Baseline Report of Integrated Waste Management

Strengthening Local Capacities in
Integrated Sustainable Waste

Management (ISWM) Project
Baseline Survey Report

Of
Byas Municipality of Nepal
Submitted to
Practical Action Nepal
Lazimpat Kathmandu
Submitted by
Prem Dawadi
Consultant
Contents
1
1 Chapter One.......................................................................................................................5
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................5
1.1 Background..................................................................................................................5
1.2 Objectives of the Survey..............................................................................................6
1.3 Introduction of Byas Municipality...............................................................................6
1.4 Methodology:...............................................................................................................6
1.4.1 Study Area:................................................................................................................6
1.4.2 Data Collection and Analysis....................................................................................7
1.4.2.1 Sampling Design........................................................................................................7
1.4.2.2 Questionnaire Development........................................................................................7
1.4.2.3 Selection and Orientation to Enumerators.....................................................................8
1.4.2.4 Data Collection...........................................................................................................8
1.4.2.5 Data Entry and Analysis..............................................................................................8
1.5 Organization of Report.................................................................................................8
1.6 Limitations...................................................................................................................8
2 Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................8
2. Demographic Information..................................................................................................8
2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................9
2.2 Population by Gender...................................................................................................9
2.3 Population by Caste and Ethnicity...............................................................................9
2.4 Population by Age......................................................................................................10
2.5 Year of Living of Population......................................................................................10
2.6 Population by Occupation..........................................................................................11
2.7 Literacy Status............................................................................................................11
2.8 Educational Attainment..............................................................................................12
2.9 Land Ownership.........................................................................................................12
2.10 Organization Affiliation and Leadership..................................................................12
2.11 Household Goods and Appliances............................................................................14
2.12 Use of Fuel...............................................................................................................14
2.13 Cooking Stoves........................................................................................................15
2.14 Household Income Status.........................................................................................15
2.15 Household Expenditure Status.................................................................................16
2.16 Livelihood Status of Sample Households................................................................17
2.17 Income Surplus and Saving Deposit........................................................................17
2.18 Livelihood Support Strategies..................................................................................18
2.19 Loan for Livelihood Support....................................................................................18
2.20 Participation of HHs Member in HH Chores...........................................................18
3 Chapter Three...................................................................................................................18
3. Information on Structure of House..................................................................................19
3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................19
3.2 Households with Types of Houses.............................................................................19
3.3 Households with Storey in House..............................................................................19
3.4 Household by Roof Types..........................................................................................20
3.5 Households with Possession of Kitchen....................................................................21
3.6 Households with User Rate of Room.........................................................................21
4 Chapter Four.....................................................................................................................22
4. Information of Water and Sanitation................................................................................22
2
4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................22
4.2 Source and Quality of Drinking and Cooking Water.................................................22
4.3 Source and Quality of Water for Other Purpose.........................................................22
4.4 Household Member Having Some Illness in the Recent Last Month by Age Group 23
4.5 Places for Treatment...................................................................................................24
4.6 Households with Toilet Facility and Place of Defecation..........................................25
4.7 Households Using Different Types of Toilet..............................................................25
4.8 Households with Location of Toilet...........................................................................26
4.9 Household Sharing Common Toilet by Families.......................................................26
4.10 Households with Toilets by Its Types Observed During Survey..............................26
5 Chapter Five.....................................................................................................................27
5. Information on Waste Management.................................................................................27
5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................27
5.2 Households Using Bags While Shopping..................................................................27
5.3 Households Using Bags while shopping by Types of Bags.......................................28
5.4 Households Producing Different Amount of Waste per Day.....................................28
5.5 Household Practicing Waste Separation.....................................................................29
5.6 Method of Waste Separation......................................................................................29
5.7 Household Dumping Different Types of Waste.........................................................30
5.8 Existence of Waste Collection Centre in Nearby Areas and Provisions of Solid Waste
Management.....................................................................................................................31
5.9 Place of Disposal of Household Waste.......................................................................31
5. 10 Method of Waste Management................................................................................32
5.11 Household Practicing Different Composting Method..............................................32
5.12 Amount of Compost Production...............................................................................33
5.13 Use and Sale of Compost.........................................................................................33
5.14 Management of Inorganic Waste..............................................................................34
5.15 Sale of Inorganic Waste and Earning from Sale.......................................................34
5.16 Training Related to Solid Waste Management.........................................................35
5.17 Number of Households Received Waste Management Related Training and
Training Providing Organization and Training Duration.................................................35
5.18 Involvement of Family Member in Waste Management Related Job......................36
5.19 Existence of Unmanaged Solid Waste Collection Point..........................................37
5.20 Problems Caused by Unmanaged Solid Waste Management Collection Points......37
5.21 Households Paying Fee for Waste Collection..........................................................38
5.22 Households Paying Waste Collection Fee................................................................38
5.23 Paying Amount for Waste Collection.......................................................................39
5.24 Households Felt of Need of Waste Management with Fee and Amount Willing to
Pay....................................................................................................................................39
5.25 Problem Associated to Solid Waste Management....................................................39
5.26 Possible Solution of Associated Problems with Waste Management.......................40
6 Reference..........................................................................................................................40
7 Structure of Questionnaire...............................................................................................40
8 Name of Enumerators......................................................................................................40
9 Name of Households........................................................................................................40
10 Map of Byas Municipality................................................................................................41
3
1 Chapter One
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Urbanization is rapidly growing in South Asia. Nepal is one of the countries of South Asian
Region with more or less same trend of urbanization. Urbanization in Nepal has been
growing as result of migration from rural areas. A large number of population migrated to
urban areas after the restoration of democracy in 1990 and pace has almost doubled after
emergence of armed conflict in the country. The migrations of people of rural areas are
mainly concentrated into urban areas, municipalities and district head quarters. Without
development of basic facilities and infrastructures in the urban centres, a number of Village
Development Committees (VDCs) had been declared as the municipalities. On the other side,
after the escalation of armed conflict in the country, a large number of people were ousted
into urban areas in search of security. Besides people has been moving towards urban areas
for better livelihood opportunities, education, treatment, and other similar reason. These
activities posed challenges to municipal authorities for proper delivery of urban services and
facilities including waste management which has already being unable to deliver them. Most
of municipality of Nepal is unplanned. Lack of drinking water, population growth, landfill
sites, recreation sites are major problems of urban areas. Solid waste production in urban area
has been increasing day by day with population growth. Especially solid waste produced
from home, hotel, hospital and other business organizations are main challenges for improved
urban environment in the emerging municipalities. Lack of participation of the other
stakeholders of urban development for socio-economic improvement of urban dwellers and
lack of sustainable waste management practices are the major problem of urban development.
Solid waste management has been the major trouble of every municipality especially
emerging municipalities of Nepal.
Municipality alone has been working for the solid waste management since long in a number
of municipalities which has not been sufficient for sustainable management of solid waste. A
participatory intervention through participation of all stakeholders is must to solve the
emerging problem of solid waste management. Since local people has vital role for reduction
of solid waste at source, collection and reuse and recycle, participation of local communities
is must for sustainable management of solid waste of developing municipalities. Several non-
governmental and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs/INGOs) have been
paying attention over the concern on solid waste management of municipalities. Practical
Action, Nepal with close partnership with GTZ/udle, MuAN and WASTE Netherlands has
initiated a project “Strengthening Local Capacities in Integrated Sustainable Waste
Management (ISWM) in small and medium municipalities of Nepal”. The project is basically
targeted in four municipalities i.e. Birendranagar, Nepalgunj, Byas and Bharatpur. The project
has been implementing in selected wards and settlement with concentration of disadvantaged
communities of these municipalities as pilot areas. Among these four municipalities, two
municipalities -- Nepalgunj and Bharatpur -- are slightly developed and ranked medium
municipalities in Nepal. Where as other two municipalities -- Birendranagar and Byas -- are
small municipalities. These two later municipalities are under developing than former two
municipalities. Geographically, these municipalities represent diverse topography of Nepal.
4
Birendranagar and Nepalgunj lie in Mid-Western Development Region where as Byas and
Bharatpur lie in Western Development Region and Central Development Region respectively.
1.2 Objectives of the Survey
The main objective of the survey is to assess the current socio-economic condition and waste
management practices of the selected households especially in the urban poor settlements of
the project area.
1.3 Introduction of Byas Municipality
Byas municipality was established in 2048 BS, immediately after restoration of democracy in
2046 BS. It is located at Tanahu district of Gandaki Zone of Western Development Region. It
is located at 150 KM west of Kathmandu and 50 KM east of Pokhara. Geographically it is
slightly hilly region with altitude ranging from 310 to 1,120 meter above sea level (ASL).
The total area of the municipality is 59 square km. There are altogether 11 wards and 132
Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs). There are 6,511 households in the municipality (CBS
2058). Total population of the municipality is 30,226 (Diagnostic report on state of solid
waste management in municipalities of Nepal, SWMRMC, MLD 2004).
1.4 Methodology:
Primary data was the principal source of this study. The data was collected from the study
area by local enumerators. The details of research methodology have been given below.
1.4.1 Study Area:
The present study was carried out in selected settlements, ISWM project piloting areas of
Byas municipality. The study area included wards no 2, 10 and 11 of the municipality. The
survey was carried out in Damauli Tole, Amarapuri Tole and Janajagriti Tole of ward no 2;
Parasar Tole, Nim Chowk Tole and Buddha Park Tole of ward no 10; and Hari Om Tole,
Sakhar Tole, Sangam Tole and Shreekrishna Tole of ward no 11 of Byas municipality.
1.4.2 Data Collection and Analysis
1.4.2.1 Sampling Design
Selected wards as the piloting areas of ISWM project of Byas municipality were sampling
wards of the study. The sampling units were settlements/toles of sampling wards. 50%
households of sampling settlements were selected for the study. A list of households of
sampling settlement was prepared and an alternate household was selected from the list
representing 50% households of such settlements selected randomly. While selecting the
sampling, the households within the settlements were listed systematically. The list was
verified with representatives Tole/Lane Organizations or Tole Development Committees and
other CBOs and key informants through participatory way. Then, the sample households were
5
selected randomly in which an alternative household among the total households were
marked as sample households. Sampling wards, settlements, total households in sampling
wards, number of sampling households is given in table 1.
Table 1: Sampled Wards, Settlements/Tole, Number of Households and Intensity of Sampling
Sampled Name of the Sample Total Households in Sampled Households

