studies on solid waste generation, composition and disposal
TRANSCRIPT
Studies on Solid Waste Generation, Composition andDisposal within Kathua Town
THESISSUBMITTED TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU
FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYIN
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Submitted byPankaj Sharma
Supervised byDr. Subash C. Gupta
Co-supervised byProf. Anil K. Raina
Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of Jammu, Jammu
2012
P.G. Department of Environmental SciencesNew Campus, University of Jammu
Jammu-180 006
Tel.:- 0191 – 2458662
No. JU/Environmental Sciences/ Dated:-
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the work presented in this thesis entitled “Studies on Solid Waste
Generation, Composition and Disposal within Kathua Town” has been carried out by Mr.
Pankaj Sharma under my supervision and guidance and is forwarded herewith for the award of
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D) in Environmental Sciences.
Further, it is certified that:-I. The thesis embodies the work of the candidate himself.
II. The candidate worked under me for the period required under Statutes.III. The candidate has put in the required attendance in the Department.IV. The candidate has fulfilled the statutory conditions as laid down in Section 18.
The character and conduct of the candidate remained satisfactory during his stay in theDepartment.
(Prof. R. K. Rampal) (Prof. Anil K. Raina) (Dr. Subash C. Gupta)Head of the Department Co-Supervisor Supervisor
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTo acknowledge one’s debt is not an easy task, as it may not be possible to do it merely
by words. But it would be an injustice if I do not acknowledge the debt of my guide Dr. Subash
C. Gupta without whose help this project could not has been done at all.
It is a matter of great honour for me to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Subash
C. Gupta, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu,
for his creative guidance, constant encouragements, parental affection and untiring help
throughout the course of this work.
It is great pleasure for me to express my thanks to my Co-Supervisor Prof. A. K. Raina,
Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu for
his constant help and needful suggestions during the course of my study.
I am highly thankful to Prof. R. K. Rampal, Head, Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu for all sorts of facilities and guidance, he provided me to
carry out the work.
I also extend my deep sense of gratitude to Prof. S. P. S. Dutta, former head, Department
of Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu for his help and valuable suggestions
in one way or the other.
I am also indebted to various members of teaching faculty, especially Dr. Sanjay
Sharma, Sr. Assistant Professor, Dr. Piyush Malaviya, Sr. Assistant Professor, Dr. Deepika
Slathia, Sr. Assistant Professor and Mr. Rakesh Atri Assistant Professor, Department of
Environmental Sciences, University of Jammu, Jammu for their encouragement and co-operation
during the working of the study.
I would like to extend my thanks, authorities of Kathua Municipality especially, Sh.
Naresh Kumar (Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kathua), Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sharma (Tax
Collector), Sh. Pritam Chand Sharma (Assistant Revenue Officer), Sh. Sohan Lal Khajuria
(Stastical Assistant) for the help they rendered upon me as and when I approached them
regarding my work.
I extend my special thanks to Director, Statistic Department, Kathua, for providing me
necessary information during my period of study. I am also thankful to Dr. Chhatrapati
Sharma, HOD, Zoology department, Kathua Degree College and Sh. Rajinder Chopra (Chief
Medical Officer), Kathua and all the heads of other institutions for allowing me to gather
information related to my study.
I am also thankful to all the residents and Shopkeepers of Kathua for their co-operation
and help in collecting the sampling form their houses and shops.
I am also obliged to my friends Ankush, Raman Padha, Richa Kohli, Rakesh
Panchalia, Dr. Ranbir Jasrotia, Naseeb Kumar Bhagat, Rohit Bhardwaj, Ravi Kumar,
Sagar, Ravinder Goria, Abhijeet Joshi, Naresh Kumar, Prof. Parvez Slathia, Rakesh
Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Shalini Sharma and Mr. Sumit Kotwal for their kind co-operation,
ever available help and encouragement at various stages of this study.
I can not dreamt about this study without the encouragements of my father Sh. Prem
Nath Sharma (Ex. Lecturer in History) and my sweet mother Smt. Nirmal Sharma (Ex.
Physical Education Master) who help me in all the way to fulfill my dream of submitting this
work.
I am also thankful to my elder brother Sh. Anjil Sharma, Bhabhi Mrs. Neeru Sharma,
my younger brothers Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Sunny Sharma, my sweet niece Ridhima
Sharma, nephew Prathmansh, my sister Mrs. Amar Jyoti and Jeejaji Sh. Sanjeev Khajuria
(S.P. J&K Police), father-in-law Sh. Hans Raj, mother-in-law Smt. Raj Rani, brother-in-laws
Munish & Hanish and in the last but not least my beloved wife Jyoti Sharma and sweet
daughter Gazal.
I also place on record my sincere gratitude to Ms. Isha Sharma and Rajni Choudhary
(Librarians), for her help in providing me all literature. I am also thankful to Mr. Sooraj Sharma
for taking all pains to computerize this manuscript neatly for extending help in one way or the
other.
It is only due to their encouragement that I could carry out this work and for the
accomplishment of this aims.
Place_________ (Pankaj Sharma)Date _________
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………..
CHAPTER – 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………...
CHAPTER – 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ……………………………………………..
CHAPTER – 4 OBSERVATIONS ……………………………………………………………..
4.1. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS (HOUSEHOLDS) OFKATHUA TOWN..…………………………………………………………………………
4.1.a. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation in different Zones of Kathua Town………………………
4.1.b. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) Separation in different Zones of KathuaTown…………………………………………………………………..
4.1.c. Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation in Different Zones of Kathua Town………………………
4.1.d. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition ofAverage Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in DifferentZones of Kathua Town………………………………………………..
4.1.e. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition ofAverage Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separationat source in Kathua Town……………………………………………..
4.1.f. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition ofAverage Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at source inKathua Town………………………………………………………….
4.1.g. Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation inResidential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town…………………….
4.2. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT COMMERCIAL AREAS OF KATHUA TOWN
4.2.a. Solid Waste Generation in Shops of Kathua Town……………...4.2.a.i. Seasonal Variation in Average Gross Solid (kg/ capita/day)
Generation at Source (Shops).………………………………...4.2.a.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Shops)…………..4.2.a.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Shops)………………..4.2.a.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Different Shops of KathuaTown………………………………………...............................
4.2.b. Solid Waste Generation in Cinemas of Kathua Town….................4.2.b.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Cinemas)………………4.2.b.ii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Cinemas)……...4.2.b.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Cinemas)…………….4.2.b.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition and Separation in Cinemas of Kathua Town……
4.2.c. Solid Waste Generation in Hotels of Kathua Town…….................4.2.c.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Hotels)………………4.2.c.ii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Hotels)………...4.2.c.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Hotels).......……………4.2.c.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Hotels of Kathua Town………...
4.2.d. Solid Waste Generation in Restaurants of Kathua Town……........4.2.d.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Restaurants)…………4.2.d.ii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Restaurants).…...4.2.d.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Restaurants)………….4.2.d.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Restaurants of Kathua Town…..
4.2.e. Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation in Commercial Areas of Kathua Town……….
4.2.f. Seasonal Variations in Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation at Bus Stands of Kathua Town………………....
4.2.g. Seasonal Variations in Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation at Vegetable Markets of Kathua Town………..
4.3. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT INSTITUTIONAL AREAS OF KATHUATOWN………………………………………………………………………………….
4.3.a. Solid Waste Generation in Banks of Kathua Town……………..4.3.a.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Banks)…….………….4.3.a.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Banks)………...4.3.a.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Banks)…………………4.3.a.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Banks of Kathua Town………
4.3.b. Solid Waste Generation in Offices of Kathua Town……………….4.3.b.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Offices)……………….4.3.b.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Offices)…..…...4.3.b.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Offices)……….………4.3.b.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Offices of Kathua Town………..
4.3.c. Solid Waste Generation in Hospitals of Kathua Town……………4.3.c.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Hospitals)……………4.3.c.ii .Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Hospitals)……....4.3.c.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Hospitals)……………4.3.c.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Hospitals of Kathua Town……..
4.3.d. Solid Waste Generation in Primary Schools of Kathua Town……4.3.d.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Primary Schools)……4.3.d.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Primary Schools).4.3.d.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Primary Schools)……4.3.d.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Primary Schools of KathuaTown…………………………………………………………...
4.3.e. Solid Waste Generation in Middle Schools of Kathua Town…….4.3.e.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Middle Schools)..........4.3.e.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Middle Schools)..4.3.e.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Middle Schools)………4.3.e.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Middle Schools of KathuaTown………………………………………...............................
4.3.f. Solid Waste Generation in High Schools of Kathua Town………..4.3.f.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (High Schools)..……….4.3.f.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (High Schools).....4.3.f.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (High Schools)…………4.3.f.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in High Schools of KathuaTown………………………………………...............................
4.3.g. Solid Waste Generation in Higher Secondary Schools of KathuaTown………………………………………………………………….4.3.g.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Higher SecondarySchool)…………………………………………………………
4.3.g.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused SolidWaste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Higher SecondarySchools)……………………………………………………...
4.3.g.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Higher SecondarySchools)………………………………………………………..
4.3.g.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and QuantitativeComposition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Higher Secondary Schools ofKathua Town………………………………………..................
4.3.h. Solid Waste Generation in Colleges of Kathua Town……………..4.3.h.i. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (College)………………4.3.h.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (College)………...4.3.h.iii. Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (College)……………….4.3.h.iv. Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative
Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation and Separation in Colleges of KathuaTown………………………………………...............................
4.3.i. Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation inInstitutional Areas of Kathua Town………………………………..
4.4. AVERAGE WEIGHT OF SOME RECYCLABLE/REUSED BIODEGRADABLE ANDNON-BIODEGRADABLE ITEMS…………………………………………………..
4.5. AVERAGE GROSS AND NET SOLID WASTE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) GENERATIONIN STUDY AREA (KATHUA TOWN)…………………………………………………….
4.6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF WASTE COLLECTORS/BUYERS IN STUDYAREA (KATHUA TOWN)………………………………………………………………….
4.6.a. Socio-Economic Status of Ragpickers in Study Area (KathuaTown)………………………………………………………….
4.6.b. Socio-Economic Status of Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) inStudy Area (Kathua Town)……………………………………
4.6.c. Socio-Economic Status of Small Enterprises Middlemen(SEM) in Study Area (Kathua Town)…………………………
4.6.d. Socio-Economic Status of Wholesale Waste Dealers (WWD)in Study Area (Kathua Town)…………………………………
4.7. SOCIO-PERSONAL SURVEY REGARDING HEALTH AND AWARENESS ABOUTSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN KATHUA TOWN..……………………………….
4.7.a. In Residential Areas (Households)……………………………..4.7.b. In Commercial Areas (Shops)………………………………….4.7.c. In Institutional Areas…………………………………………...
4.8. EXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INKATHUA TOWN…………………………………………...……………………………….
CHAPTER – 5 DISCUSSION..…..……………………………………………………………..
CHAPTER – 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………………….
CHAPTER – 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………..
INTRODUCTION
The word ‘Environment’ is derived from an old French word ‘Environ’ meaning
‘Encircle’. In our limited human existence, we are encircled right from the time of our birth. We
are surrounded by people, animals, plants and physical objects which are part of our
environment.
According to the Stockholm declaration held in June, 1972, ‘Man is both a creator and
moulder of his environment’, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him opportunity
for intellectual, moral, social, physical and chemical factors which compose the surroundings of
man. During the 1950’s and 1960’s, people all over the world became more concerned about the
quality of their environment. Well known environmental hazards, like mercury poisoning in
Mina-Mata, Japan; severe-smoke-pollution episodes in London and the massive oil spill caused
by the Tarrey Canyon accident reinforced in people’s mind the sense that quality of air, water
and a wide range of other natural resources was being seriously degraded.
The rapid advancements of science and technology which no doubt result in substantial
benefits to mankind but is also contributing significantly towards environmental degradation. If
man’s intellect is responsible for all the progress of mankind, his arrogance and lack of wisdom
to live in harmony with nature is responsible for all the harmful effects on the environment, to
which we call environmental pollution. Pollution is an undesirable change in physical, chemical
and biological characteristics of environment
Though waste generation is not a new phenomenon, it has acquired a danger status of
being “Third Pollution” after air and water pollution with progress in industrialization and
population explosion. The amount of waste generated each year is staggering. No one really
knows how much waste humans generate, but much of it originates from the Developed
Countries (poverty tends to generate less waste). Just as the United States is a leader in Energy
Consumption and Pollution, this country also produces the most Waste per Capita (Alexander,
1993).
Although the words Trash, Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse-are often used as synonyms in
casual discussions; each has a different and specific technical meaning. Trash refers to things like
old paper, newspaper, bones, cans, containers and so on generally, objects that are “dry”
and non-edible. Garbage refers to “wet” discarded matter, such as old food remains, yard
waste like grass clippings, dead animals, leftovers from meat packing operations and
butcher shops (such as the viscera of slaughtered animals) and so on. Generally, garbage is
edible and was often kept separate from trash in the past so that it could be fed to pigs. Today
some types of garbage are useful for composting. Refuse technically refers to both trash and
garbage, while rubbish includes not only refuse but also construction and demolition
debris, such as old boards, bricks, under blocks, beams, tar paper, shingles, and so on.
Ultimately, all of these sorts of rubbish are finding their way into our modern landfills.
Here we should point out that no matter what we want to call it or how we wish to define
it, Solid Waste is a characteristically human concept. Generally, Waste is not found in nature
(although “pollution” may occur naturally in some instances, as when a volcano releases gases
that promote acid rain). In a typical ecosystem, there is no waste. The “Waste” of one organism is
the necessary raw material on which another organism depends. Only humans typically discard
Waste that cannot be readily recycled and reused by other parts of the Biosphere (Bridgewater
and Lidgren, 1981).
Solid Waste, broadly defined, includes a number of items that are not generally thought
of as “Solid”. Certainly, household garbage, trash, refuse and rubbish are all Solid Waste, but so
too are solids, various semi-solids, liquids and even gases that result from Mining, Agricultural,
Commercial and Industrial activities. Often substances such as liquids and gases are confined in
solid containers and disposed off with more conventional Solid Wastes. Sewage, effluent and
waste water from Commercial enterprises, Organizations and Private homes are not Solid Waste,
but once waste water is treated and various residues are removed from the water to form sludge,
the sludge is usually treated as form of Solid Waste. Solid Waste may be divided into two broad
categories depending on its origination: Municipal Solid Waste (produced by various
Institutions, Businesses and Private homes) and Industrial Solid Wastes. Another useful
distinction is between Hazardous Solid Waste and Non-Hazardous Solid Waste (Bridgewater
and Lidgren, 1981).
For most of human history, Solid Wastes were usually disposed off by a “Dilute and
Disperse” strategy. Early gathering and hunting cultures simply left their trash where it fell and
moved on. In the pre-industrial and early industrial age- settlements, communities and factories
were often located near waterways. Streams and rivers not only supply freshwater from upstream
but also provide a convenient way to get rid of Solid Wastes. Tall smokestacks could inject
Waste in the form of gases and fine particulate matter (smoke) into the skies. At the beginning of
the industrial age, two hundred years ago, many philosophers and social thinkers could not
conceive of a time when, on a Global Scale, we would begin to run out of clean air and fresh
water-but this is in fact just what is happening in the present days. Today, the pollution of
industrial community is found throughout the globe, even in the most remote and isolated areas.
It has become clear that the Dilute and Disperse approach to Solid Waste Management is no
longer valid as a general paradigm. The capacities of earth’s natural ecosystems and reservoirs
(sinks) for absorbing human produced Solid Waste are being reached and surpassed. By the early
Twentieth century, it was clear that the Dilute and Disperse strategy had reached its practical
limits and a new concept was introduced- “Concentrate and Contain” strategy. The relatively
modern concept of Concentration and Containment is to collect Solid Waste and then
permanently isolate it from the rest of the environment. Sanitary landfills and Hazardous and
Radioactive Waste disposal sites are tangible expressions of the Concentration and Containment
strategy of Solid Waste Management. Often the Dilute and Disperse and Concentrate and
Contain strategies are used in tandem, as in some incinerator operations (Careless, 1992).
Rubbish may be burned in an incinerator, dispersing into the atmosphere a good
percentage of its original volume (60% or more), but the remaining bottom ash and collected fly
ash constitute a highly concentrated, and often toxic Solid Waste product that must be isolated
from the environment, usually by being permanently contained in a specially designed landfill.
There are numerous problems associated with the Concentrate and Contain strategy, especially as
it is applied to modern Industrial Wastes. Many Modern Solid Wastes are synthetic or artificial in
nature are extremely hazardous, especially in concentrated form. Yet we have learned from
experience that perfect Containment is very difficult to achieve. Besides these practical problems,
Containment is also subject to deeper criticisms. Is it fair and right for one generation to use
resources for its own advantage and then remove them forever from use at the expense of all
future generations? It can be strongly argued that ethically we should not be depriving future
generations of valuable material resources by converting those materials into hazardous or toxic
Waste that must be taken out of circulation permanently (Careless, 1992).
As a result of such considerations, a third strategy toward Solid Waste Management has
been promoted, variously referred to as “Resource Recovery”, “Industrial Ecosystems”,
“Sustainable Solid Waste Management” and most optimistically “Resource Management”.
The basic philosophy underlying this strategy is that there should be no such thing as material
waste, although the energy powering the system may product waste heat under Sustainable Solid
Waste Management, unnecessary waste is first reduced at source. Once materials (goods) are
used for the designated purpose, all remains are reused or recycled. At the moment, however, we
are a long way from achieving this goal. Even if the best reuse and recycling programmes
currently available were put into place globally, human-produced Solid Waste would still exist.
But in the future, there may be no such things as waste- Only Potential Resources. Even our
Twentieth century dumps and landfills may be viewed as Raw Resources (antique “Urban Ore”)
by the planners of the Twenty first century. Until that day comes, however, we will have to
continue to address the question of Solid Waste Management (Careless, 1992).
Population growth, increasing urbanization and industrialization and rising standards of
living have all contributed to an increase in both the amount and variety of Solid Waste generated
in most countries. Furthermore, many countries are now faced with dealing not only with greater
volumes of-but also more dangerous- Solid Waste material. Solid Wastes, which arise from
virtually all man’s activities, can be classified conveniently with respect to their source. Major
categories include Household and Consumer Wastes (i.e., Municipal Solid Wastes);
Industrial Wastes, Agricultural Wastes, Extraction Wastes, Energy Production Wastes and
Sewage Sludges. Solid Wastes can be classified by hazard and by composition. Information on
Solid Waste arising, particularly on Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, is often difficult to
assemble. Inefficient data collection methods, infrequency of surveys, reluctance of industry to
supply information and confusion over definitions of Hazardous Wastes-are all contributory
factors. Generally speaking, Municipal Solid Wastes (in terms of mass) are a relatively small part
of total Solid Waste arising when compared with other kind of Solid Wastes but its study is must
because it is more close to the public and effect them at large than others. However, the relative
importance of the source categories for Solid Wastes largely depends on the economic base
(UNEP Report, 1991).
The term “Municipal Solid Wastes” applies to those Solid Wastes generated by
Households and to Solid Wastes of similar character derived from Shops, Offices and other
Commercial Units. Per capita Solid Waste generation varies between 2.75 and 4.0 kg per day in
high-income countries, but is as low as 0.5 kg per day in those countries with lowest-incomes
(Cointreau, 1982).
It is evident that in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
member countries more than 75 percent of the total population-and certainly all urban
populations-have access to Municipal Solid Waste Services. In contrast, in many developing
countries, only a small proportion of the population on many urban areas has access to Municipal
Solid Waste Services (WHO, 1990). Collection tends to be concentrated in Commercial Areas,
Markets and City Centers. In other parts of the cities, Solid Waste collection and disposal is left
to individuals or local communities or Solid Waste may be left to accumulate in the streets. For
example, in small cities in Indonesia and Vientiane, the capital city of Laos, only about 30
percent of Solid Waste generated is collected (WHO, 1990).
Many small Business, Commercial Units and Hospitals, especially those in developing
countries, rely on Municipal Solid Waste Services. Consequently, the Municipal stream may
often contain some Hazardous Wastes; such as Hospital Wastes, Paints, Solvents and Batteries.
Careless handling and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste may thus pose a threat to human health
in many developing countries. The practice of scavenging from Municipal Solid Waste dump
sites is also a matter of grave concern in some countries (Santra, 1994).
