Solid Waste and Its Negative Impact – A Comparative Study of Koyilandi and Kalpetta Municipalities in Kerala

Materials which are not in liquid form and useless to the original user are known as solid wastes. All human activities essentially create waste in different forms. Increased consumerism coupled with convenience practices of humans multiplied the generation of waste. Solid waste is a social menace as it ruins our eco system, environment, quality of air and water. People generate waste but less concerned about the healthy disposal and treatment of it. They consider dealing with the stinking waste is a wasteful effort. They simply cast upon the responsibility of waste treatment and disposal on the shoulders of the local bodies and escape from their personal responsibilities. They didn‘t realize that it is the fundamental responsibility of the waste generator to treat and dispose the waste so generated. In a consumer state like Kerala with advanced human development indices the per head waste generation figures are very high as compared to other states. Especially urban areas of Kerala are finding acute shortage of free space and waste management facilities to dispose waste in a healthy manner. It increases the quantum of throw-away waste by the inhabitants ultimately leading to unhygienic urban environment. Kerala has around sixty municipalities and being urban centres the authorities are struggling for effective waste management. It is creating a variety of problems to the inhabitants in the form of health issues, air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution. Therefore municipal solid waste management is a critical area to be addressed in the present context in the state of Kerala.

Generally the study is meant to make a comparison of the two municipalities Koyilandi and Kalpetta in terms of negative impact of solid waste. The study specifically meant; 2. To make a comparison of the levels of air, water and noise pollution of the two municipalities. 3. To make a comparison of the health issues affecting the residents of the region due to lack of proper management of solid waste.

In this study both primary and secondary data are used. Secondary data is gathered from various published sources of Government Departments, other Agencies and Municipal Authorities. For collecting primary data, two major municipalities of Kerala, Koyilandi and Kalpetta are selected. Primary data is collected by using Simple Random Sampling from residents who are living in the municipal limits. It is collected in proportion to the total population of the two municipalities. A structured questionnaire is used in the study to assess the negative impact of solid waste.

For analyzing the negative impact of solid waste on the environment and society of the two selected municipal regions four parameters namely, Environmental Impact, Air Pollution, Water Pollution and Noise Pollution are identified and used. Primary data is collected through a well structured questionnaire from sixty five residents from Koyilandi and sixty eight from Kalpetta. The respondents are selected by Simple Random Sampling in the ratio 65:68. The ratio is fixed based on the proportion of total number of residents on these two municipalities. The Negative Impact is analyzed by using t-test.

respectively where they are only 44.51, 19.22 and 21.95 respectively for Koyilandi. In all the above three cases Kalpetta is leading over Koyilandi Municipality. Hence the Environmental Impact, Air Pollution and Water Pollution due to solid waste is comparatively higher in Kalpetta. Meanwhile, Noise Pollution is higher in Koyilandi with Mean Scores 4.31 while in Kalpetta it is only 3.97. Comparatively Noise Pollution is lesser in Kalpetta than in Koyilandi. Now it is required to test whether there is significant variation in negative impact of solid waste management between Koyilandi and Kalpetta Municipalities. T-test is used for it by framing the following hypothesis

In the above Table the significance level is tested by using t-test. All values referred above that is, Environmental Impact, Air Pollution, Water Pollution except Noise Pollution are significant at 5% level of significance as p<0.05 (vide last column of Table 2). For Noise Pollution it is 0.779 which is above 0.05. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected for Environmental Impact, Air Pollution and Water Pollution but accepted for Noise Pollution. That means except for Noise Pollution the variation is significant and for Noise Pollution the variation found in mean score is not relevant and considerable.

Now whether there is significant variation in health problems between Koyilandi and Kalpetta municipalities has to be tested by using t-test. The following hypothesis is formulated;

significant regarding the health problems Respiratory Problems, Cholera, Hepatitis, Eye Disease, Congenital Abnormalities, Dengue Fever, Chikungunya and Malaria as p<0.05 in those cases. It is shown in the above Tables (vide last column of table 4). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and it is proven that there is significant difference in those health problems between the two municipalities. In the remaining cases Disentry, Typhoid, Diarrhea and Skin Disease (p>0.05) the null hypothesis is accepted where the variations are not considerable.

1. Considering Environmental Impact, the Municipal limits of Kalpetta is affected more than that of Koyilandi as the Mean Score is 46.35 against 44.51. 2. Similarly Air Pollution due to solid waste is comparatively higher in Kalpetta as the Mean Score is 20.01 as against 19.22 for Koyilandi. 3. Water Pollution also is higher in Kalpetta with a Mean Score of 26.40 as against 21.95 for Koyilandi Municipality. 4. The variation in Noise Pollution is not found significant at 5% Level. 5. While considering health problems Respiratory Problems, Cholera, Hepatitis, Eye Disease, Congenital Abnormalities, Dengue Fever, Chikungunya and Malaria are higher in Municipal limits of Koyilandi than in Kalpetta. 6. Disentry, Typhoid, Diarrhea and Skin Disease are not varying significantly at 5% Level and hence not considered for comparison.

From the above findings of the study the following suggestions are being evolved: municipalities to treat and dispose waste in a healthy and environmentally friendly manner. 2. Widespread campaigning should be undertaken by municipal authorities to make inhabitants decent waste managers. 3. Facilities for treatment and disposal of waste at source must be provided to ensure household wastes not reaching public places because decentralized waste management is less prone to health issues.

11. CONCLUSION

Kerala, renowned for its scenic beauty and greenery is not really in top position in its solid waste management initiatives. It is the state with highest population density in India and its growing consumerism is a threat for its waste management efforts. The people of Kerala are highly educated, politically and socially well motivated but the state‘s environmental sanitation level is surprisingly low. They are in the clutches of NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) Syndrome and concerned about making their surroundings clean. Hence, in spite of high household sanitation level the urban areas of the state are stinking which in turn attract a lot of health issues and pollution. Thrown away waste, scavenging animals and birds and untidy surroundings are reflections of a typical Kerala town. Authorities should strive for the ways and means to implement a sustainable solid waste management system, technically known as Integrated Solid Waste Management to tackle the ever mounting waste problems.

1. Vijay Kumar Gupta, 1987, Tourism in India, Gyan Publishing House 2. Bhide A D and Sunderesan B B 1983. Processing Method for Future Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries, Indian National Science Documentation Centre, New Delhi. 3. Dr. R Ajayakumar Varma,2007. Technological Options For Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste with Special Reference to Kerala, Suchitwa Mission. 4. Dr. R Ajayakumar Varma, Status of Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Kerala and Their Chracteristics

110001

6. ohioline.ag.ohio-state.edu, Ohio State University Fact Sheet, Community Development. Composting. 7. S P Gupta, Statistical Methods, Sultan Chand and Sons, 2010 8. V K Sancheti and Kapoor, Statistics, Sultan Chand and Sons, 2005. 9. http://www.kerenvis.nic.in/isbeid/w_disposal. htm, ENVIS Centre Kerala 2009, Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, Thiruvananthapuram. 10. Williams P, 1998, Waste Treatment and Disposal, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

Associate Professor of Commerce, SAS SNDP Yogam College, Konni, Pathanamthitta, Kerala psajithps@gmail.com