Wards Settlements the Sample Settlement Surveyed
2 Amarapuri 81 41
Damauli 19 10
Janajagriti 133 67
10 Buddha Park 50 25
Nim Chowk 53 27
Parasar 56 28
11 Hari Om 90 45
Sakhar 70 35
Sangam 57 29
Shreekrishna 45 23
Total 654 330
Principal source of data for the study was primary data. Primary data collection procedure
consisted of development of questionnaire, selection and orientation to enumerators and
household survey.
1.4.2.2 Questionnaire Development
A household survey questionnaire was prepared and circulated among consultant, its team
members, ISWM project personnel and representatives of Practical Action Nepal for
comments and feedbacks. After getting feedbacks, a comprehensive structured survey
questionnaire was finalized to collect information on socio-economic conditions and waste
management practices of sampling households. The questionnaire mainly consists of close-
ended structured questions while very few are open-ended structured questionnaire.
1.4.2.3 Selection and Orientation to Enumerators
The members of city level working group were mobilized for the selection of enumerators for
the survey. The involvement of representatives of city level working group develops
ownership of study in local community and enhances the chances of getting reliable and
realistic data for the study. Similarly, local enumerators are knowledgeable on sociological
and geographical features of their respective communities. School Leaving Certificate (SLC)
level academic qualification and basic experiences on community development were
considered minimum qualification for the enumerators. One day orientation program was
organized at Byas municipality on March 3, 2008 for enumerators before initiating field
survey. Enumerators were trained during orientation program and were deployed for field
survey. The consultant and ISWM project staffs jointed and facilitated the orientation to
enumerators about sampling and survey procedure.
6
1.4.2.4 Data Collection
The household survey was carried out using structured questionnaire. The enumerators
interviewed with household head as possible to ensure reliability of information. In the
absence of household head, the interview was carried out with knowledgeable family member
of sample household. The data collection work was conducted in the month of March 2008.
1.4.2.5 Data Entry and Analysis
After gathering all questionnaires, the questionnaire was coded and made computer data
entry. The data was entered in SPSS program. Household survey data was analyzed using
SPSS and MS Excel program. Information was extracted by using the tools such as tables,
charts, frequency analysis, averages, percentiles, mean, median, mode, standard deviation and
minimum and maximum ranges where applicable.
1.5 Organization of Report
The first chapter of the report covers background information about the survey, objective of baseline survey with
with scope of work and brief introduction of the municipality. This chapter also describes survey methodology
including study area, sample design, sample size, questionnaire development, data collection and analysis.
The second chapters present the basic demographic information of households of study area. The main
demographic characteristics discussed in this chapter are population by gender, population by caste and
ethnicity, population by age, year of living of population, literacy status, educational attainment, land ownership,
organization affiliation and leadership, household goods and appliances, use of fuel, cooking stoves, household
income status, household expenditure status, livelihood status of sample households, income surplus and saving
deposit, livelihood support strategies, loan for livelihood support and participation of households member in
households chores.
Third chapter basically discusses on the structure of houses. The main information discussed in this chapter are
households with types of houses, households with storey in house, household by roof types, households with
possession of kitchen.
Forth chapter discusses on information of water and sanitation that sample households are using and practicing.
The major issues of discussion in this chapter are water source and quality of drinking and cooking water, source
and quality of water for other purpose, household member having some illness in the recent last month by age
group, places for treatment, households with toilet facility and place of defecation, households using different
types of toilet, households with location of toilet, household sharing common toilet by families, households with
toilets by its types observed during survey.
The chapter five mainly discusses about production, segregation, management and disposal of solid waste and
different good and bad practices on waste management. The section also analyzes different types of waste,
amount of waste production, practices of carrying bag, waste management practices including waste
segregation, collection, reuse and recycle including compositing, prevailing methods of management of inorganic
waste, sale of different wastes. Similarly, it also discusses about involvement of local communities and capacity
building on solid waste management, harmful and unsustainable practices of waste collection and disposal and
its impact. Furthermore, involvement of different stakeholders in waste collection and management, waste
collection fees, most prominent problems facing and solutions made and recommended are also analyzed in the
discussion
7
1.6 Limitations
 The survey was purposive type and could not be generalized for entire municipalities
and limited sample size (wards/settlements and hhs).
 Inadequate knowledge level of enumerators.
 Insufficient supervision due to scattered location of survey wards and settlements
 There was Constituent Assembly Election during field study which diverted the mind
setting of respondents.
8
2 Chapter Two
2. Demographic Information
2.1 Introduction
This chapter represent the basic demographic information of households of study area. The
main demographic characteristics discussed in this chapter are population by gender,
population by caste and ethnicity, population by age, year of living of population, literacy
status, educational attainment, land ownership, organization affiliation and leadership,
household goods and appliances, use of fuel, cooking stoves, household income status,
household expenditure status, livelihood status of sample households, income surplus and
saving deposit, livelihood support strategies, loan for livelihood support and participation of
households member in households chores.
2.2 Population by Gender
Among 330 surveyed households, the study shows 250 households are headed by male where
as 80 households are headed by female. The total population of the study area is 1,757.
Among this, male population constitutes 888; in the other hand female population constitute
869. The average household size of the study area is 5.32 individuals per house. Ward number
10 has highest average households size of 5.71 where as ward number 11 has lowest average
households size of 5.17.
Table 2: Sample Households by Gender
Sample Population by
Sample Households
Sample Sample Total Gender Family
Ward Settlements HHs Male Female Size
Total Male Female Total
Headed Headed
2 Amarapuri Tole 81 24 17 41 99 118 217 5.29
Damauli Tole 19 4 6 10 27 30 57 5.70
Janajagriti Tole 133 56 11 67 173 171 344 5.13
Sub-Total 233 84 34 118 299 319 618 5.24
10 Buddha Park 50 23 2 25 70 59 129 5.16
Nim Chowk 53 25 2 27 80 84 164 6.07
Parasar 56 20 8 28 84 80 164 5.86
Sub-Total 159 68 12 80 234 223 457 5.71
11 Hari Om 90 36 9 45 126 106 232 5.16
Sakhar 70 24 11 35 91 79 170 4.86
Sangam Tole 57 22 7 29 73 81 154 5.31
Shreekrishna Tole 45 16 7 23 65 61 126 5.48
Sub-Total 262 98 34 132 355 327 682 5.17
Grand Total 654 250 80 330 888 869 1757 5.32
2.3 Population by Caste and Ethnicity
9
The Brahmin/Chhetri constitutes the largest population of the study area. This constitutes
51.17 percent of total population. Janajati comes next to Brahmin/Chhetri which constitutes
40.63 percent of total population. Dalit and Muslim constitute 4.33 percent and 2.33 percent
of total population respectively. Where as vary few i.e. 1.54 percent population are from other
caste and ethnicity. 132 sample household of Brahmin/Chhetri is headed by male head where
as 42 sample household is headed by female. 97 sample household of Janajati is headed by
male and 30 household is headed by female. Similarly 13, 5 and 3 household is headed by
male of Dalit, Muslim and other caste and ethnicity respectively where as 4, 3 and 1
household is headed by female of Dalit, Muslim and other respectively. Ethnic and caste
group of other constitutes largest family size of 6.75 which is followed by Janajati with
family size 5.62. Brahmin/Chhetri has family size of 5.17 and Muslim has family size of
5.13. Dalit has lowest family size of 4.47.
Table 3: Sample Population by Gender and Caste
Sample Population by Gender and

Sample HHs
Ethnic/Caste Caste
Family Size by
Groups Male Female
Total Male Female Total Percent Caste
Headed Headed
Brahmin/Chhetri 132 42 174 435 464 899 51.17 5.17
Janajati 97 30 127 377 337 714 40.63 5.62
Dalit 13 4 17 40 36 76 4.33 4.47
Muslim 5 3 8 21 20 41 2.33 5.13
Other 3 1 4 15 12 27 1.54 6.75
Total 250 80 330 888 869 1757 100
2.4 Population by Age
The table 4 presents population of the study area by different gender and age group. The
highest proportion of population belongs to the age group 15 to 49 year which constitutes
59.13 percent. This is followed by the age group 6 to 14 years which constitutes 18.04
percent of total population. The study shows that 7.17 percent of total population falls in the
age group 0 to 5 years, 8.08 percent falls in the age group 50 to 59 years. Similarly, 5.70
percent of total population falls in the age group 60 to 74 years. The age group above 75
years constitutes lowest population of 1.88 percent of the total population of study area.
Table 4: Sample Population by Gender and Age Group
Age Groups Sample Population by Gender and Age Group

(Age in Years) Male Percent Female Percent Total Percent
0-5 65 3.70 61 3.47 126 7.17
6-14 161 9.16 156 8.88 317 18.04
15-49 519 29.54 520 29.60 1039 59.13
50-59 76 4.33 66 3.76 142 8.08
60-74 51 2.90 49 2.79 100 5.70
75 and above 16 0.91 17 0.98 33 1.88
Total 888 50.54 869 49.46 1757 100
10
2.5 Year of Living of Population
The study shows that the study area is heterogeneous in the sense of years of living
population. Altogether 33.33 percent households are living for 5 to 10 years at the study area.
This is followed by households living in the study area since more than 20 years which
accounts 6.54 percent of total population households of the study area. Households of people
living in the study area for 11 to 20 years accounts 21.83 percent, while households living
less than 5 years accounts 18.49 percent of total population households of the study area.
Following table 5 shows the sample households by number of year living in the study area.
Table 5: Sample Households by Number of Year Living in Study Area
Household by Number of Year of Living in this Area

Sample Name of
Less than 5
Ward Sample 5 to 10 Year 11 to 20 Year Above 20 Years Total
Years
Settlements
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2 Amarapuri 12 3.64 17 5.15 10 3.03 2 0.61 41 12.43
Tole
Damauli Tole 1 0.30 3 0.91 2 0.61 4 1.21 10 3.03
Janajagriti 11 3.33 24 7.27 17 5.15 15 4.55 67 20.3
Tole
Subtotal 24 7.27 44 13.33 29 8.79 21 6.37 118 35.76
10 Buddha Park 2 0.61 9 2.73 11 3.33 3 0.91 25 7.58
Nim Chowk 1 0.30 7 2.12 2 0.61 17 5.15 27 8.18
Parasar 2 0.61 4 1.21 3 0.91 19 5.76 28 8.49
Subtotal 5 1.52 20 6.06 16 4.85 39 11.82 80 24.25
11 Hari Om 11 3.33 10 3.03 10 3.03 14 4.4 45 13.79
Sakhar 11 3.33 13 3.94 6 1.82 5 1.52 35 10.61
Sangam Tole 5 1.52 16 4.85 6 1.82 2 0.61 29 8.8
Shreekrishna 5 1.52 7 2.12 5 1.52 6 1.82 23 6.98
Tole
Subtotal 32 9.7 46 13.94 27 8.19 27 8.35 132 40.18
Grand Total 18.49
61 110 33.33 72 21.83 87 26.54 330 100
2.6 Population by Occupation
Most of the population of the study area is students which accounts 37.34 percent of total
population. Household work in own house follows the student which accounts 20.60 percent.
Business stands one of major occupation of study area. The population in business profession
is 12.26 percent. The study shows that there is significant number of population in service
and foreign employment which accounts 9.20 percent and 8.21 percent respectively of total
population of study area with age more than 15 years. 4.60 percent population are spending
retired life and getting pension for livelihood support. 2.94 percent of population of the study
area is unemployed. Population with occupation of agriculture, wage labour, self employment
and entrepreneurship, and household work in other’s home accounts 1.66 percent, 1.59
percent, 1.41 percent, and 0.18 percent respectively of total population of the study area.
Following table 6 shows the population with age more than 15 years by occupation and
gender.
Table 6: Population with Age More than 15 Years by Occupation and Gender
11
Occupation Types Population with Age More than 15 Years by Gender
Male Percent Female Percent Total Percent
Service 108 6.62 42 2.57 150 9.20
Business 99 6.07 101 6.19 200 12.26
Agriculture 13 0.80 14 0.86 27 1.66
Wage Labour 16 0.98 10 0.61 26 1.59
Self-Employment Entrepreneurship 13 0.80 10 0.61 23 1.41
Foreign Employment 128 7.85 6 0.37 134 8.21
Student 318 19.50 291 17.84 609 37.34
Household Work in Own House 34 2.08 302 18.51 336 20.60
Household Work in Other’s house 2 0.12 1 0.06 3 0.18
Retired 60 3.68 15 0.92 75 4.60
Unemployed 32 1.96 16 0.98 48 2.94
Total 823 50.46 808 49.54 1631 100
2.7 Literacy Status
The study shows that 93.01 percent populations are literate while 6.99 percent are illiterate.
49.63 percent and 43.38 percent male and female respectively are literate while 0.86 percent
and 6.99 percent male and female respectively are illiterate.
Table 7: Literacy Status
Population Sex
Literacy Status Male Female Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Literate 810 49.63 708 43.38 1518 93.01
Illiterate 14 0.86 100 6.13 114 6.99
Total 824 50.49 808 49.51 1632 100.00
2.8 Educational Attainment
The study show that 9.42 percent population has completed bachelor’s degree while 16.27
percent passed higher education study. Similarly 18.58 percent and 14.69 percent population
has completed secondary and lower secondary level study respectively. In the other hand only
23.72 percent population are only literate and 17.33 percent completed primary level
education. The following table shows educational attainment population by sex in detail.
Table 8: Educational Attainment
Population by Sex
Educational Attainment Male Female Total
Literate Only 147 40.83 213 59.17 360 23.72
Primary 131 49.81 132 50.19 263 17.33
Lower Secondary 119 53.36 104 46.64 223 14.69
12
Secondary 166 58.87 116 41.13 282 18.58
Higher secondary 144 58.30 103 41.70 247 16.27
Bachelor and above 103 72.03 40 27.97 143 9.42
Total 810 53.36 708 46.64 1518 100.00
2.9 Land Ownership
Most of the household of the study area is marginal in landholding size. They possesses own
house but has no land for agriculture activities. This accounts 47.09 percent of total
household with land. The household holding land 0.1 to 0.5 hectare is 40.4 percent. Where as
there are very few households with large land holding i.e. from 5 hectare to more than 5
hectare land. This figures 0.42 percent of total households of with land. The household with
medium land holding size (from 3 hectare to 5 hectare) is similar to household with large land
holding. Table shows sample households with land ownership pattern.
Table 9: Sample Households with Land Ownership
Household Owning Some Land