Solid Waste is being generated by human beings in different forms and it is increasing
with the growing population. Management and proper handling of this Solid Waste is one of the
most neglected areas in our country. Solid Wastes are probably the most visible form of pollution
which has its impact on the soil and even on groundwater. People throw away millions of tones
of Solid Waste every year. Proper collection and disposal of such Solid Wastes is very important
to the overall health of urban citizens as it, at times, contains toxic substances. Indian cities
generate about 80,000 tonnes of Solid Waste everyday. None of the cities in India collects and
disposes its Solid Waste in a safe way. The Solid Waste being generated by some of the
Industries, especially those pertaining to metals, chemicals, leather, paper, dying and rubber
contains toxic (mercury, cyanide, arsenic, etc.) and carcinogenic substances. Much of this Solid
Waste ends up littering roadsides, floating in lakes and streams and collecting in ugly dumps all
around. While the existing dumps are not being cleared and the country is short of landfill sites,
more and more Solid Waste that is difficult to dispose off is being produced.
About 60 percent of India’s Solid Waste comprise of bio-degradable organic wastes
originating from kitchens and markets. This Solid Waste can be disposed through the process of
composting. Incineration of some of the Solid Waste is another alternative available. Paper and
cardboard packing that decays, or can be recycled to save trees, is being replaced by plastics that
do not decay and give off harmful gases when burnt. The total urban Municipal Solid Waste
generated will increase six-fold in the next 50 years. This increase will also be accompanied by
an increasing composition of recyclable paper and plastic- in Urban Solid State. The per capita
consumption of packaging paper is likely to increase five-fold in the next 50 years resulting in
considerable increase on the generation of packing paper. If such colossal volumes are to be
recovered and recycled, we need to plan strategies and implement them immediately. If present
methods of Solid Waste disposal continue, the area under landfills sites would be almost
equivalent to fifteen times the current size of Chandigarh. However, if our Municipal
Corporations restructure their Solid Waste Management systems to separated organic matter and
compost it, extract recyclable and recycle them and only dump the remaining grit, rubber etc not
only will wealth be generated from Solid Waste. But the requirement for land will be more than
halved.
A study of generation, storage, collection and disposal of Solid Wastes is important to
many community which recognizes the potentially harmful effects of Solid Waste on public
health, environment and on its general welfare. Solid Waste comprises of countless different
materials like dust, food wastes packing in form of paper, metals, plastics or glass, discarded
clothings furnishing, garden waste as well as hazardous and radioactive wastes. Solid Waste has
three main characteristics weight generated, density and constituents. All these three
characteristics of Solid Waste vary from Country to Country (Table-I), Town to Town and Place
to Place (Table-II and III) depending upon source of Solid Waste whether it is domestic waste or
industrial waste or Solid Waste from commercial area or hospital waste.
Table-I: Comparative Study of Waste Production in India and developed CountriesItem India UK USA Switzerland Japan
Per capita MSW
Generated (kg/day) 0.3-0.6 0.82 2.5 0.6 NA
Garbage* 31-67 13.00 5.0 14.5 36.9
Paper* 0.25-8.75 50.00 54.5 33.5 24.8
Glass* 0.07-1.0 6.00 9.1 8.5 3.3
Rags* 0.3-7.3 3.00 2.6 3.0 3.6
Plastics* 0.15-0.7 1.00 1.7 2.0 2.2
Carbon/Nitrogen ratio
Density (Kg/Cum)
25-40
250-500
44.00
128.0
50.00
NA
40.9
NA
NA
NA
NA-Not available; *Percentage of Total Weight. (Source: Abbasi and Ramasamy, 2001)
Table-II: Per Capita Municipal Waste Generation in Some Selected Cities
City kg/head/day City kg/head/day
Mumbai 0.5 Bangkok, Thailand 0.45
Calcutta 0.5 Manila, Philippines 0.5
Average of Indian Cities 0.15 to 0.35 Hong Kong 0.85
Kathmandu, Nepal 0.25 Singapore 0.87
Rangoon, Burma 0.25 Washington, USA 1.97 (1958)2.16 (1968)
Colombo, Sri Lanka 0.42 Los Angeles, USA 2.09 (1958)
3.15 (1968)
(Source: Abbasi and Ramasamy, 2001)
Table-III: Composition of Solid Wastes from Cities.
Cities
Characteristic (%)
Non-degradable Degradable
Paper Plastic Metal Glass Ash & earth
Calcutta 3.18 0.65 0.66 0.38 34.00 47.00
Delhi 6.29 0.85 1.21 0.57 36.00 35.00
Nagpur 1.88 1.35 1.33 1.34 41.42 34.81
Bangalore 4.00 2.00 - 1.00 15.00 78.00
Mumbai 10.00 2.00 3.60 0.20 44.20 40.00
(Source: Compendium of Environment Statistics (1998), Department of Statistics, Ministry ofPlanning and Programme Implementation Government of India, New Delhi)
No rational decisions on Solid Waste systems are possible until composition of Solid
Waste is known. The disposal methods may be conditioned by proportions of recycled materials,
degradable and non-degradable materials etc.
Proper collection and disposal of Solid Waste is very important for the over all health of
urban citizens. It is surprising to note that none of the cities in the country collects and disposes
its Solid Waste in a safe way. A study by the Operations Research Group Baroda (1989) revealed
that a total of 14,786 tonnes per day of the Solid Waste generated in 24 cities and only 11,548
tonnes per day is collected and very few cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Ahmedabad and Bhopal
have a collection efficiency of more than 90% (Mehta et al., 1994) (Table-IV).
Because of the imprecise nature of Solid Wastes, no single method of classification is
entirely satisfactory. In some cases, it is more important for Solid Waste specialist to know
source of waste, so that classifying waste as domestic, institutional and commercial is useful.
For other situations, the type of waste-garbage, rubbish, ashes, street wastes is of greater
significance because it gives a better indication of physical and chemical characteristics of waste.
Table-IV: Total Amount of Solid Waste Collected and the Collection. Efficiency in Some
Towns/Cities in India
Town Population(1981)
Solid Waste (Tonnes/day)Metal
CollectionEfficiency (%age)
Generated CollectedMumbai 8227332 3200 3100 96.9Chennai 4276635 1819 1637 90.00Bangalore 2913537 1800 1225 68.1Ahmedabad 2515195 1200 1080 90.1Kanpur 1688244 2142 1500 70.0Pune 1685300 1000 700 70.0Lucknow 1006538 600 500 83.3Total 11761 9742 82.8Coimbatore 917155 175 113 64.6Madurai 904362 310 160 51.6Indore 827071 120 100 83.3Baroda 744043 321 193 60.1Cochine 685686 230 120 52.2
Bhopal 672329 321 300 93.5
Tiruchi 607815 130 60 46.2
Calicut 546060 200 75 37.5Meerut 538461 120 70 58.3Hubli-Dharwad 526493 75 60 80.0Trivendrum 519766 120 75 62.5Salem 515021 130 25 19.2Mysore 476446 204 122 59.8Thane 388577 350 200 57.1Jamnagar 317037 149 89 59.7Gulbarga 218621 10 8 80.0Sambalpur 162190 60 36 60.0Total 3025 1806 59.7
(Source: Compendium of Environment Statistics (1998), Department of Statistics, Ministry of
Planning and Programme Implementation Government of India, New Delhi)Solid Wastes in cities are classified into the following groups (NEERI, 1983).
1. Urban Solid Wastes: putrescible (decomposable) wastes from food slaughter houses,
canning and freezing industries etc.
2. Rubbish: non-putriscible wastes either combustible or non-combustible wastes.
Combustible waste includes- paper, wood, cloth, rubber, leather and garden wastes while
non-combustible wastes include- metals, glass ceramincs, stones dirt, masonary, paints
and some chemicals.
3. Ashes and residues: cinders and fly ash of the combustion of solid fuels for heating and
cooking or from the incineration of Solid Wastes by Municipal and apartment house
incinerators.
4. Large waste, demolition and construction rubble: pipes, lumber, masonry, brick, plastic,
roofing and insulating materials, automobiles, furniture, refrigerators and other home
appliances, trees, tiles etc.
5. Dead animals: household pets, birds, rodents, zoo animals etc. and also anatomical and
pathological wastes from hospitals.
Various works have classified the Solid Waste variously. American Public Works
Association (1966) first proposed the principal classification of Solid Waste as given in the
(Table-V).
Trivedi and Raj, (1992) gave a typical classification of Solid Wastes which is as follows:
1. Garbage: Putrescible (decomposable) wastes from food, slaughter houses, canning and
freezing industries etc.
2. Rubbish: Non-putrescible wastes, combustible waste include paper, wood, cloth, rubber,
leather and garden wastes and non-combustible include metals, glass, ceramics, stones,
dirt, masonary and some chemicals.
3. Ashes: Residue (such as cinders and fly ash) of the combustion of solid fuel for heating
and cooking or the incineration of Solid Wastes by municipal, industrial and house
incinerators.
Table-V: Classification of Solid Wastes
Type of Waste Description of Waste Sources of Waste
Solid Waste
Garbage Wastes from the preparation, cooking andserving of food. Market refuse, wastefrom the handling, storage and sale ofproducts and meats.
Households, institutionsand commercialconcerns such as hotels,stores, restaurants andmarkets etc.
Streets, sidewalks
Stray, domestic, farmhouse etc.
Construction anddemolition sites
Factories, power plantsetc.
Households, hospitals,institutions storesindustry etc.
Farms, feed lots
Sewage treatmentplants, septic tanks
Rubbish Combustible (Primary Organic) Paper,Cardboard, Cartons Wood, Boxes,Excelsior Plastics, Rags, Cloths beddings,Leather, Rubber, Grasses, Leaves andYard trimmings.
Non-Combustible (Primary Inorganic)Metals, Tin, Cans, Metal foils, Dirt,Stones, Bricks, Ceramics, Crockery,Glass bottles and Other mineral refuse.
Ashes Residue from fires used for cooking andfor heating buildings, cinders.
Bulky Wastes Large auto parts, tyres, stoves,refrigerators, other large appliances,furniture, large crates, trees, branchespalm fronds, stumps, foliage.
Street Wastes Street sweeping, dirt, leaves, catch basindirt, contents of litter receptacles
Dead Animals Small animals; cats, dogs, poultry etc.large animals: horses, cows etc.
AbandonedVehicles
Automobile, trucks
Constructionand Demolition
Wastes
Roofing and sheathing scraps, rubble,broken concrete, plaster etc. conduct pipe,wire, insulation etc.
IndustrialWastes
Solid wastes resulting from industryprocesses and manufacturing operationssuch as food processing wastes, boilerhouse cinders, wood plastic and metalscraps and shavings etc.
Special Wastes Hazardous waste, pathological wastes,explosives, radioactive materialsSecurity wastes: confidential documents,negotiable papers etc.
Animal andAgricultural
Manures, crop residue
SewageTreatmentResidue
Coarse screening, grit, septic tank sludge,dewatered sludge
4. Large Wastes: Demolition and construction rubble pipes, lumber, masonary, brick,
plastic, roofing and insulating materials, automobiles, furniture’s, refrigerator and other
home appliances, trees, tyres etc.
5. Dead Animals: Household pets, birds, rodents, zoo animals’ etc.; anatomical and
pathological wastes from hospitals, schools and colleges.
6. Sewage Treatment Process Solids: Screening settled solids, sludge etc.
7. Industrial Solid Wastes: Chemicals, paints, sand, explosive etc.
8. Mining Wastes: Tailings slag heaps, culm pile at coalmines etc.
9. Agricultural Wastes: Farm animal manure, crop residues etc.
Kuniyal et al. (1998 a) classified Solid Wastes into three categories:
1. Readily biodegradable Waste (RBW) e.g. Vegetable food waste, fine organic matter.
2. Biodegradable waste (BW) e.g. Paper, wooden matter, hay and straw, rag and cloths.
3. Non-Biodegradable Waste (NBW) e.g. Glass, polythene, other plastic, metal,
rubber/leather, battery, ash and fine earth.
Ecologically, Solid Waste is classified into three types:
a) Biodegradable Waste: These are easily degraded by the microorganisms and include
kitchen wastes, wastes from fruits, vegetables, meat and fish markets etc.
b) Non-Biodegradable Waste: These are not easily degraded by microorganisms e.g.,
plastics, glass, metals, chemicals, synthetics and polythene etc.
c) Inert Materials: These include small stems, dust, wax and hair etc.
According to Sinha and Sinha (2000) Solid Wastes are classified into two categories:
a) Biodegradable: These wastes include paper, plants and animal products which can be
degraded by the micro-organisms like bacteria, fungi etc. These include kitchen waste,
waste from fruits, vegetables, meat and fish markets etc.
b) Non-biodegradable: These are those wastes which cannot be degraded by micro-
organisms, bacteria and fungi e.g. plastics, glass, x-ray films, celluloid films, batteries,
chemicals, radioactive wastes, synthetic, heavy metals etc. The non-biodegradable wastes
are most dangerous as they can remain in the environment for decades without being
degraded. They are the biggest source of Environmental Pollution. Sources of Solid
Waste in a society are related to the land use pattern.
Disposal problem becomes difficult with increasing population density.
Simultaneously, there is a greater production of waste per unit area and a decreased
proportion of land available for its disposal. Thus, the history of Solid Waste pollution is
largely connected with histories of largest cities.
The process of civilized living has been creating mountains of Solid Wastes, the
disposal of which has created a formidable problem. In countries where the population is
high and land is scarce, the conventional Municipal refuse tip will soon become a thing of
a past, unless we are prepared to sacrifice our valuable landscape and countryside. In
many advanced countries, the actual amount of refuse, which is produced, is equal to 300
kg occupying 1.5 m3 per person per year (Prasad and Khan, 1992). There is every sign
that these quantities would go up in the near future.
Two main factors responsible for this are:
i) In the past, much domestic refuse was made to burn into open fires. With the spread of
central and electric heating, this practice has been to some extent discontinued.
ii) An increasing amount of packaging has been used for the goods we buy more newspapers
are being read etc., all increasing the quantity of refuse generated by an average family.
Plastic waste has been an important and increasing component of domestic refuse. About
100 gm per week of waste plastic are given out per dwelling, but the nuisance created by waste
plastics has been much greater than has been suggested by the moderate quantities involved.
Plastic do not rot like most other material, although they can be burned.
P.V.C. (Polyvinyl chloride) has been especially objectionable in that it forms highly
corrosive hydrochloric acid when burnt which is an extreme nuisance in the operation of refuse
incinerators. If we use an inadequately high temperature in burning waste P.V.C., it is even
possible for highly poisonous phosgene (PVCl3) to get produced (Prasad and Khan, 1992).
Not all the components of Solid Waste are valuable. Some are useful and others are toxic
e.g. Selenium, a poisonous element that occurs naturally in the soil is taken up by plants that are
used for making paper and is present in newspaper in the amount of about 8.6 ppm, this element
is found in incinerator stock gas, raw Solid Wastes, incinerator residue and in water that has been
used for removing fly ash. Many other toxic chemicals of various kinds and amounts are present
in Municipal and Industrial waste (Trivedi and Raj, 1992).
Today, the disposal of garbage and other Solid Wastes appears to be much simpler.
Urban dwellers merely place them in bags or other containers, put these in garbage cans and have
then picked up by a public or private collection agency. Only when one passes an open dump or
sees a landfill outside a big city at outer ring road, real magnitude of the Solid Waste problem
becomes apparent (Prasad and Khan, 1992).
The five traditional methods for the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste are open
dumping, sanitary landfill, incineration, composting and pyrolysis.
Open dumping is the cheapest method where unprocessed refuse is deposited in low-lying
area on the city out-skirt with little regard to public health and/or aesthetics. The obvious evil
consequences are serious problems of ground water pollution through leaching, loss of land
value, fire dangers and rodent infestation. Besides this, these ground act as breeding ground for
flies, insects and various pathogenic germs.
Sanitary landfill or controlled tipping is the most satisfactory method of city Solid Waste
disposal where suitable land is available nearby. In this method, the urban Solid Waste is leveled
in layers, compacted and covered with earth. The decomposition takes 4 to 6 weeks. The
technique for urban Solid Waste Management has been encouraged for the following reasons:
i) The equipment required to operate is relatively inexpensive can be used for other
Municipal operations.
ii) Rodent breeding is reduced.
iii) Serious threat to community health represented by open dumping or burning is avoided.
iv) They can be put to operation quickly.
v) They can be used to reclaim swamps, marshes etc.
Incineration is a hygienic method of disposal of urban Solid Waste and is in practice since
long. This method involves burning of garbage in a controlled manner. Incineration takes places
between 750-10000C and can be coupled with steam and electricity generation. Although about
90% reduction in volume of urban Solid Waste is possible, still incineration process has certain
drawbacks, namely (a) the ash produced from incineration is quite reactive and demands careful
disposal, (b) fumes and gaseous effluent produced contribute to air pollution and (c) cost of
incinerator and additional investment on pollution control devices make the process capital-
intensive.
Composting is the decomposition and stabilization of organic Solid Waste material that
has been taking place in nature ever since life appeared on this planet. With the progress of
civilization and advancement of scientific knowledge, efforts are being directed towards
rationalizing and controlling the process in such a way as to make it more effective and efficient.
Composting is practiced in two different ways, namely window and mechanical methods. In the
first case, garbage is heaped in rows and mechanically turned over. It takes three weeks for fully
composting. In case of mechanical composting, the refuse is shredded and spread over a large
area with air blown through the mass. As a result, bio-degradation process is accelerated and
completed within a week. These days vermi-composting i.e., composting with aid of earthworms
is also practiced in different parts of the world as well as in our country and is an eco-friendly
method of waste disposal.
Pyrolysis (carbonization) is a thermal method of treatment requiring the heating of wastes
in an oxygen free atmosphere. The process is carried out at temperature between 500-10000C to
produce gas, liquid (tar) and solid (char). Various advantages claimed to the process are:
a) Substantial reduction in volume of the waste (50-90%).
b) Production of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels from waste.
c) Storable/transportable fuel or chemical feed stock is obtained.
d) Minimal environmental problem.
e) Desirable process-as energy is obtained from renewable source like Municipal Solid
Waste or sewage sludge.
f) The system lends itself to diversification in burning.
g) The capital cost is comparatively less than that of incineration process.
h) Once started, the process is self-sustaining.
Waste treatment, such as incineration and permanent disposal in landfills are on the
bottom of many people’s Waste Management Hierarchy. Due to the air pollution and other
dangers inherent in some forms of incineration, some environmentalists contend that land filling
and other forms of permanent storage should be placed before incineration in the hierarchy. In
contrast, many proponents of the “Waste-to-Energy” industry argue that incineration should be
much higher on the hierarchy than it already is Waste-to-Energy incineration plants are touted as
a form of “recycling”-heat from burning trash is converted to usable energy. Other people
suggest that the whole nation of a “Waste Management Hierarchy” is counter productive. They
argue that individual communities should be allowed to pursue an “integrated approach” to
Waste Management, choosing the technologies that best suit local need. A strong argument
against this line of thinking is that Waste Management is no longer simply a local problem. The
world must soon begin addressing this issue in concert if we are not to be overwhelmed by trash
and pollution on the land, in our waters and in the world’s atmosphere.
Beside the Municipal Solid Waste that is organic and inert in composition, the hospital
waste, which contains germs of contagious diseases, is not disposed off properly. Very few
hospitals have incinerators, which either remain out of order or are not used. As a result, the
hospital waste are thrown outside the hospitals and finally this waste find its way into Municipal
Solid Waste system and gets disposed off with the other wastes causing serious environmental
problems (Mehta et al., 1994).
Air samples taken from Municipal incinerators and Municipal compost plants show that
the potential health hazard from pathogens associated with dust has been somewhat significant.
The dust was found to carry a large number of microorganisms including pathogens of intestinal
and respiratory infections. The degree of hazard is dependent on the concentration of dust and on
the type of organism carried (Trivedi and Raj, 1992).
Hospital waste though is similar to household waste yet it can not be disposed off in same
way, because of its some additional special type of waste, which should not be handled by
domestic refuse collection services, because of risk of infection due to hazardous nature of these
wastes. Such hazardous waste must be collected separately at the places where it is generated and
disposed off in specially approved plants.
On the basis of disposal methods, the hospital wastes can be classified into five types
(Hueber, 1989).
Type A: Waste which does not require any special treatment- This is the waste
produced by the hospital administration, the cleaning services of kitchens, stores
and workshops. This type of waste can be disposed off in the same way as the
household waste.
Type B: Waste with which special precautions must be taken to prevent infection in
the hospital- This waste includes all wastes from in-patient casualty wards and
doctor’s practices e.g. used dressings, disposable linen and packaging materials
and poses risks for patients with weak defense mechanism, while it is still inside
the hospital, but once, it has been removed from the wards, it can be handled by
local domestic refuse collection services.
