NUJHS Vol. 5, No.

3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

Original Article

KAP study of solid waste disposal of households in Kuttar &

Manjanadi Panchayath covered under gramaskhema
programme of K.S. Hegde Medical Academy
K.G. Kiran1, Sanjay Kini2, Ravi K.3, Santhosh N.P.3 & N. Udaya Kiran4
1
Associate Professor, 2Assistant Professor, 3Medico-Social Worker, 4Professor & HOD
Department of Community Medicine, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
Correspondence
K.G. Kiran
Associate Professor, Department of Community Medicine, K.S. Hegde Medical Academy,
Nitte University, Mangalore 575018, Karnataka, India.
E-mail : [email protected]
Abstract
An important problem faced by many societies across the world is unhealthy disposal of solid wastes. Knowledge, attitude, practices of
people plays a crucial role as their view point is extremely vital in providing solutions to future environmental problems. A cross
sectional study was conducted among the households of Kuttar and Manjanadi villages and a sample of 120 households were studied.
Majority had a good knowledge about the ill effects of improper solid waste disposal and that 82.5% said collectively that it causes
disease, unpleasant odour, unpleasant site and rodent nuisance. Majority of them had a positive attitude towards solid waste disposal
and 98.3% felt that improper solid waste removal and disposal effects environment. Regarding household waste disposal practice it was
found to be unsatisfactory as 78 households disposed of household wastes by just throwing away outside the house. Strict surveillance,
supervision and timely removal for disposal of solid waste by management are the key factors in reducing environmental hazards.
Key words- Solid waste management, knowledge, attitude, practice

Introduction methods of waste reduction includes manufacturing

Solid waste is the unwanted or useless solid materials products with less packaging, encouraging customers to
generated from combined residential, industrial and bring their own reusable bags for packaging, encouraging
commercial activities in a given area. It may be categorised the public to choose reusable products such as cloth
according to its origin (domestic, industrial, commercial, napkins andreusable plastic and glass containers, backyard
construction or institutional); according to its contents composting and sharing and donating any unwanted items
(organic material, glass, metal, plastic paper etc); or rather than discarding them. There are many
according to hazard potential (toxic, non-toxin, flammable, environmental benefits that can be derived from the use of
1
radioactive, infectious etc) . Management of solid waste these methods. They reduce or prevent green house gas
reduces or eliminates adverse impacts on the environment emissions, reduce the release of pollutants, conserve
and human health and supports economic development resources, save energy and reduce the demand for waste
and improved quality of life. A number of processes are treatment technology and landfill space3. Therefore it is
involved in effectively managing waste for a municipality. advisable that these methods be adopted and
These include monitoring, incorporated as part of the waste management plan.
Access this article online collection, transport,
Quick Response Code With rising urbanization and change in lifestyle and food
processing, recycling and
2 habits, the amount of municipal solid waste has been
disposal . Methods of
increasing rapidly and its composition changing. In 1947
waste reduction, waste
cities and towns in India generated an estimated 6 million
reuse and recycling are the
tonnes of solid waste; in 1997 it was about 48
preferred options when
milliontonnes4. More than 25% of the municipal solid
managing waste. Other