HHs having Land for
Landholding Size (Hectare) HHs having land Total
Agriculture
Marginal Holdings (0.1-0.5) 79 17.06 108 23.34 187 40.4
Small Holdings (0.5-3.0) 28 6.05 26 5.62 54 11.67
Medium Holdings (3.0-5.0) 1 0.21 1 0.21 2 0.42
Large Holdings (5.0 & Above) 1 0.21 1 0.21 2 0.42
marginal, holding without land but 218 47.09 218 47.09
have own house
Total 327 70.62 136 29.38 463 100
2.10 Organization Affiliation and Leadership
Households of Janajagriti Tole of ward number 2 have highest affiliation with organization
which accounts 20.30 percent. Where as only 3.03 percent households of Damauli Tole of
ward number 2 is affiliated with organization. Similarly, 13.64 percent and 12.42 percent
household of Hari Om Tole and Amaraouri Tole are involved in organization respectively.
Affiliation of households of other study settlement is given in following table.
Table 10: Household Affiliation to Any Organization
Household Affiliation to Any of CBOs, NGO and Professional

Ward Name of Organizations
Number Settlements Yes No Total
Amarapuri Tole 14 8.24 27 16.88 41 12.42
2 Damauli Tole 7 4.12 3 1.88 10 3.03
Janajagriti Tole 18 10.59 49 30.63 67 20.30
Buddha Park 17 10.00 8 5.00 25 7.58
10 Nim Chowk 7 4.12 20 12.50 27 8.18
Parasar 15 8.82 13 8.13 28 8.48
11 Hari Om 40 23.53 5 3.13 45 13.64
Sakhar 19 11.18 16 10.00 35 10.61
13
Sangam Tole 16 9.41 13 8.13 29 8.79
Shreekrishna Tole 17 10.00 6 3.75 23 6.97
Total 170 100.00 160 100.00 330 100.00
More than 50 percent households of sample household are affiliated with at least one
organization. This accounts 51.52 percent households of the study area. The trend of
affiliation with organization is greater in female member of study area which accounts 52.43
percent than male member affiliation with organization which figures 47.57 percent. Most of
family member of study area are affiliated with Tole Lane Organization (TLO) which
accounts 49.51 percent. This is followed by affiliation with NGO which accounts 24.27
percent. A significant proportion of family member is also affiliated with mother’s group
which figures 11.17 percent. This is followed by affiliation with cooperative which accounts
4.37 percent. 2.43 percent family member of sample households are affiliated with waste
management committee. Very few proportion of people are also affiliated with self-help
group, community forest user group, school management committees, club, professional
organization, religious organization private company which constitutes 0.49 percent, 0.49
percent, 1.46 percent, 1.94 percent, 1.94 percent, 0.97 percent and 0.97 percent respectively.
Following table shows the sample household and family member affiliates with organization.
Table 11: Sample Household and Family Member Affiliated with Organization
HHs Affiliated Family Member Organized any of the Organization

Category of CBOs to Any Male Female Total
CBO/NGOs Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Tole Lane Organizations 83 37 36.27 65 63.73 102 49.51
Cooperatives 7 6 66.67 3 33.33 9 4.37
Self-Help Group 1 1 100.00 0.00 1 0.49
Mother's Group 19 0.00 23 100.00 23 11.17
Waste Management
5 2 40.00 3 60.00 5 2.43
Committees
Community Forest User
2 1 100.00 0.00 1 0.49
Group
School Management
2 3 100.00 0.00 3 1.46
Committees
NGOs 41 39 78.00 11 22.00 50 24.27
Club 3 4 100.00 0.00 4 1.94
Professional Organizations 2 4 100.00 0.00 4 1.94
Religious Organizations 2 0.00 2 100.00 2 0.97
Private Company 2 1 50.00 1 50.00 2 0.97
Total 170 98 47.57 108 52.43 206 100.00
2.11 Household Goods and Appliances
Significant numbers of sample household of the study areas uses various goods and
appliances facilities. Electricity facility dominates among the facilities used by sample
households. 98.48 percent sample households use this facility. This is followed by television
facility which accounts 91.82 percent. Mobile and radio facility is also used by significant
number of households. 87.88 and 76.97 percent households use mobile and radio facility
respectively. 51.52 percent sample households use refrigerator facilities where as 56.67
percent sample household has landline telephone. The bicycle and motorcycle facilities are
used by 23.03 percent and 20.60 percent sample households of study area. Where as only
5.45 percent sample household possesses vehicle facility. 18.79 percent and 3.03 percent
14
sample households use computer and internet facility. Similarly small proportion of sample
households use solar and oven which account 7.88 percent and 3.03 percent sample
households respectively.
Table 12: Sample Households Using Goods and Appliances Facilities
Household HH Using Any of HH Not Having

Total Number of Appliances/Goods
Goods/ Appliance Goods/Appliances Goods/Appliances
and Facilities Number Percent Number Percent Total Number Average Number
Solar 26 7.88 304 92.12 26 1
Electricity 325 98.48 5 1.52
Refrigerator 170 51.52 160 48.48 170 1.01
Oven 10 3.03 320 96.97 10 1
Landline
187 56.67 143 43.33 187 1.08
Telephone
Mobile 290 87.88 40 12.12 290 1.68
Internet Facility 10 3.03 320 96.97
Vehicle 18 5.45 312 94.55 18 1.39
Motorcycle 68 20.61 262 79.39 68 1.04
Bicycle 76 23.03 254 76.97 76 1.05
Computer 62 18.79 268 81.21 62 1.16
Television 303 91.82 27 8.18 303 1.1
Radio 254 76.97 76 23.03 254 1.09
2.12 Use of Fuel
The study shows electricity is major source of fuel for lighting, cooking and heating. 98.48
percent sample households use electricity as a source of fuel. Electricity is followed by LP
gas which is used by 93.03 percent household of the study area. The LP gas is used for
cooking and heating and its average annual consumption rate in 10.23 cylinders per
household. Similarly, firewood is one of major source of fuel for cooking and heating which
is preferred by 46.06 percent households of study area and its average annual consumption
rate is 31.21 bhari. Likewise biogas, coal and other (hey, dung and agriculture residues) are
also used by households of study area which constitutes 3.64 percent, 5.76 percent and 0.30
percent respectively.
Table 13: Sample Households Using Fuel
Household Using the Said Fuel HH Using the Said Fuel

Average Annual
Types of Fuel Yes No Cooking & Unit
Lighting Both Consumption
Number Percent Number Percent Heating
LP Gas 307 93.03 23 6.97 307 10.23 Cylinder
Electricity 325 98.48 5 1.52 110 215
Kerosene 50 15.15 280 84.85 19 15 16 29.42 Litre
Firewood 178 53.94 152 46.06 178 31.21 Bhari
Biogas 12 3.64 318 96.36 11 1
Coal 19 5.76 311 94.24 19 15 Kg
Others (hey,
dung, agriculture 1 0.30 329 99.70 1 15 Kg
residues)
15
2.13 Cooking Stoves
The study shows that LP gas stove is most preferred type of stove which is used by 93.03
percent household of the study area. The household which use LP gas stove and have separate
room for kitchen constitutes 89.90 percent while 10.10 LP gas stove users don’t have separate
room for kitchen. Similarly 6.06 percent household use earthen open stove and the household
which use earthen open stove don’t have separate room for kitchen. Biogas is used by 3.64
percent household of study area. Among biogas user, 83.33 percent has separate room for
kitchen while 16.67 percent don’t have separate room for kitchen. Saw dust stove user
household constitutes 2.42 percent. 50 percent saw dust stove user household has separate
room for kitchen and remaining don’t have separate room fro kitchen. Only 0.91 percent
household uses kerosene stove. Among kerosene stove users 66.67 percent household have
separate room for kitchen while 33.33 percent household don’t have separate room for
kitchen.
Table 14: Sample Household with Separate Room for Kitchen and Using Different Types of
Stoves
Households with Separate Room for Kitchen and Using Different Types Stoves
Separate Room for Not Having Separate
Types of Stoves Used Total
Kitchen Room for Kitchen
Earthen Open Stove 0 0.00 20 100.00 20 6.06
LP Gas Stove 276 89.90 31 10.10 307 93.03
Saw Dust Stove 4 50.00 4 50.00 8 2.42
Bio-Gas Stove 10 83.33 2 16.67 12 3.64
Kerosene Stove 2 66.67 1 33.33 3 0.91
Total 272 82.42 58 17.58 330 100.00
2.14 Household Income Status
The study shows that the foreign employment is major source of income which constitutes
17.91 percent income by source. The foreign employment generates 36.92 percent of total
income of study household. Average monthly income from foreign employment is NRs
22,172.04. This is followed by service. The service sector constitutes 17.60 percent of income
by source which generates 18.96 percent of total income of study household. The average
monthly income from service sector is NRs 11,581.17. Business sector is also a good source
of income which is source of income for 17.30 percent household of the study area. Business
sector generates 20.84 percent of total income. The average monthly income from business
sector constitutes NRs 12,954.39. Sale of agriculture surplus, industrial and self-employment
activities, wage labour and pension are also source of income for households of study area.
The detail is given in following table. Livestock rearing and sale of animal products, and
other (construction work, service and work) generates 2.43 percent income for sample
households of the study area.
Table 15: Source and Monthly Income of Sample Household
HHs Earning Monthly Income (NRs.)

Sources of Household Income Income by Sources Total Income Average Standard
Minimum Maximum
Number Percent Amount Percent Income Deviation
Job/Service 116 17.60 1343416 18.96 1000 53000 11581.17 9153.86
16
Sale of Agriculture Surplus 36 5.46 185400 2.62 500 30000 5150.00 5944.39
Business 114 17.30 1476800 20.84 200 200000 12954.39 21814.82
Livestock Rearing & Sale of 16 2.43 26800 0.38 300 7000 1675.00 1701.96
Animal Products
Industrial and Self-Employment 23 3.49 141100 1.99 500 15000 6134.78 4482.76
Activities
Foreign Employment 118 17.91 2616300 36.92 1400 130000 22172.04 19413.47
Wage Labour 17 2.58 104300 1.47 600 16000 6135.29 4499.58
Pension/Gratituty 90 13.66 613100 8.65 200 29000 6812.22 5052.24
House Rent 113 17.15 422100 5.96 700 50000 3735.40 5658.12
Others (Construction Work, Service
16 2.43 157250 2.22 100 50000 9828.13 11887.70
Work etc.)
Total 659 100.00 7086566 100.00 10753.51
2.15 Household Expenditure Status
The expenditure in fooding is major expenditure of the sample households of the study area.
Every household more or less expends on fooding. The household expend 37.85 percent in
fooding. The monthly average expense in fooding accounts NRs 6210.61 per households. The
expenditure in fooding is followed by expenditure in education which accounts 22.20 percent
of total expenditure. The monthly average expenditure in education accounts NRs 4048.15
per households. Expenditure in clothing ranks in third position in the household expenditure.
99.70 percent household expend on clothing which accounts 10.60 percent of total
expenditure of sample households per month. The average monthly expenditure in clothing
constitutes NRs 1,744.07 per household. The 99.09 percent sample household expends 8.05
percent of total expenditure in health. The monthly average expenditure in health constitutes
Nrs 1,332.87 per household. The 98.79 percent household of study area expend 8.46 percent
of total expenditure in fuel which accounts NRs 1,405.21 average expenditure per month per
household. The detail expenditure status of sample households is given in following table.
Table 16: Household Expenditure Status of the Study Area
HHs Making Expense Monthly Expenses (NRs.)