Type C: Waste which must be disposed off in a particular way to prevent infection-
This waste is generated from isolation wards for patients with infectious diseases
from dialysis wards and micro-biological investigation laboratories which contain
pathogen of dangerous, infectious diseases. It includes needles and sharp objects
coated with blood or disposable items contaminated with stool.
Type D: Parts of human bodies, limbs and organs etc.- This type of waste generates in
pathological, surgical, gynecological and obstetric departments. This has to be
disposed off separately, not to prevent infection but for ethical reason.
Type E: Other wastes- This includes chemical residues from laboratories as well as
inflammable, explosive, toxic or radioactive waste which must be disposed off in
accordance with statutory provisions.
The average distribution of Type A,B,C,D and E wastes in a hospital is 60%, 33%, 5%,
1% and 1% respectively (Hueber, 1989).
As the hospital wastes are categorized under the hazardous waste, therefore the toxic
hospital wastes are disposed off according to regulations for handling of the hazardous waste
given under Environment Protection Act (1987). The toxic hospital wastes must be collected by
worker, which is trained to handle hazardous waste. The hazardous and infectious waste material
must be segregated from the non-hazardous and non-infectious wastes and the treatment of the
waste must be undertaken. Various treatment methods like use of incinerators, autoclaving,
microwaving, chemical treatment and disposal in secured landfills are commonly practiced by
some hospitals. The use of incinerators has said to reduce the volume of waste by 60-80%
thereby reducing the public health hazards.
In 1995, incinerators were considered to be an easy solution for solving the medical waste
problem. But in 1998, anti-incinerator campaign had taken shape in the wake of knowledge about
disadvantages in incinerators. Installing of incinerators is not an easy way-out in countries like
India. A single incinerator costs in Rs. Lakhs. Beside this, the P.V.C. (Polyvinyl chloride) and
thermocoal waste in the hospital waste produces various carcinogenic dioxins and fumes into the
atmosphere (Basu, 1998).
The Government of India has framed new rules to deal with problem of disposal of
hospital wastes. In a set of guidelines issued in July (1998), the Ministry of Environment and
Forest, Government of India has acknowledged the environmental hazards posed by the use of
incinerator to burn hospital waste and restricted their use to disposal of human, animal and
microbiological wastes.
Table-VI: Hospital Waste Categories as per Government of India Notification.
Waste Category Waste Class Waste DescriptionCategory No.1
Category No.2
Category No.3
Category No.4
Category No.5
Category No.6
Human and anatomical wastes,blood and body fluids.
Animal wastes
Microbiological wastes
Waste sharps
Highly infectious wastes
Isolated wastes
Wastes consisting of human tissues, organs, body parts, blood andblood products, body fluids contaminated with blood and bodyfluids removed during and after treatment, surgery or autopsy orother medical procedures.
Waste consisting of animal tissues, organs, body parts, carcasses,bleeding, fluids, blood and blood products, fluids wastes fromsurgery treatment and autopsy and wastes of experimental animalsused in research. Wastes generated by veterinary hospitals,college, animal houses and live stock forms.
Waste from laboratory cultures, stocks or specimens of micro-organism. Live or attenuated vaccines, human and animal cellculture used in research and infectious agents from research labs,wastes from production of biological dishes and devices used totransfer culture.
Wastes consisting of sharps such as needles, syringes, sepals,blades, glass etc. that are capable of causing puncture and cuts.This includes both used and unused sharps.
Waste containing highly infectious living and non-livingpathogens and exposure to it could cause diseases.
Biological wastes from discarded materials contaminated withblood. Excretion includes or secretions from human and animalsisolated due to communicable diseases.
Category No.7
Category No.8
Category No.9
Category No.10
Category No.11
Category No.12
Category No.13
Category No.14
Discarded medicines
Discarded glassware
Soiled wastes
Disposals
Liquid wastes
Biotechnology wastes
Slaughter houses wastes
Incinerator wastes
Wastes comprising of outdated contaminated and discardedmedicines.
Wastes generated from glassware and equipment used.
Wastes generated from solid cotton, dressings, liners, beddingincluding the packing materials.
Wastes generated from disposal items other than waste sharps.
Wastes generated from laboratory and washing, cleaning, housekeeping and disinfecting activities.
Wastes generated from activities involving genetically engineeredorganisms or products and their cultures not declared to be safe.
Wastes generated in the form of animal tissues, blood and bodyfluids.
Ash from incineration of any biomedical wastes.
Hospital waste, which constitutes relatively a small fraction of urban municipal (1.5% to
2%), is proving to be a big menace. During the last few years, there has been large scale
expansion of hospitals facilities for the public in metros, cities and towns. As a result, private
clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, all types of laboratories and research centers equipped with
latest, modern, sophisticated equipments have come up at these places. Medical waste being
generated by such clinics, hospitals and laboratories, etc. has increased manifold and has been
subject of concern for the public and the Government. According to World Health Organization
(WHO), 85 percent of the hospital waste is actually non-hazardous, nearly 10 percent is
infectious and the remaining 5 percent which is considered to be non-infectious also contains
hazardous chemicals like methyl chloride and formaldehyde. 10 percent of the hospital patients
suffer from infections which they acquire during their stay in the hospital. Hepatitis B and C,
HIV, tetanus and staphylococcal infections, birth defects, infertility, low sperm count and
neurological disorders in newborn are among the many serious health hazards that get
transmitted as a result of improper management of hospital waste leading at times to serious
complications and even to death.
As per Biomedical Waste Management and Handling Rules (1998), biomedical waste
should be segregated at the point of generation and different categories of the biomedical wastes
are to be coded by different colors e.g., yellow includes human anatomical wastes, animal waste,
laboratory waste and Solid Waste contaminated with blood. These will have to be put in plastic
bags and incinerated or buried deep, but chlorinated plastic is not to be incinerated. The guidance
make it mandatory for containers carrying hospital wastes to prominently display wash-proof
labels denoting biohazard and auto-toxic hazard (Indian Express, J&K News Lines, August 27,
1998).
Management is the judicious use of means to bring about a positive result. In Solid
Waste Management, the result desired is the handling and disposal of Solid Waste at a
reasonable cost with minimum adverse effect on environment. Solid Waste Management
involves interplay of six functional elements like generation of waste, storage, collection, transfer
and transport, processing and recovery and disposal. It involves planning, organization,
administration, financial, legal and technological aspects involving inter-disciplinary
relationships.
As any material becomes waste only when a specific owner ceases to have use for it e.g.
yesterday’s newspaper is a waste to a man who bought it. But it could be a raw material for a
paper mill. Current waste disposal philosophy is to treat all wastes as resource materials-some for
recycling, some for conversion to fertilizer or as a source of energy and balance for land
reclamation. Therefore, waste recovery and recycling has been of great interest in both
developing and developed countries for the last few years. In the industrialized countries,
recycling has started due to political pressure of pubic, opposition to disposal site and economic
pressure of high cost of waste disposal due to land shortage, whereas in developing countries,
recycling is carried in direct response to industrial demand or material to be used as raw material
i.e. what is being recycled have some commercial value (Cointreau and de Kadt, 1991).
In most of the developing countries like India, informal network in Solid Waste
Management process exists as a parallel system to formal network in Solid Waste
Management. Waste collectors play an important role in informal system. Waste collectors are
those who quite simply pick up the recyclable inorganic waste and feed it into recycling chain,
which is complex, based on hierarchies i.e. at the bottom of chain are Ragpickers and Itinerant
Waste Buyers (IWB) followed by Small Enterprises Middleman (SEM) i.e. small kabariwallas
and at top is Wholesale Waste Dealer (WWD) i.e. big kabariwallas.
So the aim of work is to study the Generation, Composition and Disposal of Solid
Waste within the Municipality limits of Kathua Town for two years w.e.f January-2007 to
December-2008. The site of present Study is Municipal Area of Kathua Town. Geographically
Kathua district lies in South-East of the state. It is situated 32o17” to 32o55” North Latitude and
75o 70” to 76o 16” East Longitude spread over an area of 2651 sq kms constituting 1.9% of the
Total Area of the state. The district has population of over 4.92 lakh while the population of
Municipal area of Kathua Town has 40208, as per 2001 Census Report. Kathua district is
surrounded by Jammu to the North-Westside, the state of Himachal Pradesh to the East side, the
Doda and Udhampur districts to the North side, Punjab to the South side and Pakistan on to the
West side. Kathua, the site of present study is about 85 kms from Jammu city on Jammu-
Pathankot National Highway. The two main rivers of the district are Ravi and Ujh which are the
major contributors to the prestigious Ravi-Tawi Irrigation-Complex. The significance of the
Study Area, Kathua is its importance because it is situated near Lakhanpur, which is the Gate-
Way to Jammu and Kashmir State.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In the earlier times, the population was small needs were few and resources were
abundant, the generation of waste was such that it got naturally recycled being mostly
biodegradable in nature. However, after the industrial revolution, particularly during the recent
decades, the resources have been recklessly used and there has been generation of diverse types
of waters which are often both non-biodegradable and hazardous. An ecosystem cannot absorb
them in the natural course. The piling of such wastes poses an environmental problem often on
account of chemicals which the ecosystem has never been used to. These affect its proper
functioning and in turn at the global level, are likely to affect even the stability of biosphere.
The pool of information on Solid Waste generation, disposal and management is
increasing each year. A review of available literature regarding Solid Waste generation, disposal
and management has been presented.
Hoffman (1968) suggested the use of pyrolysis for the disposal of Solid Municipal Wastes.
Klee (1969) while discussing tactics and strategies to tackle Solid Waste Management in Ohio-
reported that workers in the field of the Management of Solid Wastes were frequently
overwhelmed by a plethora of Management terms, systems, analysis, operation, research,
cost-benefit analysis etc.
NEERI (1970) made study of health status of refuse workers at Trivandrum and reported higher
incidence of intestinal parasites among domestic waste collectors.
Hershaft (1972) reported that advances in research of Commercial Solid Waste handling offer
many processing choices and has an era of sophistication in Solid Waste Management.
Schaefer (1975) suggested the disposing of Solid Waste by pyrolysis in which waste is
subjected to heat that dries the organic materials and converts them to gases and carbon.
Wilson (1976) reviewed the history of Solid Waste Management in Western hemisphere.
De Renzo (1977) developed an equation to theoretically predict the quantity of methane
produced from the chemical combustion of waste and also suggested that anaerobic
decomposition of Solid Waste is a method of waste disposal, which leads to almost total
environmental pollution control.
Wilson (1977) reported that methane produced during anaerobic decomposition of Solid Waste
in landfill, defused readily and was explosive at atmospheric- pressure in concentration 5-
15% by volume. Therefore, its movement must be controlled particularly if settlements
are located near by.
Barnhart (1978) highlighted the problems and solution of the disposal of hazardous wastes in
U.S.
Pojasek (1978) reported that the disposal of some hazardous wastes did not always cause
serious environmental threats, the toxic components could recovered and reused, thereby,
reducing volume of waste to be disposed off. He also suggested that the most widely used
land-disposal options consistent with environmental protection are secured land filling
and stabilization-solidification.
Vrat (1979) reported that the inefficient and improper methods of waste Management,
particularly in developing countries of South-East Asia were creating pollution problems
of the air, water resources and land which were interfering with community life and
development of mankind as a whole.
Sushil (1980) highlighted that waste which is a result of human activities and growth from the
dawn of civilization has become more prominent during and after the industrial
revolution and today the accumulation of wastes has become a consequence of life in all
industrialized societies including developing nations.
Wilson (1981) reported that all human activities give rise to residual materials which are not of
immediate use where they arise and suggested that these residuals may by recycled,
reclaimed or reused; otherwise they constitute waste which will ultimately be released to
the environment.
Cointreau (1982) reported that per capita generation of Municipal Waste varies between 2.75-
4.0 kg/day in developing countries and it is about 500 gm/day in developed countries.
Cook and Kalbermatten (1982) observed that decomposable organic matter was the highest
component (60-85%) of the Municipal Solid Waste and this waste besides, emitting bad
odour act as ground for breeding and proliferation of undesirable and disease causing life
forms.
NEERI (1983) calculated that in India, the total urban population of 240 million produces
approximately 29 million tones of Solid refuse annually at an average of 0.33
kg/capita/day.
Bhide (1984) observed that difference in collection and disposal practices, geographical
situation, seasonal variation in waste production and characteristics including standard of
living and economic conditions affect the waste characteristics.
Nath (1984) reported that in the urban areas of India, about 1600-1800 tonnes of refuse were
collected per day and 90% of this was disposed off in sanitary landfills. The average cost
of disposal of Solid Waste by this method was found to be Rs.10 per tonne.
Vogler (1984) while discussing waste recycling in developing countries, pointed out that many
valuable wastes in huge quantities were not used because of lack of market, technology or
just awareness.
Suess (1985) reported that incineration is not a complete method of disposal; its main advantage
is that it produces a residue which is substantially reduced in volume and may be
relatively inert.
Krishan Murti (1988) suggested that it is important to evaluate ecological risks associated with
hazardous waste disposal sites. Ecotoxic effect on terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna
should be evaluated with special emphases on endangered species and sensitive
ecosystem.
Lohani and KO (1988) while studying the optimal sampling of domestic Solid Waste,
presented optimal sample size and number of samples for Solid Waste sampling in Taipei
city, Taiwan. They examined 12 combinations of distribution and transformation for
various sample sizes ranging from 46.88 kg. to 3000 kg.
Roy (1988a) suggested that the recycling of Municipal Solid Waste as a technique, to create
renewable source of energy and to solve the disposal problem in an environmentally
acceptable manner, is an economic proposition. He gave comparative picture of the
conventional methods with those of the recent ones for the treatment of Municipal Solid
Waste in general and salient features of the pyrolysis process in particular.
Roy (1988b) while presenting the socio-economic analysis of the traditional and recent methods
of urban Solid Waste Management, highlighted that hygienic Solid Waste Management
techniques are often cost-intensive and technological innovations with resources or
energy winning are economically balanced proportions for urban Solid Waste
Management.
Shen and Sewell (1988) reviewed the problem of volatile organic emissions (VOC) from Waste
Management facilities like treatment, storage and disposal.
Ultrich (1989) reported that the reuse of salvageable waste material was commonly regarded as
an appropriate way to protect environment and conserve resources. He highlighted that
about 2% of the gainfully employed population make their living by collecting, sorting
and using or selling salvageable material from reuse.
Freeman (1990) stressed that Waste Management should be seen as one aspect of integrated
strategy to conserve natural resource and energy, and to produce pollution.
Lund (1990) suggested to encouraging recycling of some wastes by households and businesses
to extend the life of existing landfills to avoid expense and controversy of setting new
landfills and Solid Waste incinerators.
Ali Khan and Abu-Ghararah (1991) developed an equation (based on percentage by weight of
food waste, cardboard and paper, plastic and rubber) for estimating energy content of
Municipal Solid Waste. They observed that the energy content of Municipal Solid Waste
in developing countries was one half to one third of the developed countries. The
contribution of paper, as a waste component, in total energy content of Municipal Solid
Waste was about 50-70%.
Olaniya et al. (1991) studied the effects of Solid Waste disposal on land and observed that most
of the metals are retained on top soil and the concentration decreases with increase in
depth. Fulvic acid and Lumic acid played a major role in the migration of metals. They
concluded that the application of compost and sewage sludge increase the organic matter
in the soil which helped to maintain the soil productivity, but the waste percolating from
such soils added inorganic ingredients as chloride, sulphates and nitrates and metals to
ground and sub-soil water
Sandwar (1991) discussed in detail the hazardous Waste Management practices which were
followed to regulate the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes in India. They also
discussed the categorization and sources of hazardous wastes and harmful effect of such
wastes on human health in India.
Tay and Goh (1991) suggested that incineration was a better method for Solid Waste disposal
for highly urbanized cities where there was a scarcity of available land for landfilling.
Moreover, the incineration residues including washed clinker and flyash have prerequisite
properties for use in geotechnical applications.
Jacobs and Everett (1992) while presenting a mathematical model to determine the optimal
operation of consecutive landfills incorporating recycling programs, concluded that
recycling option must be implemented, though the recycling costs exceed the cost of
current disposal option in order to extent the life span of less expensive landfills and to
defer more expensive future landfills.
Trehan (1992) pointed out that with the increasing economic activities and technological
development to fulfill the need and greed of poor and riches respectively, production of
Municipal Solid Waste was increasing much faster than the previous decades in a similar
stage of economic development.
Varadarajan and Viraraghavan (1992) reviewed sampling, analysis and management
procedure for Municipal Solid Waste.
Alagappan (1993) stressed on the recycling of waste and source separation and also reviewed
recyclable potential of paper, plastic, aluminum, glass and role of ragpickers in recycling
waste.
Foley et al. (1993) while discussing the recycling and management of Solid Waste in urban
areas reported that the largest portion of Municipal Solid Waste was collected in regular
trash pickups from residences, business and institutions. The recycling of household and
other Municipal Waste has become a common activity in many communities, resulting in
rapidly growing segment of the Waste Management industry.
Khan and Eswari (1993) while carrying eco-epidemiological studies on children exposed to
Solid Waste dumps, analyzed the health status of two hundred children living in the
immediate vicinity of Solid Waste in comparison to a control group of two hundred
children who stand non-exposed. They reported high incidence of skin diseases on direct
or indirect physical contact with Solid Wastes, thereby concluding that Solid Waste
dumps directly or indirectly contribute towards pollution of water, soil and air and
creating health hazards.
Rao and Shantaram (1993) while studying the physical characteristics of urban Solid Waste
generated in Hyderabad city, observed that paper, metals, plastics and glass were low in
wastes at landfill sites and the weight volume relationship of refuse varied from 265.0 to
480.0 Kgm3.
Reid and Titlebaum (1993) concluded that the waste to energy conversion was necessary for
energy recovery and volume minimization of Solid Waste which was to be optimized
simultaneously.
Bhiday (1994) reported that Indian cities and rural areas produced nearly 7000 million metric of
organic waste which was either burnt or landfilled.
Jain (1994) while discussing the Solid Waste Management in India, concluded that no single
technology option would be sufficient to take care of emerging problems of urban Solid
Waste. A mix of options would have to be developed and applied on case to case basis.
Jain and Kuniyal (1994) reported that the Solid Waste Management problem in the Himalayan
regions was centered on the tourist spots and observed that both religious and recreational
tourists’ resorts were becoming polluted by Solid Wastes due to inadequate infrastructural
carrying capacity.
Khan (1994) highlighted the problem of Municipal Solid Waste generation in India in the
context of population growth in urban areas and emphasized on the sound Waste
Management strategy which should include waste minimization, recovery, recycling and
reuse. He also mentioned the legal framework existing in India for collection, treatment
and disposal of urban Solid Wastes.
Moghissi (1994) highlighted the need of recycling of waste as need of hour and for recycling,
the cost of disposal of all goods must be calculated and accounted for. Furthermore, the
impact of production, use and disposal of the article must be assessed.
Shah (1994) observed that 90% of total waste generated was disposal off by landfill method and
remaining by incineration. Landfill method was not favorable due to contamination of
ground waster and explosion because of landfill gas. He suggested that by recycling,
waste can be used to produce similar product or by combustion waste energy can be
generated.
Singh et al. (1994) reviewed the present status and development in disposal of plastic waste
along with its prospects in building and construction industry.
Chakrabarty et al. (1995) discussed Solid Waste disposal methods like sanitary landfill,
incineration, compositing on the basis of environmental costs. They laid down emphasis
on the method of anaerobic decomposition which proved to be environment friendly and
lead to energy recovery.
Kuniyal et al. (1995) reported the problem of Solid Waste Management in the pocket patches of
tourist or trekking/expedition areas of Himalayan region. Due to inadequate
infrastructures carrying capacity, the religious and recreational tourist resorts of area were
going to be extensively polluted by Solid Wastes.
Maudgal (1995) presented the prevailing Waste Management system in India.
Pasrija et al. (1995) made study on Solid Waste Management of Chandigarh city and observed
that Solid Waste was disposal by method of open dumping and hospital Waste was being
dumped along with other Waste of city. They also discussed the storage, collection,
transport and disposal aspects of Solid Waste Management.
Saini and Dadhwal (1995) reported the production of Solid Waste from a number of health
care units in Chandigarh and observed generation of 3.5 kg/day/bed from hospitals, 1.0
kg/day/bed from nursing homes and laboratory or dispensary.
Battacharayya et al. (1996) while studying characterization and disposal of industrial Waste,
suggested that recycling of Waste should be given priority in Waste Management
planning and land disposal should be avoided as far as possible.
Bhatia and Gurnani (1996) while discussing the various systems prevalent in the country for
handling of waste suggested that the privatization was the most practical and appropriate
option for Waste Management with regard to the magnitude of the problem facing urban
areas and financial and administrative constraints.