29
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

waste is not collected at all; 70% of the Indian cities lack carried out from 01 Aug 2014 31 Dec 2014.The place of
adequate capacity to transport it and there are no sanitary study was Kuttar & Manjanadi Panchayath in Mangalore,
4
landfills to dispose of the waste . The existing landfills are Dakshina Kannada dist. The study includes households that
neither well equipped nor well managed and are not lined have been dwelling in the respective place at least 6
properly to protect against contamination of soil and months prior to the time of interview. A total of – 120
ground water. With increase in the global population and households were covered during the study. Universal
the rising demand for food and other essentials, there has sampling technique was followed in which all the house-
been a rise in the amount of waste being generated daily by holds which were covered by the Gramakshema scheme of
each household. This waste is ultimately thrown into K.S. Hegde Medical Academy was covered during the study.
municipal waste collection centres from where it is Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected in this
collected by the area municipalities to be further thrown study. A structured questionnaire was administered to the
into the landfills and dumps. However, either due to households on their knowledge, attitude, and practices in
resource crunch or inefficient infrastructure, not all of this solid waste disposal after obtaining their informed
waste gets collected and transported to the final dump consent. It had parts that are multiple choice questions and
sites. If at this stage the management and disposal is others that are open ended to allow the households to
improperly done, it can cause serious impacts on health express their attitude and perception of specific areas
and problems to the surrounding environment. The group within the services by the local body. Data was analysed
at risk from the unscientific disposal of solid waste include using SPSS version 16. Categorical data was expressed as
the population in areas where there is no proper waste percentages and proportions.
disposal method, especially the pre-school children; waste
Results
workers; and workers in facilities producing toxic and
There were total of 120 households. Socio-demographic
infectious material. Other high-risk group includes
variables are depicted in table 1. Thirty two households
population living close to a waste dump and those, whose
(26.7%) had a total of less than 5 family members, 81
water supply has become contaminated either due to
(67.5%) had 5-10 family members and 7 (5.8%) had more
waste dumping or leakage from landfill sites. Uncollected
than 10 family members. It was found that 82(65.3%)
solid waste also increases risk of injury, and infection5. With
households had a puccahouse and 38 (31.7%) had a kutcha
increasing use of packing materials, disposables
house. According to modified BG Prasad classification
&polythene bags management of solid waste disposal is a
(2014) majority, about 107 (89.2%) families belonged to
major problem in both rural & urban areas, specially so in
class V socio-economic strata. About 10 (8.3%) belonged to
cities with lack of infrastructure. This study was basically
class IV socio-economic strata, 2 (1.7%) families belonged
undertaken to assess the Knowledge, Attitude & Practice of
to class III socio-economic strata and 1(0.8%) belonged to
solid waste collection & disposal amongst the households
class II Socio-economic strata. When we assessed the
of Kuttar & Manjanadi Panchayath, which come under the
knowledge of the participants about what is solid waste, 60
field practice area of K.S. Hegde Medical Academy,
participants said that it is unwanted materials left over
Mangalore, which can play an important role in
from human activity, 51 participants said that it is
management of solid waste in a town/municipality or a
something hazardous to human health, 76 participants
Panchayath.
said that it is a source of recyclable materials, 102
Methodology participants said it is rotten / spoilt food and 70 participants
The KAP study was a cross sectional study in which the said that it is broken items that cannot be repaired. When
Head of the households were interviewed on a pre-tested asked who is responsible for removal of household waste
questionnaire by the trained field staff. The study was to waste collection dump, 35 (29.2%) householdssaid that
it's the house occupants, 20 (16.7%) said that it's the local

30
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

governing body and 65(54.2%) said that it's both. When never. It was observed that only 16 (13.3%) knew that who
asked what happens if solid waste is not disposed in removes waste from dumping area. Out of that, 10 (8.3%)
time,10 (8.3%) households said that it causes disease, 11 said that its gram panchayath and 6 (5.0%) said that its
(9.2%) said that it causes unpleasant site and 99 (82.5%) municipality. Regarding waste segregation practices
said collectively that it causes disease, unpleasant odour, 39(32.5%) households said that they segregate wastes
unpleasant site and rodent nuisance. Knowledge of the before disposal and 104 (86.6%) used to compost kitchen
subjects regarding disposal, segregation and recycling of and garden wastes at home. Regarding storage of solid
solid wastes is shown in Table 2. Fig 1 depicts the response waste, 104(86.6%) used to store wastes in closed
of the households regarding the knowledge as to how often containers and 10 (8.3%) used to store in polythene bags
kitchen wastes and general solid wastes need to be before disposal. The methods of wastedisposal bythe
removed from the house When the respondents were households are shown in Table 4
asked as to why is it important to remove solid wastes
Regarding attitude towards reducing household wastes
regularly from the house, 50 (41.6%) of them said that it is
119 (99.1%) said that they want to reduce household
unhygienic, 6 (5.0%) said that it is to avoid bad smell, 8
wastes. Regarding the content of household waste 115 said
(6.6%) said that because otherwise it will attract rats and
that their household wastes contain mostly vegetable
insects and 56 (46.6%)said that it is all of the above facts.
matter, 120 said that it contains plastic, 5 said it contains
When asked what are the different methods by which
polythene and 115 said it contains paper. When assessed
wastes can be disposed of, 72 said that it's by burning, 5
for the methods by which they intend to reduce household
said that it's by dumping in municipality pit/bin and
wastes 61 said that they intend to reduce household
43collectively said that it's by burning, burying in a pit,
wastes by buying only required items, 59 said by buying less
throwingin pits or low lyingareas and dumping in
of plastic goods, 39 said by carrying own bags to market so
municipality pit/bin.Neighbours 20(16.7%), friends
as to reduce buying plastic bags. 113 (94.1%) said that they
15(12.5%), newspapers 15 (12.5%) were the major source
do use reusable items. Out of those who use 31 said it is
of information about solid waste management to the
because it reduces household wastes, 30 said that it
households, rest got information from other sources. The
reduces household expenditure and 52 said that it is good
attitude of the participants regarding disposal of solid
for the environment. Regarding removal of waste from the
wastes is shown in table 3. When we accessed the practices
house,10 (8.3%) households said that father removes
of households regarding solid waste disposal we found that
wastes from house to dumping area/pit, 56 (46.6%) said
92 (76.6%) households generated less than or equal to one
mother removes and 54 (45.1%) said all of them remove by
kg of solid wastes per day whereas 28 (23.4%) households
turns. Figure 3 shows the area of dumping household
generated 1-2 kg of solid wastes per day. Regarding waste
wastes by the study subjects
removal practice it was found thatabout 100 (83.3%)
households removed solid wastes once a day from their When asked why do they dump household wastes in street
house, 14 (11.6%) of them removed twice a day and 6 and not in dumping areas, 82 households said that no
(5.1%) of them removed it once in 2 days. When asked what proper dumping area is present, 25 said dumping area is far
is the distance of the govt/panchayat waste dumping area from house and 28 said it's convenient. 103 (85.8%) said
from the house, 20 (16.6%) of them said its less than 500 that the local government is not taking action on this and
meters, 68 (56.6%) of them said its more than 500 meters, the rest said they have no idea. Only 6 of them said waste
32 (26.6%) of them said its more than 1 km. Figure 2 shows removal and Management in their area is satisfactory and
the various methods of disposal practiced by different the rest said it's unsatisfactory. Regarding the reason for
households. When asked how often the waste is removed unsatisfactory management of waste,82 of them quoted
from waste collecting/dumping area 26 (21.6%) said its the absence of waste collection and removal management,
daily, 6 (5.0%) said its once in 2 weeks and 88 (73.4%) said
31
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

