rank 1. The least number of respondents (5%) assigned Rank 1 to NPOs (3%) and academic institutions/research organizations (Figure 6.5).

On the issue of linkage between protecting the environment and the objectives of development, only 10% of the surveyed respondents felt that the government should prioritize development over environment, while a majority (65%) felt that the government must prioritize environment protection over development. About 17% of the respondents felt that protecting the environment was not against the objectives of development, and they rather went hand in hand (Figure 6.6). The opinion varied across localities with a larger proportion of respondents from high-income localities (77%) stating that environmental protection should be prioritized and only about 60% of the respondents from middle- and low-income localities expressing similar views.

Highlighting the inherent linkage between health and environment, almost all the survey respondents felt that the quality of the surrounding environment had an immediate effect on human health, and as high as 65% attributed a variety of respiratory diseases to poor environmental quality (Figure 6.7).

The survey respondents, when asked to select an environmental problem, which according to them had the most visible impact on people’s health, 85% of the respondents chose poor air quality. Very small percentages of the respondents identified waste and water quality as more crucial environmental hazards affecting human health (9% and 6%, respectively).

10.5%

65.0%

17.0%

4.7%3.0%

Yes, They should be treated

differently and the govt should

priortize development

Yes, they should be treated


priortize environmental protection

No, environment protection and

development go hand in hand

Can't Say

Don't Know

Figure 6.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development


65.3%13.7%

6.1%

14.8%

Respiratory illnesses


Skin diseases

All

Figure 6.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Indore

19%

61%

17%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I don’t know

Water is not being

wasted

Too much water used

where less is required

Leakages during

distribution

Leakages from

taps/faucets in homes

56

I ndo re

6.4.2. WaterUpon being asked about the main reason for wastage of water, most of the survey respondents identified leakage of water during distribution (61%) as the primary cause for wastage, followed by leakages from taps/faucets at homes (19%) (Figure 6.8).

Awareness on subsidized water pricing was very high (93%). Ninety-two per cent of the respondents were of the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water that would reflect the scarcity value of water and also discourage wastage (Figure 6.9); however, the proportion was smaller at about 70% among those with primary education.

When asked about the preferred billing mechanism for water consumption, majority of the respondents chose fixed charges as the ideal billing mechanism (75%), followed by metre-based (15%), and slab-wise consumption charges (10%).

The survey respondents were asked to rate different water conservation measures based on importance, as perceived by them. Residential water conservation and improving waste water treatment measures were found to be important by 66% and 73% of the respondents, respectively. Creating awareness was rated by almost 8% of the respondents as a ‘very important’ measure and by 9% as an ‘important’ measure in protecting water resources. However, 54% of the respondents felt that it was not an important measure. Surprisingly, a majority of respondents (72%) felt that rainwater harvesting was not a vital measure to protect water resources (Figure 6.10).

Since water conservation measures fall under the purview of a number of stakeholder groups, survey respondents were asked to rate them in terms of how well each of these groups were fulfilling their tasks. Overall, a majority of respondents felt that the state government (75%), central government (72%), citizens (64%), and NGOs (69%) were moderately fulfilling their duties towards protecting water resources. Fifty five per cent of the respondents felt that the local-level government/municipal corporations are fulfilling their tasks very well.

6.4.3 Waste and waste managementAlmost 64% of the survey respondents identified organic waste to be a major component of their household garbage. Surveyed citizens in Indore were cognizant of the impact of improper solid waste management on human health. About 86% of the respondents found the impact of


91.6%

2.8%5.7%

Yes

No

Can't Say


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rainwater

harvesting

Improving

wastewater

treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating awareness





57

improper solid waste management on human health to be severe, while 11% rated the impact as moderate. More women respondents (29%) as compared to men (19%) indicated that garbage was being collected from their homes.

According to almost 51% of the surveyed population in Indore, the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste, was to improve waste recycling capacity, followed by reducing the amount of waste generated at the household level itself (27%) (Figure 6.11).

Waste segregation was not seen as a favourable option by citizens of Indore, with only 11% of the respondents indicating that it could help in managing solid wastes (Figure 6.11). About 58% of the survey respondents expressed willingness to segregate waste before disposal. The reason most commonly cited by the respondents (82%) for reluctance in waste segregation was that they felt it required more space. Seven per cent of the respondents felt that segregation was the responsibility of the civic authorities (Figure 6.12).

With respect to willingness to pay for the management of waste, 71% of the survey respondents felt that the fees should be commensurate with the amount of waste being generated. Twenty-six per cent of the surveyed population suggested that same fees should be charged across all households irrespective of the amount of waste they produced.

Survey respondents were also asked about strategies to encourage recycling and re-use practices amongst the public. Forty five per cent of them felt that mandatory laws pertaining to recycling could greatly promote re-use (Figure 6.13).

According to 52% of the respondents surveyed in Indore, private companies should have the biggest responsibility for disposing city’s solid waste and garbage. While 19% felt that the local municipality or other government agencies ought to assume this responsibility, 12% of the

27%

11%51%

9%

0.3%

Generate less amount of

waste in house


Improve waste recycling

capacity

User charges

I don't Know

Figure 6.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Indore


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Creating awareness More convenient centers/locations for recycling

Figure 6.12: Reasons for refusing to segregate wastes at household level

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cumbersome Requires

more space

Civic authority's

responsibility

Waste not collected

seperately by the

civic authorities

Figure 6.14: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage

12.4%

19.3%

51.6%

16.7%


Municipality or other

Government agencies

Private companies

All of the above

58

I ndo re

respondents felt that the greatest responsibility is on the individual citizens or households (Figure 6.14).

In order to understand the fate of electrical and electronic waste in the city of Indore, citizens were asked about the practices adopted by them for disposal of such waste. Household appliances such as refrigerators and television, etc., were given away by almost 56% of the surveyed population. About 16% stored them at home or repaired and reused them. Fifty seven per cent of the respondents gave away smaller IT and telecom items such as CDs, printer/toner cartridges in the second-hand market.

On the question of banning polythene bags, almost 90% of the surveyed population were in favour of such a measure.

0% 50% 100%






Throw it with other garbage Give it away Store it at home


Figure 6.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Indore

Dalmia Wildlife Sanctuary

Jamshedpur

61

JaMshedpur

7

key Highlights � Almost 81% of the respondents perceived the air quality to have worsened in recent years,

56% felt that green cover in the surrounding areas had declined, and nearly 70% felt that waste management had worsened. Around 50% of the respondents felt that drinking water quality and availability had improved.

� Almost all the respondents felt that climate change/global warming was occurring with 93% of those surveyed indicating a rise in temperatures and 71% indicating a decline in rainfall in recent years.

� About 45% of the respondents felt that protecting the environment went hand in hand with the objectives of development while about 42% felt that the government should prioritize development over the environment.

� Across environmental issues, respondents were either of the opinion that relevant policies did not exist and where they did exist, these were inadequate or not implemented properly.

� In terms of efforts for protecting the environment, the maximum number of respondents assigned Rank 1 to consumers, and assigned the lowest rank to the government.

� Forty-five per cent of the respondents felt that the key reason for water wastage was excessive water consumption.

� A high majority (about 83%) of respondents were aware of the subsidized price of water. However, most respondents were not in favour of cost-based pricing.

� The best strategy to manage solid waste, according to almost 87% of the respondents, was to generate less waste at the household level itself.

� Only 12% of the survey respondents expressed willingness to segregate wastes before disposal. The most common reason cited by people (48%) for this reluctance was that segregation according to them was the responsibility of the civic authority

� Re-use and recycling of e-waste was reported to be widely practices. � A large majority felt that recycling could be improved through greater awareness. � Ninety-six per cent of the respondents agreed with imposing a ban on the use of polythene bags.

7.1 about Jamshedpur

Jamshedpur is located in the East Singhbhum district of the State of Jharkhand in India on the Chota Nagpur plateau and is surrounded by the Dalma Hills and the rivers Subarnarekha and Kharkhai. It is home to the first private iron and steel company in India and spans an area of

62

Jamshedpur

64 sq. km. It is also the largest and the most populous urban agglomeration in Jharkhand and is regarded as one of the major industrial zones in eastern India. As per the 2011 Census of India, the population of Jamshedpur in 2011 was estimated to be 6,29,659. The population of the urban/metropolitan region (urban agglomeration) population was 1,337,131 of which 696,858 were males and 640,273 were females. Jamshedpur has one of the highest literacy rates in Jharkhand, estimated at 77%.1

7.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample from Jamshedpur constituted about 7% of the total survey sample across 8 cities. The educational distribution of the sample shows that almost 29% of the respondents were educated at the undergraduate and above level, 31% were educated till higher secondary and diploma, 24% were educated at middle and secondary level (Class X), and 16% up to primary school level.

In the sample of Jamshedpur, there was a significant representation of the age group between 25 and 34 years (32%), followed by the 35–44 year age group (26%), and the 18–24 age group (18%).

The respondents were distributed amongst different occupations from self-employed/business (31%), regular salaried (private companies) (32%) to student population (11%), casual/daily wage worker (9%), and housewives (7%). Looking at the distribution of respondents by locality, about 38% were from low-income localities, 33% from high-income localities, and 29% from middle-income localities (Figure 7.1).

7.3 Status of water and waste managementAs per the City Development Plan for Jamshedpur 2006, the coverage area of water supply distribution in all areas of the Jamshedpur Urban Agglomeration (JUA) was less than 50%. Further, there was uneven distribution of the water supply with the areas under Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company (JUSCO),2 getting the best of services. Overall, water supply

1 http://www.jharenvis.nic.in/Database/SexRatio_1661.aspx2 The Jamshedpur Utilities and Services Company (JUSCO) was set up in the industrial city of Jamshedpur as a wholly

owned subsidiary of Tata Steel in 2004. JUSCO is a one-stop utility service provider in the water sector and waste water

Figure 7.1: Demographic profile of respondents in Jamshedpur

Occupation

15.6%

30.7%

29.2%

18.3%

31.7%25.6%

14.4%

6.8%3.2%

31.3%

32.1%

2.5%

9.3%

10.8%

7.3%

2.5%4.0%

Occupation

LocalityAge

Education24.5%

32.9%

28.8%

38.3%

Up to primary

18-24 High Income

Housewife


25-34 Middle Income

Student


35-44

Low Income55-64



45-54 Above 65




Retired Unemployed


63

coverage area (by piped connections) was approximately 25% of the total area of JUA. The dependence on groundwater has been increasing at an alarmingly rate.

One of the tasks undertaken by JUA is that of connecting every household and industrial unit in Jamshedpur to its water supply system. JUSCO also took up an initiative to provide adequate water services in the informal settlements located outside the industrial area. However, Jamshedpur is one of India’s worst-hit cities in terms of water woes, where the gap between demand and supply is a yawning 70%.

In the context of waste and waste management, until the last decade there was an absence of adequate facility for collection of waste, and whatever was collected ultimately landed up on the streets, lanes or backside of houses due to shortages in appropriate landfill sites. There was neither a system of door-to-door collection of waste nor was there any facility of community bins. Further, there was no segregation of waste — hazardous, bio-medical, etc. — and no provision for treatment of the waste. Also, there was an absence of a proper waste-disposal site in JUA, except for areas maintained by JUSCO. Finally, the waste-disposal site of JUSCO was unsuitably located, being very close to the rivers, and without any treatment or recycling mechanism in place. Although the situation has improved since then, the desired service level benchmarks as identified by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, are yet to be reached.

7.4 Survey results

7.4.1 Overall environmentIn order to understand how citizens of Jamshedpur perceived their surroundings to have changed over the last five years, they were asked to rate certain environmental indicators. Across most indicators — air quality (81%), green cover (56%), and waste management (70%) — the situation was perceived to have deteriorated in the city by majority of the respondents. However, more than half of the respondents felt that there was an improvement in drinking water quality (52%) and drinking water availability (55%) (Figure 7.2). The responses varied across the localities for some of the indicators. A larger proportion of respondents from high-income localities found the state of drinking water quality and availability, forest and tree cover, and waste management to have improved.

As far as perception with respect to education is concerned, 9% of the respondents educated up to primary school felt that waste management had improved as against 27% of undergraduates or above who had the same perception.

management, construction, municipal solid waste management, horticulture, integrated facility management, and the power sector.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Air Quality

Drinking water

quality

Drinking water

availability


and availability

Ground water

availability

Tree cover/

green cover

Number of

bird species

Waste and waste

management


Figure 7.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment over the past five years

64

Jamshedpur

As high as 98% of the respondents in Jamshedpur felt that climate change/global warming was occurring.

When asked to rate different climate variables in terms of how they had changed, almost 93% of the citizens interviewed felt that temperatures had increased and 71% reported that rainfall had decreased. On extreme events, almost 44% of the respondents opined that the intensity of such events had decreased, while 28% felt that their pattern had become more erratic (Figure 7.3).