Bhoyar et al. (1996) while discussing the Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Management in
India, reported that Municipal agencies used to carry out Solid Waste Management by
spending about 5.25% of their total budget. They described and identified shortcomings
in the various aspects of Solid Waste Management, viz. collection, transportation and
disposal in India cities based on extensive study carried out by NEERI during 1970-94.
They suggested that the knowledge of the characteristics and quantity of Solid Waste
must be known prior to designing and monitoring the performance of various sub-systems
of Solid Waste Management.
Everett and Shahi (1996) discussed that curbside collection of compostable material could be
expensive because the inherent costs of curbside collection were high and also because
amounts collected per residence were small compared to the total waste stream and time
was wasted driving by residences at which no material was set out. They presented model
capable of estimating route time based on the set out rate and distribution, the amount of
materials collected and collection method characteristics.
Jain et al. (1996) while studying Solid waste Management in Mohal, observed that on an
average 427 gm/day/household and 5 tonnes per day of Solid Waste was generated and
there was no Municipal mechanisms for waste collection, transportation and disposal.
Karthikeyan (1996) highlighted some problems and perspectives of Solid Wastes Management
in urban area.
Keseva and Gupta (1996) in a study on the scavenging activities and recycling trends of some
selected items, in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania reported that people opted for scavenging, due
to unemployment, were observed to earn more than the official minimum monthly wage.
This demonstrated the potential of recycling to generate gainful employment with implied
lower crime rates among the unemployed. Recycling activities in the city were observed
to be not only critical source of raw materials for small scale industries, but also a widely
accepted environmentally friendly technology for Solid Waste Management. They
reported that out of 294 tonnes of studied waste material (paper, metal, plastic, glass and
textile) only 4 tones were recovered and recycled.
Khandelwal (1996) presented the overview of the National projects’ taken by the Ministry of
Non-Conventional Energy Sources (MNES) and the Indian Renewable Energy
Development Authority (IREDA) to promote harnessing of wealth from wastes. They
conclude that these initiatives taken by MNES and IREDA for promotion of bio-
methanation technology to generate energy from human waste, sewage, garbage,
slaughter-house waste, vegetable market waste etc. were expected to attract private
participation in its direction
King and Murphy (1996) described an application of survey sampling theory to estimate the
annual amount of Solid Waste generated by average residential unit in a real world
Municipality in Broward country.
Ladhar (1996) suggested that the wise and sound Management of garbage involved
participation of each agency or person concerned with segregation at source, proper
collection, transportation and environmentally safe disposal, besides recycling and reuse.
Mazumdar (1996) while presenting the Indian perspective of Municipal Solids Waste
Management proposed that presence of a large non-formal sector engaged in waste
recycling should be highlighted. Positive intervention from NGO’s, resident associations
and other action groups has set forth a chain of decentralized activities which seem to
hold great promise in the area of primary collection, segregation at sources and recycling.
Menon et al. (1996) reported that large number of medical items like disposable syringes, used
bandages, surgical gloves, blood bags, catheters and intravenous tubes which were ideally
meant to be used once were hitting market again after being washed and repacked.
Rao (1996) reported that Solid Waste Management involves the interplay of six functional
elements, generation of waste, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing,
recovery and disposal.
Abu Qdais et al. (1997) reported that Municipal Solid Waste is a heterogeneous material and its
production rate and physical composition vary from place to place as they are function of
socio-economic level and climate conditions.
Agrawal and Chaturvedi (1997) carried out a study of Solid Waste disposal and recycling in
Delhi and observed that significant amount of Delhi’s waste stream (12 to 15%) finds its
way in to an unorganized recycling activity. The collection of these recyclable materials
was carried out by ragpickers who were at the base of recycling activity. They act as first
level collectors by rummaging in Municipal bins for materials with any economic value,
since segregation at source is not practiced in households. From the bins these materials
are channeled in to a distribution network of small traders, “Kabaris” and small
innumerable recycling operations. The city of Delhi alone estimated to have more than
1,00,000 peoples engaged in such activities. They also discussed about structure of
informal sector, social factor in the recycling trade, nature of the demand for material,
economics of recycling, recycling: unaccounted costs, health of environmental risks and
social aspects of Waste Management.
Bhattacharyya (1997) suggested that urban Solid Waste low in calorific value, high moisture
content was generally unsuitable for thermal technologies.
Kuniyal et al. (1997) while assessing Solid Waste Management in and around valley of flowers
observed that 96.32% Solid Waste belong to non-biodegradable waste, of which 68.48%,
25.48% and 2.06% of reusable and recyclable Solid Waste were cold drink bottles, plastic
and metal respectively, whereas 3.65% of Solid Waste constituted the biodegradable
waste.
Lusugga Kironde and Yhdego (1997) examined the Waste Management in urban Tanzania
from a governance point of view. They reported corruption, poor relations between the
politicians and the general population, politics of privatization and political apathy were
major impediments to Waste Management in urban Tanzania. They also suggested that
the Management of Solid Waste in Dar-es-Salaam and other urban centers in Tanzania
should shift from command and control approaches to systems of partnership between the
public authorities and the various stakeholders on the urban scene and a community based
Solid Waste Management should be adopted.
Malik (1997) reported that hospitals in India generated an additional 70 tonnes of waste
everyday and about 1.5 kg of waste was produced per bed per day. He further reported
that, of the total waste produced in hospitals, 47% was bio- medical waste which was
hazardous as it was contaminated with disease – causing pathogens.
Norrie et al. (1997) while evaluating the qualitatively and quantitatively evaluation of waste
materials from several major Quebec grocery stores concluded that cardboard represented
the largest percentage of waste and averaged overall stores. The combination of
cardboard, paper and wood represented 43% by weight and 74% by volume respectively,
while organic matter including fruits, vegetables, baked goods and meat products
represented 40% by weight and 10% by volume Plastics, wrapping and bagging materials
represented 7% by weight and 13% by volume respectively and other recyclable waste
materials such as glass, metal and various miscellaneous objects represented 4% by
weight and 2% by volume. On an average, 60.6 kg waste per employee per week was
generated by the three stores.
Ravindra and Tripathi (1997) reported that recent world review placed Canada first in
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generation (2.7 kg/person/day) followed by Switzerland
(2.6 kg), France (0.9-2.5 kg), the United States (1.6 kg), the Netherlands (1.6 kg),
Germany (1.1 kg), Japan (0.9-1.1 kg) and India (0.5 kg) /person/ day.
Sikka et al. (1997) highlighted the strategies used to achieve Municipal Solid Waste
Management including recycling, landfill, incineration, pelletization, anaerobic digestion,
vermin-culture and the production of low cost construction material.
Sundararajan et al. (1997) studied the anaerobic biodegradability of the Organic Fractions of
Municipal Solid Waste (OFMSW) and domestic sewage in a laboratory scale bio-digester
operated in semi-continuous mode at room temperature and 25 days hydraulic retention
time. The biogas generation get enhanced due to addition of domestic sewage with,
maximum yield of 0.36 m3/kg VS at an organic loading rate of 2.91 kg VS/m3/day.
Wenger et al. (1997) observed that some states measure progress in waste reduction programs
on the basis of recycling rates, while others use disposal-based reduction rates. It was
generally recognized that these two measures were conceptually distinct. They defined
these two concepts in a precise manner and equations are derived which clearly depict the
relationship between recycling rates and disposal base reduction rates.
Agarwal (1998) reported that Solid Waste generated from domestic agricultural and industrial
sources was small and got naturally recycled being mostly biodegradable in earlier times.
But after that industrial revolution, the resources had been recklessly used, there-by,
generating diverse types of wastes which were both non-biodegradable and hazardous
posing a serious threats being remained in place for a relatively longer period of time
unless removed, burned, washed away or otherwise destroyed.
Agunwamba (1998) while studying the Solid Waste Management in Nigeria highlighted the
problems of Solid Waste Management like the absence of adequate policies, enabling
legislation and an environmentally stimulated and enlightened public. He suggested that
Solid Waste Management in Nigeria would require a holistic program that would
integrate all the technical, economic, social, cultural and psychological factors that were
often ignored in Solid Waste Management programs.
Das et al. (1998) carried out anaerobic digestion of artificially prepared Municipal Solid Waste
by coupling a solid phase acidogenic systems with an up flow fixed film reactor, there-by
converting Municipal Solid Waste to mainly volatile fatty acids and CO2. Moreover,
88.3% of BOD removal was observed at a loading rate of 1.48 kg BOD/ cu.m/day.
Haq et al. (1998) made study on the hazardous waste generation and Management in Punjab
and Jammu province and identified 209 and 26 hazardous waste generating industries
respectively during study period (1993-94). The total quantity estimated was about
17,301 tonne per annum (TPA) in Punjab and 1,200 TPA in Jammu province. They
analyzed that the major contribution to waste generation was from fertilizer units (6,528
TPA), followed by pulp and paper (4,762 TPA). They also highlighted the classification
of wastes, its toxicity characteristics, waste generation factors and hazardous Waste
Management.
Jain et al. (1998) while carrying out the study on the effect of Municipal and Industrial waste
disposals on water quality of river Kali in western U.P., observed that the addition of
Municipal Waste to the river resulted in heavy depletion of O2 over a small stretch of
river, besides, the severe deterioration of quality of river water. They recommended the
treatments of waste effluents necessary before discharging into river.
Jha (1998) reported that in Pune, a programme for Waste Management was initiated involving
the Mayor, Municipal staff, citizens, volunteers and others to manage 900 tonnes of daily
garbage produced. But the programme petered out for many reasons.
Kuniyal et al. (1998a) while carrying out Solid Waste study in selected region of Himalayas,
observed that the major source of waste generation in the tourist spots were residences
and hotels. A large proportion i.e. 64% & 72% of wastes was observed to be Readily
Biodegradable Wastes (RBW) and Biodegradable Wastes (BW) respectively in Kullu and
Manali. In valley of flowers, the extremely high amount of wastes generation (0.288
kg/capita/day) was recorded which was comparable to 0.273 kg/capita/day collected at
Nagpur city.
Kuniyal et al. (1998b) reported that the beautiful treks from Govind Ghat (1928 m) to
Hemkund Sahib (4329 m) and the Valley of flowers National Park had suffered from
litter and foul smell due to unattended Solid Waste. The perception of participatory
groups such as visitors, stall keepers that host community, the Gurudwara Management
Committee and district administration regarding environmental assessment of Solid
Waste Management has been taken into account. They observed that visitors and stall
keepers were the major contributory participatory groups in generating and causing Solid
Waste problems. They also reported that the local villagers, the Gurudwara Management
Committee and district administration had been assessed as regulatory participatory
bodies at local and government levels for ongoing tourism activities and the resultant
Solid Waste problem.
Manohar et al. (1998) investigated the quantitative and qualitative aspects of Solid Waste
generated in a typical 300 bed super specialty hospital. The rate of generation of
infectious and non-infections wastes were1.20 and 0.19 kg per day per bed and the
average combustible and non-combustible fraction of the combined waste were 91.67 and
8.33% respectively.
Olaniya et al. (1998) while studying the heavy metal pollution of agricultural soil and
vegetation due to application of Municipal Solid Waste, revealed the extent of
contamination of soil and vegetation due to application of Municipal Solid Waste on
agricultural land.
Patel and Tripathi (1998) while discussing the utilization and disposal of Municipal Solid
Waste in European countries, reported that most developed countries had landfill as major
system for waste disposal while Belgium, Netherland, Japan, Switzerland Sweden
preferred to adopt incineration system instead of landfill.
Prabhakarachary et al. (1998) while studying physico-chemical characteristics of Solid Waste
from Warangal and Hyderabad Municipal Corporation areas, concluded that domestic
Solid Wastes possessed less calorific value and greater ash content than those from
market yards.
Snel (1998) reported that Non-Government Organizations and Community Based Organizations
ought to be an essential component of new developments in Solid Waste development.
The future of Municipal Waste Management depends not only on the effectiveness of
local government, the operator of public services, but also on the attitude of citizens and
on the key role of NGO’s and CBO’s to shape and develop community participation in
the formal Waste Management in India.
Ahmad (1999) reported that family of 3 to 4 members in a developed country throws away 50
kg of organic refuse every week which includes cloth, vegetables, paper etc. In India,
about 225 million tones of cattle and more than 1000 tonnes of straw and crop waste are
produced every year. Kitchen and Lawn trimmings comprise 25% of our nations Solid
Waste material. By implementing massive technological skills, these organic wastes can
be converted into bio-fertilizers to increase the productivity of agriculture and arable soil.
Paper wastes dumped in Environment from different sources such as offices, markets,
surface transport can be collected from the garbage stacks and reused in the new forms.
Rubber, plastics, polythene wastes can also be converted to new forms to be used as
baskets, carry bags container, file trays etc.
Ahsan (1999) discussed an integrated Solid Waste Management Plan including waste
minimization, material recovery, waste processing and transformation and its disposal on
land to solve the Solid Waste problem of majorities.
Alappat and Dikshit (1999) stressed on the role of recycling of plastic for the Management of
plastic and reported Karadamuri case of Nov. 1994 in which four people were killed due
to cloud of cyanide laden gas which was generated due to burning of heaps of
polyethylene bags by local junk dealers.
Banerjee and Bagchi (1999) while carrying out study on Hospital Solid Waste of Calcutta,
observed that very few hospitals, nursing homes and pathological laboratories take care of
the wastes which are unscientifically disposed off. They discussed the characteristics and
impact of Solid Waste and presented a Hospital Waste Management Plan for the City.
Beukering et al. (1999) while analyzing the urban Solid Waste in developing countries, pointed
out that increasing amount of waste generated due to rapid rate of urbanization poses a
greater difficulty for disposal. They suggested integrated Solid Waste Management to
tackle this problem.
Bhuyan (1999) while carrying out study on the domestic Waste Management in rural
households of Assam, revealed that domestic Solid Waste were mostly reused and
recycled by rural home- makers whereas domestic waste water never received and
treatment.
Carpenter et al. (1999) while discussing technology and health effects of Hazardous Waste
Management in the countries of eastern and central Europe, suggested the incineration as
a means of disposal of hazardous wastes.
Chaturvedi (1999) reported plastic bags in the sea cause immeasurable harm to marine life. In
mountainous regions, the problem intensifieces as ragpickers do not scavenge for waste
on the steep slopes. As a result, the polybags along with other waste find a permanent
resting place. It gets buried in the ground, destroys the local eco-system and retards the
soil’s carrying capacity. Being non- porous, the plastic seals off air, affecting plant life. In
the mountainous regions, this can reduce the vegetation and hence soil binding, increases
the risk of landslides.
Datta (1999) suggested that the Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) as suitable
techniques for Industrial Solid Waste Management. This included- (a) waste
minimization, (b) resource recovery through sorting and recycling, (c) resource recovery
through waste processing i.e. compost or thermal energy, (d) waste transformation
(without recovery of resources) i.e. reduction of volume, toxicity or other
physical/chemical properties of waste to make it suitable for final disposal, (e) disposal
on landfill.
Gandhi (1999) conducted study to assess the quantity of household waste generated and
disposed by 100 families of urban and rural areas of Hisar distinct of Haryana state in
India. The study revealed average daily disposal of kitchen waste, animal waste and
miscellaneous waste by each family to be 1015 g, 1656 g and 7.5 g respectively. She
further reported that the animal waste although was generated in larger quantity but
disposal did not create any problem as most of it was reused as fuel and manure and
waste left untreated was kitchen waste resulting in permanent stinking mass and a
medium for spreading communicable diseases.
Giri and Bhatttacharyya (1999) observed that Solid Waste Management generated in
Wazirpur Industrial area of Delhi dumped on the road sides of three blocks (A,B,C) have
created a serious environmental pollution.
Glenn (1999) presented the data on Solid Waste Management and Waste reduction for each
other of U.S.A.
Harat (1999) while discussing the technology of managing solid and hazardous waste in cement
kilns suggested the use of Solid Waste and hazardous wastes as supplementary fuel or
raw material substitutes in cement kilns as one of the best technologies for complete and
safe destruction of these waste. Beside, this other main benefits of this include energy
recovery, conservation of non-renewable fuels reduction in cement production costs.
Jalan (1999) analyzed various specific sectors involved in Solid Waste Management like
biodegradable recycling, non-biodegradable recycling, compositing, incineration,
pyrolysis and sanitary land filling.
Kantharia (1999) while discussing the bio-waste recycling reported the introduction of
Municipal Waste disposal rigidity in Germany.
Kishore et al. (1999) while viewing the Hospital Waste Management in India, reported that
medical care especially in hospitals has contributed significantly to environmental
pollution. They stressed for reduction of hospital waste by strict segregation and
handling, avoiding unnecessary disinfection procedure and disposal and implementing
energy and water saving technologies.
Kumar and Singh (1999) while studying characteristics and management of Municipal Solid
Waste of Ghazipur city, analyzed the various components in different socio-economic
area and methods of disposal to assess its impact on environment. They revealed various
shortcomings in the present disposal system with the conclusion that riches were more
wasteful. They also reported that in India Municipal Solid Waste (domestic and
commercial) was produced at an average rate of 300-600 g/capita/day.
Kuniyal and Jain (1999) while studying the Waste Management practices in UP Himalayan
tourist’s treks observed that 78% of stall keepers throw wastes in and around the stall
without installing dustbins. The principal waste such as cold drinks bottles (68.48%),
plastics (25.48%) and metals (2.06%) were found to be worth transporting from their
point of origin to the road ahead and ultimately to recycling centers for reuse and
recycling.
Patel (1999) while studying the physico-chemical characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) in Rourkela, observed that these characteristics depends on the topography,
climatic conditions, economy conditions, social customs, food habits, availability of
different materials locally. He suggested exploring the possibility of utilization of
Municipal Solid Waste for processing, recovering and recycling on the basis of calculated
data.
Rao and Shantaram (1999) observed the presence of potentially toxic elements (heavy metals)
in soils treated with the urban Solid Wastes.
Shekdar (1999) while presenting the Indian perspective of Municipal Solid Waste, reported that
in India, the amount of waste generated per capita is estimated to increase at a rate of 1%
to 1.33% annually.
Abu-Qudais and Abu-Qdais (2000) while estimating the energy content of Municipal Solid
Waste generated in Jordan, reported the average energy content of 2747 kcal/kg by
calorimeter analysis. This energy content of Municipal Solid Wastes generated in Jordan
was observed to be 6% of the annual imported oil consumption of the country with a
potential to annual saving of US$ 24 million in case of its utilization.
Agarwal (2000) reported the improper disposal of medical waste in India as there is illegal sale
of used syringes, bandages and cotton for reuse, especially-in rural locations. Infected
bandages and used cotton wool were being sold to mattress and quilt manufacturers.
Those engaged in waste picking and recycling (estimated to be more than one million
nationally) handle and collect dangerous medical wastes and in the process suffer injuries
and infections. He also observed ragpickers sorting through medical waste at a dump
behind a Delhi hospital. Often unaware of the risks and inadequately projected such
workers are vulnerable to disease. They sometime sell used syringes which are repacked
by unscrupulous dealers and put back on the market.
Aggarwal et al. (2000) studied the change of physico-chemical characteristics of soil at the
Varuna river corridor due to mixing of domestic wastes.
Dhussa and Tiwari (2000) highlighted the various projects that Ministry of Non-Conventional
Energy sources had been implementing on energy recovery from wastes with aim to
promote projects for recovery of energy from urban and industrial wastes.
Dhussa and Varshney (2000) highlighted basic information about Municipal Solid Waste
(MSW) and its utilization for energy recovery. They also suggested a method for rough
estimation of power generation potential from Municipal Solid Wastes through the main
conversion processes and made a general observation that 100 tonnes of Municipal Solid
Wastes can generate about 1.0-1.5 MW power.
Ingle and Malo (2000) studied the characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste generated in slum,
commercial and residential area of Kolhapur city in Maharashtra and calculated the
forecasting of refuse load and energy content in the refuse for deciding the effective Solid
Waste Management system for the city.
Jain (2000) reported that Mumbai generates about 3500 TPD (Tones Per Day) of biodegradable
organic waste, 2000 TPD of soil, debris of building material, and 500 TPD of recyclable
dry waste. The approximate cost of collection and transportation of these wastes was
estimated to be Rs. 385 crores per year. The collection of garbage and transportation were
arranged by MCGM’s (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) Solid Waste
Management Department. He discussed zero garbage concept introduced by MCGM,
which involves NGO’s and the citizens. The emphasis in this approach was on
segregation of waste and disposal of recyclable waste through scrap dealers who get
benefited, besides, reducing the burden of primary collection, transportation and disposal
of waste which would also reduce MCGM’s expense. In this approach, the recyclable and
biodegradable wastes were to be separated so that biodegradable waste could be easily
treated. The compositing plants of MCGM would provide excellent fertilizers for massive
plantation within the city. The segregation of the dry waste would help the recycling
industries to optimize their production and this would add to the national resource.