Household Expenditure
by Headings Total Expense Average Standard
Headings Minimum Maximum
Number Percent Amount Percent Expense Deviation
Fooding 330 100.00 2049500 37.85 1000 25000 6210.61 3785.11
Clothing 329 99.70 573800 10.60 200 20000 1744.07 1994.65
Education 297 90.00 1202300 22.20 200 100000 4048.15 7566.47
Health 327 99.09 435850 8.05 100 15000 1332.87 1605.42
Fuel 326 98.79 458100 8.46 200 20000 1405.21 1428.09
Communication &
315 95.45 443490 8.19 60 15000 1407.90 1526.14
Entertainment
Others (festivals) 135 40.91 252200 4.66 100 20000 1868.15 2742.61
Total 2059 100.00 5415240 100.00 2630.03
2.16 Livelihood Status of Sample Households
The study shows that altogether 72.73 percent households of the study area has income
sufficient for livelihood where as 27.27 percent households have income that is not sufficient
for livelihood. 63.56 percent household of ward number 2 has income sufficient for
livelihood where as 36.44 percent has income insufficient for livelihood. Similarly 70 percent
17
household of ward number 10 has sufficient income for livelihood support while 30 percent
households don’t have income sufficient for livelihood. In similar way 82.58 percent
households of ward number 11 has sufficient income for livelihood while 17.42 percent
households don’t have sufficient income for livelihood. In the other hand 70.91 percent
household of study area has monthly income while 29.09 percent households have not
monthly saving. Ward number 11 have household with highest monthly saving which
accounts 81.06 percent while 18.94 percent households of same ward don’t have monthly
saving. This is followed by household of ward number 10. 70 percent household of this ward
has monthly income while 30 percent households don’t have monthly saving. The households
of ward number have lowest saving households among studied households. Only 60.17
percent household of this ward has monthly saving amount which 39.83 percent don’t have
monthly saving amount. The detail is given in following table.
Table 17: Livelihood Status of Sample Household
Number of Households with

Number of Households Having
Income
Ward Number
Name of Tole Sufficient for Not Sufficient for Having Monthly Not Having
Livelihood Livelihood Saving Monthly Saving
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2 Amarapuri Tole 29 70.73 12 29.27 25 60.98 16 39.02
Damauli Tole 7 70.00 3 30.00 7 70.00 3 30.00
Janajagriti Tole 39 58.21 28 41.79 39 58.21 28 41.79
Total 75 63.56 43 36.44 71 60.17 47 39.83
10 Buddha Park 20 80.00 5 20.00 20 80.00 5 20.00
Nim Chowk 20 74.07 7 25.93 20 74.07 7 25.93
Parasar Tole 16 57.14 12 42.86 16 57.14 12 42.86
Total 56 70.00 24 30.00 56 70.00 24 30.00
11 Hari Om Tole 37 82.22 8 17.78 36 80.00 9 20.00
Sakhar Tole 28 80.00 7 20.00 28 80.00 7 20.00
Sangam Tole 23 79.31 6 20.69 23 79.31 6 20.69
Shreekrishna Tole 21 91.30 2 8.70 20 86.96 3 13.04
Total 109 82.58 23 17.42 107 81.06 25 18.94
Grand Total 240 72.73 90 27.27 234 70.91 96 29.09
2.17 Income Surplus and Saving Deposit
Altogether 234 households save some amount. Out of that 123 households deposit surplus
amount in bank while 95 households deposit in TLO and saving groups. Similarly 13
households and 1 households deposit surplus amount in cooperatives and own house
respectively. The following table shows surplus income and place of surplus amount deposit
in detail.
Table 18: Income Surplus and Saving Deposit
Household Deposited Saving in

Saving Households Saving
TLO/Saving Other (Own
Amount Some Amount Bank Cooperative
Groups House)
(NRs.)
Number Percent NumberPercent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1 to 1000 87 37.18 26 11.11 1 0.43 59 25.21 1 0.43
18
1001 to
77 32.91 50 21.37 2 0.85 24 10.26 1 0.43
5000
Above
70 29.91 47 20.09 10 4.27 12 5.13 1 0.43
5000
Total 234 100.00 123 52.56 13 5.56 95 40.60 3 1.28
2.18 Livelihood Support Strategies
The study shows that 90 households do not have sufficient income for livelihood support.
They have various options for livelihood support. Among them 82 households borrow
amount while 8 households manage amount from business for supporting their livelihood
support. The following table shows different livelihood supporting options with family size in
details.
Table 19: Livelihood Support Strategies
HHs Households Supporting their Livelihood through

Income not Borrowing/Loan Wage Labour Business Out Migration
Family Size Sample
Sufficient
(Individuals) Households
for their Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Livelihood
Up to 3 43 16 16 17.78 0 0.00 1 1.11 0 0.00
4 to 5 166 46 42 46.67 0 0.00 4 4.44 0 0.00
6 to 7 81 20 16 17.78 0 0.00 2 2.22 0 0.00
8 and above 40 8 8 8.89 0 0.00 1 1.11 0 0.00
Total 330 90 82 91.11 0 0.00 8 8.89 0 0.00
2.19 Loan for Livelihood Support
Altogether 82 households are taking loan for livelihood support. Among them 49 households
are taking loan from money lender while 22 households are taking loan from financial
institutions. Similarly 12 households are taking loan from TLO/CBOs. The following table
shows households taking loan for livelihood with family size in detail.
Table 20: Household Taking Loan for Livelihood
Household Household Taking Loan for Livelihood

Family Size
Taking Loan for Money Lenders Financial Institutions Cooperative TLO/CBOs
(Individuals)
Livelihood Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Up to 3 16 9 10.84 4 4.82 0 0.00 3 3.61
4 to 5 42 22 26.51 14 16.87 0 0.00 6 7.23
6 to 7 16 12 14.46 2 2.41 0 0.00 3 3.61
8 and above 8 6 7.23 2 2.41 0 0.00 0.00
Total 82 49 59.04 22 26.51 0 0.00 12 14.46
2.20 Participation of HHs Member in HH Chores
Women are major human resources for completing household chores in comparison to male
counterpart and children. 81.8 percent women complete the dish washing task while merely
2.1 percent male are active for this task. The study shows that women have immense pressure
19
to complete household chores. The following table shows participation of households
members in household chores in detail.
Table 21: Participation of HHs Member in HH Chores
Households Chores Doing by

Household Adult Only Child Only Adult and Child Both
Chores Women Boys Girls Male Female
Male Both Both Both
Only Only Only Only Only
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Cooking 7 2.1 262 79.4 34 10.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 26 7.9
Dish Washing 7 2.1 270 81.8 26 7.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 2.7 18 5.5
House
6 1.8 241 73.0 56 17.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 3.0 17 5.2
Cleaning
Toilet Cleaning 8 2.4 230 69.7 65 19.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 11 3.3 15 4.5
Waste
7 2.1 225 68.2 71 21.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 23 7.0
Management
Shopping 15 4.5 214 64.8 74 22.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.2 23 7.0
3 Chapter Three
20
3. Information on Structure of House
3.1 Introduction
This chapter basically discusses on the structure of house. The main information discussed in
this chapter are households with types of houses, households with storey in house, household
by roof types, households with possession of kitchen.
3.2 Households with Types of Houses
The study shows that 97.88 percent households of study area has own house while 2.12
percent household are living in rented house/room. Every households of ward number 11 has
own house while 1.81 percent and 0.30 percent households of ward number 2 and 10 are
living in rented house/room respectively. 80.30 percent households of the study area has
permanent concrete house while 10.30 percent households has semi-permanent house built by
semi-concrete. Remaining 9.39 percent households has temporary mud built house. 34.24
percent households of ward number 11 has permanent concrete house. Similarly 33.64
percent and 12.42 percent households of ward number 2 and 10 respectively has permanent
concrete house.
Table 22: Households with Types of Houses and by Construction Material/Structure
Family Living in Household by Structure of Houses

Temporary/
Semi-
Ward Rented Permanent/ Mud built
Settlements Own House Permanent/
Number House/Room Concrete house/ non
Semi-concrete
concrete
Amarapuri 39 2 38 1 2
Tole 11.82 0.60 11.52 0.30 0.60
Damauli Tole 10 3.03 0 10 3.03 0 0
Janajagriti 63 4 63 1 3
2 Tole 19.09 1.21 19.09 0.30 0.91
Subtotal 112 33.94 6 1.81 111 33.64 2 0.60 5 1.52
Buddha Park 24 7.27 1 0.30 0 6 1.82 19 5.76
Nim Chowk 27 8.18 0 19 5.78 7 2.12 1 0.30
Parasar 28 8.48 0 22 6.67 4 1.21 2 0.60
10 Subtotal 79 23.94 1 0.30 41 12.42 17 5.15 22 6.67
Hari Om 45 13.64 0 37 11.21 7 2.12 1 0.30
Sakhar 35 10.61 0 30 9.09 4 1.21 1 0.30
Sangam Tole 29 8.79 0 28 8.48 0 1 0.30
Shreekrishna 23 18 4 1
11 Tole 6.97 5.45 1.21 0.30
Subtotal 132 40 0 113 34.24 15 4.55 4 1.21
Grand Total 323 97.88 7 2.12 265 80.30 21 10.30 31 9.39
3.3 Households with Storey in House
The study shows that most of households of the study area have first floor two storey building
which accounts 37.88 percent households of the study area. The households with ground
21
floor and one storey building follow two storey building which accounts 30.91 percent.
Similarly 22.12 percent households of the study area have second floor three storey building.
Only 9.09 percent households has third floor four storey and above building. The following
table shows in detail the household with storey in house.
Table 23: Households with Storey in House
Ward Name of Tole Storey in House Total

Number Ground Floor First Floor Two Second Floor Third Floor Four
One Storey Storey Three Storey Storey and Above
2 Amarapuri Tole 8 2.42 19 5.76 6 1.82 8 2.42 41 12.42
Damauli Tole 1 0.30 4 1.21 3 0.91 2 0.60 10 3.03
Janajagriti Tole 12 3.64 30 9.09 19 5.76 6 1.82 67 20.30
Subtotal 21 6.36 53 16.06 28 8.48 16 4.85 118 35.76
10 Buddha Park 24 7.27 1 0.30 25 7.58
Nim Chowk 4 1.21 9 2.73 8 2.42 6 1.82 27 8.18
Parasar 7 2.12 14 4.24 4 1.21 3 0.91 28 8.48
Subtotal 35 10.61 23 6.97 13 3.94 9 2.73 80 24.24
11 Hari Om 15 4.55 16 4.85 10 3.03 4 1.21 45 13.64
Sakhar 13 3.94 15 4.55 6 1.82 1 0.30 35 10.61
Sangam Tole 8 2.42 12 3.64 9 2.73 29 8.79
Shreekrishna Tole 10 3.03 6 1.82 7 2.12 23 6.97
Subtotal 46 13.94 49 14.85 32 9.70 5 1.52 132 40
Grand Total 102 30.91 125 37.88 73 22.12 30 9.09 330 100
3.4 Household by Roof Types
Most of roof of households of the study area is made up of concrete. This accounts 78.5
percent. This is followed by galvanized plate roof. 20.9 percent households has galvanized
plate roof. 33.6 percent households of ward number 2 has concrete roof while only 11.6
percent households of ward number 10 has concrete roof. Very small number of household of
the study area has roof made up of stone and which account 0.6 percent. Similarly, 12.1
percent households of ward number 10 has galvanized plate roof and only 2.1 percent
households of ward number 2 has same roof. The following table show sample households by
roof types in detail.
Table 24: Sample Households by Roof Types
Households by House Roof Types