To assess the level of awareness amongst the citizens on government policies related to environment, the survey respondents were asked about their views on existence, adequacy, and implementation of policies related to different environmental issues. Almost 50% of the respondents were not aware of any government policies related to air pollution. Also, over 25% were not aware of any policies on water pollution and waste management. By and large, across environmental parameters, the majority view was that policies existed but were inadequate or not well implemented (Figure 7.4). In general, more women (e.g., 51% in the case of waste management) than men (22%) thought that no policies existed to address environmental issues, but more men (e.g., 69% in the case of waste management) than women (40%) thought that policies existed but were inadequate or not well implemented.

Similar differences were noted across educational classification. Almost 45% of the respondents with an undergraduate or above degree felt that government policies were not adequately implemented in managing municipal wastes, whereas only 27% respondents with only primary education shared this opinion. Similarly, more respondents with higher secondary educaton found forest policies poorly implemented than those educated up to the primary level.

The main sources of information on the environment were found to be television and national newspapers by 78% and 61% of respondents, respectively.

Respondents were asked to rank different groups according to their efforts in improving the environment (with Rank 1 to be assigned to those making the greatest efforts and Rank 5 for the group making the least). Almost 44% assigned Rank 1 to consumers, followed by academic institutions and research organizations. Business entities were given Rank 1 by the least number of respondents (8%). Most of the surveyed population (44%) assigned Rank 5 to the government — central, state, municipal corporation — for

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events

Increase Decrease Extreme PatternsNo Change at all Don't Know


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

No Government policy exist Policy exist and well implementedPolicy exist but, are not implemented Policy exist but, are inadequateDon't Know



65

its efforts at improving the environment. Non-profit organizations were ranked at number 2 by almost 49% of the survey respondents (Figure 7.5). More women gave a higher rank to individuals and NGOs but a lower rank to governments and business as compared to men.

On the question of a linkage between the environment and development, almost 45% of the surveyed population felt that protecting the environment is not against the objectives of development; rather, they go hand in hand. Forty-two per cent of the surveyed respondents said that environment protection and development should be treated differently and government should prioritize development, while 9% felt that the government needed to prioritize environment protection over development objectives (Figure 7.6). The views of the respondents varied across residential localities, with more respondents from high-income localities (60%) stating that development and environment went hand in hand in comparison to respondents from middle-income (44 per cent) and low-income groups (33%). Similarly, the proportion of households from low- and middle-income localities — 55% and 43% respectively — who felt that development should be prioritized was much higher than the respondents from high-income localities (26%).

Highlighting the inherent linkage existing between health and the environment, almost all the survey respondents (99%) felt that quality of the surrounding environment had an immediate effect on human health. Eighty-two per cent of the respondents attributed a variety of respiratory diseases to poor environmental quality (Figure 7.7).

The survey respondents were asked to select an environmental problem that, according to them, had the most visible impact on people’s health. The percentage of respondents who felt that air quality had the most visible impact was high at 86%.

7.4.2 WaterRespondents were asked about their views on the reasons for wastage of water. The survey results revealed that a majority of respondents (45%) felt that water consumption was more

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government BusinessConsumers (like you and me)


Non profit organisation


42.3%

9.1%

45.1%

3.5% 0.3%

Yes, They should be treated

differently and the govt

should priortize development






Can't Say

Don't Know



82.3%

7%1%

8%



Skin diseases

All

66

Jamshedpur

than their actual needs. However, 33% felt that water was not being wasted at all. Leakage of water during distribution as well as from taps at home was identified as a cause for wastage of water by about 21% of the surveyed population (Figure 7.8).

About 83% of the surveyed population was aware that the price charged to them for water consumption was subsidized by the government. Seventy-six per cent of them were of the opinion that users should not be charged the actual cost of water (Figure 7.9). More women (78%) were against water being charged on actual cost as compared to men (62%).

Responding to the question on billing mechanism for water consumption, as high as 75% of respondents identified metering consumption as the ideal billing mechanism for water. More than 80% respondents from high- and middle-income localities favoured metred charges as compared to 60% from low-income localities.

To gauge people’s perception on importance of different water conservation measures, the survey respondents were asked to rate certain measures on varying scales of relevance (from ‘very important’ to ‘not important’). Creating awareness was rated by almost 38% of the respondents as a ‘very important’ measure and by 52% as an ‘important’ measure. Improving waste water treatment facilities was also selected as a ‘very important’ measure by 29% and rainwater harvesting as an ‘important’ measure by about 49% of the surveyed population. More respondents with an undergraduate or higher degree (28%) identified rainwater harvesting as an effective way of conserving water resources than others, especially those educated up to primary school (14.5%).

More women (69%, 46%, 41%) than men (49%, 26%, 22%) thought that rainwater harvesting, waste water treatment, and home/garden practices were very important for water conservation.

Notably, residential water conservation measures were rated as a ‘not important’ measure by almost 21% of the survey population (Figure 7.10).

Since water conservation measures fell under the purview of a number of stakeholder groups, survey respondents were asked to rate them in terms of how well each of these groups were fulfilling their tasks. Overall,


11% 10%

45%

33%

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Leakages

from

taps/faucets

in homes

Leakages

during

distribution

Too much

water used

where less

is required

Water is

not being

wasted

I don’t

know

Figure 7.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Jamshedpur

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Improving wastewater

treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating awareness




20.8%

76.1%

3.1%

Yes

No

Can't Say

Figure 7.9: Willingness to pay actual cost of water


67

the government was fulfilling its role vis-à-vis conservation of water resources, less than a fourth of the respondents who were undergraduates and above shared this view.

7.4.3 Waste and waste managementNinety-one per cent of the survey respondents identified organic waste to be a major component of their household garbage. Respondents were aware of the linkage between human health and improper solid waste management. When the survey respondents were asked to rate the impact in terms of severity, about 91% agreed that the impact of improper solid waste management on human health was severe, while 7% gave it a moderate impact rating.

The best strategy, according to almost 87% of the surveyed population, to manage the problem of solid waste was to generate less waste at the household level itself, followed by segregation of waste and improving recycling capacity (Figure 7.11).

Waste segregation did not seem to be a favourable option for citizens of Jamshedpur, with only 12% of the survey respondents expressing willingness to segregate waste before disposal. The reason most commonly cited for this reluctance (48%) was the fact that they felt it was the responsibility of the civic authority and not the citizens. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents found it a cumbersome task and therefore were not willing to undertake it themselves (Figure 7. 12).

On the question of a use-based fee for waste management, more than half of the survey respondents (54%) felt that the same

Figure 7.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Jamshedpur

87.5%

6.0%4.9%

1.6%

Generate less amount of waste in house


Improve waste recyclibng capacity

User charges

31%

19%

48%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cumbersome

Requires

more space

Civic authority's

responsibility

Waste not collected

seperately by the

civic authorities

Figure 7.12: Reasons for reluctance to segregate wastes at household level


73 1 1 27 59

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Metallic items Glass items None

Broken furniture/household items Electronic waste

Cardboard including tetra packs Paper, magazines and newspapers

both the state and the central government were given poor ratings by the respondents in terms of fulfilling their duties towards protecting water resources. The state government was rated ‘very poor’ by 28% and ‘somewhat poor’ by 48%, while the central government given a rating of ‘very poor’ by 34% and ‘somewhat poor’ by almost 40% of the surveyed population, on the basis of their work towards protecting water resources. More women respondents (57%, 44%, 41%) rated the central and state governments, respectively, as very poor and individuals as very well as compared to men (33%, 27%,25%). While more than half of the respondents with primary education felt that

68

Jamshedpur

of them (82%) and an even higher proportion of women felt that creating awareness among general public could greatly promote recycling/re-use.

According to 53% of the respondents surveyed in Jamshedpur, the local municipality or other government agencies needed to take on the greatest responsibility towards disposing of the city’s solid waste and garbage; this perception was strongest amongst women. While 18% felt private companies ought to take up this responsibility, only 15% of the respondents felt that the greatest responsibility was on the individual citizens or households (Figure 7.15).

Examining responses across different occupational groups, it was seen that a majority of regular salaried (government) persons identified this to be the joint responsibility of all stakeholder groups, as opposed to a majority of all other occupational groups who identified the greatest responsibility to be that of the government.

While electrical and electronic waste was a small component in the overall household waste, its disposal is an area of concern. In order to understand the disposal practices of electrical and electronic waste in the city of Jamshedpur, citizens were asked about such commonly produced waste and how it was disposed. Most of the respondents (73%) repaired and reused IT and telecom items such as computers, laptops etc. Similarly, household appliances such as refrigerators and television, etc., were also repaired and reused by almost 62% of the respondents, while 19% of them gave these away. Thirty-three per cent of the respondents sold the

8 5 5 4 82

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Creating awareness More convenient centers/locations for recycling



0% 50% 100%






Throw it with other Give it away Store it at home


Figure 7.16: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Jamshedpur

14.7%

52.5%

18.0%

14.8%


Municipality or other Government

agencies

Private companies

All of the above

Figure 7.15: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage

fee should be charged across all households, irrespective of the amount of waste they produced. However, 44% of the surveyed population suggested that the fee should vary depending on the amount of waste being generated. More men (47%) were in favour of volumetric pricing of waste as compared to women (27%).

Almost 59% of the respondents typically sold or sent papers, magazines, and newspapers for recycling or re-use, followed by 27% respondents who did the same with cardboards, including used tetra pack cartons (Figure 7.13).

Survey respondents were also questioned on strategies to encourage recycling and re-use practices amongst the public. A majority


69

smaller IT and telecom items such as CDs, printer/toner cartridges in the second-hand market. In general, more women were getting IT and electronic products repaired for re-use than men while more men were selling these in the second-hand market (Figure 7.16).

As one of the means to address the problem of waste management, respondents were asked if a ban should be imposed on polythene bags. Almost 96% of the surveyed population favoured the measure.

Green Park Stadium

Kanpur

73

Kanpur

8

key Highlights � More respondents felt that green cover, number of bird species, surface water quality and

availability, and air quality had deteriorated rather than improved in the city while the opposite was true for waste management and drinking water quality.

� As high as 91% of the respondents felt that climate change/global warming was occurring. Almost 88% of the citizens interviewed felt that temperature had increased and a significant 96% reported that rainfall had decreased in recent years.

� In general, the majority of respondents felt that across environmental parameters, policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented.

� In ranking the efforts being made to improve the environment, the majority assigned Rank 1 to the government (54%) and Rank 5 to businesses (37%).

� On the environment versus development debate, only 17% of the surveyed population felt that protecting the environment went hand in hand with the objectives of development. Forty-five per cent felt that the government must prioritize environment protection over development objectives.

� Leakage of water during distribution was identified as the primary cause of wastage by a majority of the surveyed population.

� Fifty-seven per cent were of the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water to reflect the scarcity value of the resource and discourage its wastage.

� According to over 90% of the surveyed population, the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste was to generate less of it.

� About 50% of the respondents expressed their willingness to segregate waste before disposal. The reason most commonly cited by the respondents (60%) for their reluctance was that they found the task cumbersome, while 29% felt that it was the responsibility of civic authorities.

� Almost 50% of the respondents were in favour of a fixed charge on waste management, irrespective of the amount of waste generated, while 30% preferred amount-linked charges.

� Re-use and recycling of e-waste was widely practised among respondents. � Almost 74% of the surveyed population felt that polythene bags must be banned.

74

Kanpur

8.1 demographics from kanpur

Kanpur, situated on the bank of the Ganges River in the state of Uttar Pradesh, is one of the largest industrial cities in India, primarily known for its tannery industry. The city was one of the main centres of Industrial Revolution in the history of modern India. As per the

2011 Census of India, the population of Kanpur is 27,67,031, with a male to female ratio of about 54:46. The city’s urban/metropolitan population (urban agglomeration) is 29,20,067. Kanpur has an average literacy rate of 84.14% with male and female literacy rates being 85.77% and 82.21% respectively.

8.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample from Kanpur constitutes about 15% of the total survey sample. About 41% of the samples were from high-income localities (Figure 8.1). Twenty-six per cent were from middle-income localities and 33% were from low-income localities.

The educational distribution of the sample shows that almost 33% of the respondents were undergraduate and above and 35% were educated till higher secondary and diploma levels , while the balance 32% were educated till middle and secondary levels (Class X) or lower.

The age distribution of the sample shows maximum representation of the age group between 25 and 34 years (28%), followed by the age group 35–44 years (26%) and the age-group 18–24 years (24%).

The occupational distribution of the sample shows that respondents were distributed amongst different occupations ranging from self-employed/business (25%), regular salaried (private companies) (18%) to students (21%), casual/daily wage worker (9%), and housewives (7%). There was a small percentage of unemployed (4%) and retired (5%) people in the sample.