Involving the citizens in the Waste Management would ensure a sustainable progress
towards a clean, healthy and beautiful city.
Kathuria (2000) reported that plastic waste though non-biodegradable yet is recyclable. About
80,000 tonnes of Solid Waste is generated every day in our country (India), of which 3-
4% on an average by weight was plastic waste. The plastic recycling trade is based on a
network of ragpickers, waste collectors, waste-dealers and in India over 20,000 recycling
unit are present producing about 0.8 million tones of recycled plastic products annually.
Kishore et al. (2000) while surveying 64 dentists of a teaching hospital, New Delhi regarding
awareness about Biomedical Waste Management, concluded that not all dentists were
aware of the risks they were exposed to and majority of them were not aware of proper
Hospital Waste Management. They suggested that the dentists need to be educated on
biomedical waste rules, 1998 through extensive training program.
Kuniyal and Jain (2000) while investigating the annual visits of 1,16,000 tourists to Hemkund
Sahib and valley of flowers within four month seasons, observed that trekking areas have
become a Solid Waste problem due to absence of appropriate technology for its
management and the inadequate carrying capacity of existing infrastructures. They
observed that 288 g per capita waste generated by visitors exceeded that in many cities.
They investigated that 23% of visitors realized that they themselves were responsible for
creating a Solid Waste problem as they rarely make use of containers or dustbins placed
by stall keepers or concerned authorities. The various options suggested by visitors
included the carrying of garbage to road heads on issuing of a religious decree by Sikh
priest to Sikh pilgrims during prayer. Cold drink bottles and plastic comprising 92% of
the non-biodegradable wastes available for reuse and recycling, the remaining readily
biodegradable waste were suitable for micro-level bio-composting.
Nunan (2000) reported that urban organic-wastes were an important component of urban and
peri-urban agriculture in Southern countries. These wastes included the organic portion of
Municipal Waste, livestock manure and waste water and were sold via informal markets-
the sale of organic wastes reduce the amount of waste to be collected and disposed by
Municipal Authorities.
Sonesson et al. (2000) advocated the resource use; biological waste treatment and alternative
solutions to decrease the environmental impact of solid and liquid organic waste on
environmental.
Upreti and Kandpal (2000) reported the use of domestic fuel from mixture of forest and
Municipal Waste in many rural areas of Kumaon and Garhwal hills.
Borthakur (2001) debated the eco-friendly aspects of the biodegradable plastic.
Farrell (2001) reported that Bright Star Environmental Australia has developed a technology-
Solid Waste Energy and Recycling facility (SWERF) for Municipal Solid Waste
Management and described three main components i.e. processing of Municipal Solid
Waste, gasification and electricity generation. They further reported that this technology
has a tremendous potential to eliminate waste and reduce green house gas emission,
besides, generating electricity at the same time.
Kaiser et al. (2001) reported that health care waste treatment was linked to bio-accumulative
toxic substances like mercury and dioxins which severely affects human and
environmental health and suggested use of environmentally preferable products in the
health care industry.
Katakam (2001) revealed that though the informal sector-comprising waste pickers, itinerant
buyers, retail traders, whole-sale traders, play a big role in reprocessing of scrap and
employment generation, yet they are unprotected by the law and largely ignored by
society and lead life full of misery. He also discussed the need of hour.
Kumar and Patel (2001) reported that glass/ bottle-manufacturing factory generated large
amount of Solid Waste, which were not properly managed and suggested the requirement
of Management practices to reduce, reuse and recycle, besides, land disposal delineation
for a typical glass factory.
Ray et al. (2001) observed that large number of medical articles that are meant to be used just
once come back to the market after being washed and repacked at much cheaper rates
than the original articles. These articles are collected by ragpickers who sell these to
Kabadiwalas or Junk dealers. The dealers used to sell the medical products to traders or
brokers who in turn take them to small medical product manufactures and obtain good
returns. The manufactures clean, wash and repack the waste and sell them in the market at
a handsome profit.
Sharma (2001) highlighted the latest technology status of obtaining energy from waste and
critically reviewed the progress made in India in generating energy from waste.
Singh (2001) reported that although Central Government has passed relevant legislation and
Supreme Court has issued directions for safe disposal of hospital wastes, only few of the
capital’s hospitals ensured that the massive amount of potentially hazardous waste, they
produced, was consigned of safety.
Singh et al. (2001) while studying the effects of Hazardous Solid Waste disposal on land,
observed that heavy metals were retained on the top and middle soil and decrease with
increase in depth and the percolating water, adds hazardous waste metals to ground and
sub-soil waters.
Singhal and Pandey (2001) while presenting the statics and future directions of Solid Waste
Management in India reported various future projections for estimating the growth of
Municipal Solid Waste and the impacts of such waste on environment.
Akter et al. (2002) while evaluating the current status of Hospital Waste Management (HWM)
and awareness level in Bangladesh, observed that the waste was generally dumped
together in a public place like the Hospital surroundings, the road side or city corporation
dustbin and many doctors and nurses were not fully awared about what constitutes as
medical wastes whereas health care workers had only a basic understanding of health care
and did not perceive handling or disposal of medical waste as a hazardous work. Finally,
they concluded that there was a need to improve the handling and disposal methods of
hospital waste in almost all the available medical facilities.
Basu (2002) reported in the Chittaranjan WB, statewide ban was implemented from January 1,
2002 on plastic bags of less than 20 microns in thickness i.e. those which can not be
recycled and the residents of Chittaranjan had taken the concept a step forward by
extending the ban to all kinds of plastic bags and initiating an immediate pursing process
by saying no to plastic carry bags.
Bhargava and Gupta (2002) while discussing expert for Solid Waste Management, highlighted
SOLDMANG expert system which stressed short-range and long range transfer,
separation of useful matter.
Nagori (2002) while carrying out study on Municipal Solid Waste generation and its disposal in
Morena, observed that a Solid Waste generation varies from 0.27 to 0.33 kg per capita per
day in Morena City. She further observed that Municipal Solid Waste Corporation of city
did not have appropriate technology for Management of Municipal Solid Waste which
was the prime necessity of the city. She suggested that the Chambal ravines which were
very close to this city could provide a vast dumping area in due course of time till it
reclaim the ravine.
Rampal et al. (2002) studied the generation and disposal of hospital wastes of Jammu city.
Generation of Solid Waste per capita and average solid waste generation per day along-
with qualitative composition of Solid Waste was also worked out. They revealed various
shortcomings in disposal system during study period.
Temburkar and Landge (2002) while discussing the Medical Waste Plan, stressed the
minimization, management and treatment of waste.
Panda et al. (2003) made study on the generation and disposal practices of Municipal Solid
Waste of Bhubaneswar city and observed average per capita generation of Solid Waste
0.19±0.23 kg and 0.17±0.03 kg in 2001 and 2002 respectively amounting to total refuse
generation of 162,000 mt and 180.000 mt respectively. They further observed that
separated vehicles were used to carry Solid Waste from hospitals and other places, but
both the categories of wastes were dumped at common disposal sites, thereby, violating
the standing guidelines of Solid Waste disposal. Their observation further revealed that
majority of the disposal sites were located near water bodies (used for drinking purpose),
parks (used for recreations), educational institutions and slums. During the rainy season,
the dumping sites were observed to provide breeding grounds for flies, mosquitoes,
cockroaches, fleas and worms, which are the vectors of various diseases. The health
survey revealed the frequent occurrence of malaria, hepatitis, dysentery, diarrhea, skin
infections, worms infections in people inhabiting the areas near the dumping sites.
Rampal and Sharma (2003) while studying Solid Waste generation and disposal at Bagh-e-
Bahu Complex, observed that on an average 114.668 kg/day of the Solid Waste with
70.09% biodegradable and 29.91% non-biodegradable was dumped in open and no
storage bin had been observed in study area. The bulk of waste was observed to be
biodegradable and organic in origin, providing breeding grounds for germs and flies.
They observed that Solid Waste collection facility by Municipal Committee of Jammu
was available at an interval of one week.
Rao et al. (2003) analyzed the physical constituents and micronutrients and heavy metal
contents of urban Solid Waste of Hyderabad and observed that the average physical
constituents of urban Solid Waste in Hyderabad (with a population of more than six
million) was gravel 17, glass 1.13, rags and textiles 0.86, papers 1, metals 1.05, leather
1.05, rubber 1.93, plastics 2.06, earth and ash 47.21, compostable matter 17,
miscellaneous 9.56 percent. The micronutrient and heavy metal contents of components
of urban Solid Waste varied widely. Among the metals studied, iron was found to be the
highest that ranged from 213 to 6300 ppm and cobalt found to be least, which ranged
from 2.1 to 6.3 ppm.
Pande et al. (2004) while studying the organic matter in Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste
observed that the concentration of organic matter is very high in comparison to soil
samples. They further observed that the amount of organic matter was less in Municipal
Solid Waste in comparison to Industrial Solid Waste due to the use of organic compounds
(dye etc.) in dyeing and printing processes and its final discharge with Solid Waste.
Sharma et al. (2004) conducted experiments to evaluate the suitability of Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) for cultivation of Lentinus sajar-caju (formerly known as Pleurotus sajor-
caju) and Agaricus bisporus. They used MSW, Vermicomposted MSW separately as well
as in combination with the conventional substrate wheat straw in different ratios. They
obtained good results and concluded that MSW/Vermicomposting MSW could be
exploited to yield protein rich fruit bodies of mushrooms, besides, producing quality
compost.
Shivakumar et al. (2004) reported that to manage increased Solid Waste generation in urban
areas, many Municipality and Corporation were disposing off waste by filling
depressions, there-by, resulting in ground water pollution due to percolation of leachate
from sanitary lindfilling through physical, chemical and microbial process.
Agrawal et al. (2004) develop a multiple regression model to estimate energy content of
Municipal Solid Waste.
Bhide (2004) stressed the role of Ragpickers in recycling of Solid Waste and observed that the
total Solid Waste generated per day in Delhi was about 6000 metric tones. The ragpickers
lift 720 to 900 tones, thus saving Rs. 6, 20,000 to 7, 75, 000 of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi.
Kirubakaren et al. (2005) worked on energy recovery from organic fraction of Solid Waste by
adopting the process of thermo chemical conversion (Incineration/Pyrolysis/Gasification)
and biochemical conversion (Anaerobic digestion/Biomethanization/Alcoholic
fermentation). They found that energy recovery from waste could reduce green house
gases and other liquid and solid pollutants, thus contribute to sustainable development.
Pandey and Chaplot (2005) while investigating environmental status evolution of bio-medical
waste at Udaipur, reported that per capita waste generated by these hospitals, ranged from
0.67 to 2.40kg/bed/day with respect to the total waste load, the general hospital with bed
capacity of 1000 release 2200kg of waste per day. Hospital with low bed capacity
(number of beds=10) generated about 15kg waste/day. The study further indicated that in
Udaipur the common method of disposal of hospital waste is land burial. But due to lack
of adequate segregation and transportation methods, large amount of infectious and other
kind of medical wastes are dumped into the Municipal garbage.
Ravinder et al. (2005) concluded that the Municipal Solid Waste, dumping in low lying areas
had an impact on ground water quality due to leaching. Leachate on the low lying area
consequences could be very serious in terms of damage to natural resources (in water,
soil).
Tripathi et al. (2006) suggested techniques like vermi-culture for Municipal Solid Waste
Management.
Chandrashekahar and Ayyappan (2006) studied the impact of Municipal Solid Waste
dumping on ground water quality of Pollachi, Tamilnadu and found that a higher amount
of calcium, magnesium, sulphate, chloride, nitrate, sodium and pH crossed the limits
prescribed by ISI, ICMR and WHO for potable drinking water.
Mor et al. (2006) carried out study on Municipal Solid Waste characterization and methane
generation potential. In the study, various physico-chemical parameters of Municipal
Solid Waste were analyzed to characterize the waste dumped at landfill site in Delhi. The
waste contained a high fraction of degradable organic components. The decomposition of
organic components produced methane which is a significant contributor to global
warming. Based on the waste composition, waste age and the total amount dumped, a first
order decay model was applied to estimate the methane generation potential of the
Gazipur landfill site, which yielded an estimate of 15.3 kg/year. This value accounts to
about 1-3% of existing Indian landfill methane emission estimates.
Yousuf and Rahman (2007) carried out study regarding quantity and characteristics of
Municipal Solid Waste in Dhaka city. The socio-economic parameters, behavioral
characteristics, generation sources, seasonality and per capita growth rates were
considered in estimating the waste quantity along-with its future projections. The findings
suggested that the food waste was most seasonally variable material. Also there was
variation in the waste depending upon income levels and category of sources.
Sharholy et al. (2007) reviewed the Municipal Solid Waste Management in Indian cities and
provided a comprehensive review of characteristics, generation, collection and
transportation, disposal and treatment technologies of Municipal Solid Waste practiced in
India. The study had been carried out to evaluate the current status and identify the major
problems associated with the current disposal practices.
Foolmaun and Ramjeawon (2008) conducted a study on disposal of PET bottles, using the life
cycle assessment tools in Mauritius and reported 100% incineration as the most preferred
option.
Hazra and Goel (2008) worked on the Solid Waste Management practices in Kolkata and
observed more than 2920 tonnes per day generation of waste. They also found
deficiencies in all elements of Solid Waste Management like lack of suitable facilities
(equipments and infrastructure), inadequate management and technical skills, improper
bin-collection and road planning.
Mamtaz and Choudhary (2008) made an attempt to investigate the characteristics of Solid
Waste and pollution level in natural level in natural and converted soil and surface water
at Matuail, one of the disposal site operated by Dhaka city corporation (DCC), Dhaka,
Bangladesh. Solid Wastes and soil samples (normal and converted) at different depth
were collected from the site and analysed in the laboratory to assess the potential
contamination due to its dumping. The results showed that the Solid Waste contained
significant amount of heavy metals such as iron, manganese, copper, zinc and nickel and
the surface water was characterized by high concentration of colour, BOD, COD, Pb, Cu,
Zn etc. which was not suitable for domestic use.
Adhikari et al. (2009) observed greater economic activity and a wider economic gap between
rural and urban areas responsible for generation of 33% more Urban Food Waste (UFW)
from 2007 to 2025, in Asia and Africa, respectively. They emphasized the use of onsite
composting and anaerobic digestion for the environmental recycling of UFW as it could
reduce the man-made Solid Waste.
Kumar et al. (2009) studied the existing situation of Municipal Solid Waste Management
(MSWM) in metro cities in India and found that the quantity and composition of
Municipal Solid Waste vary from place to place and bear a rather consistent correlation
with the average standard of living. Studies carried out in 59 selected cities in India
revealed that there are many shortcomings such as inadequate manpower, financial
resources in the existing practices in managing the Municipal Solid Waste. To overcome
the deficiencies, an indicative action plan has been presented incorporating strategies and
guidelines.
Gamse and Meidiana (2010) studied the Solid Waste Management practices in Indonesia and
found various factors influencing the quality of the services include lack of policies,
strategies, financial support, low involvement of private sector, inefficiency and low
community awareness.
Kumar et al. (2010) made an attempt to estimate the quantity of Solid Waste that can be
generated in the Eluru city, Andhra Pradesh per day. The aim of the study was to estimate
the generation potentiality of energy through combustion of Solid Waste. They found that
the waste energy industry has proven itself to be an environmentally friendly solution to
the disposal of Municipal Solid Waste and the production of energy. Moreover, waste to
energy is a clean as well as renewable and sustainable source of energy.
Momoh and Oladebeye (2010) studied the awareness and attitude of people of understanding
the household Solid Waste Management in Ado-Skiti, Nigeria. In this study, success of
Ado-Skiti plastic bag waste recycling innovation waste tested and gauged by
investigating the awareness attitude and willingness of households to participate. The
research includes questionnaire, interviews and observational study. There is positive
attitude towards recycling in Ado-Skiti with an inclination of environmental attitude and
ecological motives for participation in the programme.
Mohan et al. (2011) used three stage stratified cluster sampling to evaluate Solid Waste data
collected from 336 households in Kathmandu. The information was combined with data
collected regarding waste from restaurants, hotels and schools and streets. Key household
waste constituents included 71% organic wastes, 12% plastics, 7.5% paper and paper
products, 5% and construction debris and 1% hazardous wastes. Although the waste
composition varied depending on the source, the composition analysis of waste from
restaurants, hotels, schools, streets showed a high percentage of organic wastes.
Seema and Joshi (2011) observed that Solid Waste generation and its disposal to safer sites is a
potential threat to human health and causes environmental degradation and also found
that MSW dumped in landfill site in Doon valley along-with the plant species including
two tree species, four shrub species, remaining herb species and invasive species like
Lantana camara, Eupatorium adenophorum and Parthenium hysterophorus are best
source to remediate Solid Waste by the technique of phyto-remediation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study Area
The Area of present studies lies in the Municipal limits of Kathua Town, the Gateway of
Jammu and Kashmir State. Jammu and Kashmir, the North western state of India is located
between 32.17” and 36.58” North Latitude and 37.26” and 80.30” East Longitude. The total area
of state including 120849 km2 and under unlawful occupation of China and Pakistan is 222236
km2. The state is divisible into three regions viz. Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, each drained by a
well defined Riverine system. The Jammu region is divisible into eight districts viz- Jammu,
Kathua, Udhampur, Doda, Poonch, Samba, Reasi and Rajouri.
The site of present Study is Municipal Area of Kathua Town, Fig- 1(a), 1(b), 1(c).
Geographically, Kathua district lies in South-East of the state. It is situated 32o17” to 32o55”
North Latitude and 75o 70” to 76o 16” East Longitude, spreads over an area of 2651 sq kms
constituting 1.9% of the total area of the State. The district has population of over 4.92 lakh as
per 2001 Census Report. Kathua district is surrounded by Jammu to the North-Westside, the state
of Himachal Pradesh to the East side, the Doda and Udhampur districts to the North side, Punjab
to the South side and Pakistan on to the West side. Kathua, the site of present study is about 85
kms from Jammu city, situated on Jammu-Pathankot National Highway. The two main rivers of
the district are Ravi and Ujh which are the major contributors to the prestigious Ravi-Tawi
Irrigation-Complex. The significance of the Study Area, Kathua is its importance because it is
situated near Lakhanpur, which is the Gate-Way of India to Jammu & Kashmir state. The study
has been conducted in the Municipality limits of Kathua Town for two years w.e.f January-
2007 to December-2008.
For the purposes of study, the area was divided into four study zones:
Zone-I: This zone includes Refugee Basti, Shiva Nagar, Chak Dewan, Civil Secretariat, PWD
Colony, Karan Nagar, Partap Nagar and Mohalla Lal Singh Municipal limits of Kathua Town.
This zone includes ward No’s 1,2,16, and17 of Municipal Area. In this zone, there are 16-
Primary Schools, 10-Middle Schools, 14-High Schools, 08-Higher Secondary Schools and 09-
Colleges. Besides this, the zone includes 05-Nursing Homes, 12-Banks, 27-Offices, 01-
Vegetable Market, 13-Hotels and Restaurants, approximately 570-Shops and Residential homes
etc. Thirty samples out of one hundred twenty have been taken from this zone.
Zone-II: This zone includes- Patel Nagar, Indra Colony, Krishna Colony, Gorakh Nagar Colony
in the Municipal limits of Kathua Town. This zone includes ward No’s- 03, 04, 14 and 15 of
Municipal Area. This zone also includes 09-Primary Schools, 10-Middle Schools, 13-High
Schools, 14-Higher Secondary Schools and 08-Colleges. Besides this, the zone includes 08-
Nursing Homes, 07-Banks, 21-Offices, 16-Hotels and Restaurants, approximately 610-Shops and
Residential homes etc. Thirty samples out of one hundred twenty have also been taken from this
zone.
Zone-III: This zone includes Main Bazaar, Ram Lila Ground, Vijay Market, Arya Samaj
Mandir, Mohalla Sher Singh, Mohalla Safai Karamchari in the Municipal limits of Kathua Town.
This zone includes ward Nos. 05, 06 and 07 of Municipal Area. This zone also includes 06-
Primary Schools, 09-Middle Schools, 07-High Schools, 07-Higher Secondary Schools and 05-
Colleges. Besides this, the zone includes 06-Nursing Homes, 08-Banks, 13-Officers, 14-
Restaurants, approximately 1051-Shops and Residential homes etc. Thirty samples out of one
hundred twenty have also been taken from this zone.