Ward Name of
Hey/Dry Galvanized
Number Sample Tile Stone/Slate Concrete Total
Grass Plate
Settlements
No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No.
Amarapuri Tole 0 0 3 0.9 0 38 11.5 41
Damauli Tole 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 10
2
Janajagriti Tole 0 0 4 1.2 0 63 19.1 67
Total 7 2.1 0 111 33.6 118
Buddha Park 0 0 25 7.6 0 0 25
Nim Chowk 0 0 7 2.1 1 0.3 19 5.8 27
10
Parasar 0 0 8 2.4 1 0.3 19 5.8 28
Total 40 12.1 2 0.6 38 11.6 80
22
Hari Om 0 0 8 2.4 0 37 11.2 45
Sakhar 0 0 5 1.5 0 30 9.1 35
Sangam Tole 0 0 2 0.6 0 27 8.2 29
11 Shreekrishna
Tole 0 0 7 2.1 0 16 4.8 23
Total 22 6.6 0 110 33.3 132
Grand Total 0 0 69 20.9 2 0.6 259 78.5 330
3.5 Households with Possession of Kitchen
Most of the sample households has separate kitchen in their house which constitute 83.03
percent of households of sample area. In the other hand 16.97 percent households don’t have
separate kitchen in their house. Among the households possessing separate kitchen, 37.58
percent from ward number 11 while 25.15 and 20.30 percent from ward number 2 and 10
respectively. The detail is shown in following table.
Table 25: Sample Households with Possession of Kitchen
HHs Having HHs Not Having

Ward Number
Settlements Separate Kitchen Separate Kitchen
Number Percent Number Percent
Amarapuri Tole 32 9.70 9 2.73
Damauli Tole 10 3.03
2 Janajagriti Tole 41 12.42 26 7.88
Subtotal 83 25.15 35 10.60
Buddha Park 18 5.45 7 2.12
Nim Chowk 24 7.27 3 0.91
Parasar 25 7.58 3 0.91
10 Subtotal 67 20.30 13 3.94
Hari Om 45 13.64
Sakhar 32 9.70 3 0.91
Sangam Tole 28 8.48 1 0.30
Shreekrishna Tole 19 5.76 4 1.21
11 Subtotal 124 37.58 8 2.42
Grand Total 274 83.03 56 16.97
3.6 Households with User Rate of Room
The study shows that usage rate of room is varies from one settlement to another and also
varies in number of usage. Most of sample households use four and more rooms which
accounts 45.46 percent households of sample area. This figure is followed by households
using three rooms which account 26.97. The households using two and one room constitutes
16.36 percent and 11.21 percent respectively. The detail of households with user rate of room
is given in following table.
Table 26: Households with User Rate of Room
Ward Four and more

Number Settlement One Room Two Rooms Three Rooms Rooms Total
23
2 Amarapuri Tole 3 0.91 10 3.03 12 3.64 16 4.85 41
Damauli Tole 2 0.60 2 0.60 6 1.82 10
Janajagriti Tole 2 0.60 5 1.51 17 5.15 43 13.03 67
10 Buddha Park 10 3.03 7 2.12 6 1.82 2 0.60 25
Nim Chowk 1 0.30 3 0.91 6 1.82 17 5.15 27
Parasar 3 0.91 2 0.60 6 1.82 17 5.15 28
11 Hari Om 5 1.51 12 3.64 12 3.64 16 4.85 45
Sakhar 6 1.82 7 2.12 11 3.33 11 3.33 35
Sangam Tole 1 0.30 2 0.60 11 3.33 15 4.55 29
Shreekrishna
Tole 6 1.82 4 1.21 6 1.82 7 2.12 23
Total 37 11.21 54 16.36 89 26.97 150 45.46 330
4 Chapter Four
4. Information of Water and Sanitation
24
4.1 Introduction
This chapter basically discusses on information of water and sanitation that sample
households are using and practicing. The major issues of discussion in this chapter are water
source and quality of drinking and cooking water, source and quality of water for other
purpose, household member having some illness in the recent last month by age group, places
for treatment, households with toilet facility and place of defecation, households using
different types of toilet, households with location of toilet, household sharing common toilet
by families, households with toilets by its types observed during survey.
4.2 Source and Quality of Drinking and Cooking Water
The study shows that the private tap is major source of water for drinking and cooking
purpose. Altogether 91.5 percent households are using water from private tap for drinking
and cooking. Similarly households using public tap for same purpose constitute 7.9 percent.
Very small proposition of households are using water from neighbour tap and river which
accounts 0.30 percent for both. Regarding quality 94.4 percent households using private tap
as a source of drinking and cooking water are using good quality of water while 5.6 percent
households are using normal quality of water. Similarly 84.6 percent households using public
tap get good quality of water while 15.4 percent households get normal quality water for
drinking and cooking. The quality of water from river is merely normal. The following table
presents source and quality of drinking and cooking water.
Table 27: Source and Quality of Drinking and Cooking Water
Source and Quality of Drinking and Cooking Water

Source of Drinking No. of HH Quality of Drinking Water
Water Number Percent Good Percent Normal Percent
Private Tap 302 91.5 285 94.4 17 5.6
Neighbours Tap 1 0.3 1 100.0
Public Tap 26 7.9 22 84.6 4 15.4
River/Stream/Rivulet 1 0.3 1 100.0
Total 330 100 308 22
4.3 Source and Quality of Water for Other Purpose
Major proportion of households use private tap as a source of water for bathe and cloth wash.
This figures 71.2 percent households. 93.2 percent water from private tap is good quality. A
significant proportion of households use river and stream as a source of water for bathe and
clothes wash which accounts 23.6 percent households. 92.3 percent water for this purpose
from river and steam is of normal quality where as only 6.4 percent water for this purpose is
of goof quality. Similarly 0.9 percent and 0.3 percent water from neighbour tap and river
respectively is source of water for bathe and clothe washing and the quality is of normal.
Table 28: Source and Quality of Water for Other Purpose
Source and Quality of Water for Other Purpose

Source of Bathe and No. of HH Quality of Water
Cloth Washing Water Number Percent Good Percent Normal Percent Bad Percent
Private Tap 235 71.2 219 93.2 15 6.4 1 0.4
25
Neighbours Tap 2 0.6 2 100.0
River/Stream/Rivulet 78 23.6 5 6.4 72 92.3 1 1.3
Tube well 3 0.9 3 100.0
Tanker Supply 12 3.6 12 100.0
Total 330 100 224 104 2
4.4 Household Member Having Some Illness in the Recent Last Month by
Age Group
Flue is most frequent illness among household member of the study area. 11.21 percent
children below 5 years suffered from this illness while 7.88 percent and 15.15 percent
household member of age between 5 to 15 and above 15 years respectively suffered from this
disease. Average expense for the treatment of flue is NRs 923.78. Similarly 7.27 percent
household members of age above 15 suffered from fever. The figure is lower in age between
5 to 15 and children below 5 years. Pneumonia is more frequent in children age of below 5
years while this disease is not seen in age above 15 years. Similarly Heart disease and
diabetics are more common in age above 15 years while such case are absent in children age
of below 5 years. The study shows that sample households expended most in heart disease
which figures average expenses NRs 20395.24 in a month. In rate of expenses cancer follows
heart disease. An average monthly expense in cancer figures NRs 5600. Similarly monthly
average expenses joint pain, typhoid, asthma and diabetics accounts NRs 3340.48, NRs
2833.33, NRs 2540 and NRs 1091.67 respectively. The detail of some illness in recent last
month by age group, households expended money for treatment of illness and average
expenses in month is given in following table.
Table 29: Household Members Having Illness in Recent Last Month by Age Group and
Expenditure on Treatment
Household Whose Member Having Some Illness in the Recent Last Average
Household Expended
Month by Age Group Expense
Types of Money for Treatment
Age between 5 to 15 in the
Illness Age of Below 5 Years Age above 15 Year of Illness
Year Month
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent (NRs.)
Flue 37 11.21 26 7.88 50 15.15 90 27.27 923.78
Fever 9 2.73 14 4.24 24 7.27 42 12.72 797.69
Dysentery 1 0.30 2 0.60 3 0.91 600
Diarrhea 2 0.60 3 0.91 4 1.21 8 2.42 1023.12
Typhoid 6 1.82 6 1.82 2833.33
Pneumonia 7 2.12 1 0.30 8 2.42 862.5
Diabetics 12 3.64 12 3.64 1091.67
Jaundice 1 0.30 1 0.30 500
Cancer 3 0.91 3 0.91 5600
Heart Disease 1 0.30 20 6.06 21 6.36 20395.24
Tuberculosis 1 0.30 1 0.30 1000
Joints Pain 2 0.60 19 5.76 21 6.36 3340.48
Asthma 10 3.03 10 3.03 2540
Total 57 47 151
Besides above, households also reported other kind of disease they suffered in recent last
month. Altogether 58 cases were reported in other kinds of disease. Among them, abdominal
pain is most frequent disease. The sample households reported 11 case of this disease.
Similarly gastric and stone are also common disease among sample households; 7 and 4
26
households are suffered from this disease. The following table shows detail of other disease
reported by sample households.
Table 30: Sample Households Reported Other Sickness
HH Reported Other Sickness Average

Age Above 15 Years Age Between 5-15 Years Expenses in
Health
Types of Illness Number Percent Number Percent Care
Abdominal pain 11 19.0
Allergy 2 3.4 1 25
Alsar 2 3.4
Bath 1 1.7
Blood Pressure 8 13.8
Body pain 3 5.2
Burning 1 1.7
Chest 1 1.7 1 25
Delivery 2 3.4
Gastric 7 12.1 1 25
Headache 2 3.4
Iritating 1 1.7
Kidney problem 1 1.7
Medical Test 1 1.7
Mental problem 1 1.7
Mouth wound 1 1.7
Neck Problem 1 1.7
Neurology 2 3.4
Operation 2 3.4
Pinash 0.0 1 25
Stone 4 6.9
Uric Acid 1 1.7
broken legs 1 1.7
paralycis 1 1.7
Uterus Prolepces 1 1.7
Total 58 4 5866.9
4.5 Places for Treatment
Government hospital is most frequently visited place for treatment of disease and sickness.
More than 50 percent households depend upon government hospital for treatment. Private
clinic follows this figure. 26.06 percent households depend upon private clinic for treatment.
Similarly 19.70 percent people visit community/private hospitals for treatment. Besides these,
households rarely visit traditional healers and medical shops for treatment. The following
table shows households visited health institutions in detail.
Table 31: Places for Treatment
Households Visited the Said Health Household Not Visited the Said Health
Most Commonly Visited Heath
Institutions Institutions
Institutions
Government Hospitals 166 50.30 164 49.70
Community/Private Hospitals 65 19.70 265 80.30
27
Private Clinic 86 26.06 244 73.94
Health Post/Centre 1 0.30 329 99.70
Traditional Healers 1 0.30 329 99.70
Medical Shop 1 0.30 329 99.70
Any of Above 10 3.03 320 96.97
Total 330 100
4.6 Households with Toilet Facility and Place of Defecation
The study show that 99. 7 percent households have toilet facility while one case has found
which do not has toilet facility. The household without toilet facility is from Sakhar Tole of
ward number 11. The defecation site for household without toilet facility is pubic toilet. The
following table shows households with toilet facility and place of defecation in detail.
Table 32: Households with Toilet Facility and Place of Defecation
HHs with Toilet HH Without

Ward Households by Place of Defecation
Facility Toilet Facility
Numbe Settlements
r Neighbor's River/ Nearby Public
Number Percent NumberPercent Farmland
Toilet Stream Side Forest Toilet
2 Amarapuri Tole 41 12.4 0.0
Damauli Tole 10 3.0 0.0
Janajagriti Tole 67 20.3 0.0
Total 118 45.7 0.0
Buddha Park 25 7.6 0.0
Nim Chowk 27 8.2 0.0
Parasar 28 8.5 0.0
10 Total 80 24.3 0.0
Hari Om 45 13.6 0.0
Sakhar 34 10.3 1 0.3 1
Sangam Tole 29 8.8 0.0
Shreekrishna Tole 23 7.0 0.0
11 Total 132 32.7 1 0.0
Grand Total 329 99.7 1 0.3
4.7 Households Using Different Types of Toilet
The study revels that most of the households (82.07 percent) use private permanent toilet
while 15.50 percent households use private normal kind of toilet. In the other hand very small
fraction of households i.e. 2.43 percent households use common type of toilet. The detail of
households using different types of toilet is given in following table.
Table 33: Households Using Different Types of Toilet
Households Using Different Types of Toilet