8.3 Status of water, waste, and waste managementThe major sources of water supply in the city of Kanpur are the catchments of the Ganges and Pandu Rivers. According to Kanpur City Development Plan under the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission, the city’s total water supply requirement is 600 million litre per day (mld), but

Education Occupation

Age

11.6%

20.4%

35.1%

32.9%

23.9%

27.9%25.5%

12.5%

8.1%2.1%



55-64 years Above 65 years

24.8%

18.5%

11.6%8.7%

20.8%

6.7%

3.6%5.2%

Locality

33.4%

25.6%

40.9%

Up to primary

High Income

Housewife


Middle Income

Student


Low Income






Retired Unemployed



75

only 385 mld of potable water is being supplied. Of this, supply from treatment plants is about 255 mld water (210 mld raw water from Bhaironghat pumping station and 45 mld from Lower Ganga Canal), and approximately 130 mld water is drawn from groundwater comprising 80 mld from tube wells (about 135) and 50 mld from hand pumps (about 9,830).

With regard to solid waste management, the city generates 1,500 metric ton of waste each day. Apart from solid waste generated by households, commercial establishments, and institutions, there are also other types of waste including biomedical waste, sludge, and industrial waste produced by tanneries as well as textile, rubber, and other industries operating in the city. Some of the major issues related to waste management include out-dated equipment, inadequate bins, no segregation of waste, inadequate composting/disposal arrangement, and non-operative treatment facilities of tannery waste.1

8.4 Survey results

8.4.1 Overall EnvironmentWhen asked about their perception about changes in environmental quality over the last five years, a majority of the respondents felt that green cover (44%), number of bird species (31%), surface water quality and availability (49%), and air quality (46%) had deteriorated in the city. Interestingly, 41% and 42% of the respondents, respectively, felt that waste and waste management and drinking water quality had improved over the past five years (Figure 8.2).

For some of the indicators such as forest and tree cover, waste management, and drinking water quality, a larger proportion of respondents who perceived an improvement belonged to high-income localities. With respect to response analysis by education, fewer respondents with higher education (37%) than respondents with primary education (52%) found the quality of drinking water quality to have improved. Similarly, fewer respondents from the category of undergraduate and above (30%) perceived the green cover to have deteriorated as opposed to 50% of the primary-educated respondents.

As high as 91% of the respondents in Kanpur felt that climate change/global warming was occurring.

When asked to rate changes in different climate variables, almost 88% of the citizens interviewed felt that temperatures had increased and a significant 96% reported that rainfall had decreased. On extreme events, a majority felt that that their intensity (74%) and frequency (37%) had decreased. Over 80% of the respondents also associated wind with extreme patterns in the city (Figure 8.3).

Respondents were also asked about the existence, efficacy, and adequacy of environment-related government policies.

1 Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission, Kanpur City Development Plan, 2006.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Quality

Drinking water quality

Drinking water

availability


and availability

Ground water

availability

Tree cover/

green cover

Number of

bird species

Waste and waste

management

No Change Better Worse No Direct Experience Don't Know

Figure 8.2: Changes in the state of environment in Kanpur over the past five years

76

Kanpur

More respondents felt that policies pertaining to waste management (33%), water conservation (33%), water supply (41%), water pollution (32%) and air pollution (28%) existed but were not being implemented properly as compared to those who felt that policies were well implemented. In general, the majority felt that across environmental parameters and policies existed but were either inadequate or not well implemented (Figure 8.4).

On sources of information on the environment, national newspapers and television were identified as the main sources, with as high as 95% and 53% of respondents having selected these options, respectively.

Respondents were asked to rank different groups according to their efforts in improving the environment (with Rank 1 indicating the most effort and Rank 5 indicating the least) (Figure 8.5). Almost 54% assigned Rank 1 to the government, followed by 19% that assigned Rank 1 to non-profit organizations (19%). Academic institutions were assigned Rank 2 by almost 55% of the survey respondents. Almost 37% ranked business at the fifth position in terms of their efforts at improving the environment.

A higher proportion of women (45%) as against men (35%) gave Rank 5 to business while a higher proportion of women (27%) than men (17%) gave Rank 1 to NGOs. Research organizations were ranked high by a greater percentage of respondents with primary education (60%) than undergraduates or above (45.5%).

On the environment versus development debate, almost 17% of respondents felt that protecting the environment was not against the objectives of development and the two went hand in hand. However, 45% felt that the two must be treated differently and that the government

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events


No Change at all Don't Know


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change



Don't Know

Figure 8.4: Government policies to address different environmental concerns

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government Business

Consumers (like you and me) Non profit organisation




77

must prioritize environment protection over development objectives (Figure 8.6).

Highlighting the inherent linkage between health and environment, 94% of the survey respondents felt that quality of the surrounding environment had an immediate effect on human health, and as high as 83% of the respondents attributed a variety of respiratory illnesses, water-borne diseases, and skin diseases to poor environmental quality (Figure 8.7).

The survey respondents were asked to select an environmental problem which according to them has had the most visible impact on people’s health. The percentage of respondents who identified air quality was high at 48%; this was followed by waste (40%).

8.4.2 Water

Almost all respondents agreed that water was being wasted. Respondents were also asked about their perceptions on major reasons of water wastage in their city (Figure 8.8). Leakage of water during distribution was identified as the primary cause of wastage by 38% of the surveyed population. About 30% of the respondents each identified over-use of water and leakages from taps/faucets in homes as the major reason of water wastage.

About 94% of the respondents were aware that the price charged to them for water consumption was subsidized by the government. Fifty-seven per cent were of the opinion that users should be charged the actual cost of water to reflect the scarcity value of the resource and discourage its wastage. However, a large proportion of regular salaried government employees (38%) and retired respondents (44%) were not willing to pay the actual cost of water. While 46% of undergraduates and above respondents felt that citizens should pay the actual price of water, 60% of respondents with education up to the primary level agreed with this proposition. Responding to the question on a preferred billing mechanism for water consumption, 58% identified slab-wise consumption as the ideal billing mechanism for water, followed by metre-based consumption (22%) and fixed charges

20.7%

44.9%

16.7%

6.7%

11.1%Yes, They should be treated


priortize development






Can't Say

Don't Know



6.8% 3.5%

6.6%

83.1%



Skin diseases

All

Figure 8.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Kanpur

29%

38%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I don’t know

Water is not being

wasted

Too much water used

where less is required

Leakages during

distribution

Leakages from

taps/faucets in homes

78

Kanpur

(20%). More men (25%) than women (12%) were in favour of metered consumption (Figure 8.9).

To gauge people’s perception on the importance of different water conservation measures, the survey respondents were asked to rate them on varying scales of relevance (from ‘very important’ to ‘not important’) (Figure 8.10). Residential water conservation (34%), creating awareness and educating citizens (31%), and improving wastewater treatment (30%) were rated as ‘very important’ measures by a large number of respondents. Rainwater harvesting was rated by almost 82% of the respondents as an ‘important’ measure and by 5% as a ‘very important’ measure for protecting water resources. However, only 11% of primary-educated respondents found rainwater harvesting to be an ‘important’ strategy for water conservation. About 30% of respondents were of no opinion apropos to the role of residential water conservation in protecting water resources. A majority of housewives (49%) felt that improving wastewater treatment was ‘very important’ in protecting water resources as compared to lower proportion of respondents from other employment categories.

Since water conservation measures fall under the purview of a large number of stakeholder groups, survey respondents were asked to rate different agencies in terms of how well each of these groups were fulfilling their roles. A large number of respondents felt that individual citizens (54%), the central government (43%), local government (46%), and NGOs (49%) were performing their roles `somewhat’ poorly. However, a majority (57%) felt that the state government was performing moderately well in protecting water resources.

8.4.3 Waste and Waste ManagementAlmost 76% of the survey respondents identified organic waste to be the major component of their household garbage. According to over 90% of the surveyed population, the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste was to generate less waste itself. A small fraction (4%) advocated the application of user charges while only 2% of the respondents felt that segregation of wastes and improving the waste-recycling capacity could help in managing solid waste.

To assess people’s awareness on the linkage between human health and improper solid waste management, survey respondents were asked to rate the impact in terms of severity. About 66% of the respondents feel that the impact of improper solid waste management on human health was severe. Surprisingly, 22% of the respondents thought that there were no negative impacts of improper solid waste management on human health.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rainwater

harvesting

Improving

wastewater

treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating

awareness





20.3%

22.2%

57.5%

Fixed Charges

Metered/Consumption

Slab wise


79

Figure 8.11: Reasons for refusing to segregate waste at household level

60% 7% 29% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Cumbersome Requires

more space

Civic authority's

responsibility

Waste not collected

seperately by the

civic authorities

18% 17% 12% 20% 15% 18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Metallic items Glass items Broken furniture/household items

Electronic waste Cardboard including tetra packs

Paper, magazines and newspapers


About half of the respondents expressed their willingness to segregate waste before disposal. The reason most commonly cited by people (60%) for their reluctance was the fact that they found the task to be cumbersome, while 29% of the respondents felt that it was the responsibility of civic authorities (Figure 8.11). Among those who were willing to segregate waste, 17% said that they would do so either because they could use the biodegradable wastes to make compost or thought it was good for the environment.

On the issue of user-charges, 50% of the survey respondents felt that the same fee should be charged to all households, irrespective of how much waste they produced. About 30% of the surveyed population suggested that the fee should vary depending on the amount of waste being generated.

According to 57% of the respondents surveyed in Kanpur, municipal corporations or other government agencies should have the greatest responsibility for disposing of city’s solid waste and garbage. About 25% of the respondents felt that the greatest responsibility was on the individual citizens or households, while 16% felt that private companies ought to take up this responsibility (Figure 8.12).

Almost 20% of the responses suggested that they typically sold or sent electronic waste for recycling or re-use, followed by 18% respondents who give away paper, magazines or metallic items. In addition to this, 15% respondents gave away cardboards (including used Tetrapak cartons) for recycling or re-use (Figure 8.13).

As much as 98% of respondents were aware of the problem of electronic waste. In order to understand the fate of electrical and electronic waste in the city of Kanpur, citizens were asked about their disposal options for some commonly used electronic products (Figure 8.14). It was revealed that most of the respondents (51%) gave away IT and telecom items such as computers, laptops, etc. Household appliances such as refrigerators and television, etc., were repaired and re-used by almost 42% of the surveyed population, while 41% of the respondents sold them at second-hand markets. Similarly, the largest proportion of respondents (41%) sold

Figure 8.12: Greatest responsibility for solid waste management

1.0%

57.2%

16.5%

25.3% Individuals/households

Municipality or other

Government agencies

Private companies

All of the above

80

Kanpur

smaller IT and telecom items such as CDs and printer/toner cartridges at the second-hand market. In general, more women were getting home appliances and small IT products repaired for re-use than men.

Survey respondents were also questioned on strategies to encourage recycling and re-use practices amongst the public (Figure 8.15). A majority of them (54%) felt that a charge or deposit fee on recyclable items could greatly promote re-use.

On the question of banning polythene bags, almost 74% of the surveyed population felt that this must be done. Interestingly, while more than 95% of the respondents from high- and middle-income localities favoured such a ban, only 42% of respondents from low-income localities agreed.

54% 44% 2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Periodic revision in prices of recyclable products


Figure 8.14: Disposal of electronic waste

0% 50% 100%








marine Drive

mumbai

83

MuMbaI

9

key Highlights � More respondents thought that the situation with respect to air quality, waste management,

green cover, and number of bird species had deteriorated than improved. But, over 50% felt that drinking water availability and quality had improved.

� More than 80% of the total respondents believed that global warming was occurring. Close to 90% of these respondents reported an increase in mean temperature while over 50% reported a decrease in rainfall over the years.

� Thirty, two per cent of the respondents felt that protecting the environment and attaining economic development went hand in hand while 44% felt that the government should prioritize the environment over development.

� Seventy per cent of the respondents felt that the changes in the surrounding environment affect human health.

� Most respondents felt that policies for environmental management existed but were either not well implemented or inadequate. In the case of groundwater and climate change, many respondents did not know whether or not relevant policies existed.

� Close to 50% of the respondents gave Rank 1 to the government and over 60% gave Rank 5 to academic institutions in their efforts to improve the environment.

� More than 63% of the respondents felt that water was being wasted. Of these, about 25% each felt that water was wasted during distribution and due to over-consumption.

� Sixty-two per cent of the respondents reported that they were aware that water tariff was subsidized and a similar number felt that water should be charged on the cost of supply

� Close to 50% of the respondents felt that the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste was to segregate waste before it is disposed.

� More than 63% of the respondents were willing to segregate their waste. � Forty-three per cent of the respondents felt that cost should vary with the amount of

waste generated. � More than two-thirds of the respondents reported that they are aware of the electronic

waste management. By and large, e-waste was being reused or sold in the second-hand market.

� A large majority was in favour of a complete ban on the use of polythene bags in the city.

84

Mumba i

9.1 about mumbai

Mumbai is the largest urban agglomerate in India. It is made up of 8 constituent units, namely Greater Mumbai, Mira-Bhayandar, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Kalyan-Dombivli, Ulhasnagar, Ambarnath, and Badlapur. It has a total population of 18.4 million

inhabitants. While all the three mega cities—Delhi, Kolkata, and Mumbai—have a low sex ratio, Greater Mumbai has the lowest at a mere 861 females per 1,000 males. The Greater Mumbai urban agglomerate has a literacy rate of 90.78%.