Zone-IV: This zone includes Chak Sawan, Shastri Nagar, Tara Nagar, Partap Nagar, Chak
Phoolen, Raj-Bagh, Mosque-Mohalla, Mohalla Bawa Surgal, Mohalla Ananta Chack, Lakdha
Sandha in the Municipal limits of Kathua Town. This zone includes ward Nos. 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
and 13 of Municipal Area. This zone also includes 11-Primary Schools, 10-Middle Schools, 13-
High Schools, 08-Higher Secondary Schools and 14-Colleges. Besides this, the zone includes 05-
Nursing Homes, 09-Banks, 26-Officers, 18-Restaurants, approximately 956-Shops and
Residential homes etc. Thirty samples out of one hundred twenty have also been taken from this
zone.
Sampling of Solid Waste:
1. Sampling of Solid Waste at Residential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town.
The average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the Residential Areas (Households) of
the Kathua Town was calculated by taking thirty samples of Solid Waste from each zone in a
period of three months for two years. During each sampling, the Solid Waste generated during
twenty four hours in a household was collected in a polythene bag of capacity 10 kg and
weighed. The total number of residents of each household during sampling period was also
recorded to calculate per capita per day values. Weighing of Solid Waste was done with the help
of digital balance and 100 g, 1000 g, 10 kg spring balances (Fig-2-4).
Solid waste generation/day at aparticular household during 24 hours
Solid Waste Generation (kg/capita/day) =Total number of residents of household
during sampling
The qualitative and quantitative composition of biodegradable, non-biodegradable wastes
were also calculated by analyzing the per day Solid Waste generation of each household.
Data from each household regarding the separation of various wastes- paperware
(books, note-books, newspapers, magazines); plasticware (containers, buckets, bottles, plastic
woven sack, scrap); metallicware (tin containers, scrap); glassware (beer and wine bottles,
bottles); cardboard (craft, sweep); jute (jute woven sack); to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyers
(IWB) or Waste Dealers at weekly or monthly intervals were also recorded to calculate average
separation of Solid Waste (kg per capita per day of recycled or reused waste) at each household.
Data of all zones in a particular three months period was compiled to calculate average
Gross Solid Waste generation, Solid Waste separation and Net Solid Waste generation per
capita per day including various biodegradable, non-biodegradable wastes and inert material at
Study Area in a particular three months period.
From the compiled data, seasonal fluctuations in qualitative and quantitative composition
in Solid Waste generation and Separation in the two years study period were calculated.
Data on Solid Waste generation and separation in eight seasons of the two years study
period were compiled to calculate average per capita per day values of Solid Waste separation
and Net generation with standard deviations.
2. Sampling of Solid Waste at Commercial Areas of Kathua Town.
(a) Sampling of Solid Waste at Shops of Kathua Town.
Average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the Shops of Kathua
Town was calculated by taking sixty samples of Solid Waste from various Shops in a
period of three months for two years study period. The minimum of three samples from
each type of the Shop were taken in a period of three months during two years study.
During each sampling, the Solid Waste generated during working hours of the Shop
was collected and weighed. The total number of customers visiting Shop during
working hours was also recorded to calculate the per capita per day values of the Solid
Waste generation. The qualitative and quantitative composition of biodegradable and
non-biodegradable wastes were also calculated by analyzing the Solid Waste
generation per day at each Shop during different season in a study period of two years.
The amount of various recyclable or reused wastes like paperware (newspapers,
magazine); plasticware (glucose bottles, spirit bottles, colddrinks bottles,);
metallicware (metal cables, scrap, tin boxes); glassware (bottles); cardboard (craft,
sweep); wood (polarized wood); jute (jute woven sack); rubber (rubber tubes, scrap,
tyres) etc. which were separated by Shopkeepers to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyers
(IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals were also recorded to calculate average
separation of Solid Waste (kg per capita per day of the recyclable or reused waste) at
each type of Shop. The data of Solid Waste of each type of the Shop during eight
seasons of the study period compiled to find the qualitative and quantitative
composition (percentage by weight) of the gross biodegradable, non-biodegradable
wastes and subsequently of the average separation and net generation of Solid Waste
per capita per day per shop at Study Area.
(b) Sampling of Solid Waste at Cinema of Kathua Town.
Average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the Cinema of Kathua Town was
calculated by taking eight samples of Solid Waste from various cinemas in a period of
three months for two years study period. During each sampling, the Solid Waste
generated during all the four cinema shows was collected and weighed. The total
numbers of Cinema goers in all the four shows were recorded to calculate per capita
per day values of Solid Waste generation. The qualitative and quantitative
compositions of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes were also calculated by
analyzing the Solid Waste generation during all the four Cinema shows. The quantity
of various recyclable/reused wastes like paperware (newspaper, magazine); plasticware
(bisleri water bottles); glassware (bottles) which are separated by sweepers to be sold to
Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals were also recorded to
calculate the average Solid Waste separated per capita per day and subsequently the net
generation per capita per day. The per capita per day values of Sold Waste separation
and generation in Cinema during eight seasons of the study period were compiled to
find out the average per capita per day separation and net generation in the Cinema.
(c) Sampling of Solid Waste in the Hotels of Kathua Town.
Thirty samples of Solid Waste from various Hotels in a period of three
months during two years study period were taken to calculate average Solid Waste
generation per capita per day in the Hotels of Kathua Town. During each sampling, the
total Solid Waste generated during twenty four hours in the Hotel was collected and
weighed. The total number of visitors that stayed in the Hotel and total number of
Hotel staffs during 24 hours of sampling periods was recorded to calculate per capita
per day values of Solid Waste generation. The qualitative and quantitative
compositions of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes were also calculated by
analyzing the per day generations of Solid Waste. The quantity of various
recyclable/reused wastes like paperware (newspaper, magazine); plasticware (bisleri
water bottles, bottles); cardboard; glassware (beer bottles, bottles) which were
separated by hotel management to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or
monthly intervals were recorded to calculate average separation and net generation of
Solid Waste. The per capita per day values of Solid Waste separation and net
generation in Hotels during eight seasons of the two year study period were compiled
to find out the average per capita per day separation and net generation in the Hotels.
(d) Sampling of Solid Waste in the Restaurants of Kathua Town.
Thirty six samples of Solid Waste from various Restaurants in a period of three
months during two years study period were taken to calculate average Solid Waste
generations per capita per day in the Restaurants of Kathua Town. During each
sampling, the total Solid Waste generated during twenty four hours in the Restaurants
was collected and weighed. The total number of visitors/customers who had taken their
meals and refreshment were recorded to calculate per capita per day values of Solid
Waste generations. The qualitative and quantitative compositions of biodegradable and
non-biodegradable wastes were also calculated by analyzing the per day generation of
Solid Waste. The quantity of various recyclable/reused wastes like paperware
(newspaper, magazine); plasticware (bisleri water bottles); cardboard ; glassware (beer
and wine bottles, bottles) which were separated by Restaurant Management to be sold
to Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals were recorded to
calculate average separation and net generation of Solid Waste. The per capita per day
values of Solid Waste separation and net generation in Restaurants during eight
seasons were compiled to find out the average per capita per day separation and net
generation in the Restaurants.
The values of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and net generation at various
Commercial Units during eight seasons of the two years study period were compiled to
find the average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and net generation
(kg/capita/day) at Commercial Areas.
(e) Sampling of Solid Waste at Bus Stands and Vegetable Market of Kathua Town
Average Solid Waste generation per day at Bus Stand and Vegetable Market was
calculated by taking six samples and five samples respectively in a period of three months during
two years study period. During each sampling, total Solid Waste generated during twenty four
hours was collected and weighed. The qualitative and quantitative compositions of biodegradable
and non-biodegradable wastes at Bus Stand and Vegetable Market were also calculated by taking
a random 10kg sample of Solid Waste from the total Solid Waste generated and then separated it
percentage-wise and repeat this process three-four times and find the average. This average
percentage was then taken into account for the whole Solid Waste generated. The values of Solid
Waste generation in Bus Stand and Vegetable Market during eight seasons were compiled to find
out the average Solid Waste generation per day at Bus Stand and Vegetable Market respectively.
3. Sampling of Solid Waste at Institutional Areas of Kathua Town
(a) Sampling of Solid Waste at Official Institute of Kathua Town
The average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the Official Institutes
was calculated by taking eighteen simples from Banks and twenty four samples from
Offices in a period of three months during two years study period. During each
sampling, the total Solid Waste generated during the period of working hours was
collected and weighed. The total number of employees that worked in the Institute and
total number of people that visited in the Institute during the sampling period were also
recorded to calculate per capita per day values of the Solid Waste generation. The
qualitative and quantitative compositions of biodegradable and non-biodegradable
wastes were also calculated by analyzing the Solid Waste generation per day. The
quantity of various recyclable/reused wastes like paperware (newspaper, magazines);
cardboard, plasticware (bisleri water bottles, cold drink bottles) which were separated
by sweepers to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals
were recorded to calculate average separation and net generation of Solid Waste. The
per capita per day values of Solid Waste separation and net generation in Banks and
Offices during eight seasons of the study period were compiled to find out the average
per capita per day separation and net generation in the Bank and Offices of Kathua
Town.
(b) Sampling of Solid Waste at Medical Institutes (Hospitals/Nursing Homes) of
Kathua Town
The average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the hospitals was calculated
by taking eight samples in a period of three months for two years study period. During
each sampling, the total Solid Waste generated by the patient and his attendants during
the period of 24 hours was collected in a polythene bag of 5 kg capacity and weighed.
The qualitative and quantitative compositions of biodegradable and non-biodegradable
wastes per capita per day were also calculated. The quantity of various
recyclable/reused wastes like plasticware (glucose bottles, spirit bottles, H2O2 bottles),
glassware (savlon bottles, betadine bottles) which were separated by sweepers to be
sold to Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) or Small Enterprise Middleman (SEM) at weekly
or monthly intervals were recorded to calculate average separation and net generation
of Solid Waste. The per capita per day values of Solid Waste separation and net
generation in hospitals during eight seasons of the study period were complied to find
the average per capita per day separation and net generation at hospital.
(c) Sampling of Solid Waste at Educational Institutes of Kathua Town
Average Solid Waste generation per capita per day in the Educational Institutes was
calculated by taking eighteen samples each from Primary schools, Middle schools,
High schools and Higher Secondary schools and six samples from Colleges in a period
of three months during two years study period. During each sampling, the total Solid
Waste generated during the period of twenty four hours was collected and weighed.
The total number of student and staff during the sampling period were also recorded to
calculate per capita per day values of the Solid Waste generation. The qualitative and
quantitative compositions of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes were also
calculated by analyzing the Solid Waste generation per day. The quantity of various
recyclable/reused wastes like paperwise (newspaper, magazines); plasticware (bottles,
bisleri water bottles, cold drinks bottles); cardboard; glassware (bottles) to be sold
Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals were recorded to calculate
average separations and net generation of Solid Waste. The per capita per day values
of Solid Waste separation and Net generation in Educational Institutes during eight
seasons of the study period were compiled to find out the average per capita per day
separation and generation at Educational Institutes.
The values of Solid Waste per capita per day separation and Net generation during
eight seasons of the study period at various Institutional units were compiled to find
out average Solid Waste per capita per day separation and net generation per capita per
day at Institutional areas.
4. Socio-Economic Survey of Waste Collectors of Kathua Town.
The socio-economic survey of various waste collectors operating in various zones of study
area i.e. Ragpickers, Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB), Small Enterprise Middleman (SEM) and
Wholesale Waste Dealers (WWD) was carried out on format-I, II, III and IV respectively. The
specific numbers of Ragpickers (44), Itinerant Waste Buyers (20), Small Enterprise Middleman
(15) and Wholesale Waste Dealers (05) were surveyed covering all the zones of the Study Area.
The data of the surveyed waste collectors was compiled and tabulated in the form of tables and
graphs.
FORMAT-I
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RAGPICKER
A. Locality
B. Date
C. Name
D. Age
1. How many people of your family are involved in ragpicking?
2. Which is your home town?
3. Which stuff do you prefer the most?
(a) Paper (b) Plastic
(c) Metal (d) Glass
(e) All (f) Any other
4. To whom do you sell the waste?
(a) Small Enterprises Middleman
(b) Recycling Unit
(c) Any other
5. How long you have been doing ragpicking?
(a) Less than 2 years (b) More than 2 years
(c) 2 years (d) Precisely
6. How much time do you spent in ragpicking?
(a) Whole day (d) Morning
(c) Evening (d) Hours
7. (a) How much total waste do you collect daily?
(a) Less than 1 kg (b) 1 Kg
(b) More than 1 kg (d) Precisely
7. (b) Quantitative collection of waste
(a) Paper (b) Plastic
(c) Metal (d) Glass
(d) Cardboard
8. How much do you earn from daily ragpicking?
(a) Less than Rs. 30/- (b) More than Rs. 30/-
(c) Rs. 80/- (d) Precisely
9. How do you collect things?
(a) Manually Yes/No
(b) Any implements Yes /No
(i) Stick (ii) Hook stick
(iii) Magnet (iv) Any other
Format – II
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ITINERANT WASTE BUYER (IWB)
A. Locality B. Date
C. Name D. Age
1. How many people of your family are involved in the job?
2. Which is your home town?
3. Which stuff do you prefer the most?
(a) Paper (b) Glass (c) Plastic
(d) Metal (e) All (f) Any other
4. To whom do you sell the collected waste?
(a) Small Enterprises Middleman (b) Recycle Unit
(c) Any other
5. How long you have been doing this?
(a) Less than 2 years (b) Two years
(c) More than 2 years (d) Precisely
6. How much time to you spent in collecting wastes from door to door?
(a) Morning (b) Whole day
(c) Evening (d) Hours
7. a. How much total waste do you collect daily?
(a) Less than 50Kg (b) 50 Kg
(c) More than 50 Kg (d) Precisely
7. b. Quantitative collection of waste?
(a) Paper (b) Metal (c) Plastic
(d) Glass (e) Cardboard (f) Rubber
(g) Plastic woven sack (h) Jute woven sack
8. How much do you earn from daily waste collection?
(a) Less that Rs. 70/- (b) More than Rs. 70/-
(c) Rs. 70/- (d) Precisely
9. In how many Mohallas do you move daily?
(a) One (b) Two (c) Three (d) Precisely
10. In which season do you get the most?
(a) Summer (b) Rainy (c) Winter (d) Festival time
(e) After Exams (f) All the 12 months are equal
11. What do you think about your role in Solid Waste Management?
12. What do you think about your role in Recycling of Solid Waste?
13. Do you know, you are helping in Environment Protection?
14. Mode of collection: Bicycle Yes/No
If yes Owned/Hired
15. Can you help Municipality in Solid Waste Management?
16. Which class of society sells maximum waste?
(a) Low income family (b) Middle income family
(c) High income family
Format – III
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SMALL ENTERPRISES MIDDLE MAN (SEM)
A. Locality
B. Date
C. Name
D. Age
1. How long you are in this business?
(a) Less than 5 year (b) 5 years(c) More than 5 year (d) Precisely
2. Who sell waste material to you?
(a) IWB (b) Ragpickers
(c) Common man/Shopkeeper
3. How much following waste do you purchase daily?
(a) Plastic (b) Metal (c) Paper (d) Glass
(e) Rubber (f) Cardboard (g) Plastic woven sack (h) Jute woven sack
4. To whom do you sell the collected waste?
a) Ragpickers Daily/Monthly
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Cardboard
b) IWB
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Rubber
vi. Cardboard
vii. Plastic woven sack
viii. Jute woven sack
c) Common man/Shopkeeper
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Rubber
vi. Cardboard
vii. Plastic woven sack
viii. Jute woven sack
5. Who sell rubber waste/tyres?
(a) Waste collector (b) Common man/Shopkeeper
6. Number of transport vehicles per month to carry waste to WWD
(a) Less than 4 (b) 4
(c) More than 4 (d) Precisely
7. How much money you earn daily?
a) More than Rs. 100/-
b) More than Rs. 500/-
c) More than Rs. 1000/-
d) More than Rs. 1500/-
8. What do you think about your role in Recycling of Solid Waste?
9. Are you aware of the Environmental Laws?
10. Do you know, you are helping in Conservation of Resources?
11. Do you know you are helping in Environmental Protection?
12. How are you helping Municipality?
13. How can Municipality help in your business?
Format – IV
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WHOLE SALE WASTE DEALER (WWD)
A) Locality
B) Date
C) Name
D) Age
1. How long you are running this business?
a) Less than 5 years b) 5 years
c) More than 5 years d) Precisely
2. Who sells waste material to you?
a) SEM b) IWB
c) Common man/Shopkeeper
3. How much following waste do you purchase daily?
a) Plastic
b) Metal
c) Paper
d) Glass
e) Rubber
f) Cardboard
g) Plastic woven sack
h) Jute woven sack
4. How much waste does the following give to you?
IWB
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Rubber
vi. Cardboard
vii. Plastic woven sack
viii. Jute woven sack
SEM
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Rubber
vi. Cardboard
vii. Plastic woven sack
viii. Jute woven sack
Common man/Shopkeeper
i. Plastic
ii. Paper
iii. Metal
iv. Glass
v. Rubber
vi. Cardboard
vii. Plastic woven sack
viii. Jute woven sack
5. Who sell rubber waste/tyres?
(a) Waste collector (b) Common man/Shopkeeper
6. Number of transport vehicles per month to carry waste to WWD
(a) Less than 4 (b) 4
(c) More than 4 (d) Precisely
7. How much money you earn daily?
e) More than Rs. 500/-
f) More than Rs. 1000/-
g) More than Rs. 2000/-
h) More than Rs. 3000/-
8. What do you think about your role in Recycling of Solid Waste?
9. Are you aware of the Environmental Laws?
10. Do you know, you are helping in Conservation of Resources?
11. Do you know, you are helping in Environmental Protection?
12. How are you helping Municipality?
13. How can Municipality help in your business?
5. Socio-Personal Survey Regarding Health and Awareness about Solid Waste Management
of Kathua Town.
The socio-personal survey regarding health and awareness about Solid Waste
Management was conducted by using format-V in Residential areas (Household), format-VI in
Commercial areas and format-VII in Institutional areas. The survey of about four hundred
households was conducted in the Residential areas, sixty shops were surveyed in the Commercial
areas and fifty Institutes were surveyed in the Institutional areas on the respective formats. The
data of all formats was analyzed to calculate percentage response to various quarries in the
questionnaire format. All the calculated and compiled data was tabulated and represented in the
form of graphs.
FORMAT-V
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIO-PERSONAL SURVEY REGARDING HEALTH &
AWARENESS ABOUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN RESIDINTIAL AREAS
(HOUSEHOLDS) OF KATHUA TOWN (MUNCIPAL LIMITS).
1. Name of Respondent
2. Residential Address
3. Family Members
S.No. Sex Age Education Name of
Job/Occupation
4. Monthly family income:-
5. Total no. of family members:-
6. Where do you throw your waste?
a) Road (b) Drains (c) Open space (d) Municipal bin
7. Does Municipality provide any dust bin in your area? Yes/No
8. Do you know some waste is Recycled/Reused? If yes, specify which one
Yes/No
9. Whether you segregate waste before disposing off? Yes/No
10. Distance of your house from dumping site*? Near/far off
(*Where waste disposal by Municipality is not regular)
If near, how it affects you?
a) Foul smell
b) Flies of germs infest more around residence
c) Dusty air
d) Spread of waste
e) Any other
11. Which pollution do you thinks is most dangerous?
a) Land Pollution (Open Dumping Waste)
b) Air Pollution by Vehicles/Waste
c) Noise Pollution by Vehicles/Community/Commercial activities
12. Is any Medical Institute/Health care Centre/Nursing home located near your house
Yes/No
If yes, how its waste affect you
a) Causes Infectious Diseases
b) Give bad look and Odour
c) Any other
13. Health status of family members:-
Member Sex Age Health status
1. Healthy (H)
2. Frequently suffering (FS)
3. Occasionally suffering (OS)
14. If not healthy, reasons for ill health
a) Dumping Site
b) Hospital/Nursing home near by
c) Vehicular Pollution
d) a & c
e) All the three (a, b and c)
15. Types of Communicable Diseases from which family members suffer often or
frequently.
Member Sex Age Communicable Diseases AnyOther
*G.I.T.