Sample Sample
Ward Tole/Settlements Private Normal Private Permanent Common Total
2 Amarapuri Tole 3 0.91 35 10.64 3 0.91 41
Damauli Tole 2 0.61 8 2.43 0.00 10
Janajagriti Tole 1 0.30 66 20.06 0.00 67
28
Total 6 1.82 109 33.13 3 0.91 118
Buddha Park 17 5.17 8 2.43 0.00 25
Nim Chowk 5 1.52 22 6.69 0.00 27
10
Parasar 6 1.82 21 6.38 1 0.30 28
Total 28 8.51 51 15.50 1 0.30 80
Hari Om 6 1.82 39 11.85 0.00 45
Sakhar 4 1.22 30 9.12 0.00 34
11 Sangam Tole 1 0.30 25 7.60 3 0.91 29
Shreekrishna Tole 6 1.82 16 4.86 1 0.30 23
Total 17 5.17 110 33.43 4 1.22 131
Municipality Total 51 15.50 270 82.07 8 2.43 329
4.8 Households with Location of Toilet
Most of households have indoor toilet. This figures 83.28 percent households while 16.72
percent households have outdoor toilet facility. The detail in location of toilet is given below.
Table 34: Households with Location of Toilet
Households with Location of Toilet

Sample Sample Indoor Outdoor Total
Wards Tole/Settlements
Amarapuri Tole 37 11.25 4 1.22 41
Damauli Tole 10 3.04 0.00 10
2
Janajagriti Tole 66 20.06 1 0.30 67
Total 113 34.35 5 1.52 118
Buddha Park 1 0.30 24 7.29 25
Nim Chowk 21 6.38 6 1.82 27
10
Parasar 22 6.69 6 1.82 28
Total 44 13.37 36 10.94 80
Hari Om 38 11.55 7 2.13 45
Sakhar 32 9.73 2 0.61 34
11 Sangam Tole 27 8.21 2 0.61 29
Shreekrishna Tole 20 6.08 3 0.91 23
Total 117 35.56 14 4.26 131
Municipality Total 274 83.28 55 16.72 329
4.9 Household Sharing Common Toilet by Families
The study shows that 5 toilet is shared by 5 to 10 families while 3 toilet is shared by more
than 10 families. The detail is given in below table.
Table 35: Household Sharing Common Toilet by Families
Household Sharing Common Toilet by Families
29
More than 10
Sample Sample Below 5 Families 5 to 10 Families Total
Families
Wards Tole/Settlements
2 Amarapuri Tole 0.00 0.00 3 37.50 3
10 Parasar 0.00 1 12.50 0.00 1
Sangam Tole 0.00 3 37.50 0.00 3
11
Shreekrishna Tole 0.00 1 12.50 0.00 1
Municipality Total 0.00 5 62.50 3 37.50 8
4.10 Households with Toilets by Its Types Observed During Survey
The study shows that 53.50 households have modern flush type toilet while 41.95 percent
households have improved pan type toilet. In the other hand only 4.56 percent households
have normal pit type toilet. The following table shows households with toilet by its types
observed during survey.
Table 36: Households with Toilets by Its Types Observed During Survey
Households with Toilets by Its Types Observed During

Sample Sample Survey
Wards Tole/Settlements Normal Pit Improved Pan Modern Flush Total
Amarapuri Tole 0.00 9 2.74 32 9.73 41
Damauli Tole 0.00 3 0.91 7 2.13 10
2
Janajagriti Tole 0.00 66 20.06 1 0.30 67
Total 0 0.00 78 23.71 40 12.16 118
Buddha Park 15 4.56 10 3.04 0.00 25
Nim Chowk 0.00 12 3.65 15 4.56 27
10
Parasar 0.00 21 6.38 7 2.13 28
Total 15 4.56 43 13.07 22 6.69 80
Hari Om 0.00 7 2.13 38 11.55 45
Sakhar 0.00 4 1.22 30 9.12 34
11 Sangam Tole 0.00 1 0.30 28 8.51 29
Shreekrishna Tole 0.00 5 1.52 18 5.47 23
Total 0 0.00 17 5.17 114 34.65 131
Municipality Total 15 4.56 138 41.95 176 53.50 329
5 Chapter Five
5. Information on Waste Management
5.1 Introduction
30
This chapter discusses on the information on waste management and sanitation practices that
sample households are undertaking. The major topic discussed in this chapter are households
using bags while shopping, households producing different amount of waste per day,
household practicing waste separation, method of waste separation, household dumping
different types of waste, existence of waste collection centre in nearby areas and provisions of
solid waste management, place of disposal of household waste, method of waste
management, household practicing different composting method, amount of compost
production, use and sale of compost, management of inorganic waste, sale of inorganic waste
and earning from sale, training related to solid waste management, number of households
received waste management related training and training providing organization and training
duration, involvement of family member in waste management related job, existence of
unmanaged solid waste collection point, problems caused by unmanaged solid waste
management collection points, households paying fee for waste collection, households paying
waste collection fee, paying amount for waste collection, households felt of need of waste
management with fee and amount willing to pay, problem associated to solid waste
management, possible solution of associated problems with waste management
5.2 Households Using Bags While Shopping
The study shows that most of households of the study area use bag while shopping.
Altogether 99.1 percent households use bag while shopping. In the other hand, only 0.9
percent households do not use bag while shopping. Among bag users, 35.45 percent are from
ward number 2, 23.94 percent from ward number 10 and 39.70 percent from ward number 11.
The following table shows households using bag while shopping in detail.
Table 37: Households Using Bags while shopping
Carrying Bag in Shopping

Yes No
Total
Ward Number Settlement Number Percent Number Percent
Amarapuri Tole 41 12.4 0.0 41
2 Damauli Tole 9 2.7 1 0.3 10
Janajagriti Tole 67 20.3 0.0 67
Total 117 35.45 1 0.30
Buddha Park 25 7.6 0.0 25
10 Nim Chowk 26 7.9 1 0.3 27
Parasar 28 8.5 0.0 28
Total 79 23.94 1 0.30
11 Hari Om 44 13.3 1 0.3 45
Sakhar 35 10.6 0.0 35
Sangam Tole 29 8.8 0.0 29
Shreekrishna Tole 23 7.0 0.0 23
Total 131 39.70 1 0.30
Grand Total 327 99.1 3 0.9 330
5.3 Households Using Bags while shopping by Types of Bags
31
Among bag users while shopping, most of households use plastic bag which figures 89.6
percent households. In other hand only 5.8 percent households use jute bag while shopping
and rest 4.6 percent households use clothe and leather bag while shopping. Most of plastic
bag users are from ward number 11 which figure 34.85 percent. This is followed by
households of ward number 2 which figures 31.21 percent. Similarly 23.03 percent plastic
bag user households are from ward number 10. The jute bag usage rate is highest in ward
number which figures 3.03 percent. Similarly 1.81 percent and 0.91 percent households of
ward numbers 11 and 2 respectively are plastic user.
Table 38: Households Using Bags While Shopping by Types of Bags
Households Using Bags while shopping by Types of Bags

Ward Jute Plastic Cloths/Leather
Number Settlement HH Percent HH Percent HH Percent Total
Amarapuri Tole 5 1.5 32 9.8 4 1.2 41
2 Damauli Tole 4 1.2 5 1.5 0.0 9
Janajagriti Tole 1 0.3 66 20.1 0.0 67
Total 10 3.03 103 31.21 4 1.21 117
Buddha Park 0.0 25 7.6 0.0 25
10 Nim Chowk 0.0 25 7.6 1 0.3 27
Parasar 3 0.9 25 7.6 0.0 28
Total 3 0.91 75 22.8 1 0.30 80
Hari Om 3 0.9 36 11.0 5 1.5 44
11 Sakhar 0.0 33 10.1 2 0.6 35
Sangam Tole 3 0.9 24 7.3 2 0.6 29
Shreekrishna Tole 0.0 22 6.7 1 0.3 23
Total 6 1.82 115 34.85 10 3.03 131
Grand Total 19 5.8 293 89.6 15 4.6 327
5.4 Households Producing Different Amount of Waste per Day
The study shows that most of households of the study are produce less than 1 bucket waste
per day. 96.1 percent households produce less than 1 bucket waste per day while 3.9 percent
households daily produce 1 to 3 bucket waste. Out of 96.1 percent households producing less
than 1 bucket waste daily, 33.94 percent from ward number, 22.73 percent from ward number
10 and 39.39 percent from ward number 11. Similarly 1.82 percent households of ward
number 3, 1.52 percent households from ward number 10 and 0.60 percent households from
ward number 11 contribute for the production of waste 1 to 3 bucket daily. The following
table shows households producing different amount of waste per day.
Table 39: Households Producing Different Amount of Waste
Households Producing Different Amount of Waste Per Day

Ward Less than 1 Bucket 1-3 Bucket 3-5 Bucket over 5 Bucket Total
Number Settlement HH Percent HH Percent HH Percent HH Percent
2 Amarapuri Tole 40 12.1 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 41
Damauli Tole 9 2.7 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 10
Janajagriti Tole 63 19.1 4 1.2 0.0 0.0 67
Total 112 33.94 6 1.82 118
10 Buddha Park 25 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 25
Nim Chowk 27 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 27
32
Parasar 23 7.0 5 1.5 0.0 0.0 28
Total 75 22.73 5 1.52 80
11 Hari Om 44 13.3 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 45
Sakhar 35 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 35
Sangam Tole 29 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 29
Shreekrishna Tole 22 6.7 1 0.3 0.0 0.0 23
Total 130 39.39 2 0.60 132
Grand Total 317 96.1 13 3.9 0.0 0.0 330
5.5 Household Practicing Waste Separation
The study shows that 46.06 percent households practice waste separation while 53.94 percent
households do not practice waste separation. The figure is also given in following table.
Table 40: Households Practicing Waste Separation
Household Practicing Separation of Organic

Sample Name of Sample and Inorganic Waste
Ward Settlements/Tole Yes No Total
Amarapuri Tole 25 7.58 16 4.85 41
2 Damauli Tole 3 0.91 7 2.12 10
Buddha Park 24 7.27 1 0.30 25
10 Nim Chowk 14 4.24 13 3.94 27
Parasar 18 5.45 10 3.03 28
Hari Om 27 8.18 18 5.45 45
Sakhar 9 2.73 26 7.88 35
11
Sangam Tole 12 3.64 17 5.15 29
Shreekrishna Tole 4 1.21 19 5.76 23
Total 152 46.06 178 53.94 330
5.6 Method of Waste Separation
The study shows that the use of different bucket is most preferable method of waste
separation, 28.48 percent households separates organic and inorganic waste by this method.
Use of different sacks comes next to use of different buckets. 10.91 percent households use
this method for inorganic and organic waste separation. 3.03 percent and 1.82 percent
households use different bags and pits respectively for waste separation.
Table 41: Separation of Organic and Inorganic Waste
Household Using Different Methods for Separation of Organic and

