© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.

org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)

Segregation: The Key to SWM – A Case of Jhadsa

Village, GURUGRAM

Pradip Kumar Nath, G D Goenka University, School of Humanities and Social Science, Gurgram

Dr. Rimple Manchanda, Assistant Professor (Economics), SoHSS, G D Goenka University, Gurugram

Abstract

Segregation of Solid Waste at source is sine qua non to a sustainable solid waste management regime. The
policy issues differ significantly between global north and global south. Though the development path followed
by both are more or less the same, the policy implications and their ramification regarding the banes of
development like solid waste creation and it’s plausible and probable disposal has taken different trajectories
in the post war period and sometime at loggerheads in the post globalized world order. The New Economic
Policy followed vide the LPG perspectives has catalyzed the fear and concern expressed in the Rio earth
Summit a quarter century before. One of the serious factors affecting the future of the earth is the indiscriminate
littering of solid waste across the globe. Wastes are normally solid and generally the word is suggestive of the
materials those are useless and unwanted. The models and priorities set for waste management by a
technological society continues to be an engineering function which does not fit with the realities of developing
and middle income category countries. Taking this into consideration the government of India envisioned the
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 with a paradigm shift with removal of the word Municipal from the
established uses of the word as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and fixing the responsibility upon the generator
in the first place for a better solid waste management (SWM), which may result in a circular economy with
reduce, reuse, recycle and repurpose as the basic ingredients of SWM. Taking this into cognizance, the present
study is taken up to examine the efficacy of segregation behavior of the household in one of the localities in
Gurugram i.e. Jhadsa village located in front of Medanta Hospital. The research paper is based on survey with
questionnaire, Focus Group Dissuasion (FGD) and Participant Observation.

Key word – Segregation, Solid Waste, Household, Postmodernism, Constructivism

Introduction

A paradigm shift in the understanding of solid waste was expected to be brought about with the introduction
of Solid Waste Management Rules 2016. Though solid waste has been and continuous to be an engineering
function (Tchobanoglous. G, 2002), but it is universally accepted as “any material that is discarded by the
possessor or generator due to its lack of value to them” (Goel. S 2017). Solid Waste Management in the newly
formulated Rules in India (Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016) speaks about the change in the
understanding that is expected to come about that “solid waste created anywhere is a problem everywhere”,
and it’s life cycle need not be confined to any space, with regard to it’s creation and disposal. These echoes
Foucault’s legitimacy of space to be considered together with time; and attempt to rectify the wrongs of
understanding: “space as dead, fixed undialectical and immobile”. (Foucault, 1980)

Municipal Solid Waste Management (M SWM) as a concept, discourse and research problem sprouted in
the era of modernization; the gift of renaissance, scientific objectivism treading the path in 17th century. The
march of industrialization accompanied with urbanization backed up by colonization by the European countries
brought the success story of development and growth. 20th century with it’s legacy of two wars in the first half
with decolonization process setting in, opened that path to be followed by the newly independent countries and
IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 949
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
the problems of solid waste which the initial years of industrialization had witnessed, had to be borne by the
less developed and backward countries in more painstaking ways. But the space in which solid waste issue was
tackled in the industrialized country was no more available to the newly independent countries. Technological
solutions with a functional relation to engineering knowhow became the mainstay of solution to solid waste
management. This luxury was neither available in the initial years nor available now to the less developed
countries. Accordingly government of India has come out with the people centric approach to the SWM issue.
It has been mandated that the solid waste needed to be segregated before being disposed off as waste. The
literature on SWM reveals that once it is segregated it is amenable to further efficient processing in terms
energy production, recovering the material or attempt for reuse of the material or recycle. Accordingly reduce,
reuse, and recycle (3 Rs) as the buzzword with segregation at the point of generation becomes the mantra (key
point) in the newly formulated SWM Rules, 2016. Other features will be elaborated in the literature review.

Literature Review

Classification of solid waste literature in India

Sl Themes Topic / authors

No

1 Technology Seenappa. S N (2011), Ayub (2014), Navven et al. (2013 – on Land

(transport,colle fill), Kaushik. P, (2019),Kolkata – ISWM planning with optimization,
ction, compost, Models - Verma, A. (2014), Indore - GIS based urban solid waste
landfill management (SWM) system,S.N. Seenappa – 2011- decomposable
management, garbage; vermicomposting, Rambhia et al (2019) - Internet of Things
RDF etc.) (IoT) Technologies, IoT based Smart dustbin monitoring system

2 Institutions & Kumar et al (2008), Hazra and Goel ( 2008), Sharholy.M et al

Finance (Local (2007),Kaur. A (2019) – Informal Sector
Govts)