45 said that it's lack of demarcated area or dustbin Table 4: Method of waste disposal by households

provided for dumping waste, 68 said waste is not removed Type of Feed animals Burn Dispose Scrap
waste Number (%) Number (%) in dustbin Number (%)
in time. Number (%)
Food 120 (100.0%) - - -
Table 1: Socio-demographic variables Paper - 119 (99.1%) 1 (0.9%) -
Occupation Number (%) Literacy of Head Number (%) Plastic - 68 (56.6%) 52 (43.4%) -
of Head Metal - - 20 (16.6%) 100 (83.4%)
Skilled 24 (20.0) Illiterate 26 (21.7) Glass - - 120 (100.0%) -
Unskilled 51 (42.5) Primary school 78 (65.0)
Housewife 14 (11.7) Secondary school 15 (12.5) Fig 1: How often kitchen waste and general solid wastes
Retired 31 (25.8) Graduation 1 (0.8) to be removed from house
Total 120 (100.0) Total 120 (100.0) 60
49.2
50
Table 2: Knowledge regarding disposal, segregation and recycling 40
of solid wastes
30 22.5
Question Answer Number (%) 19.2
20
Does improper solid waste removal Yes 118 (98.3) 9.2
& disposal effect Environment? 10
0
Do you have an idea of Yes 42 (35.0) 0
Once Twice a day Once in 1-2 Once in 2-3 Once in 3-4
waste segregation? everyday days days days
Do you know about recycling Yes 35 (29.2)
Percentage
of waste?
Does production of more waste Yes 99 (82.5)
harm the environment? Fig 2: Methods of solid waste disposal followed
100
Table 3: The attitude of the participants regarding disposal of solid 78
80
wastes
60
Question Answer Number (%)
36
Do you feel that street should be 40

clean & be free of solid waste? Yes 114 (95.0) 16

20
Are you concerned about disposal 1
0
of house hold solid waste? Yes 120 (100.0) Dumping Burning Burrying Throwing
Are you & your house hold members away
No. of households
willing to carry house hold waste to
collecting point? Yes 120 (100.0)
Do you play an important role in solid Fig 3: Area of dumping household waste
waste disposal? Yes 109 (90.8) 93
100
Does the community play an
important role in solid waste disposal? Yes 77 (64.1) 80
role in solid waste disposal? Yes 77 (64.1) 60
Should solid waste disposal be taught
40
in school as part of Environmental
20 20
education? Yes 119 (99.1) 20 7
Should correct waste disposal methods
0
be taught to the community? Yes 114 (95.0) Backyard Muncipality/ Outside the In open nearby
GP dump area house
Do you want to use less of disposable
item & more of reusable items to reduce Number
waste generation? Yes 105 (87.5)
Do you feel that less waste should be Discussion
generated by house hold for betterment
In our study about 42.5% of the respondents were
of environment? Yes 101 (84.1)
Do you think that proper solid waste unskilled workers and 65% had studied upto primary class
removal & disposal is important? Yes 107 (89.1) and 21.7% were illiterate. In a similar study done by Kumar