Inorganic Waste
Name of Sample Use Use Use Use
Sample Wards Other
Tole/Settlements Different Different Different Different Total
Method
Bucket Bags Sacks Pits
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Amarapuri Tole 11.
2 18 2 1.3 4 2.6 1 0.7 0.0 25
8
33
Damauli Tole 1 0.7 2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3
Janajagriti Tole 10.
16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16
5
Total 23.
35 4 2.6 4 2.6 1 0.7 0 0.0 44
0
Buddha Park 13.
4 2.6 0.0 20 0.0 0.0 24
2
Nim Chowk 12 7.9 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.7 0.0 14
10
Parasar 13 8.6 2 1.3 2 1.3 0.0 1 0.7 18
Total 19. 15.
29 2 1.3 23 1 0.7 1 0.7 56
1 1
Hari Om 13 8.6 1 0.7 4 2.6 4 2.6 5 3.3 27
Sakhar 6 3.9 0.0 3 2.0 0.0 0.0 9
Sangam Tole 7 4.6 3 2.0 2 1.3 0.0 0.0 12
11
Shreekrishna Tole 4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4
Total 19.
30 4 2.6 9 5.9 4 2.6 5 3.3 52
7
61. 23.
94 10 6.6 36 6 3.9 6 3.9 152
Municipality Total 8 7
5.7 Household Dumping Different Types of Waste
The study households daily produce different kinds of solid waste. 78.18 percent households
dump plastic and rubber waste while 68.48 percent households dump household dust.
Similarly 64.24 percent households dump kitchen waste and 34.85 percent households dump
bottle, cane and box waste. In the other hand only 25.15 percent households dump paper
waste and 12.73 percent households dump metal waste. The following table shows
households dumping different types of waste in detail.
Table 42: Households Dumping Different Types of Waste
Household Dumping Different Household Not Dumping

Types of Household Solid
Said Waste the Said Waste Total
Waste
Kitchen Waste 212 64.24 118 35.76 300
Bottle, Cane and Box Waste 115 34.85 215 65.15 300
Paper Waste 83 25.15 247 74.85 300
Metal Waste 42 12.73 288 87.27 300
Household Dust 226 68.48 104 31.52 300
Plastic/Rubber Waste 258 78.18 72 21.82 300
5.8 Existence of Waste Collection Centre in Nearby Areas and Provisions

of Solid Waste Management
The study shows that altogether 17.9 percent households has waste collection centre in
nearby areas. Among this 10 percent from ward number 2, 0.30 percent from ward number 10
and 7.58 percent from ward number 11. Sample households have different provision for solid
waste management. Among them 41 households dumps waste in nearby container while 10
households give waste to waste collector. Besides 5 households compost the waste and 2
34
households has separate place for organic and inorganic waste management. In the other
hand only one household burns solid waste for waste management. The following table
shows existence of waste collection centre in nearby areas and provision of solid waste
management in the study area.
Table 43: Existence of Waste Collection Centre in Nearby Areas and Provision of Solid
Waste Management
Existence of Waste Households Having Provisions Solid Waste Management

Collection Centre in
Separate
Ward Nearby Areas
Settlement Place for Dumping in
Number Compos Recycling Pitting and Combustion / Waste
Organic and Nearby
Number Percent iting & Reusing Perforation Burning Collectors
Inorganic Container
Waste
Amarapuri 29 8.79
Tole 2 4 1 8 14
Damauli 2 0.60
Tole 1 1
Janajagriti 2 0.60
2 Tole 2
Subtotal 33 10 2 4 1 9 17
Buddha
Park
Nim Chowk
Parasar 1 0.30 1
10 Subtotal 1 0.30 1
Hari Om 20 6.06 1 19
Sakhar
Sangam 5 1.52
Tole 1 4
Shreekrishn
11 a Tole
Subtotal 25 7.58 1 1 23
Grand 59 17.9
Total 2 5 1 10 41
5.9 Place of Disposal of Household Waste
The study shows that most of the households of the study area prefer to give waste to waste
collector the disposal of households waste. This figures that 52.12 percent sample households
use this practice. In the other hand 33.03 percent households use waste container as a place of
waste disposal of household waste. In the other hand 2.73 percent households arbitrarily
throw waste while 2.12 percent households use composting for waste disposal. Small fraction
of households i.e. 0.91 percent and 0.30 percent households dispose households waste
respectively in river/stream and road and drain.
Table 44: Place of Disposal of Household Waste

Households Not Practicing More the
Place of Disposal of Household Throwing the Waste
Practices
Household Waste
River/Stream/Rivulets 3 0.91 327 99.09
Road and/or Drain 1 0.30 329 99.70
35
Waste Container 109 33.03 221 66.97
Give Waste Collectors 172 52.12 158 47.88
Composting 7 2.12 323 97.88
Unused Land 0 0
Pit 0 0
Elsewhere (throw 9 2.73 321 97.27
arbitrarily)
5. 10 Method of Waste Management
Altogether 59 sample households have different provision for solid waste management.
Among them 69.5 percent households pile waste in container or in specific location while
16.9 percent households give waste to waste collector. Besides 8.5 percent households
compost the organic waste and 3.4 percent households has separate place for organic and
inorganic waste management. In the other hand only 1.7 percent household burns solid waste
for waste management. The following table shows households using solid waste management
method.
Table 45: Households Using Waste Management Method
Households Using the Said Waste Households Not Using the Said Waste
Method of Waste
Management Method Management Method
Management
Separate Place for Organic
and Inorganic Waste 2 3.4
Composting the Organic
Waste 5 8.5
Burring in the Ditch 1 1.7
Collected by Waste
Collector/Worker 10 16.9
Pile in Container/Specific
Location 41 69.5
Total 59 100
5.11 Household Practicing Different Composting Method
Altogether 10 percent households make compost. Among various composting methods, 6.77
percent households practice pit method for composting organic waste while 3.33 percent
households practice bin method for composting. Among households making composting 3.34
percent from ward number 2, 3.34 percent from ward number 10 and 2.12 percent from ward
number 11. The following table shows households practicing different composting method.
Table 46: Household Practicing Different Composting Method
HH Practicing Different Composting Method

HH Making Composting Bin method Pit Method
Ward Number Sample HH Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2 118 13 3.34 4 1.21 9 2.73
10 80 13 3.34 3 0.91 10 3.03
11 132 7 2.12 4 1.21 3 0.91
36
Total 330 33 10 11 3.33 22 6.67
5.12 Amount of Compost Production
The proportion of household producing more than 10 kilogram of compost from waste
produced from the households producing less than 5 kilogram of waste constitutes 3.03
percent. However, the proportion of households producing the amount of compost of 5 to 10
kilogram is comprised of 21.21 percent which is seven times higher than former one.
Similarly, the proportion of households producing amount of compost with 1 to 5 kilogram
constitutes about 30.30 percent. However, proportion of household producing compost less
than 1 kilogram is the highest (87.88%). While analyzing relation with amount of waste and
compost production, the proportional relation can not be observed. The range of waste
production and amount of compost production is not insignificant. However, it is indicative
that the relation between two parameters is proportional.
Table 47: Households Producing Amount of Compost
Households Producing Some Amount of Compost

Households
Less than 1
Producing the
Kg 1 to 5 Kg 5 to 10 Kg Above 10 kg Total
Waste
No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent
Less than 5 Kg 10 30.30 11 33.33 7 21.21 1 3.03 29 87.88
5-10 Kg 0 0.00 1 3.03 3 9.09 0 0.00 4 12.12
More than 10
Kg 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Total 10 30.30 12 36.36 10 30.30 1 3.03 33 100.00
5.13 Use and Sale of Compost
The study shows that altogether 33 households self use the compost. 11 households produce
less than 1 kg while 13 households produce 1 to 5 kg. Similarly 8 households and 1
household produce 5 to 10 kg and above 10 kg compost respectively and all use compost
themselves. No households reported about selling of compost. The following table shows in
detail.
Table 48: Household with Self Use and Selling of Compost
Average
Monthly
Households Households with Households with Monthly
Income Per
Producing Self Use of Compost Selling of Compost Amount of
Family
Compost Compost Sold
Number Percent Number Percent NRs. NRs.
Less than 1 kg 11 33.33
1 to 5 kg 13 39.39
5 to 10 kg 8 24.24
Above 10 kg 1 3.03
Total 33 100.00
37
5.14 Management of Inorganic Waste
The sample households use various methods for waste management. About 79 percent
households reuse plastic bags. Similarly 84.85 percent and 66.06 percent households reuse
plastic bottle and glass bottle respectively. A significant proportion of households manage
paper and metal waste by selling. 87.58 percent and 85.76 percent household sale papers and
metal waste. A significant proportion of households manage breaking glass by collecting and
dumping in nearby container. Similarly 3.03 percent 0.60 percent household burns plastic bag
and papers respectively. The following table shows waste managements methods of inorganic
waste that sample households produce.
Table 49: Households Managing Inorganic Waste by Types
Households Managing Inorganic Waste by Types

Waste Plastic Breaking
Management Plastic Bottle Papers Glass Bottle Scrap Metals Rubber
Bag/Packet Glass
Methods Num Num Num Num Num Num Num
% % % % % % %
ber ber ber ber ber ber ber
Reuse 263 79.70 280 84.85 7 2.12 218 66.06 2 0.60 1 0.30 5 1.52
Sale 5 1.52 15 289 87.58 59 17.88 283 85.76 53 16.06
Collect and 49 14.85 35 13 3.94 27 8.18 297 90 17 5.15 228 69.09
dump in
nearby
container
Pit 1 0.30 1 0.30
Method/Perfor
ation
Collect and 2 0.60 2 0.60 25 7.58 1 0.30 2 0.60
dump in
separate place
Throwing into 1 0.30 1 0.30
rivers
Burning 10 3.03 2 0.60 1 0.30
Use as raw
materials for
production of
other goods
Dump in 1 0.30
Empty Place
5.15 Sale of Inorganic Waste and Earning from Sale
Paper is a major constituent of inorganic waste that sample households prefer to sale. 87.28
percent households sale paper; and 83.94 percent households earn upto NRs 25, 2.12 percent
households earns 26 to 100 and 1.21 percent households earn more than NRs 100 from
selling paper. Similarly, metal is also a major constituent of inorganic waste that 85.45
percent household sale this waste and 83.94 percent household earns upto NRs 25 and rest
earns more than this. Besides paper and metal, 17.88 percent and 16.06 percent households
are getting handsome sum of money from selling glass bottle and rubbers respectively. The
following table shows detail information on sale of inorganic waste and earning from such
waste.
Table 50: Sale of Inorganic Waste and Earning from Sale
Household Earning from Sale of Inorganic Waste (NRs.)
38
Household Selling
Types of Inorganic the Inorganic 1 to 25 26 to 100 Above 100
Waste Wastes
Plastic Bag/Packet 5 1.52 4 1.21 1 0.30
Plastic Bottle 15 4.55 15 4.55
Papers 288 87.28 277 83.94 7 2.12 4 1.21
Glass Bottle 59 17.88 53 16.06 4 1.21 2 0.60
Breaking Glass
Scrap Metals 282 85.45 277 83.94 3 0.91 2 0.60
Rubber 53 16.06 52 15.76 1 0.30
5.16 Training Related to Solid Waste Management
The study shows that only 4.24 percent households whose family member at least received
training on waste management. Among them, 1.21 percent from ward number 2 and 1.52
percent each from ward number 10 and ward number 11. Sample households from Damauli
Tole, ward number and Sangam Tole of ward number 11 do not get even at least one training.
The following table shows households received training on waste management in detail.
Table 51: Households Received Training on Waste Management
Households with at Least a Member

Ward Received Training on Not Received Any Training
Tole
Number Waste Management on Waste Management
Amarapuri 0.60 39 11.82
Tole 2
Damauli Tole 10 3.03
Janajagriti 0.60 65 19.70
2 Tole 2
Subtotal 4 1.21 114 34.55
Buddha Park 1 0.30 24 7.27
Nim Chowk 2 0.60 25 7.58
Parasar 2 0.60 26 7.88
10 Subtotal 5 1.52 75 22.73
Hari Om 2 0.60 43 13.03
Sakhar 1 0.30 34 10.30
Sangam Tole 29 8.79
Shreekrishna 0.60 21 6.36
Tole 2
11 Subtotal 5 1.52 127 38.48
Grand Total 14 4.24 316 95.76
5.17 Number of Households Received Waste Management Related

Training and Training Providing Organization and Training Duration
Integrated sustainable waste management, compost making, and water and sanitation are
major training that sample households received from different organizations. Out of 14
training received households, 10 households got training on integrated sustainable waste
management while 2 households each got training on compost making and water and
39
sanitation. Municipality, Practical Action, Red Cross, Tole/Lane Organization are major
training providing organizations.
Table 52: Households Received Training Related on Waste Management and Training
Providing Organizations
Households Received Training Related to