3 Human centric Narayana, T. (2009), Municipal solid waste management in India:

(Informal From waste disposal to recovery of resources?, Sharma, J. C. (2017).
sector Solid waste management and health of workers,
involvement)

4 Segregation Rajamanikam, R et al (2014) – On Pondicherry,

Waste

5 Waste specific Joseph, K.(2007)- e-waste, Behera, M. et al (2014) – c & D waste

study

6 City Wise City wise Studies : Allahabad - Krishna, V(2017), ,Bilaspur - Shristi
Study Sinha. (2016), Chennai – Preetha. S. (2018), Cuttack – Rath. R
(2019), Kashmir Region- Mushtaq. J (2019), Gangtok - Sharma.R.
(2019),Gurugram - P. Anshuman (2019),Guwahati - Das. D. K
(2017), Indore – Khaitan .S (2019), Kashmir Region- Mushtaq. J
(2019), Luknow-Srivastava. P. K (2005), Ludhina- Goyal, N. (2019),
Surat - Basu, A. M (2019), Tinsukia – Sharma. K.K.(2019),

The SWM literature on India highlights the following.

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 950
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
1. There is no exact and single category of quantification of data for solid waste since a lot depends upon the
omission and commission. The general type is the quantity of solid waste carried by the vehicle and the no of
times it operated in a time period. This leaves behind the other types of solid collected by other agencies for
reuse and recycle. This is one category of problem.
2. The second category of problems arises about the types of solid waste. Solid waste takes the shape of a
problem in a specific ecosystem which Tchobanoglous. G ( 2002) identifies with land use and zoning.(p- 1.1)
3. Looking solid waste with a techno-myopic vision relegates it to a machine centric discourse which many of
the policy planners, academicians, and political decision makers fall prey to. 4. SWM, though has a broad
and well defined categories of issues to be addressed to, still it is location specific and generalization or
replication of a solution model does not fit into the human perspectives which is so vital in addressing the issue
effectively.

Methodology

“What methods we are going to use for the present research study, what methodology dictate those methods,
what theoretical perspective are at the back of the methodology we are putting forth and the epistemology
giving credence to the theoretical perspective” (Crooty, 2020), need to be the frame work in which a research
works is supposed to progress. The same is put in a tabular form. According to Crotty (2020), “epistemology
is a way of understanding and explaining how we know what we know”. (P-3).

Epistemology Theoretical Methodology Methods

Perspective
Questionnaire
Survey Research Participant
observation,
Constructivism Postmodernism Interview,
Focus Group,
Ethnography Life History,
Narrative

The very fact that the meaning of Solid Waste is constructed by the human beings as they engage with and
interpret it, it can’t have one realty or truth. Necessarily it will have multiple realities and multiple truths. Again
same individual may have different types of engagement and comprehension about solid waste with spatial &
temporal variation. That’s why we accept postmodernism as our theoretical perspective here. Going with
exploratory research we engage ourselves in a qualitative research to engage with the following objectives.

Objectives of the research

1. To study solid waste management practices in Gurgaon and identify the responsibility of Households in
segregation and find the gaps

2. To analyse the knowledge, and attitude of Households (as generator of solid waste) towards segregations.

We utilised survey research with scheduled questionnaire for interview. These interviews started with key
informant, then utilising snowball technique, we collected the data which was definitely purposive. When a
particular set of question or perspective got saturation, we asked the key informant to locate another respondent
who will give another perspective. Solid waste looked at in the socio - cultural setting and the historical past
of the locality, we were engaged with a variety of methods viz. focus group, life history, narrative and all

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 951
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
through as a participant observer. The photographs taken on different occasions, the audio recordings of the
interview, gave the ways to trigunlate information generated through different means.

Findings and Analysis

(A) Household Profile

(1) Out of the 58 respondents taken through snowball sampling 06 (10.3%) were female and rest, male.

(2) 14 (24.1%) respondents are staying on rent and the rest own their residential structure.

(3) Caste composition - General 29(50%), OBC 20(34.5%), SC 6(10.3%), and ST 03(5.2%).

(4) 35 (60.3%) Hindu, 09(10.3%) Sikh, 06 (15.5%) Muslim, 06(10.3%) Christian, 02(03.4%) Buddhist.

(5) Average size of the family is 10.8 with highest number as 19 and lowest as 03.

