2014

TERI

SuRvEyEnvIRonmEnTAL

2014

TERI

SuRvEyEnvIRonmEnTAL

ii

The Energy and Resources Institute, 2014

All 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 : pmc@teri.res.inIHC 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 TERIs 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

v10. 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.

Indias 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 countrys 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,and

SudiptoPaul,Indias Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities, Sustaining Economic Growth;2010.3 UnitedNations,Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,ReportoftheUnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironment

andDevelopment,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 citys 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 Methodology

Figure 1.1: Cities included in the survey 3

Aggregate Results from the Survey

Figure 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

Coimbatore

Figure 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

Delhi

Figure 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 environmentdevelopment 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

Guwahati

Figure 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

environmental concerns 43Figure 5.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in

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 Guwahatis solid waste/garbage 46Figure 5.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Guwahati 47

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

xvii

Indore

Figure 6.1: Demographic profile of the respondents 52

Figure 6.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment in Indore over the past five years 53

Figure 6.3: Changes in the climatic variables 54

Figure 6.4: Government policies to address different environmental concerns 54

Figure 6.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in improving the environment 54

Figure 6.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 55

Figure 6.7: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 55

Figure 6.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Indore 55

Figure 6.9: Readiness to pay actual cost of water 56

Figure 6.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 56

Figure 6.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Indore 57

Figure 6.12: Reasons for refusing to segregate wastes at household level 57

Figure 6.13: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 57

Figure 6.14: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage 57

Figure 6.15: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Indore 58

JamshedpurFigure 7.1: Demographic profile of respondents in Jamshedpur 62

Figure 7.2: Perceived changes in the state of environment over the past five years 63

Figure 7.3: Changes in the climatic variables 64

Figure 7.4: Awareness and opinion on government policies to address different environmental concerns 64

Figure 7.5: Different stakeholder groups ranking according to their efforts in improving the environment 65

Figure 7.6: Debate between environment protection and objectives of development 65

Figure 7.7: Impact of poor environmental quality on human health 65

Figure 7.8: Major reasons for wastage of water in Jamshedpur 66

Figure 7.9: Willingness to pay actual cost of water 66

Figure 7.10: Importance of different measures in protecting water resources 66

Figure 7.11: Strategy to manage waste in city of Jamshedpur 67

Figure 7.12: Reasons for reluctance to segregate wastes at household level 67

Figure 7.13: Items sent typically for recycling or re-use 67

Figure 7.14: Measures to promote recycling/re-use 68

Figure 7.15: Greatest responsibility to manage solid waste/garbage 68

Figure 7.16: Fate of electrical and electronic waste in city of Jamshedpur 68

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

xviii

Kanpur

Figure 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

Mumbai

Figure 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

Pune

Figure 10.1: Demographic profile of respondents 96

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 environmentdevelopment 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 Cities

Figure 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

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

EnvironmentandDevelopment,AnnexI.UnitedNations,NewYork,1992.

IntroductIon and Methodology

1

I n t roduct ion and Methodo logy

2

a sustainable urban India.

1.1 About TERIs Environmental Surveys

TERI 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 Methodology

The 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;

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 TERIs 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 Cities

The 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, 5059% means adequately fed and clothed, 4050% stands for ease, while people living with 3040% 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.

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 Survey

The 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 malefemale 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.

7This 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 1824 and 36% belonging to the age group of 2534. Around 23% of the respondents were in the age group of 3544 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 Environment

In 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

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 Dont 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 Dont know

Aggregate Resu l t s f rom the Survey

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 Water

Focusing 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

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

11

2.2.3 Waste and Waste Management

On 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 authoritys/municipal corporations 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

Rainwater harvesting

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

Very Important ImportantNot Important

Somewhat ImportantNo Opinion

Aggregate Resu l t s f rom the Survey

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 femalemale 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 1824 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

Middle and secondary

25-34

Higher secondary/diploma

35-44

55-64

Undergraduate and above

45-54 Above 65

High Income

Housewife

Middle Income

Student

Low Income

Casual / daily wage worker

Regular salaried (government)

Regular salaried (private)

Self-employed/business

Retired Unemployed

Occupation

15.4%

14.3%

2.6%9.3% 6.5%

41.7%

3.8%6.4%

Figure 3.1: Demographic profile of respondents

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 demandsupply 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 Environment

Respondents 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

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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--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 Water

One 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 dont 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--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

TERI Env i ronmenta l Su rvey 2014

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 Management

In 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 citys 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