32
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

M et al6 in Bangalore it was found that 38.3% had studied available for use within the community, local cable channel
upto secondary school, 28.0% had studied upto primary was the most widely preferred medium of SWM
9
school and 4.0% were illiterate. In our study about 26.7% information. A study by Banga M in Zambia showed that
households had a total of less than 5 family members, 81 when asked from whom they got their information on
(67.5%) had 5-10 family members and 7 (5.8%) had more waste segregation, 39% of the households that had heard
than 10 family members. In the study conducted by Kumar of solid waste segregation said they had learnt about it
6
M et al it was found that 0.5% had more than 11 people, from friends and relatives, 30% from the itinerant buyers,
2.0% had 8-10 people, 7.7% had 5-7 people, 49.0% had 3-4 27% from newspapers and magazines and 4% said they had
people, 32.0% had 1-2 individuals and 8.85 had only one learnt about it at school.
individual. In our study according to modified BG Prasad
In our study about 90.8% felt that they play an important
classification (2014) majority ie about 107 (89.2%) families
role in solid waste management. Results are similar to a
belonged to class V socio-economic strata, about 10 (8.3%)
study conducted by Ambat B10 where it was found that 88%
belonged to class IV socio-economic strata, 2 (1.7%)
of people reported that they too have a major role to play in
families belonged to class III socio-economic strata and
solid waste management as they form the first part of solid
1(0.8%) belonged to class II socio-economic strata. Kumar
waste management program as the generators of waste.
M et al6 in their study found that 34.0% belonged to low
They reported that even though there are very few
income level, 42.0% belonged to middle income level and
initiatives from various organisations in waste collection
24.0% belonged to high income level.
and management but they are not successful. In the study
In the present study the subjects had a good knowledge conducted by Tatlonghari RV et al8 majority of the
about what is solid waste. 29.2% also knew about recycling respondents realized their contributory role to the Solid
7
of wastes. In a study conducted by Arora L et al it was found waste management problem, taking into consideration the
that 162(54%) of the respondents could be classified as internal factor first before laying the blame on external
possessing low knowledge, whilst 138(46%) respondents factors. For this study, this attitude was rated as favorable
were having medium level of knowledge regarding waste since if people realized that problems were caused by
management. It was found that in the study by Kumar M et themselves, then they would also realize that they could do
6
al only 14.2% were aware about solid waste generation something to solve the problems.
and 5.5% had knowledge of recycling of wastes. A study by
In the present study it was found that households
Tatlonghari RV et al8 in Philippines showed that majority of
generated 1-2 kg of solid wastes per day. Results are
the respondents knew segregation (55 %), and reuse and 10
consistent with the study conducted by Ambat B where
recycling (51 %). Study by Tatlonghari RV et al8 revealed
household waste was 1.5-2 kg/house in corporation,
among the various media available for use within the
municipality and panchayath areas. Dumping, burying,
community, local cable channel was the most widely
burning and throwing away were some of the methods of
preferred medium of solid waste management 10
waste disposal in our study. In the study by Ambat B it was
information. In the present study it was observed that
found that above 60% of the households simply throw
neighbours for 20(16.7%), friends for 15(12.5%),
away solid wastes outside the house. About 55% of
newspapers for 15 (12.5%) of respondents were the major
households reduce, reuse and recycle waste materials. A
source of information about solid waste management.
6
study conducted by et al in Mogadishu showed that bury
Study by Kumar M et al showed that municipality (3.2%),
(27%), burn (34%) and dump (27%) were the major
friends and neighbours (1.0%), media (4.5%) and NGO's
methods of solid waste disposal.
(5.8%) were the major source of information. Tatlonghari
8
RV et al in their study found that among the various media