9.2 demographic Profile of the SampleThe sample from Mumbai constitutes about 13% of the total survey sample from the 8 cities. The profile of the sample is represented in Figure 9.1. Almost 10% of the respondents were educated up to primary school, followed by 25% of the respondents who had studied till middle and/or secondary level. The share of respondents who received education till higher secondary or were diploma holders was 26% while 27% of the respondents were at undergraduate and above level.

There was a significant representation of the respondents in the age group of 25 to 34 years (33%), followed by the 18–24 age group (28%), 35–44 age group (23%), and the age group 55–64 years (4%) in the sample. Only 1% of the respondents were from the age group, above 65 years.

With regard to occupational distribution, 42% of the respondents were regular salaried professionals working in the private sector, followed by 17% who were either self-employed or owning businesses. Almost 16% of the respondents were students, while 14% were housewives. Seven per cent were either casual/daily workers, unemployed or retired individuals. Finally, 5% were salaried individuals working with the government/public sector. Out of the total sample size of 1,500, a total of 45% were from low-income localities, 21% from middle-income localities, and 34% from high-income localities.

9.3 Status of water, waste, and waste managementBeing the commercial capital as well as the most populous city in India, Mumbai experiences significant pressures on the local environment. The main environmental problems include solid


35-44 years 45-54 years55-64 years Above 65 years

10.3%

25.5%

25.9%

38.3%

28.3%

33.3%

23.3%

9.9%

4.1%1.1%

17.2%13.8%

16.0%

41.7%4.6%

3.0%

1.7%2.0%

Education

Age

Occupation

Locality

33.4%

21.5%

45.4%

Up to primary

High Income

Housewife


Middle Income

Student


Low Income






Retired Unemployed

Figure 9.1: Demographic profile of respondents in Mumbai


85

waste management, water pollution — surface and ground — air pollution, loss of green cover, etc. Mumbai has emerged as one of the greatest producers of solid waste in the country and is estimated that the urban agglomerate of Mumbai generates more than 6% of the total waste generated in India. The average generation of municipal solid waste is more than 6,500 tons while an additional 2,500 tons of construction and demolition waste is generated per day.1 However, due to shortages of resources, collection efficiency is still 70–75%, against the service level benchmarks of 100% identified by the Ministry of Urban Development. Further, challenges related to scientific disposal of solid waste are significant resulting in environmental pollution.

Out of a total water demand of more than 4,000 million litres per day (MLD), the water supply from the municipal corporation of Greater Mumbai, is close to 3,500 MLD. There are also issues related to loss of water during transportation, malfunctioning of metres, as well as non-metred water supply to a substantial number of households.2 There are also issues related to contamination of water at the transmission and distribution levels.

9.4 Survey results

9.4.1 Overall EnvironmentIn order to gauge the perception of citizens about their surrounding environment, respondents were asked about the changes they found in the state of environment over the last five years. A large number of respondents perceived the environmental indicators to have deteriorated (Figure 9.2). Almost 38% and 27% of the respondents felt that air and water quality had deteriorated. More respondents living in low-income localities (42%) perceived that the air quality had worsened, whereas a smaller percentage of middle-income and high-income respondents shared this perception (30% and 36% respectively).

Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents felt that there was a decline in the number of bird species. Forty-seven per cent reported that the waste management services in their neighbourhood had worsened and 39% of the respondents perceived the tree/green cover to have declined.

On a positive note, 59% of the respondents found the quality of drinking water to have improved and 56% found an improvement in drinking water availability.

More women (22%) than men (12%) thought that surface water quality and availability had improved.

While 23% of the respondents who were undergraduates or above perceived that water quality in Mumbai had fallen over

1 http://www.mcgm.gov.in/irj/portal/anonymous/qlcleanover (last accessed on 29 April 2014).2 http://www.icrier.org/pdf/Maharashtra_05nov12.pdf (last accessed on 4 May 2014).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Air quality

Drinking water

quality

Drinking water

availability


and availability

Ground water

availability

Tree cover/

green cover

Number of

bird species

Waste and waste

management


Figure 9.2: Changes in the state of environment in Mumbai over the past five years

86

Mumba i

the last five years, the share of primary-educated respondents with a similar observation was 38%. However, only 20% of the higher secondary educated respondents perceived an improvement in green cover over the last five years, although the share of respondents who were undergraduates or above for the same response was more than 35%.

More than 81% of the respondents felt that global warming was occurring. It is interesting to note that more than 75% of the respondents in every locality had a similar perception. Eighty-eight per cent of the respondents felt that the mean temperature had increased significantly (Figure 9.3). Forty-one per cent reported that rainfall had increased while 53% perceived that rainfall had decreased. Fifty-four per cent reported that wind patterns had decreased.

For understanding the awareness of citizens on environment-related policies of the government and their opinion on the same, respondents were asked if they were aware of government policies, the efficacy of those policies, whether they were being implemented and if they were adequate (Figure 9.4). Almost 43% did not know about the existence of polices with regard to climate change, 33% did not know about the existence of any policy for water conservation, and 38% were unaware of any policy to regulate groundwater use. In other cases, most respondents felt that policies existed but were either not being implemented properly or were inadequate. Twenty per cent of the primary educated and 34% of the middle school educated respondents felt that policies exist for forest conservation but were not adequately implemented.

About 75% of the total survey respondents reported that television was the most important source of any environment related information. Fifty-seven per cent of the respondents reported that local/regional newspapers as their second most important source.

Survey respondents from the city were asked to rank different groups in the society according to their role in efforts for improving environmental quality (Figure 9.5) (with Rank 1 indicating highest efforts and Rank 5 the least efforts). Almost 49% assigned Rank 1 to the government, while 40% of the respondents assigned Rank 1 to consumers. Almost 54% of the respondents from the lowest education group perceived the government’s measures in managing the environment as most valuable. Only 3% of the total sample assigned Rank 1 to business for their efforts in improving the environment. Nineteen per cent of the respondents felt that businesses were taking the least

Figure 9.3: Changes in climatic variables

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Temperature

Rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of

extreme events

Frequency of

extreme events

Increase Decrease Extreme Patterns No Change at all Don't Know

Figure 9.4: Awareness regarding government policies to address various environmental problems

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Air Pollution

Water pollution

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

No government policy exists Policies exist and are well implemented

Policies exist but are not implemented Policies exist but are inadequate


87

measures in improving the environment. Not a single respondent above the age of 50 assigned top rank to businesses. Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents chose Rank 2 for consumers, and 29% gave Rank 2 to government for their efforts in improving the environment quality. With regard to the ranking of groups whose efforts were considered least in improving environment quality, 63% of the respondents gave Rank 5 to academic institutions and research organizations, 19% to businesses, and 12% to the government. The ranking pattern varied across localities with a higher proportion of respondents from high-income localities (54%) than those from low and middle income localities (33% and 31% respectively) assigning Rank 1 to government.

On the issue of prioritizing environmental protection or development or balancing both, 32% of the respondents felt that protecting the environment was not against the objectives of development, but went hand in hand instead (Figure 9.6). It is interesting to note that almost 43% of the respondents who were casual labourers felt that the environment and development should go hand in hand. This response was remarkably different from other occupational categories, such as unemployed (26%) and retired persons (12%). Twenty-four per cent of the respondents reported that environment protection and development should be treated differently and the government should prioritize development, while 44% felt that government must prioritize environment protection over development objectives (Figure 9.6). Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents with higher secondary education felt that government should prioritize environment over development. However, the proportion of the primary-educated respondents with the same response was 52%.

It is an established fact that environment quality and health condition have strong correlation. For understanding citizens’ awareness on the impact of changing environment quality on health, they were asked to identify environmental problems that have the most visible impact on health. Seventy per cent of the respondents felt that the changes in the surrounding environment affect human health. Out of those respondents who felt that there was a linkage between

23.9%

43.5%

31.7%

0.1%0.7%

Yes, they should be treated differently

and the government should priortize

development

Yes, they should be treated differently

and the shoul priortize

environmental protection

government



Can't say

Don't know


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Government

Business


Non Profit Organization

Academic institutions/research organizations


88

Mumba i

local environment and human health, the largest share of the respondents felt that air quality had the most visible impact on health (37%) followed by water quality (36%) and waste management (25%).

9.4.2 WaterCitizens were asked for their views on the key reasons for water wastage in the city of Mumbai. Twenty-seven per cent of the respondents reported that significant quantity of water was wasted during distribution, while 26% felt that water consumption was more than the required amount. Regular leakage of water from taps at home was also identified as a cause of water wastage by 15% of the respondents.

More women (37%) than men (23%) indicated bottled/packaged water as a source of drinking water while more men (73% as against 51% women) identified municipal water as the main source of water. In response to a question on awareness about whether water tariff in the city was subsidized or not, 62% of the respondents were of the view that water tariff imposed was subsidized, and 38% did not know whether it was subsidized or not. More respondents who had at least a graduate degree perceived the water price to be subsidized (82%), than those who had either a higher secondary degree or a diploma (46%).

More women (71%) than men (59%) were aware that the price of water was subsidized by the government. More than 80% of undergraduate and above respondents were aware of this in comparison to 42% of respondents educated up to the primary level. A large proportion of (80%) respondents from middle-income localities were aware of the water subsidy as compared to respondents from both high- and middle-income localities (56% and 57% respectively).

When asked if citizens should pay the actual cost of water, 64% of the respondents felt that citizens should pay the actual cost of water that reflected the scarcity value of water (Figure 9.7). Seventy-eight per cent of respondents from the highest education category — i.e, who were at least graduates — perceived that citizens should pay the actual cost of water as opposed to only 45% of the respondents with primary education, who shared this opinion.

With regard to an ideal billing mechanism, close to 50% of respondents perceived that the amount charged should be based on the amount of water consumed.

A list of activities relevant for protecting water resources was shared with the various respondents and they were asked to rank the same based on their importance (Figure 9.8). Thirty-three per cent of the respondents felt that creating

64.0%

36.0%

Yes

Can't say

Figure 9.7: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water supply

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rainwater

harvesting

Improving

wastewater

treatment

Residential water

conservation

Creating

awareness

Not Important Somewhat important

No opinion Important Very Important



89

awareness was the best policy for conserving water resources. More than 20% of the respondents felt that rainwater harvesting was the best approach, followed by conservation of residential water (by 19%). More women (55% as against 46% men) identified rainwater harvesting as an important way to conserve our water resources.

However, the largest share, i.e., 24% of the respondents, felt that waste water treatment activity was a ‘somewhat important’ measure to protect water resources. Twenty per cent of the respondents working in the private sector perceived that improving waste water treatment was extremely important towards water conservation.

The responsibility of protecting and conserving water resources, according to the respondents, was spread across stakeholder groups including the government, individuals, and certain agencies. Overall, the central and the state government were given a ‘poor’ rating by respondents in terms of fulfilling their duties towards protecting water resources. Twenty-three and 16% of the respondents felt that the central government and the state government, respectively, performed ‘somewhat poorly’ in fulfilling their responsibility for protecting water resources in the respondents’ communities. The local government/municipality was reported to be the worst performer in this respect with 12% of the respondents finding their performance ‘very poor’ and 18% of the respondents finding it ‘somewhat poor’. The respondents felt that individuals and local NGOs outperformed the government agencies in protecting water resources in their community. Almost 34% of the respondents felt that an individuals’ role had been very effective in protecting water resources, while 45% of the respondents felt their role had been moderate. Further, 33% of the respondents felt that role played by NGOs in protecting water resources had been very well too. More respondents from the group with higher secondary education found NGOs to be fulfilling their responsibility for conserving water resources (37% from high secondary education as compared to 21% from primary education).

9.4.3 Waste and Waste ManagementIn India, most of the municipal solid waste generated is organic; this is not only evident from the secondary review of literature, but also from the results of the primary survey. Review of literature reveals that the average proportion of compostable waste generated in urban areas in India ranges from 40% to 60%. More than 80% of the respondents reported that most of the waste generated in their households belonged to the organic waste category (Figure 9.9). Results of the survey revealed that waste was collected from the doorsteps of more than 64% of the respondents.

As far as dealing with the rising problem of waste management is concerned, 50% of the respondents felt that the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste was

81.7%

17.3%1%

Organic waste

Paper / paper bags / tetra

pack cartons

Cloth waste

Figure 9.9: Major components of waste in respondent households

Figure 9.10: Best strategy to minimize waste

33.5%

49.7%

11.0%

4.8%

1.0%

Generate less amount of

waste in house


Improve waste recyclibng

capacity

User charges

Others

90

Mumba i

Figure 9.11: Reasons for refusing to segregate wastes at household level

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Cumbersome

Requires

more space

Civic authority's

responsibility

Waste not collected

seperately by the

civic authorities

Figure 9.12: Billing mechanism for waste management/disposal

42.7%

33.8%

23.5%

Cost should vary with the amount

of waste generated

Same fees should be charged at

all households

Don't Know

to segregate waste before it was disposed. Eleven per cent of the respondents felt that waste reduction at source can help in managing solid waste (Figure 9.10).