(6) Education of Household Head (HH)

Above Post Graduate +2 Matric Middle Primary Illiterate

Post Graduate
Graduate

01 (1.7%) 02(3.4%) 10(17.2%) 05(8.6 08(13.8 07(12.2%) 16(27.6%) 09(15.5%)

%) %)

(7) Income and Employment: Family members engaged in different sectors and the unemployed
give clues to the income level to which the family belongs and accordingly the consumption level
and solid waste generated. Own Business - 50(86.2%), Private employment - 31(53.6%), earnings
from house rent is (58.6%), Government employee - 9(15.5%), Small Business & informal sector
– 3(5.2%) and Unemployed is 6(10.3%).

(8) Income of the Household (In Rs.)

2) 10,001 3) 20,001 – 4) 50,000 – 5)100,00 – (6) Above

– 20,000 50,000 100,000 500,000 500,000

1(1.7%) 15(25.9%) 17(29.3%) 20(34.5%) 5(8.6%)

(B) Knowledge and attitude about SW Rules, 2016 and segregation of SW

(1) Knowledge level score was less than 25 out of 100 for any of the respondents in the classification of solid
waste into dry, wet, domestic hazardous and e – waste and biomedical waste.

(2) 17 respondents (29.3%) out of a sample of 58 only have knowledge about segregation.

(3) Source of information imparted about segregation was Neighbour/Community – 11(%), 1(%) local leader
(Pradhan) and 4(%) from social media.

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 952
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
(4) Only 14 (24.1%) respondents know that they have to make payments towards solid waste collection from
their doorstep.

(5) 9 (15.5%) respondents only are aware of the penal provisions for throwing solid waste in open spaces.

(6) None of the respondents have ever been informed or reminded to do segregation.

(7) Score of knowledge about process that different type of solid waste (viz. dry, wet, domestic hazardous,
medical waste) undergoes after being collected from the generator is very low. 52(89.7%) respondents scored
below 25%, 05(8.6%) respondents scored in the range of 25-50%. And only single respondent (1.7%) has a
score in the range of 50-60%.

(8) Average quantity of solid waste generated:

(a) Average weight per capita per day is 0.567kg.

(b) Per household Construction & Demolition (C & D) waste is 135.086 kg in a year.

(9) Average number of Plastic bags / Card board / Bins used per household in a week are as follows. (a)Plastic
bag - 6.7, (b) Cardboard box - 2.5, (c) Rubbish Bins or Drum - 13.2; so number of bins used by a household is
nearly 2 each day. The same bins used seven times a week gives such a result to give how many times the bins
need to be emptied and this gives the clarity about the quantity of waste generated by a household to be disposed
off.

(10) 31 (53.4 %) respondents deposited waste in the nearby container, 36 (62.1%) in the nearby open space,
none to the authorised collector and 23 (39.7) to private collector.

a. There is no large bin nearby as reported by 39(67.2%) respondents whereas 19(32.8%) report having a bin
nearby.

b. 11(18.96%) respondents report throwing the garbage waste alongside the bin whereas 19(32.75%) throw the
waste inside the bin.

c. Cause of depositing the waste alongside the garbage bin happens to be the foul smell and the very fact that
waste has already been littered around the collection bin, there is no desire to go near the bin walking over
the foul smelling garbage of others.

d. Main problems of Solid waste management system as flagged by the respondents are as follows.

Waste lying Odour Rats - Flies No problem Others – (Making

around own arrangement -
)

27(46.6%) 21(36.2%) 8(13.8%) 10(17.2%) 19(32.8%) 6(10.3%

e. Distance of Dumping site as reported by the respondents.

Within 25meter 04

Within 100 meter 15

f. None among the respondents reported regular waste disposal.

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 953
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
g. How often the garbage is collected?

Among the respondents 5 (8.6%) reported about daily collection, 10 (17.24%) twice a week and 07(12%) once
a week.

(11.a) 23 respondents have engaged Private Collection Services, others manage by themselves. Gurugram
Municipal Authority have put up large collection bin, small collection bins in different point and collect the
garbage on a regular basis. Some of the prominent locations are cleaned on different of important occasions
viz, festivals, political rallies or programme of any political leaders, any campaign of government where the
leaders and people of repute would come to the locality.

(11.b) The households on an average pay Rs.1936/ towards solid waste disposal.

(12) Satisfaction level with current waste collection service:-

Fully Satisfied Partially Satisfied Indifferent Dissatisfied Fully Dissatisfied

19 (32.8%) 13(22.4% 4(6.9%) 14(24.1%) 08(13.8%)

(13) Main reason of dissatisfaction with waste collector:

Dis-satisfaction Satisfaction

Cost Unreliability Improper collection Cooperative

17 21 14 30

How the perspectives differ among different categories of people?

When the word “collection” is uttered, respondents who pay and get their waste collected from doorstep - they
complain about cost, unreliability. Respondents who dump them in bin or in open spaces – for them the
collection word means collection from the Jhadsa village area.