Duration in Days
Waste Management
Training
Integrated
Providing
Compost Sustainable Water and
Organization Minimum Maximum Total Total
Making Waste Sanitation
Management
Municipality 1 3 5 5
Practical Action 1 3 2 4 6
Red Cross 3 1 1 2
Tole/Lane
1 1 1
Organization
Total 2 10 2 14
5.18 Involvement of Family Member in Waste Management Related Job
The study shows that households whose family members are involved in waste management
related jobs constitute only 1.5 percent. This figure is from ward number 2 while none of any
member involved in waste management related jobs from ward number 10 and 11. Out of
family members involved in waste management related job, 4 households involved in waste
collection job while only one is involved in needle campaign.
Table 53: Involvement of Family Member in Waste Management Related Job
40
Households Whose Any of Member Involvement As
the Members Involved in
Ward
Waste Management Related Scrap
Number
Tole Job Waste Collector/n Compost Recyc
Yes No Sweeper
Collector eedle Producer Work
Num campaign
Percent Number Percent
ber
Amarapuri Tole 3 0.9 38 11.5 2 1
2 Damauli Tole 1 0.3 9 2.7 1
Buddha Park 0.0 25 7.6
Nim Chowk 0.0 27 8.2
10 Parasar 0.0 28 8.5
Hari Om 0.0 45 13.6
Sakhar 0.0 35 10.6
Sangam Tole 0.0 29 8.8
11 Shreekrishna Tole 0.0 23 7.0
Total 5 1.5 325 98.5 4 1
5.19 Existence of Unmanaged Solid Waste Collection Point
Altogether 30.61 percent household reported that there is existence of unmanaged waste
collection point while 69.39 percent households reported that there is not existence of
unmanaged waste collection point. Comparatively ward number 11 has higher number of
unmanaged collection points than ward number 10 and 8.79.
Table 54: Existence of Unmanaged Solid Waste Collection Point
Household Reporting Existence of

Ward Unmanaged Collection Point
Tole
Number No Yes
Number Percent Number Percent 5.20 Problems Caused
Amarapuri Tole 35 10.61 6 1.82 by Unmanaged Solid
Damauli Tole 6 1.82 4 1.21
Janajagriti Tole 48 14.55 19 5.76
Waste Management
2
Subtotal 89 26.97 29 8.79 Collection Points
Buddha Park 18 5.45 7 2.12
Nim Chowk 1 0.30 6 1.82Infestation of mosquito and
Parasar 8 2.42 20 6.06flies is most frequently
10 Subtotal 27 8.18 33 10
Hari Om 26 7.88 19 5.76
reported problem caused by
Sakhar 32 9.70 3 0.91unmanaged solid waste
Sangam Tole 28 8.48 1 0.30management collection
Shreekrishna Tole 7 2.12 16 4.85points. This problem is
11 Subtotal 93 28.18 39 11.82followed bad odour.
Total Grand Total 229 69.39 101 30.61Altogether 90 percent
households reported this problem caused by unmanaged solid waste management collection
points. Besides these problems, other reported problems are increased scavengers, epidemic
diseases and water pollution.
Table 55: Problems Caused by Unmanaged Solid Waste Management Collection Points
Households Reporting
One of the Problems
41
Problems Caused by
Unmanaged Collection Numbers Percent
Points
Bad odour 90 14.7
Infestation of mosquito and
flies 95 15.5
Increased scavengers 49 8.0
Water Pollution 20 3.3
Epidemic diseases 32 5.2
Others 325 53.2
Total 611
5.21 Households Paying Fee for Waste Collection
The study shows that only 2 percent households are paying fee for waste collection. The
households that pay fee for waste collection is from Nim Chowk Tole of ward number 2.
Table 56: Households Paying Fee for Waste Collection
Households Paying Fee for Waste Collection

Ward
Tole Yes No
Number
Amarapuri Tole 41 12.42
2 Damauli Tole 10 3.03
Janajagriti Tole 67 20.30
Buddha Park 25 7.58
Nim Chowk 2 0.6 25 7.58
10 Parasar 28 8.48
Hari Om 45 13.64
Sakhar 35 10.61
Sangam Tole 29 8.79
11 Shreekrishna Tole 23 6.97
Total 2 0.6 328 99.40
5.22 Households Paying Waste Collection Fee
The study shows that only 0.60 percent households are paying waste collection fee to Tole
Development Committee.
Table 57: Households Paying Waste Collection Fee
Households Paying Waste Collection Fee to

Parties Getting Fee for
the Said Parties
Waste Collection
Number Percent
Tole Development 2 0.60
Committee
Specific Person
Social Organization
Private Waste
Management
Group/Company
Total 2 0.60
42
5.23 Paying Amount for Waste Collection
The study shows that only 0.60 percent households are paying fee for waste collection while
rest are not paying fee. The fee payer prefers to pay upto NRs 10 per month. The detail is
given in following table.
Table 58: Households Paying Amount for Waste Collection
Amount of Fee Household Paying Waste Collection Fee

Paid (NRs.) Number Percent
upto Rs 10 2 0.60
Rs 11 to 50
Rs 51 to 100
above Rs 100
Total 2 0.60
5.24 Households Felt of Need of Waste Management with Fee and

Amount Willing to Pay
The study reveals that 83 percent households felt necessity of waste management with fee.
While 17 percent households are satisfied with present conditions and didn’t fell necessity of
waste management with fee. Altogether 137 households are willing to pay fee of amount upto
NRs 10 for waste management while 130 households are comfortable to pay fee of NRs 11 to
50 for waste management. Similarly 6 households and 1 household are happy to pay NRs 11
to 55 and NRs 51 to 100 respectively for waste management. The following table present the
households felt of need of waste management with fee and amount willing to pay.
Table 59: Households Felt of Need of Waste Management with Fee and Amount Willing
to Pay
Households Felt of Need Waste Households Willing to Pay Fee for Waste Management
Ward Management with Fee (NRs)
Name of Settlements
Number Yes No 1 to 10 11 to 50 51 to 100 More than 100
Number Percent Number Percent No. % No. % No. % No. %
Amarapuri Tole 37 11.2 4 1.2 23 8.4 8 2.9 5 1.8 1 0.4
Damauli Tole 10 3 0 0 10 3.6 0 0
2 Janajagriti Tole 38 11.5 29 8.8 34 12.4 4 1.5 0 0
Subtotal 85 25.7 33 10 57 20.8 22 8 5 1.8 1 0.4
Buddha Park 14 4.2 11 3.3 12 4.4 2 0.7 0 0
Nim Chowk 19 5.8 8 2.4 18 6.6 1 0.4 0 0
Parasar 25 7.6 3 0.9 16 5.8 8 2.9 1 0.4 0
10 Subtotal 58 17.6 22 6.6 46 16.8 11 4 1 0.4 0
Hari Om 45 13.6 0 2 0.7 43 15.7 0 0
Sakhar 34 10.3 1 0.3 15 5.5 19 6.9 0 0
Sangam Tole 29 8.8 0 8 2.9 21 7.7 0 0
Shreekrishna Tole 23 7 0 9 3.3 14 5.1 0 0
11 Subtotal 131 39.7 1 0.3 34 12.4 97 35.4 0 0
Grand Total 274 83 56 17 137 50 130 47.4 6 2.2 1 0.4
43
5.25 Problem Associated to Solid Waste Management
The study shows that 98.18 percent households ranked throwing of waste haphazardly is
major problem related to solid waste management. Similarly 88.18 percent households
ranked lack of waste collection center and other facilities in first priority problem. Besides
these major problems, households reported many other problems related to solid waste
management. They are -- poor level of awareness and participation of local community in
waste management, increased illness and communicable diseases, poor management capacity
of municipality on solid waste management, poor management of drainage and other
sanitation facilities. The detail of problem associated to solid waste management is given in
the following table.
Table 60: Problem Associated to Solid Waste Management
Household Ranking the Problem as

Problem Related to Solid Waste First Priority Second Priority Third Priority
Management
Throwing of waste haphazardly 324 98.18 254 76.97 222 67.27
Lack of waste collection center and 291 88.18 250 75.76 215 65.15
other facilities
Poor level of awareness and 268 81.21 248 75.15 213 64.55
participation of local community in
waste management
Increased illness and 261 79.09 244 73.94 195 59.09
communicable diseases
Poor management capacity of 257 77.88 239 72.42 176 53.33
municipality on solid waste
management
Poor management of drainage and 213 64.55 233 70.61 167 50.61
other sanitation facilities
5.26 Possible Solution of Associated Problems with Waste Management
Of the total sample households, the proportion of households recommended the solution to aforesaid problems of
awareness raising and capacity building of TLO and community on sustainable waste management, establishment of
'Community Managed Collection Center' for organic and inorganic waste, provide training to at least a member of a family on
reuse and recycle of waste especially composting constitutes 100.00%, 95.15% and 71.52 percent respectively.
Table 5.24: Number of households recommending the solutions of the problem associated to waste management
Household Reporting
Possible Solution of the Problem Related to Solid Waste the Given Solutions
Management
Number Percent
Awareness raising and capacity building of TLO and 330 100.00
community on sustainable waste management
Establishment of 'Community Managed Collection Center' 314 95.15
for 0rganic and inorganic waste
Provide training to at least a member of a family on reuse 236 71.52
and recycle of waste especially composting
6 Reference
44
7 Structure of Questionnaire
8 Name of Enumerators
9 Name of Households
10 Map of Byas Municipality
45

Baseline Report of Integrated Waste Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baseline Report of Integrated Waste Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strengthening Local Capacities in

Integrated Sustainable Waste

Baseline Survey Report

1.2 Objectives of the Survey

1.3 Introduction of Byas Municipality

1.4.1 Study Area:

1.4.2 Data Collection and Analysis

1.4.2.1 Sampling Design

Table 1: Sampled Wards, Settlements/Tole, Number of Households and Intensity of Sampling

Sampled Name of the Sample Total Households in Sampled Households

1.4.2.2 Questionnaire Development

1.4.2.3 Selection and Orientation to Enumerators

1.4.2.5 Data Entry and Analysis

1.5 Organization of Report

2.2 Population by Gender

Table 2: Sample Households by Gender

2.3 Population by Caste and Ethnicity

Table 3: Sample Population by Gender and Caste

Sample Population by Gender and

2.4 Population by Age

Table 4: Sample Population by Gender and Age Group

Age Groups Sample Population by Gender and Age Group

Table 5: Sample Households by Number of Year Living in Study Area

Household by Number of Year of Living in this Area

2.6 Population by Occupation

2.7 Literacy Status

Table 7: Literacy Status

2.8 Educational Attainment

Table 8: Educational Attainment

2.9 Land Ownership

Table 9: Sample Households with Land Ownership

Household Owning Some Land

2.10 Organization Affiliation and Leadership

Table 10: Household Affiliation to Any Organization

Household Affiliation to Any of CBOs, NGO and Professional

HHs Affiliated Family Member Organized any of the Organization

2.11 Household Goods and Appliances

Table 12: Sample Households Using Goods and Appliances Facilities

Household HH Using Any of HH Not Having

2.12 Use of Fuel

Table 13: Sample Households Using Fuel

Household Using the Said Fuel HH Using the Said Fuel

2.14 Household Income Status

Table 15: Source and Monthly Income of Sample Household

HHs Earning Monthly Income (NRs.)

2.15 Household Expenditure Status

Table 16: Household Expenditure Status of the Study Area

HHs Making Expense Monthly Expenses (NRs.)

2.16 Livelihood Status of Sample Households

Table 17: Livelihood Status of Sample Household

Number of Households with

2.17 Income Surplus and Saving Deposit

Table 18: Income Surplus and Saving Deposit

Household Deposited Saving in

2.18 Livelihood Support Strategies

Table 19: Livelihood Support Strategies

HHs Households Supporting their Livelihood through

2.19 Loan for Livelihood Support

Table 20: Household Taking Loan for Livelihood

Household Household Taking Loan for Livelihood

2.20 Participation of HHs Member in HH Chores

Table 21: Participation of HHs Member in HH Chores

Households Chores Doing by

3.2 Households with Types of Houses