Survey respondents were asked to rate the impact of improper solid waste management on health in terms of the severity of the impact. About 56% of the respondents felt that the impact of improper solid waste management on human health can be severe. Thirty-five per cent of the respondents felt that the impact was moderate while only 6% reported the impact to be low. While 40% of retired respondents felt that the impact is severe, 78% of housewives perceived these impacts to be very high.

In terms of willingness to segregate waste, it was interesting to note that more than 63% of the respondents were willing to do so. But, the respondents, who were not willing to segregate, cited various reasons for their inaction and unwillingness (Figure 9.11). Almost 48% of the respondents who were not willing to segregate waste reported that more space was required to keep two separate bins. Twenty-seven per cent felt that the responsibility of waste segregation was with the local municipalities and not with the consumers. There were also respondents (9%) who reported that the entire exercise of waste segregation at the household level was futile as waste was not collected separately by the civic authorities.

With regard to the question on the waste management fee to be charged to a household, 43% of the respondents replied that cost needed to vary with the amount of waste generated while 34% of the survey respondents felt that same fee should be charged to all households, irrespective of the amount of waste they produced (Figure 9.12).

Most of the waste sent for recycling included cardboard items (42%) followed by paper, magazines, and newspapers (20%) (Figure 9.13).

Given that every household generated some form of electronic waste and there existed potential threats associated with unscientific disposal of waste, respondents were asked whether they were aware of the problems associated with its disposal. More than two-third of the respondents reported that they were aware of the problem. Respondents Figure 9.13: Commodities sold/recycled by households

8% 16% 3% 11% 42% 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Metallic items Glass items Broken furniture/household items

Electronic waste Cardboard including tetra packs

Paper, magazines and newspapers Don't Know


91

28% 5% 24% 3% 39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Creating awareness More convenient centres/locations for recycling


Figure 9.15: Measures for promotion of recycling

were then asked about their waste disposal behaviour for electronic waste (Figure 9.14). With respect to household appliances, 59% of the respondents reported that they normally repaired and re-used household items. When asked about sized IT and telecom products, 61% of the respondents reported they either repaired and re-used these products or stored them at their home. With regard to small IT and telecom products, such as toner cartridges, CDs, etc., only a limited share of respondents were either repairing or re-using their products or storing it at homes. In fact, 34% of respondents reported that they gave these products away without knowing the fate of these products once they were given away. Thirteen per cent of the respondents threw these products along with other household garbage and 21% reported that they that the sold these products in the second-hand market.

Thirty-nine per cent of the respondents felt that creating awareness was the best strategy for reducing waste, while 28% felt that charging a deposit fee for recyclable items can minimize waste generation and promote recycling (Figure 9.15). Twenty-four per cent of the respondents felt that there should be stringent laws for waste management to deal with the problems associated with waste disposal.

Finally, 85% of the respondents were in favour of ban on plastic bags. All respondents above 65 years of age felt that polythene bags should be banned completely.

Figure 9.14: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in Mumbai

0% 50% 100%

Sized IT & telecom such


Small IT & telecom such




Sell in second-hand market Repair and re-use

River mula

Pune

95

pune

10

key Highlights � Forty-three per cent of the respondents felt that air quality was getting worse while 34%

thought there was no change. The quality and availability of drinking water and waste management was perceived to be getting better by 73%, 62%, and 51% respondents, respectively.

� Over 90% felt that climate change was occurring. Sixty-eight per cent of these stated that the temperature was increasing and nearly half reported a decline in rainfall.

� Forty-four per cent citizens did not see any conflict between the objectives of environment protection and development, 37% favoured prioritization of development over the environment.

� By and large, respondents were equally divided between those who thought that environmental policies were well implemented and those who thought that these were inadequate ornot well implemented.

� About 50% gave Rank 1 to the government and 40% gave Rank 5 to academic institutions in their efforts to improve the environment.

� Forty-one per cent felt that it was the consumption patterns of individuals that caused wastage of water in the city closely followed by those who identified leakage during distribution and from household taps/faucets.

� Around 57% favoured cost-based tariff for water whereas 39% were against it. About 60% of respondents favoured metered consumption charges while 30% preferred fixed charges or flat rates.

� Only 17.5% stated that garbage was collected from their house with the remaining respondents taking it to a central point for disposal.

� Segregation of waste was considered the best strategy for waste management by 46% of respondents. However, close to 60% were not willing to segregate waste mostly because they thought it was the responsibility of the municipal body.

� Opinion was about roughly divided on the fixed versus amount-linked charges for waste. � People were mostly aware of the hazards associated with e-waste and such waste was

largely being reused or resold. � Thirty-seven per cent felt that curb-side pick of recyclables would be most effective in

improving waste recycling while another 30% opted for awareness creation. � Seventy-nine per cent of the respondents were in favour of a ban on plastic bags in the city.

96

Pune

10.1 about Pune

Pune, located in Pune district of Maharashtra, is the second largest city in the state after Mumbai. Pune is the ninth largest city in the country and ranks eighth among the most populous urban agglomerations of India. The city with its historical importance for education

and culture in the country has emerged as a centre of education in the post-Independence era and more recently thrived as an economic hub for both manufacturing and service sector. The city is the administrative headquarter of Pune district as well as of western Maharashtra division. Pune metropolitan region or urban agglomeration that consists of 2 municipal corporations, 3 cantonment boards (CBs) and around 100 other census towns and villages has a population of 50,49,968 as per 2011 census. The sample for this survey was drawn only from the citizens living in two municipal corporations (Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad) which account for 96% of the total population of the metropolitan region. Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) has a population of 31,15,431 whereas for Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) it is 17,29,359. The geographical area of PMC and PCMC are 250.56 sq. km and 177.3 sq. km, respectively.

10.2 demographic Profile of the Sample The sample for Pune constitutes 25% of the total survey sample across the 8 cities. Of the 2,830 sample respondents for Pune city, 1,821 respondents are drawn from different residential areas in PMC and 1,009 from PCMC. The details of the sampling design are discussed in Chapter 1. The distribution of sample across age groups, educational qualification, and occupations are presented in Figure 10.1.

With respect to age group distribution of the sample, more than 50% of the respondents (52%) were in the age group of 25–34 (Figure 10.1) and around 97% of the respondents were below the age of 54. Respondents within the age group of 35–44 and 18–24 constituted 19% and 15% of the city sample, respectively. As the distribution of sample respondents across different localities are concerned, 46% belonged to low-income localities, 33% are from high-income and 21% middle-income localities.

Around 43% of the sample respondents had studied up to 12th or had a diploma degree and 32% were in the category of middle and secondary school education. Only 18% of the sample respondents had undergraduate and above degrees whereas 7% of the sample population had studied only up to primary school.

14.0%

54.3%

9.2%

2.5%

8.7%

7.8%

2.2%1.3%

18.9%

10.7%

2.8%0.5%

15.0%

52.0%

42.5%

18.4%7.0%

32.2% Occupation

Age Locality

Education

Locality

33.0%

20.6%

46.3%

Up to primary

18-24 years High Income

Housewife


25-34 years Middle Income

Student


35-44 years Low Income

55-64 years



45-54 years

Above 65 years




Retired Unemployed



97

The distribution of sample respondents in city across different occupation shows that 54% were regular salaried in private sector and 14% were self-employed or had their own business. Regular salaried (government), and students constituted 9% each of the total respondents whereas 8% of the respondents were housewives. Around 3% of the respondents were casual workers/daily wage laborers. Unemployed and retired constituted 2% and 1% of the total respondents, respectively.

10.3 Status of water, waste, and waste managementAs Pune is one of the emerging megacities in the country, issues concerning the state of environment in the city have drawn significant attention from the researchers and policy-makers as is evident in research and publications on various aspects of city environment. Both PMC and PCMC also regularly assess the state of environment in the city and publish environmental status reports annually.

The Environmental Status Report (ESR)1 2012–13 of PMC suggests that air pollution, water pollution, and noise pollution in the city (PMC area) are on rise and above permissible standards. Water demand in PMC is met from the three rivers and two lakes located in the city along with around 5,000 bore wells and dug wells. The water pollution (both DO and COD) in the water bodies (lakes and nalas) of the city is within the safe limits but has deteriorated over the years. However, water quality in lakes has improved in recent years over the 2009 assessment due to the pollution control measures initiated by the municipal corporation. Pollution loads in the city have a bearing on human health conditions and the ESR also pointed out to instances of various diseases — respiratory, water-borne, and skin diseases in the city over the years. The ESR also suggests that there are 806 different plant and animal species within the PMC area indicating a rich but threatened biodiversity in the city. The city (PMC area) generates 1,300 MT to 1,400 MT of solid waste which amounts to 400–450 grams per-capita per day.2 Waste from households constitutes 69% of the total solid waste in PMC.

The ESR3 for PCMC suggests that the air pollution in PCMC area is on rise over the years. With 1.13% of area under surface water bodies, PCMC has host of water bodies that includes rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, etc. The water demand of the city is mostly met from Pawana river and in some areas it is complemented by ground water through bore wells. The ESR maintains that Pawana river is highly polluted in compared to other two rivers. The average COD values are within the MPCB limits whereas the BOD, DO, TSS and total coliform levels are above the MPCB standards. Open nalas are the most polluted among the water bodies. PCMC area generates 646 MT on solid wastes daily with a per-capita generation of 350 grams per day and household waste constitutes 84% of the total waste generated.

The Pune City Sanitation Plan 2012 maintains that 94% of the areas in PMC are covered with tap connection and the per capita per-day average water supply is 194 litres. For PCMC, the average per capita daily water supply in residential area is 179 litres. The estimated loss of water

1 Environmental Status Report 2012-13, Pune Municipal Corporation http://www.punecorporation.org/pmcwebn/informpdf/greenper cent20Pune/ESR_2012-13_Marathi.pdf last accessed on 14th March 2014

2 Revised City Development Plan for Pune 2041, http://www.punecorporation.org/pmcwebn/informpdf/CDP/1_CDP_Intro.pdf last accessed on 15th March 2014

3 Environmental Status Report 2012-13, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation http://www.pcmcindia.gov.in/pdf/esr_eng_2013.pdf last accessed on 14th March 2014

98

Pune

in T&D is 25% in PMC4 whereas for PCMC5 it is 20%. The duration of water supply in Pune varies across the wards (20 hours in Dhole Patil Road and 2 hours in Yerwada) and in PCMC the average supply duration is three hours daily.

10.4 Survey results

10.4.1 Overall EnvironmentThe respondents were asked about their perception about trends of changes in various environmental indicators such as air quality, water quality as well as availability, biodiversity, waste and waste management in the city during last five years (Figure 10.2). The findings of the survey suggest that majority of the citizens perceived the city’s environment to be getting better in terms of all environmental indicators except air quality. Almost 43% of the respondents felt that the air quality was getting worse, 34% found no change and 19% perceived it to be getting better (Figure 10.2). The quality and availability of drinking water was perceived to be getting better over last five years in the city by 73% and 62% respondents, respectively. The survey found mixed response on availability of ground water and quality as well as availability of the surface with 35% respondents finding both these indicators to have improved, whereas 25% thought the latter was getting worse and 18% had similar opinion about the former. More than half of the respondents felt that were improvements in waste management in the city and 22% viewed otherwise. The tree cover in the city was perceived to have increased by 45% of the respondents whereas only 34% thought the diversity of birds had improved. The responses on some of these indicators varied marginally across the socio-economic groups. For instance, a larger percentage of respondents living in high and middle-income localities stated that they experienced improvements in water quality and availability as well as tree cover and waste management. Responses varied across educational background too. A larger percentage of respondents

4 Pune City Sanitation Plan 2012, http://www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/uwss/CSP/Draft_CSPper cent5CPune_CSP.pdf last accessed on March 18, 2014

5 Environmental Status Report 2012-13, PImpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. http://www.pcmcindia.gov.in/pdf/esr_eng_2013.pdf last accessed on 14th March 2014

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

air quality

drinking water quality

drinking water availability

surface water

ground water

tree cover

bird species

waste & waste management


Figure 10.2: Perception about changes in the state of environment in Pune over past five years

Figure 10.3: Perception about changes in the climatic variables in Pune over past five years

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

temprature

rainfall

wind pattern

intensity of extreme events

frequency of extreme events

Decrease Don't know Extreme patterns Increase No Change


99

educated upto primary school (40%) than those with and undergraduate or above degree (25%) found water quality to have improved. However, a high percentage of respondents from primary education group found air quality to have deteriorated.

More than 90% of the respondents in the city thought that climate change or global warming was occurring. When asked about their perception on the changes in different climatic variables, 68% stated that temperatures were rising with another 12% pointing out extreme patterns in temperature (Figure 10.3). Similarly, 50% reported a decline in rainfall in the city over the years. Around 25% viewed increasing trends in rainfall. Increase in temperature and decline in rainfall was noted by large proportion of elderly respondents. The views of citizens on wind pattern and extreme events showed mixed responses.