33
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

Conclusion 2. Say no to all plastic bags as far as possible

Solid waste management would remain to be the most 3. Reduce the use of paper bags also.
urgent concern and task of urbanizing towns. The 4. Reuse the soft drinks poly bottles for storing water.
challenge confronting the City and many other booming 5. Segregate biodegradable and the non-biodegradable
towns in the country was the balance between are put into separate bins and disposed off separately.
environment and development. Toward this end, 6. Dig a compost pit in one's garden and put all the
communication strategies toward environmental biodegradable materials into it.
protection becomes crucial. Particularly in Solid waste 7. See to it that all garbage is thrown into the
management, turning intention to desirable behavior and municipal/Panchayat bins as the collection is generally
creating favourable social and political environments done from there.
should not only be the concern of local officials but also of 8. When one goes out , not throw paper and other
residents. wrappings or even leftover food here and there, make
sure that it is put in the correct place, or into a dustbin.
Recommedations
We recommend that strict supervision and surveillance of What one should not do?
refuse management activities. 1. Do not litter. If one drops litter, it will encourage others
∞ To achieve the goal of safe refuse management practices to litter.
in household waste, awareness, education and 2. Do not put out garbage too early, especially garbage that
importance of safe refuse disposal program should be contains meat and fish scraps.
initiated for the public. 3. Do not dump or litter illegally at the sides of the roads or
∞ Refuse disposal laws either by local government or in gullies, it is not only unsightly but dangerous and
Ministry of Environment should ensure that the safe hazardous to health.
refuse management is embarked upon and refuse 4. Do not allow water to collect in the garbage bin.
should not be discarded in the rivers, gutters, drains, 5. Do not place old stoves, refrigerators, or other big or
open space or public locations like parks, buildings or bulky items at the side of the road.
streets. 6. Do not use an oversize bin (e.g. 50 gallons (190L) drum)
∞ Laws should be publicized on safe refuse disposal to contain the garbage. They are generally too heavy to
method; this should be adequately promoted and lift.
advertised. 7. Do not overload the garbage bags; they may burst as a
∞ Government should encourage private/government result of excessive weight or bulk.
partnership in wastes management at an affordable 8. Do not throw broken objects (e.g. glass, ceramic, etc.)
rate. It is very important that the related professionals into the garbage without wrapping them first.
such as the sanitary inspectors become involved as they 9. Do not place needles and syringes in the garbage or
play a vitalrole in promoting awareness on proper refuse leave them lying around.
management. 10.Do not overload the waste bin or put out loosely tied or
untied bags for collection.
What one can do to reduce solid waste? 11.Do not compact waste in the waste bin. This makes it
1. Carry own cloth or jute bag when one goes shopping difficult to extract the waste.

34
NUJHS Vol. 5, No.3, September 2015, ISSN 2249-7110

Nitte University Journal of Health Science

References
1. Femi F, Oluwole O. Management of municipal solid wastes. International Journal Of Environmental Sciences 2013; 4 (1): 87-95
Academia.edu [updated july 2013; cited july 2013]. Available from- 7. Arora L, Agarwal S. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices regarding Waste
http://www.academia.edu/4254191/Management_of_Municipal_S Management in Selected Hostel Students of University of Rajasthan,
olid_Waste (accessed on 30-03-2015) Jaipur. International Journal of Chemical, Environmental and
2. United Nations Environment Programme International Source Book Pharmaceutical Research 2011; 2(1): 40-43
on Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) for Municipal Solid 8. Tatlonghari RV, Jamias SB. Village-Level Knowledge, Attitudes and
Waste Management (MSWM). Available from- http://www.unep.or Practices on Solid Waste Management in Sta. Rosa City, Laguna,
.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/index.asp (accessed on 30-03-2015) Philippines. Journal of Environmental Science and Management 2010;
3. Mukherjee S. The science of clays: Applications in industry, 13(1):35-51
engineering and environment; 2013. 9. Banga M. Household Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices in Solid
4. Anand S. Solid waste managent. Mittal Publication; 2010. Waste Segregation and Recycling: The Case of Urban Kampala. Zambia
5. Solid Waste Management Principles and Terminologies. Prakriti, Social Science Journal 2011; 2 (1): 27-39
Centre for Management Studies, Dibrugarh University as part of the 10. Ambat B. Study of the attitude and perception of community towards
National Environment Awareness Campaign, 2006 – 07 for solid waste management – a case study of Thiruvananthapuram city –
distribution. Available in - http://cmsdu.org (accessed on 30-03-2015) phase ii. Kerala research programme on local level development 2003.
6. Kumar M, Nandini N. Community attitude, perception and willingness 11. Mwaura P, Owillah EO, Dahir M. Report of KAP survey on solid waste
towards solid waste management in Bangalore city, Karnataka, India. management in Mogadishu, Somalia. UN HABITAT 2012.

35