Infection
Malaria *Resp.Ailments
ViralInfection
*G.I.T. - Gastrointestinal Infection
*Resp. - Respiratory Ailments
16. Is door to door waste collection scheme is implemented in your area? Yes/No
If yes, whether waste is regularly collected at regular interval (daily/alternatively/
weekly or at irregular interval from your area)
17. What is your opinion about Waste Collection?
a) Waste collection Door to Door/from Area to Area/No Response
b) Waste disposal by: Open Dumping/Landfill/Any Other Method/No Response
FORMAT-VI
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIO-PERSONAL SURVEY REGARDING HEALTH &
AWARENESS ABOUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN COMMERCIAL AREAS
(SHOPS) OF KATHUA TOWN (MUNCIPAL LIMITS).
1. Name of Respondent
2. Address
3. Type of Shop
4. Individual
S.No. Sex Age Education Nature ofJob/Occupation
5. Where do you throw your waste?
a) Road (b) Drains (c) Open space (d) Municipal bin
6. Does Municipality provide any dust bin in your area? Yes/No
If yes, in how many days waste is disposed off by Municipality
7. Do you know some waste is Recycled/Reused? If yes, specify which one Yes/No
8. Whether you segregate waste before disposing off? Yes/No
9. Distance of shop from dumping site*? Near/far off
(*Where waste disposal by Municipality is not regular)
If near, how it affects you?
a) Foul smell
b) Flies of germs infest more around residence
c) Dusty air
d) Spread of waste
e) Any other
10. Which pollution do you thinks is most dangerous?
a. Land Pollution (Open Dumping Waste)
b) Air Pollution by Vehicles/Waste
c) Noise Pollution by Vehicles/Community/Commercial Activities
11. Is any Medical Institute/Health Care Centre/Nursing Home located near your house?
Yes/No
If yes, how its waste affect you
a) Causes Infectious Diseases
b) Give bad look and Odour
c) Any Other
12. Health status of Individuals
Member Sex Age Health Status
1. Healthy (H)2. Frequently suffering (FS)3. Occasionally suffering (OS)
13. If not healthy, reasons for ill health
a) Dumping site
b) Hospital/Nursing Home near by
c) Vehicular Pollution
d) a & c
e) All the three (a, b and c)
14. Types of communicable diseases from which individuals suffer often or frequently
(to be asked from individuals working in shops).
Member Sex Age Communicable Diseases AnyOther
*G.I.T.
Infection
Malaria *Resp.Ailments
ViralInfection
*G.I.T. - Gastrointestinal Infection
*Resp. - Respiratory Ailments
15. Is privately paid shop to shop waste collection scheme is implemented in your area?
Yes/No
If yes, whether waste is regularly collected at regular interval
(Daily/Alternatively/Weekly or at Irregular Interval from your area)
16. What is your opinion about waste collection?
a) Waste collection __________Shop to Shop/from Area to Area/No
Response
b) Waste disposal by__________ Open Dumping/Landfill/Any Other
Method/No Response
FORMAT-VII
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIO-PERSONAL SURVEY REGARDING HEALTH &
AWARENESS ABOUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INSTITUTIONAL AREAS
(SCHOOLS AND OFFICES) OF KATHUA TOWN (MUNCIPAL LIMITS).
1. Name of Respondent
2. Address
3. Type of Institution
4. Total Staff Members/Individuals
S.No. Designation Number Sex
5. Where do you throw your waste?
a) Road (b) Drains (c) Open space (d) Municipal bin
6. Does Municipality provide any dust bin in your area near your Institution?
Yes/No
If yes, after how many days waste is disposed off by Municipality?
7. Do you know some waste is Recycled/Reused? Yes/No
(To be asked from *specified number of individuals of Institute)
If yes, specify which one
8. Whether you segregate waste before disposing off? Yes/No
9. Distance of Institute from dumping site? Near/far off
(*Where waste disposal by Municipality is not regular)
If near, how it affects you?
a) Foul smell
b) Flies of germs infest more around residence
c) Dusty air
d) Spread of waste
e) Any other
10. Which pollution do you thinks is most dangerous?
a. Land Pollution (Open Dumping Waste)
b. Air Pollution by Vehicles/Waste
c. Noise Pollution by Vehicles/Community/Commercial Activities
11. Is any Medical Institute/Health Care Centre/Nursing Home located near your
house? Yes/No
If yes, how its waste affect you
a) Causes infectious diseases
b) Give bad look and odour
c) Any other
12. Health status of Individuals of Institutes
Member Sex Age Health Status
1. Healthy (H)2. Frequently suffering (FS)3. Occasionally suffering (OS)
13. Reason for ill health
(To be taken from known *specified number of individuals of Institute)
a) Dumping Site
b) Hospital/Nursing Home near by
c) Vehicular Pollution
d) a & c
e) All the three (a, b and c)
14. What is your opinion about waste collection?
a) Waste collection __________whether it should be collected Institution to
Institution/free Area to Area/No Response
b) Waste disposal by__________ Open Dumping/Landfill/Any Other
Method/No Response
*Specified number- all individuals in case of less than 20 number and 20 individuals in case of
more than 20 individuals.
OBSERVATIONS
4.1. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT RESIDENTIAL AREA (HOUSEHOLDS) OF
KATHUA TOWN
4.1.a. Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in
Different Zones of Kathua Town (Table-VII, Fig-5)
Zone-I:- The Solid Waste/capita/day was observed to range from 0.054-1.780 kg with
maximum average value of 0.806±0.076 kg during October-December, 2007 and
minimum average value of 0.415±0.182 kg during January-March, 2008 in a period of
two years study. The biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day
ranged from 0.020-1.310 kg and 0.009-0.550 kg respectively. The maximum average
biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were observed to be
0.490±0.050 kg and 0.204±0.052 during October-December, 2007 respectively and
minimum average biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were
observed to be 0.307±0.151 kg during January-March, 2007 and 0.054±0.011 kg during
April-June, 2008. The values of inert material was observed to ranged from 0.003-0.250
kg .with maximum average value of 0.113±0.027 kg during October-December, 2007
and minimum average value of 0.033±0.013 kg during January-March, 2008 (Table-VII).
Zone-II:- The Solid Waste/capita/day was observed to ranged from 0.080-1.910 kg with
maximum average value of 0.805±0.110 kg during April-June, 2007 and minimum
average value of 0.410±0.043 kg during July-September, 2008 in a period of two years
study. The biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day ranged from
0.066-1.613 kg and 0.015-0.600 kg respectively. The maximum average biodegradable
and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were observed to be 0.543±0.032 kg and
0.180±0.079 during April-June, 2007 respectively and minimum average biodegradable
and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were observed to be 0.277±0.050 kg
during July-September, 2008 and 0.065±0.027 kg during April-June, 2008 respectively.
The values of inert material was observed to ranged from 0.003-0.245 kg with maximum
average value of 0.113±0.023 kg during October-December, 2007 and minimum average
value of 0.036±0.009 kg during January-March, 2007 (Table-VII).
Zone-III:- The Solid Waste/capita/day was observed to ranged from 0.104-1.960 kg with a
maximum average value of 0.850±0.066 kg during October-December, 2007 and
minimum average value of 0.417±0.071 kg during January-March, 2008 in a period of
two years study. The biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day
ranged from 0.060-1.610 kg and 0.010-0.500 kg respectively. The maximum average
biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were observed to range
between 0.526±0.026 kg and 0.209±0.088 kg during October-December, 2007
respectively and minimum average biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid
Waste/capita/day were observed to be 0.273±0.027 kg during January-March 2008 and
0.071±0.043 kg during April-June, 2008 respectively. The values of inert material was
observed to ranged from 0.005-0.300 kg with maximum average value of 0.115±0.014
kg during October-December, 2007 and minimum average value of 0.043±0.007 kg
during July-September, 2008 (Table-VII).
Zone-IV:- The Solid Waste/capita/day was observed to ranged from 0.109-1.915 kg with
maximum average value of 0.764±0.109 kg during October-December, 2007 and
minimum average value of 0.360±0.031 kg during January-March, 2008 in a period of
two years study. The biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day
ranged from 0.049-1.200 kg and 0.003-0.401 kg respectively. The maximum average
biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were observed to be
0.443±0.049 kg and 0.201±0.073 during October-December, 2007 respectively and
minimum average biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day were
observed to be 0.256±0.045 kg during January-March, 2007 and 0.056±0.015 kg during
April-June, 2008 respectively. The values of inert materials was observed to ranged from
0.003-0.233 kg with maximum average value of 0.120-±0.036 kg during October-
December, 2007 and minimum average value of 0.037±0.004 kg during April-June, 2008
(Table-VII).
4.1.b Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reusable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation in Different Zones of Kathua Town (Table- VIII, Fig-5).
When study on seasonal variations in average/capita/day recyclable/reused Solid Waste (after
separation/segregation) in the area was made, it was observed that
Zone-I:- The study of the table revealed that the recyclable/reusable Solid Waste separation in
the range of 0.012-0.350 kg with maximum average value of 0.113±0.032 kg during
October-December, 2007 and minimum average value of 0.054±0.008 kg during
October-December, 2008 in a two years study (Table- VIII).
Zone-II:- A close examination of the table- revealed that Zone-II exhibited the
recyclable/reusable Solid Waste separation in the range 0.015-0.350 kg with maximum
average value of 0.117±0.040 kg during October-December, 2007 and minimum average
value of 0.067±0.022 kg during January-March, 2008 in a two years period of study
(Table- VIII).
Zone-III:- Zone-III was observed to exhibit the recyclable/reusable Solid Waste separation in
the range 0.019-0.350 kg with maximum average value of 0.129±0.067 kg during April-
June, 2007 and minimum average value of 0.060±0.024 kg during April-June, 2008 in a
period of two years study (Table- VIII).
Zone-IV:- Zone-IV was observed to exhibit the recyclable/reusable Solid Waste separation in
the range 0.015-0.369 kg with maximum average value of 0.112±0.027 kg during
October-December, 2007 and minimum average value of 0.056±0.002 kg during
October-December, 2008 in a period of two years study (Table- VIII).
4.1.c Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in
Different Zones of Kathua Town (Table-IX, Fig-5).
The maximum average net generation of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) after
separation of the recyclable/reusable Solid Waste was observed to be 0.693±0.052 kg at
Zone-I during October-December, 2007, 0.691±0.084 kg at Zone-II during April-June,
2007, 0.722±0.049 kg at Zone-III during October-December, 2007 and 0.652±0.082 kg
at Zone-IV during October-December, 2007. The minimum average net generation of
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) after separation of the recyclable/reusable Solid Waste was
observed to be 0.356±0.147 kg at Zone-I during January-March, 2007, 0.338±0.017 at
Zone-II during July-September, 2008, 0.336±0.069 kg at Zone-III during January-
March, 2008 and 0.294±0.050 kg at Zone-IV during January-March, 2007 (Table- IX).
4.1.d Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average
Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Kathua Town (Table-X, Fig-
6).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation followed same seasonal
trend in a two years study period i.e., the average value increased from January-March to
April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and again increased from July-
September to October-December during first years as well as second year study period.
The average gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also exhibited
the same trend but average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste was observed not to
follow a specific trend in first as well as second year study period. The range of
biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be 0.020-1.613 kg with maximum average
value of 0.497±0.024 kg during October-December, 2007 and minimum average value of
0.287±0.058 kg during January-March, 2008. The qualitative and quantitative
composition of biodegradable wastes like paperware, cardboard, clothware, cotton, jute,
foliage, wood and food/garbage exhibited varying percentages in different seasons of the
year. The qualitative and quantitative composition of non-biodegradable wastes like
plasticware, metallicware, glassware, thermocol, rubber, leather and egg shells/boxes also
exhibited varying percentages in different seasons of the year (Table- X).
4.1.e Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average
Recyclable/Reusable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source in
Kathua Town (Table-X, Fig-6).
The separation of recyclable/reusable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at source was
observed to range from 0.015-0.369 kg during the first year of study and 0.012-0.023 kg
during the second year of study. The qualitative and quantitative composition of the
recyclable/reusable biodegradable wastes like paperware, cardboard and jute exhibited
varying percentages values in different seasons. The paperware exhibited maximum
percentages in the months of January-March as compared with the other months. The
qualitative and quantitative composition of the recyclable/reusable non-biodegradable
wastes like plasticware, metallicware and glassware also exhibited varying percentage
values in different seasons of the year. The maximum separation of recyclable/reusable
Solid Waste (paper) was observed during period of January-March in two years of study
period (Table- X).
4.1.f Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Net
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at Source in Kathua Town (Table-X,
Fig-6).
The value of net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation after separation of
recyclable/reusable Solid Waste like paper, cardboard, jute, plastic, metal, glass, leather
was observed to range from 0.032-1.664 kg in a two years study period. The net reduction
in non-biodegradable Solid Waste was more as compared with that of biodegradable
Solid Waste (Table- X).
4.1.g Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential
Areas (Households) of Kathua Town (Table-XI, Fig-7).
The gross biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day in the Residential Areas
(Households) was observed to range from 0.020-1.613 kg with an average value of
0.361±0.073 kg and the gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day ranged from
0.003-0.600 kg with an average value of 0.112±0.045 kg. The kg/capita/day separation
of biodegradable waste at source in the Residential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town
was observed to range from 0.003-0.290 kg with an average value of
0.044±0.008 kg and separation of non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day ranged from
0.001-0.300 kg with an average value of 0.038±0.015 kg.
After separation of the biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes at source, the
net biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day in the Residential Areas (Households) was
observed to range from 0.010-1.301 kg with an average value of 0.317±0.069 kg and net
non-biodegradable Solid Waste/capita/day ranged from 0.002-0.452 kg with an average
value of 0.073±0.031 kg.
The values of gross as well as net generation of the inert material/capita/day were
observed to range from 0.003-0.300 kg with an average value of 0.064±0.028 kg.
The gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in the Residential Areas
(Households) of Kathua Town was observed to range from 0.054-1.960 kg with an
average value of 0.536±0.141 kg. The separation of the Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at
source was observed to be in the range of 0.012-0.369 kg with an average value of
0.082±0.022 kg. After the separation of per capita per day Solid Waste at source, the net
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to ranged from 0.032-1.664 kg
with an average value of 0.454±0.124 kg (Table-XI, Fig-7).
4.2. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT COMMERCIAL AREA OF KATHUA
TOWN
4.2.a Solid Waste Generation in Shops of Kathua Town.
4.2.a.i Seasonal Variations in the Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Shops) (Table-XII, Fig-8).
The gross generation of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at various types of Shops of
Kathua Town did not exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons
during the two years study period. But the average gross generation of Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day/shop) followed a specific trend in two years study. The average gross
generation of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) per average Shop was observed to exhibit
increased values during April-June, 2007 as compared with that of January-March, 2007
and decreased values of average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) during July-September,
2007 as compared with that of April-June, 2007 and again increased values during
October-December, 2007 as compared with July-September, 2007 during first year as
well as second year study period.
4.2.a.ii Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reusable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Shops) (Table-XIII, Fig-8).
The separation of recyclable/reusable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in various types
of Shops of Kathua Town was observed not to exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease
in various seasons during two years study period. The maximum values of Solid Waste
(kg/capita/shop/day) separation was observed to be during April-June, 2007 in first year
study period and during January-March, 2008 in second year study period, whereas
minimum values of average Solid Waste (kg/capita/shop/day) separation were observed
during October-December, 2007 in first year study period and during October-December,
2008 in second year study period.
4.2.a.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Shops) (Table-XIV, Fig-8).
The net generation of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at various types of Shops of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern of increase or decrease of the
values in different seasons during two years study period. The average net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/shop/day) generation exhibited the same trend during the different seasons of
the study period as that of gross Solid Waste generation i.e. average net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/shop/day) generation was observed to be maximum during April-June as
compared to that of January-March during first year as well as second year study period
and decreased values were observed during July-September as compared to that of April-
June and again increased values during October-December as compared with July-
September during first year as well as second year study period. The average net Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation during October-December exhibited higher values as
compared to that of July-September during first year as well as second year study period.
4.2.a.iv Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in Different Shops of Kathua
Town (Table-XV).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generated the maximum percentage
of paperware was observed at Photostat shop (39.20%), STD/PCO (29.69%), Karyana
Store (29.09%), Stationary shop (27.58%), Dry cleaning shop (16.45%), Juice shop
(15.20%), Medical shop (14.21%) and the minimum percentage of paperware was
observed at Tea stall (5.53%), Dhaba (5.10%), Electrical shop (4.16%), Furniture shop
(7.77%), Vegetable shop (10.50%), Sweet shop (9.56%), Shoe making shop (8.20%),
Garage (0.32%), Tailor/Boutique shop (5.50%), Meat chicken shop (5.30%), Hair
dresser/Beauty parlour (5.50%), Bar/Restaurant (6.30%). The percentage of clothware
was found to be maximum at Chemist shop (10.85%), Dry cleaning shop (10.19%) and
Tailor/Boutique shop (28.79%). The percentage of cardboard was found to be
maximum only in Medical shop (29.40%), Karyana store (21.00%), Stationary shop
(15.90%), and Hardware shop (11.90%). The maximum percentage of jute was found to
be at Karyana shop (7.88%) only and wood was found maximum only in Furniture shop
(53.36%) and minimum in Dhaba (2.20%). Tea stall (0.51%). The foliage was found to
be maximum at Hardware shop (22.48%) only. The food/garbage was found to be
maximum at Tea-stall (48.47%), Dhaba (48.47%), Vegetable shop (62.33%), Sweet-shop
(42.42%), Meat/chicken (60.97%), Juice shop (36.98%) and Bar/Restaurant (17.35%)
(Table- XV).
In the Separated Recyclable/Reusable Biodegradable Solid Waste, the
maximum percentage of paperware was found at Stationary shop (6.52%), Medical
shop (5.63%), STD/PCO shop (5.55%), Furniture shop (5.39%), Photostat shop (5.20%),
Sweet shop (4.55%), Meat/Chicken shop (4.18%), Dry cleaning (3.57%), Shoe making
shop (3.15%), and Karyana store (3.45%). The minimum percentage of paperware was
found in Garage (0.31%), Hair dresser/Beauty parlour (1.52%), Bar and Restaurant
(2.20%), Juice shop (2.47%), Vegetable shop (0.87%), Electrical shop (1.85%), Tea stall
(2.54%), Dhaba (2.64%). The cardboard was found to be maximum at Tea shop
(6.00%), Furniture shop (4.54%), Dhaba (3.38%), Vegetable shop (2.20%), Karyana
(2.00%), Photostat shop (1.94%), STD/PCO (1.12%) and Bar and Restaurant (1.06%)
(Table- XV).
Within the Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the paperware was
found to be maximum in Photostat shop (34.00%), Karyana store (25.64%), STD/PCO
shop (24.14%), Stationary shop (21.06%), Dry cleaning shop (12.88%), Juice shop
(12.73%), Vegetable shop (9.63%), and Medical shop (8.58%). The minimum
percentage of paperware was observed at Tea shop (2.99%), Dhaba (5.46%), Meat shop
(1.12%), Garage (0.01%), Electrical shop (2.31%), Hair dresser/Boutique shop (3.98%),
Bar/Restaurant (4.10%), Furniture shop (2.38%). The clothware was found to be
maximum in Chemist shop (10.85%), Tailor/Boutique shop (24.50%) and Dry cleaning
shop (10.19%). The percentage of cardboard was observed to be maximum in Medical
shop (29.40%), Karyana store (19.00%), Stationary shop (15.90%), Shoe making shop
(13.06%), Hardware shop (11.90%), Juice shop (10.30%), Electrical shop (8.00%),
Vegetable shop (7.91%), STD/PCO (7.86%). The percentage of wood was observed to be
maximum only in Furniture making shop (53.36%). The percentage of wood was found
to be minimum in Tea stall (0.51%), Dhaba (2.20%). The maximum percentage of
cotton was observed to be only in Medical store (2.58%). The maximum jute to be
observed in Karyana store (4.63%), Juice shop (5.36%) and minimum percentage of jute
observed in Electrical shop (0.80%). The foliage was observed to be maximum at
Hardware store (18.91%) only. The percentage of food/garbage was observed to be
maximum in tea stall (48.47%), Dhaba (48.47%), Vegetable shop (62.53%), Sweet shop
(42.42%), Meat/Chicken shop (6.97%), Juice shop (36.98%) and Bar/Restaurant
(17.35%) (Table- XV).