The survey attempted to assess the awareness of the citizens about government policies addressing various environmental concerns and found that the awareness level was fairly high with a large proportion of respondents expressing some or the other opinion on policies (for all areas except climate change and air pollution) (Figure 10.4). Awareness seemed to increase with the level of education. Interestingly, the majority opinion on policies was that the policies are well implemented for all areas of concern except for climate change. A significant proportion of the respondents (around one-fourth) in the city viewed that the policies for conservation of forest, waste management, water supply, and ground water usage were not implemented. Similarly, around one-fifth of the respondents were of the view that the policies to address the problems like water pollution, water supply, ground water usage, waste management, and climate change were inadequate. The awareness varied marginally across the educational qualification categories and residential location of the respondents.

As sources of information on environment-related issues are concerned, television and local newspapers were ranked as the two most important sources by most respondents followed by national newspapers and the internet (Figure 10.5). Research publication, seminars and conferences and school curriculums were found to be sources of information for the least number of respondents. Television and regional newspapers were the major sources of information across all socio-economic groups whereas national newspapers and internet were chosen mostly by respondents living in high-income localities and with higher educational qualification.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Climate change

Forest conservation

Waste management

Water conservation

Groundwater usage

Water supply

Water pollution

Air pollution

No Govt. policy exist Policy exists and well Implemented

Policy exist, but not implemented Policy exist but, inadequate

Don't know

Figure 10.4: Awareness about government policies addressing environmental concerns

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

24 24

59 60

3 32 1 1

National N

ewspapers

Local/

Regional N

ewspapers

Tele

visio

n

Inte

rnet

Magazin

es

Semin

ars a

nd pro

gram

mes

Researc

h Public

ations

School/Colle

ge curriculu

m

Info

rmal c

onvers

ations

Figure 10.5: Sources of information on environmental issues

100

Pune

When asked to rank different stakeholders in terms of their efforts in improving environment in the city (with Rank 1 to be assigned to ones making the greatest efforts and Rank 5 to ones with least effort), government agencies that includes central, state and municipal were accorded Rank 1 by almost 49% of the respondents followed by individual citizens (26%) and academic and research institutions (14%). As is evident from Figure 10.6, non-profit organizations and businesses were given Rank 1 by the least number of respondents, 5% and 7% respectively. In Rank 2, government and business figured prominently as stated by 23% respondents each, followed by academic and research institutions (21%). Non-profit organizations and academic/research institutions were favoured in Rank 4 and Rank 5, respectively, by the largest number of respondents.

The survey made an attempt to gauge the opinion of citizens on the environment versus development debate by asking them whether they think protecting environment is against the objective of development. Around 98% of the respondents expressed their opinion on this with 44% stating that there was no conflict between these two objectives and both should go hand in hand (Figure 10.7). However, 54% respondent viewed that environmental protection and development should be treated differently with 37% favouring prioritization of development and 17% favouring prioritization of environmental protection over developmental objectives. The opinion varied across the educational qualification and occupational categories. A large proportion of respondents in the category of undergraduate and above educational qualification opined that the government should prioritize environment over development. A higher proportion of respondents in regular private salaried occupation category viewed that development and environmental protection went hand in hand.

The finding of the survey suggested that the citizens were well aware of the health impacts of environmental quality with 88% respondents making this linkage. When asked about the instances of health problems associated with poor environmental quality, respiratory


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 5

Rank 4

Government Business Consumers Non-Profit Organisations

Academic/Res earch Institutions

Figure 10.7: Perception about the environment-development debate

37.3%

16.6%

44.2%

0.4%

1.5%Yes, Govt should prioritize

Development

Yes, Govt should prioritize

Enviornmenal Protection

No, development and

enviornmental protection go

hand in hand

Can't say

Don't Know

37.3%

25.0%

14.6%

0.2%

23.0%Respiratory illnesses

(asthma, lung cancer, etc)


(diarrhoea, etc)

Skin diseases (allergies, etc.)

Others (Pls Specify)

All

Figure 10.8: Perception on health impacts of environmental pollution


101

illnesses were viewed by 37%, water-borne diseases by 25%, and skin diseases by 15% whereas 23% felt that environmental pollution caused all these diseases (see Figure 10.8).

Air quality, among other environmental problems in the city, was perceived to have had the most visible impact on people’s health as stated by 64% of the respondents followed by problems due to waste and water quality as reported by 24% and 12% of the respondents, respectively. It is worth mentioning here that a very large number of the respondents (43%) viewed that air quality in the city had worsened over last five years.

10.4.2 WaterThe survey tried to understand the views of the citizens on the major causes of wastage of water in the city and responses are presented in Figure 10.9. The results found that 41% of the respondents felt that it was the use pattern of the individual consumers that cause wastage. The other sources of wastage as viewed by the respondents were leakage during distribution (39%) and leakage from taps and faucets in the house (34%). However, more than two-third of the respondents viewed that water was not being wasted.

Around 63% of the respondents were aware that the government subsidizes water charges that citizens pay and the remaining 37% expressed their ignorance on this issue. The awareness level varied across the socio-economic characteristics such as age, education, and localities of the respondents. A large proportion of respondents from middle- and high-income localities (73% and 74% respectively) were found to be aware of this when compared low-income localities (51%). Similarly, the awareness level was found to be more with increased age (55% for the age group 18-25 and 85% for age group 65 and above) and educational qualification (58% for respondents educated up to primary and 72% for undergraduates and above) of respondents.

An attempt was made to understand the opinion of the citizens towards charging the actual cost of water to discourage its wastage. Those who were aware of the government subsidy on water charges were asked whether people should pay the actual cost. Around 57% respondents viewed that they should pay the actual cost whereas 39% were not in favour of paying the actual cost (Figure 10.10). Interestingly, higher proportion of respondents from high-income localities (41%) did not favour paying the actual cost when compared with middle- and low-income (35% and 34% respectively). While 46% of the primary and middle school educated respondents felt that citizens should pay the actual price of water, only 26 % of the respondents who were undergraduates or above had a similar opinion.

Figure 10.9: Major reasons for wastage of water: respondents could choose multiple options as reasons

34.10

39.0841.45

35.05

12.97

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Leakages from

taps/faucets in

your house

Leakages

during

distribution

(from

municipalities,

tankers, etc. to

your house)

Too much

water used

where less is

required by us

as consumers

Water is not

being wasted

I don’t know

Figure 10.10: Willingness to pay the actual cost of water

57.6%

38.6%

3.7%

Yes

No

Can't say

102

Pune

The two municipal corporations in the city have different billing mechanisms for water charges. The water charges in PMC are linked to the property tax6 whereas in PCMC it is based on consumption volumes, which are metered.7 When asked about the preferred billing mechanism, 61% of respondents favoured metered consumption charges, 31% preferred fixed charges/flat rates, and 4% favoured slab -wise volumetric consumption rates (low rate up to a level and higher rate beyond an amount of water consumption). The views varied across the respondents from two municipal corporations with 64% and 57% preferring metered consumption in PMC and PCMC, respectively. Around 10% respondents in PMC preferred slab-wise rates, whereas in PCMC 3% respondents preferred the same. The responses on the preferred water billing mode is presented in Figure 10.11.

Almost 98% of the respondents reported to be dependent upon municipal supply for drinking water and 60% treated this water at home to make it safer for drinking purposes. When asked about the treating methods, 50% used Reverse Osmosis (RO) and 46% resorted to boiling water to make it safer to drink.

The survey attempted to understand the perception of the citizens about the importance of different water conservation measures and the responses are presented in Figure 10.12. Residential water conservation measures were perceived to be very important by 37% of the respondents with another 29% consider this as important. Similarly, creating awareness about the water conservation was considered very important by 35% of the respondents and important by 45% of the respondents. Rainwater harvesting was viewed as a very important measure by 33 respondents and important by 41% while 16% respondents considered this as not important.

When asked about the opinion of the citizens on the role of different stakeholders in protecting the water resources in the city, municipal corporations were considered to be fulfilling their responsibility very well by 51% of the respondents with another 22% respondents rating municipal corporations’ performance as moderately well. However, around 14% opined that municipal corporations fulfilled its responsibility somewhat poorly and 7% very poorly, respectively. The state government was rated very well by 20% respondents and moderately well by 51% respondents whereas 15% rated it somewhat poorly or very poorly. Similarly, the central

6 http://www.indiaurbanportal.in/bestpractices/bestpractices42/bestpractices420.pdf last accessed on 1st April 20147 Information obtained from municipal corporation officials

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

rainwater

harvesting

improving waste

water treatment

residential water

conservation

creating awareness and

educating citizens

Not Important Somewhat Important No Opinion


Figure 10.12: Importance of different measures for conservation of water

Figure 10.11: Preferred water billing mode

The inner circle in the doughnut represents responses in PMC, middle circle represents responses in PCMC and the outer circle represents aggregate response.

Fixed Charges/Flat Rates

Metered/Consumption Based

Slabwise Rates

7.5

31.14

0.7

25.8

PMC,64.0

PMC

, 56

.7

PMC, 61.4

2.6

10.1


103

government, individual citizens, and NGOs were rated with mixed response. More men (23%) than women (13%) thought that NGOs were doing very well in terms of their environmental responsibility.

10.4.3 Waste and Waste ManagementOnly 17.5% of the respondents stated that garbage was collected from their house with remaining 82.5% said they took the garbage to a central point for disposal. As the composition of the household garbage is concerned, 90% of the household viewed that organic waste constituted the major component of their household garbage (Figure 10.13).

The survey also explored the opinion of the citizens on different strategies to manage the problem of solid waste. Segregation of waste was considered the best strategy to address the problem of solid waste in the city by 46% of the respondents whereas another 44% emphasized upon generating less waste in households as the best strategy. This apart, 8% of the respondents stated improving the waste recycling capacity was the best strategy and only around 3% considered levying user charges on the volume of waste disposed as the best strategy to manage waste in city.

The citizens were asked their perception on health impacts of improper solid waste management. Almost 31% of the respondents felt it had several impacts on health with another 51% stating moderate impacts.

Segregation of waste was viewed as a strategy for the management of waste by a very large percentage of respondents. Both PMC and PCMC have initiated some measures to promote segregation at the household level. However, when asked about whether they were willing to segregate their household waste to biodegradable and otherwise before disposing it, only 42% of the households expressed their willingness to do so. Of those respondents who expressed their willingness to segregate, 31% were already doing it whereas 22% thought that segregation was good for environment and the rest 47% felt that once segregated, biodegradable waste could be used to make compost. Of those who were not willing to segregate household waste, 48% thought it was the responsibility of the municipal corporation to do so. 24% found it cumbersome to separate waste, 21 felt segregation required more space and 6% respondents opined that segregation at household level did not make sense as the municipal corporation was not collecting it separately (Figure 10.14).

The opinion of the citizens on the waste management fee structure was found to be mixed with 47% of the respondents favouring

Organic waste

Paper waste

Plastic

Electonic waste

Cloth waste

4.7% 5.0%

0.2% 0.4%

89.7%

Figure 10.13: Major components of the households waste

Figure 10.14: Willingness for segregation of household waste

24.4621.13

48.12

6.30

21.73

47.71

30.56

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

its

cum

be

rso

me

req

uir

es

mo

re s

pa

ce

its

no

t m

y

resp

on

sib

ility

wa

ste

no

t co

llect

ed

sep

ara

tely

goo

d fo

r

en

viro

nm

en

t

wa

ste

ca

n b

e

com

po

ste

d

alr

ea

dy

segg

rega

tin

g

58% not willing to segregate waste 42% willing to segregate waste

a fee that varies with the amount of waste generated whereas 43% preferring a lump sum fee that is same for all households. Around 10% respondents did not have any opinion on the fee structure.

The survey asked the citizens about items that the household typically sold or sent for recycling or reuse to understand their approach towards recycling. Paper, magazines, and newspapers were the most commonly items sold followed by broken furniture, glass items, metallic items, waste, and cardboards (Figure 10.15).

When asked on awareness about the problems associated with electronic waste and their disposal in the city, 71% of the respondents reported to be aware of the same. The survey also asked the respondents about what they do with their household e-waste and the respondents (Figure 10.16). Concerning household electronic appliances such as television, refrigerator, air conditioners, 61% of the household got such devices repaired, 19% sold these in the second hand market, and 12% gave these away. When it came to sized IT and telecom electronics items such as computers, cell phone, laptops, personal stereos, etc., around 60% of the respondents repaired and reused these, 18% sold these in the second-hand market, and 11% give these away. Small IT and telecom electronics gadgets such as printers, toner cartridges, pen drives, CDs, etc., were reportedly thrown away with garbage by 13% respondents and repaired and reused by 33% of respondents.

When asked about the views of the citizens on the strategies that can promote recycling/reuse, the largest proportion (37%) felt that provision to pick up recyclables from curb side would help followed by 29% who favoured awareness creation (Figure 10.17).