(14) Why people do not or can’t segregate: Only

11(18.9%) respondents liked /desired to segregate if told by the collection service provider and when asked
about the cause all the respondents have informed about their non-readiness and incapability to segregate.

(15) Spending towards maid servant by the respondents: Payment to Maidservant/manservant.

Within 500 500-1500 1500-3000 3000-5000 Above 5000 No servant engaged

8(14%) 17(29%) 20(34%0 7(12%) 2(3%) 5(8%)

(16) All the respondents say that they will be compelled to segregate. (17) The maximum amount on an average
the respondents are spending towards solid waste disposal is Rs.1908.26 / and minimum amount is Rs. 2165/.

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 954
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
Findings from the FGD, Participant observation

The Jot Diary, Field Diary, Expanded Notes used during data collection and the Focus Group Discussion
(FGD) reveal the following.

a. Neither the collection methods, people’s behaviour on solid waste disposal, knowledge about SWM rules
have any uniformity, nor do their reactions to the same situation show any predictability.

b. The respondents taken through snowball sampling reveal many strategies to face the issue of solid waste
created on a daily basis and the legacy waste accumulated in different pockets.

c. Also the people of Jhadsa show a peculiar resilience to the changing profile of the village in the last decade
due to growing importance of being located in front of Medanta and a large number of foreign nationals
preferring to stay in the village for geographical proximity.

d. There is the desperate desire to make it look clean and tidy with a typical pride in one’s own village which
is basically backed up the expectation and desire to earn more.

e. With an extreme diverse character of people’s knowledge and attitude towards solid waste collection and
disposal, no uniform line of action has been initiated yet – though SWM Rules – 2016 provide for that.

f. Most of the people strongly believe that it is the responsibility of the government to lift the solid waste, take
it away from the village and whatever it deems fit let it do it.

g. Only 19% respondents showed their preference to do segregation if asked by the authorised Solid Waste
collector. When the people are yet to experience the benefit of collection of solid waste from their door step,
it is quite natural that they would respond like this.

Conclusion The case of

Jhadsa reveals the typical Indian City with unique mix of Rural and Urban characters. The typical rural
character with it’s ethos of daringly withstanding the urban formal adherence to rule of law as it’s mainstay of
governance builds it’s own narrative of solid waste management, and creates an extremely heterogeneous
structure of solid waste disposal off the locality. Of course the denial of provisions of basic amenities of a civic
life is as much conspicuous, the narrative of quid pro quo relationship that seems not only pragmatic but also
normative to the villagers in Jhadsa. With their indigenous knowledge still intact in the collective memory, and
with the open spaces available within the premises of Jhadsa village settlement area, the villagers (staying in
the midst of the millennium city) suggest the same thing what the SWM Rules 2016 suggest about decentralised
solid waste processing and the least amount of solid waste to be transported outside the village for further
processing, recycle and almost zero amount to the land fill. But the reality is so disturbing that each respondent
straddles in a peculiar manner in his responsiveness to SWM in his locality. Each solid waste generator plays
the game of disposing his wastes in his own way suitable to him on a specific day. NIMBY, “Not in my
Backyard” is the only thumb rule for everyone. Each individual respondents’ identified behaviour pattern in
not segregating household solid waste and the philosophical edge in which he discourses is not translated into
the collective universal value as enshrined in the present Rule vide the nuances of local governance and
dynamics of pressure group in a participatory democracy.

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 955
© 2019 IJRAR January 2019, Volume 6, Issue 1 www.ijrar.org (E-ISSN 2348-1269, P- ISSN 2349-5138)
References:

1. https://cpcb.nic.in/displaypdf.php?id=d2FzdGUvQyZEX3J1bGVzXzIwMTYucGRm

2. https://cpcb.nic.in/displaypdf.php?id=cGxhc3RpY3dhc3RlL1BXTV9HYXpldHRlLnBkZg

3. https://www.cseindia.org/how-are-indian-cities-managing-their-waste--11071

4. https://dhr.gov.in/sites/default/files/Bio-medical_Waste_Management_Rules_2016.pdf

5. https://greene.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/EWM-Rules-2016-english-23.03.2016.pdf

6. http://www.iwma.in/HWM%20Rules.pdf

7. http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SWM-2016-English.pdf

8. Crotty, M. (2020). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process.
Routledge. 1-65

9. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Vintage. 63-
77

10. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. Verso. 10-
12

11. Tchobanoglous, G., & Kreith, F. Handbook of solid waste management. 2002.1.1-1.3

IJRAR19J5408 International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews (IJRAR) www.ijrar.org 956