18.27%

30.39%

7.77%11.20%

71.31%

32.79%

3.99%0.64%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%

Meta

llic it

ems

Glass

item

s

Cardboard

inclu

ding te

tra p

acks

Paper, m

agazines a

nd newsp

apers

Electro

nic waste

Broken fu

rnitu

re/house

hold it

ems

None

Don't know

Figure 10.15: Items that the households sell/send for recycling or reuse

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sized IT &Telecom

products

Small It and

Telecom products

household

appliances

Throw with household garbage Give it away Store It

Sell It in 2nd hand mkt Get it repaired

Figure 10.16: What people do with their household e-waste

10.5%

37.3%

11.6%

8.4%

29.4%

1.5% 1.3%

Charge Deposit/Fees on

Recyclable items

Pick Up recyclabes from

Curb Side

Law Requiring Recycling

Periodic revision in prices

of recyclable products

Creating Awareness

more Convenient Centers

as recycling centers

Figure 10.17: Measure to promote recycling/reuse

More than half of the respondents were of the opinion that individuals/households had the greatest responsibility in disposing the solid waste in city and 37% of the respondents consider the municipal corporation or other government agencies to have the greatest responsibility (Figure 10.18). Around 10% opined that all the stakeholders have roles in managing the solid


105

50.5%

37.1%

2.2%10.0%

0.2%

Individual/Households

Municipality

Private Companies

All of Above

Don't Know

Figure 10.18: Greatest responsibility for the disposal of solid waste

waste. The responses varied with the age, gender, and educational qualification of the respondents with larger percentage of younger respondents (less than 34 years) and male respondents preferring greater role for private companies. The respondents from higher educational qualification category (undergraduate and above) preferred a greater role for municipalities in the disposal of solid waste.

The survey also attempted to gauge the opinion of the citizens on banning plastic bags. It was found that 79% of the respondents were in favour of a complete ban on plastic bags in the city.

107

In this chapter, we bring together key results from the eight cities in a comparative assessment. Bearing in mind the limitations posed by the sample size, this analysis allows us to make some overall deductions about differences in perceptions, awareness, and opinions on various

environmental issues, with a focus on issues of waste and water, across the cities covered in the survey.

11.1 overall environmentConsidering the first responses on perceptions around changes in key environmental indicators, Figure 11.1 plots, for each city, the difference between the proportion of respondents who reported a worsening of environmental quality and those who reported an improvement. The grey area (above zero on the axis) represents a higher relative share of those who perceived deterioration in environmental quality, while the green area (below zero on the axis) represents a higher relative share of those who perceived an improvement. As can be seen from the Figure 11.1, among the selected cities, this difference was much higher for Guwahati and Jamshedpur across environmental parameters. On the other hand, in Coimbatore and Pune, an equal or higher proportion of respondents reported an improvement across most environmental parameters. A notable exception is air quality where a much higher proportion of respondents perceived deterioration than improvement across cities. The state of green cover and birds was also reported to have worsened by the majority in all cities except Coimbatore and Pune where it was perceived to have improved. Going by this survey, among environmental

coMparatIve analysIs across cItIes

11

The axis represents the difference between the proportion of respondents who perceived deterioration and improvement, respectively in the indicator . Thus, a positive number (area shaded in grey) represents a higher relative share of those who perceived deterioration in environmental quality, while a negative number (area shaded in green) represents a higher relative share of those who perceived an improvement. For each indicator, the more widespread the perception of deterioration in environmental quality relative to an improvement, the further up the plot from zero.

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

AirDrinking water qualityDrinking water availabilitySurface water quality and availability (lakes, rivers, ponds, etc.)Ground water availability(change in groundwater level)Tree cover/green cover in your area (forest cover, parks, open spaces, etc.)Number of bird species in your city (ex. sparrows, butterflies, etc.)Waste and waste management (garbage collection, treatment, dumping, etc.)

-80

-40

0

40

80

Figure 11.1 Perception of change in environmental quality

108

Comparat i ve ana lys i s ac ross c i t i es

parameters, more respondents perceived an improvement than deterioration in the case of drinking water quality (except in Guwahati) and availability (except in Indore and Guwahati). The inter-city picture on surface and ground water as well as waste management was more mixed.

On the question of climate change, a majority of the respondents across cities felt that global warming was occurring (Figure 11.2). On specific climatic variables (Figures 11.3), the majority of respondents in all cities felt that temperature had increased, while rainfall had decreased (except in Indore where people felt that rainfall had increased). In Indore, Jamshedpur, Coimbatore, Pune, Delhi, and Mumbai, most respondents felt that the number of windy days had shown a decreasing pattern, while in Kanpur and Guwahati most felt that the pattern had become more extreme. In the case of intensity and frequency of extreme events, views were more mixed and many respondents across cities said they didn’t know which way the trends were going.

The survey asked people about their awareness regarding government policies related to the environment and their perception on the adequacy and efficiency in implementation of such policies. Figure 11.4 presents the proportion of respondents who chose one or the other of three options: policies do not exist; exist and are well implemented; exist but are inadequate/not well implemented. By and large, people were aware of the policies but were concerned about their adequacy and level of implementation (as evident from the red octagon being the outermost for most parameters). There were some exceptions as well. In Jamshedpur, the majority felt that there were no policies for air pollution and a significant number (about 20% or more) felt that there were no policies to address water conservation and pollution, waste management, and climate change. Likewise, a majority in Indore felt that no policies existed for groundwater use and climate change. The majority of respondents in Coimbatore and Pune seemed satisfied with the implementation of policies on waste management, air, and water pollution. Though not shown in Figure 11.4, respondents had an additional `don’t know’ option. The results show that in general more people from Guwahati used the ‘don’t know’ option as compared to other cities. Also, the maximum number of ’don’t know’ responses was elicited

86.6

98.1

90.7

89.1

98.8

90.3

91.0

81.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Is climate change or global warming occurring

Yes No May be Can't Say

Figure 11.2: Perception on climate change

Axes represent proportion of respondents

Figure 11.3: Perceptions on changes in climatic variables

020

406080

100Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Temperature

0

50

100Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Rainfall

020406080

100Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Wind pattern



109

on policies for water conservation and climate change.

Respondents were asked to rank different stakeholders for their roles in environmental management from 1 to 5, with Rank 1 being the best and Rank 5 the worst. Figure 11.5 gives the average rank given by all respondents in a city to each stakeholder weighted by the proportion of respondents that gave each rank. Though the responses varied by city, in general it may be said that respondents seemed to give a higher rank to the government (except in Jamshedpur) and consumers (except in Kanpur and Delhi), an intermediate rank to NGOs (except in Indore and Pune, where they were given a low rank), and a low rank to business (except in Coimbatore where 36% gave it Rank 2) and academic institutes (except in Kanpur, where over 50% gave them Rank 2).

On the issue of trade-offs between environment and development, the majority of the respondents either felt that the two went hand-in-hand (in Pune,


Figure 11.4: Awareness and perception on environmental policies

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Air pollution

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water pollution

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water supply

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Groundwater

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water conservation

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Waste management

0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00

100.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Forest conservation

Not exist Exist and well implemented

Exist but not implemented/inadequate

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Climate change

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Air pollution

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water pollution

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water supply

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Groundwater

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Water conservation

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Waste management

0.0020.0040.0060.0080.00

100.00Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Forest conservation

Not exist Exist and well implemented

Exist but not implemented/inadequate

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Climate change

Figure 11.5: Aggregate (weighted) ranking of different stakeholders in environmental responsibility

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Environment-development

priortize development priortize environmental protection

go hand in hand Don't Know/Can't Say

Figure 11.6: Perceptions on the trade-offs between environmental protection and development

1.75

2.25

2.75

3.25

3.75

4.25

Indore

Kanpur

GuwahatiPune

Delhi

Mumbai Jamshedpur

Coimbatore

Government

Business

Consumers

NGOs

Academic

Institutions

Axes represent average rank

110


11.2 waterMajority of respondents in all cities, except Coimbatore, were aware that the water price charged to them was subsidized by the government (Figure 11.7). Many respondents in Mumbai, Pune, Guwahati, and a majority in Coimbatore had no knowledge about the subsidy. However, only in Indore, Kanpur, Guwahati, Pune, and Mumbai, respondents felt that the consumers should pay the actual cost of water (Figure 11.8). In Delhi, Coimbatore, and Jamshedpur, majority felt that water should be subsidized. When asked to choose the ideal billing system (from fixed charges, metered supply, and consumption-slab based rates) for water supply to households, opinion was divided in Guwahati and Mumbai, while respondents in Indore and Coimbatore mostly preferred fixed charges and those in Jamshedpur, Pune, and Delhi chose metered billing based on consumption (Figure 11.9).

Respondents were also asked to rate different measures for protecting water resources. In most cities, except Indore, people rated awareness creation and residential water conservation as ‘important–very important’. Improving waste water treatment was cited as an ‘important–very important’ action in all cities by a large number of respondents except in Indore and Jamshedpur, where it was rated as a somewhat important action by most. Similarly, majority of respondents in all cities, except in Indore,

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Awarenss of water subsidy

Yes No Don't know

Figure11.7: Awareness regarding subsidy in water tariffs

Figure 11.8 Views on whether water tariffs should be based on cost of supply

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Should we pay actual cost of water that reflects the

scarcity value of water and discouragewasage?

Yes No Cant Say

Figure 11.9 Preferred billing mechanism

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

What is the best / ideal billing mechanism?

Fixed Charges Metered/Consumption

Coimbatore and Guwahati) or that the environment should be prioritized over development (Mumbai, Delhi, Kanpur, Indore). However, it should be noted that about 25% of the respondents in some cities (Mumbai and Delhi) and a higher share in others (Pune, Jamshedpur) felt that development should be prioritized over the environment (Figure 11.6).

An overwhelming majority across cities concurred that environmental quality had affected their health.


111

rated rain water harvesting as an important action in protecting water resources. In Indore, most of those surveyed felt that rain-water harvesting was not important.

Citizens of the eight cities were asked to rate different stakeholder groups according to their performance in discharging their responsibilities for protecting water resources in their community. Figure 11.10 plots, for each city, the difference between the proportion of respondents who rated a stakeholder as performing moderately–very well and the proportion of those who gave a rating of somewhat–very poor. It may be seen that majority people were satisfied with most stakeholders. The important exception is Kanpur, where the majority was dissatisfied with the stakeholders except the state government. Also, in Jamshedpur, a large majority appeared dissatisfied with the central and state governments, while in Delhi a small majority was dissatisfied with the central and local governments. Not shown in the graph, a significant proportion of people in Guwahati, Jamshedpur, and Coimbatore were unaware about the work done by NGOs.

11.3 waste and waste managementManagement of solid waste and e-waste is one of the most challenging tasks in urban India. Respondents across the surveyed cities were asked a number of questions related to waste and waste management as a part of this survey. When asked about the linkage with health, in all cities, except Pune, majority of the respondents said that improper waste management had severe impacts on health, while in Pune most of the surveyed citizens felt that the impacts were moderately severe.

Proper collection of waste constitutes the basis of waste management, so citizens were asked whether or not waste was being collected from their doorsteps. While the majority in Kanpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, Delhi, and Mumbai said that it was being collected, the majority in Indore, Jamshedpur, and Pune reported that this was not the case. Citizens were asked their views on the best strategy to manage solid waste. Most of the respondents in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, Coimbatore, and Delhi felt that it was best to generate less waste at the household level, while majority of the respondents in Guwahati, Pune, and Mumbai opted for segregation of waste as the ideal strategy. Majority of the respondents in Indore chose improvements in waste recycling capacity as the best strategy.

Figure 11.10: Perceptions about performance of stakeholders in water management: difference between the proportion of respondents who reported ‘moderately–very well’ and those who reported ‘somewhat–very poor’ when asked about the performance of different stakeholders

The axis represents the difference between the proportion of respondents who rated a stakeholder as performing ‘moderately–very well’ and those who gave a rating of ‘somewhat–very poor’. Thus, a positive number (area shaded in grey) represents a higher share of respondents who gave a poor ranking, while a negative number (area shaded in green) represents a higher relative share of those who gave a good ranking. For each stakeholder, the larger the relative proportion of respondents who gave a poor ranking, the further up the plot from zero.

-80

-40

0

40

80Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

MumbaiCentral government

State government

Local government

Individuals

NGOs

112


On their willingness to segregate waste at the household level, majority of respondents in Kanpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, and Mumbai said they were willing to do so, while in the remaining four cities most respondents said they were not (Figure 11.11).

Almost 48% of the respondents in Indore felt that waste segregation would be difficult due to requirement of more space. About one-third of the respondents in the cities of Jamshedpur and Kanpur however reported their inability to segregate since this was cumbersome (Figure 11.12).

Close to two-fifths of the total respondents in cities, such as Coimbatore, Guwahati, and Mumbai reported their willingness to segregate waste since this was good for the environment (Figure 11.13). A number of respondents in several cities (as high as 34% in Kanpur) reported that they already segregate wastes in their houses.

People were also asked about their preferred option for payment for waste management services. Opinion was divided between volume-based charges and fixed charges. In Guwahati and Indore, a large majority opted for volumetric-charges, while in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Coimbatore a large majority chose fixed fees as the ideal billing mechanism.

Most respondents across cities were aware of the hazards posed by e-waste. Across cities, such waste was largely being repaired and re-used (by self or given away to others for use) or sold in the second-hand market. With regard to small IT products, such as toners, cartridges, pen drives, etc., in most cities only a small proportion of

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Indore

Jamshedpur

Kanpur

Guwahati

Coimbatore

Pune

Delhi

Mumbai

Are you willing to segregate?

NO YES

Figure 11.11 Willingness to segregate waste

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Delhi NCR

Greater

Mumbai

Indore

Jamshedpur

Coimbatore

Kanpur

Pune

Guwahati Cumbersome task

Will require more

space to keep two

separate bins

It is the local civic

authority's/municipal

corporation's

repsonsibility

Figure 11.12 Percentage breakup of respondents’ response to reasons for not segregating waste


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Delhi NCR

Greater

Mumbai

Indore

Jamshedpur

Coimbatore

Kanpur

Pune

Guwahati

It is good for the

environment

I can use the

biodegradable

wastes to compost

I already segregate

the wastes

generated at home

Figure 11.13 Percentage break-up of respondents’ response to reasons for segregating waste


respondents (ranging between 0.1% and 4.3% of the city sample sizes) disposed of these items along with their garbage. However, in Indore and Pune, almost 14% and 20% of the respondents


113

surveyed respectively reported that they disposed of small, sized IT products along with their garbage.

The survey also sought the views of people on ways to encourage recycling. Majority of respondents in Kanpur and Delhi felt that charging deposit fee on recyclable items and picking up of recyclables from curbside would be a way. For, majority of respondents from Jamshedpur, Guwahati, Coimbatore, and Mumbai, awareness creation was the favourite choice, while many in Indore and Mumbai felt the need for a law requiring recycling. Citizens were also asked who they felt had the greatest responsibility in managing the city’s garbage. A large majority of respondents in Jamshedpur, Kanpur, and Coimbatore felt that municipality and other government agencies had the greatest responsibility, while in Pune and Mumbai most respondents felt that individual citizens and households had the greatest responsibility. In Indore, most people felt that private companies should bear the largest onus for waste management. In Guwahati and Delhi, most respondents felt that each stakeholder had an equal responsibility towards managing the city’s solid waste.

Majority respondents across cities favoured a complete ban on polythene bags. However, most of the respondents from low-income localities in Kanpur were against this measure.

115

appendix 1: Questionnaire1

TERI Environmental survey 2014

Citizens Survey

final Survey QuestionnaireHello, my name is ______________ from the public opinion research firm of ICRB Consulting. In collaboration with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), we are conducting a survey of people’s views/perceptions, behaviour, opinion, and awareness about important issues faced by them with respect to the environment. Please be assured that we are not selling or soliciting anything. This is strictly a research project, being conducted in 8 cities in India. Shall we begin the survey?

Background InformationA. Name:b. Contact information (phone number/email ID) – Optionalc. Type of locality (answered by the surveyor)

i. Tax category of locality/socio-economic status of localityii. Name of locality

iii. Type of localityi. Slums/ villages/Jhuggi-jhopri cluster/unauthorized colonies

ii. Lower middle class localityiii. Upper middle class localityiv. High-income localities

D. Cityi. National Capital Region

ii. Greater Mumbaiiii. Indore iv. Jamshedpurv. Coimbatore

1 Translations of the questionnaire in other languages used for the survey are available on request

QuestIonnaIre

12

116

Quest ionna i re

vi. Kanpurvii. Pune

viii. Guwahati

E. Age groupi. 8–24 years

ii. 25–34 yearsiii. 35–44 yearsiv. 45–54 yearsv. 55–64 years

vi. Above 65 yearsF. Gender

i. Femaleii. Male

iii. Othersg. Education

i. Up to Primary School (till Class V)ii. Middle and Secondary (Class X)

iii. Higher Secondary (Class XII) or Diplomaiv. Undergraduate and abovev. Others, please specify

h. Occupationi. Self-employed/business

ii. Regular salaried (private)iii. Regular salaried (government)iv. Casual / daily wage workerv. Student

vi. Housewifevii. Unemployed

viii. RetiredI. Annual household income

i. Upto 1 Lakhii. 1 to 3 Lakhs

iii. 3 to 5 Lakhsiv. 5 to 10 Lakhsv. 10 to 20 Lakhs

vi. Greater than 20 Lakhsvii. No response

J. How long have you been living in the city?i. Upto 1 year

ii. 1-2 yearsiii. 2-5 yearsiv. Over 5 years


117

Overall Environment1. Do you perceive a change in the following indicators for the state of the environment around your area over the

last five years (2009 onwards)?

No change Better Worse No direct experience

Don’t know

Air quality (smoke, smog, particles, dust, smell)

Drinking water quality

Drinking water availability

Surface water quality and availability (lakes, rivers, ponds, etc.)

Ground water availability(change in groundwater level)

Tree cover/green cover in your area (forest cover, parks, open spaces, etc.)

Number of bird species in your city (ex. sparrows, butterflies, etc.)

Waste and waste management (garbage collection, treatment, dumping, etc.)

2. a. Do you think climate change or global warming is occurring2? (Surveyors--please give the definition of climate change and if possible, some examples)

1. Yes 2. No

3. Maybe 4. Can’t say

2 Climate change is defined as “Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” OR you can use “any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer”

b. What has been the change in the following climatic variables?

Climatic variable Increase Decrease Extreme patterns

No change at all Don’t know

Temperature

Precipitation/rainfall

Wind pattern

Intensity of extreme events (floods, drought, storms, etc.)

Frequency of extreme events (floods, drought, storms, etc.)

3. Are you aware of any government policies that address the following environmental concerns?

No government policies exist

Yes, government policies exist Don’t know

And are well implemented

But, are not implemented

But, are inadequate

Air pollution

Water pollution including wastewater treatment

Water supply

Groundwater usage

Water conservation (rainwater harvesting in buildings, wastewater usage for horticulture etc.)

Waste management

Forest conservation

Climate change

4. Which are the two most important sources of information on environment related issues for you? (Surveyors--Do not prompt unless they want options)

Source of information Is the information provided by the source adequate? (Yes/No)

National newspapers

Local/regional newspapers

Television

Internet

Magazines

Seminars and programmes


119

Research publications

School/college curriculum

Informal conversations

Any other source, please specify

I don’t have any information

5. Assign rank (1-5) to the following groups in their efforts to help improve the environment (Rank 1 is for the greatest efforts and rank 5 is for the least efforts).

Stakeholder group Ranking

Government (Central, State, Municipal Corporation)

Businesses


Non-profit organizations

Academic institutions/Research organizations.

6. Do you think protecting the environment (reducing air pollution, water pollution, controlling deforestation, preserving our minerals, etc.) is against the objectives of development (poverty reduction, increasing levels of education, improving the health of people, etc.)?

1. Yes, they should be treated differently and the government should prioritize development2. Yes, they should be treated differently and the government should prioritize environmental protection3. No, environment protection and development go hand in hand4. Can’t say5. Don’t know6. Any other, please specify –

7. Health and Environment

1. Do you think that the quality of the environment has an immediate impact on our health? a) Yes b) No (If the option is Yes, then move to question 7b, If the option is No, then move to question 8)

2. Which of the following instances of health problems can be attributed to poor environmental quality?

1. Respiratory illnesses (asthma, lung cancer, etc.) 2. Water-borne diseases (diarrhoea, etc.)

3. Skin diseases (allergies, etc.) 4. Others, please specify

5. All 6. None

3. Which environmental problem do you think has had the most visible impact on people’s health (identify only one option-most visible)

1. Air quality 2. Water quality

3. Waste 4. No problem

120

Quest ionna i re

Water8. What are the major causes of wastage of water in your city (please choose all that apply)?

1. Leakages from taps/faucets in your house 2. Leakages during distribution (from municipalities, tankers, etc. to your house)3. Too much water used where less is required by us as consumers4. Water is not being wasted5. I don’t know6. Others, please specify ______________

9. a. Are you aware that the price of water charged to users is subsidized?

Reason/explanation for your choice

YesNoDon’t Know

b. If yes, alignment do you think we should pay the actual cost of water that reflects the scarcity value of water and discourage wastage? (Surveyors could elaborate as--should water be more expensive if it is scarce and/or is being wasted)

1. Yes, always 2. No

3. Can’t say 4. Others, (please specify)

10. What is the best/ideal billing mechanism that can be used to price water supply to households?

1. Fixed charges/flat rates 2. Metered/consumption based

3. Low rate for up to a level and higher rate beyond an amount of water consumption/slab wise

4. Others, please specify ______________

11. a. What is the source of drinking water at your house?

1. Municipal supply 2. Groundwater/bore well supply

3. Packaged/bottled/mineral water 4. Others ( please specify)

b. Do you treat your water in any way to make it safer to drink?


3. Sometimes 4. Don’t Know

If yes in 11.b , then move to 11.c, otherwise move to Q.12

c. If yes, What do you usually do to make the water safer to drink?(Select all that apply)

1. Boil 2. Add bleach/chlorine

3. Cloth filtration 4. Use a water filter (ceramic, sand, composite, etc.)

5. Let it stand and settle 6. Aquaguard/RO

7. Other (please specify) 8. Do not know


121

12. How important are the following actions in protecting our water resources?

Not important Somewhat important

No opinion Important Very important


Improving wastewater treatment

Residential water conservation (including improving home and garden practices)

Creating awareness and educating citizens

Don’t know

Other ways, please specify

13. How well do you feel each one of these groups is fulfilling their responsibility for protecting water resources in your community?

Very well Moderately well Don’t know/can’t say Somewhat poorly Very poorly

Central government

State government

Your local government/municipal corporation

Individual citizens

NGOs

Solid and electronic waste management

14. Is garbage collected from your house?

Yes No

Have to take it yourself to a central point

Burn it Others, please specify

15. What is usually the major component of the garbage that you generate at home?

1. Organic waste (vegetable/fruit peels, leftover or stale food, horticulture waste etc.)2. Paper / paper bags / tetra pack cartons etc.1. Plastic and PET bottles (wrappers and plastic bags used to pack food etc.)1. Electronic waste (cables and wires, fused lights, used batteries etc.) 1. Cloth waste (rags, tailoring waste, sacks etc.)2. Any other, please specify___________________

16. Are you aware of the problem of electronic waste?

(Surveyors could use the definition to explain- E-waste comprises wastes generated from used electronic devices and household appliances, which are not fit for their original intended use and are destined for recovery, recycling or disposal. Such wastes encompasses wide range of electrical and electronic devices, such as computers, hand held cellular phones, personal stereos, and large household appliances, such as refrigerators, air conditioners etc.)

122

Quest ionna i re


17. What you do with the following electrical and electronic waste?

Throw it with other garbage of the household

Give it away (for example to Kabadiwala, maids, manufacturer, retailer, etc); please specify

Store it at home

Sell it in second hand market

Get it repaired and reuse it

Any other method

Sized IT & Telecom, such as computers, hand held cellular phones, laptops,personal stereos

Small IT & Telecom, such as printer/toner cartridges, pen drives, CDs

Household appliances, such as refrigerators, air conditioners etc

18. According to you, which amongst these is the best strategy to manage the problem of solid waste/garbage? Choose one option

1. Generate less amount of waste in the house 2. Segregation of waste

3. Improve waste recycling capacity 4. User charges (charges for the amount of waste generated, ex. In kilograms or the number of bags collected)

5. Others, please specify _____________ 6. I don’t know

19. What is the degree of negative impacts of improper solid waste (garbage) management on human health

1. Severe 2. Moderate

3. Low 4. No impact

5. I don’t know

20. Are you willing to segregate your waste (into biodegradable and non-biodegradable component) before disposing it?

No Yes

Reasons for No – (not willing to segregate) Reasons for Yes – (willingness to segregate)

21. For residential households, do you think waste management fees should be based on how much waste a household produces, or should all households be charged the same amount?

1. Cost should vary with the amount of waste generated 2. Same fees should be charged to all households

3. Don’t know 4. Others, please specify


123

22. What does your household typically sell/send for recycling or re-use? (Select all that apply)

1. Metallic items 2. Glass items

3. Cardboard including tetra packs 4. Paper, magazines, and newspapers

5. Electronic waste 6. Broken furniture/household items

7. None 8. Others, please specify

9. Don’t know

23. If you recycle or re-use, why are you doing so?

1. Conserve resources and environmental management 2. Family activity

3. Getting money from selling recyclable products 4. Landfill space is limited

5. Required by law 6. Mandated by the local RWA/society, etc.

7. Others, please specify 8. Don’t know

24. How can we promote recycling/re-use?

1. Charge deposit/fee on recyclable items 2. Pick up of recyclables from curb side

3. Law requiring recycling 4. Periodic revision in prices of recyclable products

5. Creating awareness 6. More convenient centres/locations as recycling centres

7. Provide bins for recycling 8. Others, please specify

25. Who do you think should have the greatest responsibility for disposing of city’s solid waste and garbage?

1. Individuals/households2. Municipality or other government departments/agencies3. Private companies4. All of the above5. Other (if any), please specify________________6. Don’t know

26. Should the use of polythene bags be banned?

1. Yes 2. No

3. Don’t know

environmental survey 2014

Documents