In the Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Gross Non-Biodegradable
Solid Waste Generation the plasticware observed to be maximum at Electrical shop
(35.69%), Dry cleaning shop (31.35%), Sweet shop (29.00%), Tailor shop (29.64%),
Stationary shop (24.27%), STD/PCO (23.50%), Medical store (21.11%), Photostat shop
(18.70%), Juice shop (16.82%), Karyana shop (15.40%), Shoe making shop (14.60%),
Bar/Restaurant (10.80%). The minimum percentage of plasticware was observed to be
in Tea stall (5.53%), Dhaba (8.30%), Furniture shop (3.26%), Vegetable shop (8.50%),
Garage (9.04%), Meat/Chicken shop (4.50%), Hair dresser shop (5.91%). The
metallicware was observed to be maximum at Garage (23.80%), Shoe making shop
(19.47%), Hair dresser (15.30%), Electric shop (17.11%), STD/PCO (11.17%), Dry
cleaning (13.09%), Hardware store (13.57%). The minimum percentage of metallicware
was to be found in Photostat shop (6.30%), Medical store (2.20%), Tailor/Boutique shop
(5.60%). The maximum percentage of glass was found to be only Bar/Restaurant
(48.18%) and Garage (10.11%) and the minimum percentage of glass was observed in
Tea stall (2.91%), Medical store (2.04%), Electrical shop (4.50%), Stationary shop
(1.69%), Tailor shop (1.90%), Juice shop (1.20%). The maximum percentage of
thermocol found in Hardware store (5.00%), Electrical shop (4.51%), Garage (2.00%),
Vegetable shop (0.72%). The maximum percentage of rubber was found to be in Garage
(15.00%), Electrical shop (3.00%), Sweet shop (1.00%). The maximum percentage of
leather was found to be in Shoe making shop (30.50%) and Garage (3.00%) only. The
maximum percentage of egg shells/bones were observed to be in Tea stall (10.35%),
Dhaba (10.50%), Meat/Chicken shop (19.98%) (Table- XV).
In the Separated Recyclable/Reusable Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste the
percentage of plasticware was observed to be maximum in Electrical shop (8.80%) and
Medical shop (5.88%), metallicware was observed to be maximum at Electrical shop
(4.16%), STD/PCO (1.91%), Karyana store (1.09%), Dry cleaning (0.75%), Photostat
shop (0.57%). The glassware observed to be maximum at Bar/Restaurant (32.21%) only
and minimum at Tea stall (1.56%) and Karyana store (0.46%). The maximum
percentage of leather observed to be at Shoe making shop (3.15%) (Table- XV).
In the Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to maximum at Dry cleaning (29.76%), Tailor shop (29.64%),
Sweet shop (29.00%), Electrical shop (26.89%), Stationary shop (24.27%), STD/PCO
shop (20.08%), Juice shop (16.82%), Photostat shop (15.70%), Medical shop (15.23%),
Shoe making shop (14.60%), Karyana store (12.14%), Hardware store (10.00%),
Bar/Restaurant (10.80%) and minimum percentage at Tea stall (3.43%), Dhaba (6.04%),
Furniture shop (3.26%), Vegetable shop (8.36%), Garage (7.95%), Meat/Chicken shop
(4.50%), Hair dresser (5.91%). The maximum metallicware percentage was observed to
be at Garage (23.80%), Shoe making shop (19.47%), Hair/dresser (15.30%), Hardware
store (13.57%), Dry cleaning shop (13.09%), Electrical shop (12.95%), STD/PCO
(9.26%), Karyana store (8.15%) and minimum metallicware percentage was observed at
Tea stall (0.69%), Photostat shop (5.73%), Medical shop (2.20%), Furniture shop
(5.43%), Stationary shop (2.30%), Tailor shop (5.60%). The percentage of glassware
was observed to be maximum at Tea stall (1.35%), Medical store (1.58%), Electrical
shop (1.69%), Garage (10.11%), Tailor shop (1.90%), Juice shop (1.20%), Bar/Restaurant
(15.97%). The maximum percentage of thermocol was observed to be at Hardware store
(5.00%), Electrical shop (4.51%), Garage (2.00%), Vegetable shop (0.72%). The
maximum percentage of rubber was found to be in Garage (9.50%), Electrical shop
(3.00%), Sweet shop (1.00%). The maximum percentage of leather was found to be in
Shoe making shop (27.35%) and Garage (3.00%) only. The maximum percentage of egg
shells/bones were observed to be in Tea stall (10.38%), Dhaba (10.50%), Meat/Chicken
shop (19.98%) (Table- XV).
4.2.b SOLID WASTE GENERATION IN CINEMAS OF KATHUA
TOWN.
4.2.b.i Seasonal Variations on Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XVI, Fig-9)
The average gross generation of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in various Cinemas
of Kathua Town exhibited a set of pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons
during the two years study period i.e the average values decreased from January-March to
April-June, increased from April-June to July-September, and further decreased from
July-September to October- December sampling period during 1st year as well as 2nd year
study period. The average gross biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert material
(kg/capita/day) Solid Waste generation in various Cinemas exhibit a set pattern of
increase or decrease as like that of average gross generation of Solid Waste during two
year study period.
4.2.b.ii Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Revised Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Table-XVI, Fig-9)
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in
various Cinemas of Kathua Town was observed not to follow a set pattern of increase or
decrease in different seasons during the two year study period. The average biodegradable
and non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated in various Cinemas were
also observed not to follow a set pattern of increase or decrease in various reasons of two
years study period.
4.2.b.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XVI, Fig-9).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Cinemas of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in various
seasons during the two years study period. The average net biodegradable, non-
biodegradable Solid Wastes and inert material (kg/capita/day) were also observed not to
exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in different seasons of two years study period.
4.b.2.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in
Cinemas of Kathua Town (Table-XVI).
The Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation exhibited the maximum
(16.23%) percentage of paperware during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period) and the minimum (10.10%) percentage of paperware during July-September,
2007 (1st year study period). The foliage was found to be in maximum (1.02%)
percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.81%)
percentage of foliage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
maximum (1.96%) percentage of wood was observed during April-June, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (0.50%) percentage of wood was observed during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period). The food/garbage exhibited the maximum
(25.26%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum
(18.36%) percentage during October- December, 2007 (1st year study period).
In the Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste, the
maximum (8.51%) percentage of paperware was found during April-June, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (2.60%) percentage of paperware was found during
April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation exhibited the maximum
(13.29%) percentage of paperware during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (2.14%) percentage of paperware during April June, 2007 (1st year study
period).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation, the plasticware
exhibited the maximum (19.39%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (9.36%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year
study period). The percentage of metallicware was observed to be maximum (3.78%)
during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.81%) during
January-March, 2007(1st year study period). The glassware was observed to be
maximum (6.07%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (1.77%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) (Table-
XVI).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non Biodegradable Solid Waste was
observed to have the maximum (4.34%) percentage of plasticware during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.70%) percentage during April-
June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The glassware exhibited the maximum (2.33%)
percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.60%)
percentage during April-June, 2008 (Table- XVI).
The Net Non Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation exhibited the maximum
(16.37%) percentage of plasticware during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (6.36%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The glassware observed to be maximum (4.20%) percentage during July-September,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.83%) percentage during January-March,
2007 (1st year study period) (Table- XVI).
4.2.c Solid Waste Generation in Hotels of Kathua Town.
4.2.c.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XVII, Fig-10).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Hotels of
Kathua Town was observed not to follow a specific trend in various seasons during two
years study period. The average gross biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also exhibited the same trend i.e. they was observed not
to exhibit a specific trend of increase or decrease in various seasons of two years study
period.
4.2.c.ii Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Table-XVII, Fig-10).
The average Separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in
various of Kathua Town was observed not to exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease
in various seasons during the two years study period. The average biodegradable was
observed to follow a set pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons during the two
years study period i.e. April- June had higher values than January-March and October-
December had higher value that July-September during first year study period and also
followed the same trend in second year study period. The average non- biodegradable
Solid Waste was also observed not to follow a set pattern of increase or decrease in
various seasons during the two years study period.
4.2.c.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XVII, Fig. 10).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Hotel of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard increase or decrease of the values in
different seasons during two years study period. The average net biodegradable, non-
biodegradable and inert Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) were deserved not to exhibit a
specific trend of increase or decrease in different reasons of two year study period.
4.2c.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in
Hotels of Kathua Town (Table-XVII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
paperware was deserved to be maximum (10.11%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (3.51%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year
study year). The cardboard was observed to be maximum (12.50%) percentage during
October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (2.41%) percentage
during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The clothware was observed to be
maximum (1.30%) percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (0.09%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The cotton was observed to be maximum (1.20%) percentage during July-September,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.03%) percentage during January-March,
2007 (1st year study period). The wood was observed to be maximum (2.25%)
percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum
(0.19%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The foliage was
observed to be maximum (0.90%) percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (0.18%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year
study period). The food/garbage was observed to be maximum (59.01%) percentage
during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (33.32%) percentage
during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the
maximum (4.85%) percentage of paperware during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum percentage (0.30%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The cardboard separated was observed to be maximum (7.99%)
percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum
(0.94%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have the
maximum (5.26%) percentage of paperware during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (0.90%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The cardboard was observed to be maximum (4.51%) percentage during
October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (1.47%) percentage
during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period (Table- XVII).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (10.11%) during July-September, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (3.21%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The metallicware was observed to be maximum (8.81%) percentage
during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.60%)
percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The glassware was
observed to be maximum (36.50%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (17.66%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The thermocoal was observed to be maximum (1.0%) percentage during
January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.09%) percentage during
January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The egg shells/bones was observed to be
maximum (0.096%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (0.26%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited
the maximum (5.21%) percentage of plasticware during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (0.85%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The metallicware was observed to be maximum (3.52%) percentage
during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.22%) percentage
during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The glassware was observed to be
maximum (20.55%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (4.04%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period).
In the Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (9.25%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (3.03%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st
year study period). The metallicware was observed to be maximum (8.81%) percentage
during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.60%)
percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The glassware was
observed to be maximum (25.25%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study
period) and minimum (4.10%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period) (Table- XVII).
4.2.d. SOLID WASTE GENERATION IN RESTRUARANTS OF
KATHUA TOWN.
4.2.d.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)Generation at Source (Table-XVIII, Fig. 11).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Restaurants
of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two year
study period i.e the average values increased from January-March to April-June,
decreased from April-June to July-September and further increased from July-September
to October-December during first year study period as well as second year study period.
The average gross biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation also followed the same trend as like that of average gross Solid
Waste.
4.2.d.ii Seasonal Variations in the Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Table-XVIII Fig-11).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
generation in various Restaurants of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific
trend in different seasons of two year study period i.e. the average value increased from
January-March to April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and further
increased from July-September to October-December during first year study period as
well as second year study period. The average recyclable biodegradable and non-
biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also followed the same trend as
like that of average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste.
4.2.d.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XVIII Fig-11).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Resturants of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two year
study period i.e. the average value increased from January-March to April-June decreased
from April-June to July-September and further increased from July-September to
October-December during first year study period as well as second year study period. The
average net biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert solid waste (kg/capita/day)
generation also follows the same trend as like that of average net Solid Waste.
4.2.d.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in
Restaurants of Kathua Town at Source (Table XVIII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
paperware was found to be maximum (11.26%) during October-December, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (6.63%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The cardboard was found to be maximum (16.39%) percentage
during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (9.55%)
percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The wood was found to be
maximum (1.99%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (0.77%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The food/garbage was found to be maximum (53.14%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (45.59%) percentage during
October-December, 2007 (1st year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited
maximum (2.17%) percentage of paperware during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (0.99%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study
period). The cardboard was found to be maximum (6.06%) percentage during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.01%) percentage during
January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
In the composition of Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the
percentage of paperware was found to be maximum (11.26%) during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (6.63%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The cardboard was found to be maximum
(10.82%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum
(4.74%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) (Table- XVIII).
The composition of Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation
exhibited the maximum (10.76%) percentage of plasticware during July-September,
2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (4.99%) percentage during January-March,
2007 (1st year study period). The metallicware was found to be maximum (3.11%)
percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.90%)
percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period). The glassware was
found to be maximum (18.78%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (8.05%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The egg shell/Bones was found to be maximum (2.1%) percentage during April-
June, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.80%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was
observed to have the plasticware in maximum (3.99%) percentage during January-
March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.74%) percentage during January-
March, 2007 (1st year study period). The glassware was found to be maximum (8.88%)
percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (4.93%)
percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) (Table XVIII).
In the Net Non Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (7.60%) during July-September, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (3.62%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The glassware was observed to be in maximum (9.90%) percentage
during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (3.12%) percentage during
January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) (Table- XVIII).
4.2.e AVERAGE GROSS AND NET SOLID WASTE (KG/CAPITA/ DAY)GENERATION IN COMMERCIAL AREAS OF KATHUA TOWN (TABLEXIX, FIG-12).
The gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to
range from 0.002-4.509 kg with an average value of 0.218±0.057 kg at Shop; 0.001-
0.051 kg with an average value of 0.026±0.006 kg at Cinema; 0.133-0.656 kg with an
average value of 0.348±0.052 kg at Hotel and 0.053-0.510 kg with an average value of
0.223±0.037 kg at Restaurant. The average gross biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial Area was calculated to be 0.204±0.133 kg
with a range of 0.001-4.509 kg. (Table- XIX).
The biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source was observed
to range from 0.001-0.635 kg with an average value of 0.022±0.009 kg at Shop; 0.0003-
0.010 kg with an average value of 0.004±0.001 kg at Cinema; 0.001-0.173 kg with an
average value of 0.025±0.027 kg at Hotel; and 0.001-0.065 kg with an average value of
0.016±0.006 kg at Restaurant. The average biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separated at Commercial Area was found to be 0.017±0.009 kg with
a range of 0.01-0.635 kg. (Table XIX).
The net biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to
range from 0.002-3.874 kg with an average value of 0.196±0.051 kg at Shop; 0.0007-
0.044 kg with an average value of 0.024±0.006 kg at Cinema; 0.119-0.488 kg with an
average value of 0.323±0.046 kg at Hotel; and 0.046-0.463 kg with an average value of
0.207±0.032 kg at Restaurant. The average net biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial Area was observed to be 0.188±0.123 kg
with a range of 0.002-3.874 kg. (Table-XIX).
The gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was found to
be ranged from 0.001-1.940 kg with an average value of 0.169±0.026 kg at Shop; 0.0007-
0.039 kg with an average value of 0.016±0.006 kg at Cinema; 0.054-0.416 kg with an
average value of 0.217±0.038 kg at Hotel; and 0.013-0.240 kg with an average value of
0.073-0.018 kg at Restaurant. The average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial Area was calculated to be 0.119±0.091 kg
with a range of 0.001-1.940 kg (Table-XIX).
The non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source observed
to range from 0.001-1.200 kg with an average value of 0.051±0.013 kg at Shop; 0.0001-
0.010 kg with an average value of 0.003±0.001 kg at Cinema; 0.010-0.250 kg with an
average value of 0.083±0.051 kg at Hotel; and 0.004-0.066 kg with an average value of
0.025±0.006 kg at Restaurant. The average non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separated at Commercial Area was observed to be 0.041±0.034 kg
with a range of 0.0001-1.200 kg (Table-XIX).
The net non–biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed
to range from 0.001-1.493 kg with an average value of 0.117±0.023 kg at Shop; 0.0006-
0.034 kg with an average value of 0.013±0.006 kg at Cinema; 0.046-0.295 kg with an
average value of 0.134±0.037 kg at Hotel; and 0.008-0.210 kg with an average value of
0.048±0.013 kg at Restaurant. The average net non- biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial Area ranged from 0.0006-1.493 kg with
an average value of 0.078±0.057 kg (Table-XIX).
The value of gross as well as net generation of the inert material (kg/capita/day)
was observed to range from 0.001-1.560 kg with an average value of 0.105±0.025 kg at
Shop; 0.001-0.055 kg with an average value of 0.030±0.004 kg at Cinema; 0.001-0.088
kg with an average value of 0.019±0.007 kg at Hotel; and 0.001-0.047 kg with an average
value of 0.014±0.006 kg at Restaurant. The average value of gross as well as net
generation of the inert material per capita per day at Commercial Area was
calculated to be 0.042±0.043 kg with range of 0.001-1.560 kg (Table-XIX).
The gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from
0.004-5.919 kg with an average value of 0.491±0.097 kg at Shop; 0.005-0.097 kg with an
average value of 0.072±0.014 kg at Cinema; 0.180-0.916 kg with an average value of
0.583±0.080 kg at Hotel; and 0.086-0.625 kg with an average value of 0.310±0.059 kg at
Restaurant; The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at
Commercial Area was calculated to be 0.364±0.225 kg with a range of 0.004-5.919 kg
(Table-XIX).
The Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source was observed to range from
0.001-1.225 kg with an average value of 0.073±0.019 kg at Shop; 0.0005-0.021 kg with
an average value of 0.006±0.002 kg at Cinema; 0.017-0.331 kg with an average value of
0.108±0.067 kg at Hotel; and 0.010-0.096 kg with an average value of 0.041±0.012 kg at
Restaurant. The average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source at
Commercial Area was calculated to be 0.057±0.044 kg with a range of 0.0005-1.225
kg (Table XIX).
The net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from
0.004-5.284 kg with an average value of 0.419±0.084 kg at Shop; 0.002-0.090 kg with an
average value of 0.066±0.014 kg at Cinema; 0.160-0.867 kg with an average value of
0.476±0.041 kg at Hotel; 0.071-0.570 kg with an average value of 0.269±0.049 kg at
Restaurant. The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial
Area was calculated to be 0.308±0.183 kg with a range of 0.002-5.284 kg. (Table-
XIX).
4.2.f SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN AVERAGE SOLID WASTE
(KG/DAY) GENERATION AT BUS STANDS OF KATHUA TOWN
(TABLE-XX, FIG-13).
The average Solid Waste (kg/day) generation with biodegradable wastes exhibited
a haphazard pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons of two year study period.
The average Solid Waste (kg/day) generation with non-biodegradable wastes exhibited a
specific trend in both 1st year as well as 2nd year study of Solid Waste sampling i.e. the
average values of Solid Wastes during January-March and July-September were
observed to be less as compared with that of April-June and October-December study
period in both years respectively. The maximum average Solid Waste was observed to be
93.260±50.620 kg/day during 1st year study and 72.345±32.272 kg/day during 2nd year
study during October-December, 2007 and April-June, 2008 sampling period respectively
and minimum value of average Solid Waste was observed to be 74.950±41.580 kg/day
during 1st year study and 58.952±34.890 kg/day during 2nd year study during January-
March sampling period.
The qualitative composition of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes
exhibited varying percentage during different seasons in two year study period. The
biodegradable wastes included paperware (chocolate, wrappers, paper plates, paper
napkins, toffee covers, news paper wastes, cigarette covers, camera roll wrappers, paper
bags); cardboard (sweet boxes, cardboard waste); clothware (handkerchief, chunnies,
cloth pieces); jute (jute bags, jute ropes); foliage (leaves, straw debris, leaf dongas);
wood (twigs, match boxes, kachaloo sticks, sticks waste, ice-cream spoons, wooden
boxes waste); food/garbage (fruit peeling, nut peeling, vegetable peelings, rotten
vegetables, rotten fruits, fruit refuse, bread refuse, food refuse, cow dung waste). The
non-biodegradable wastes included plasticware (bisilari water bottles, frooti covers,
bottles, toffee wrappers, chocolate wrappers, chips wrappers, disposable glasses, biscuit
wrappers, bread wrappers, cold drink plastic pipes, pan-masala wrappers, plastic covers,
plastic ropes); metallicware (cold drink crowns, cold drink cans, rifle tips, pins, hair pins,
aluminum foil wrappers, metal pieces); glassware (soft drink glass bottles, broken glass
pieces); thermacoal (thermocoal pipes); leather (raged leather purse, leather pieces);
rubber (ruptured balloons, rubber pieces, nylon chapels, raged rubber tubes, rubber
shoes) and inert material (dust, sand, soil litter, concrete). The average values of
biodegradable, non-biodegradable Solid Wastes and inert material (kg/day) at Bus Stand
were calculated to be 24.938±4.087 kg, 26.773±5.269 kg; 23.430±5.843 kg respectively
with average Solid Waste generation of 75.140±10.263 kg/day.
4.2.g Seasonal Variations in Average Solid Waste (kg/day) Generation at
Vegetable Market of Kathua Town (Table XXI. Fig.14).
The average Solid Waste (kg/day) generation with biodegradable and non-
biodegradable wastes exhibited the same trends in both 1st and 2nd year study of solid
waste sampling i.e. the average values of Solid Wastes sampling during January-March
and July-September were observed to be less as compared with that of April-June and
October-December study period respectively into both the year. The maximum average
Solid Waste was observed to be 140.327±152.518 kg/day during 1st year study and
145.740±156.230 kg/day during 2nd year study in October-December sampling period and
minimum Solid Waste was observed to be 98.567±104.711 kg/day during 1st year study
and 119.321±123.210 kg/day during 2nd year study in January-March sampling period.
The qualitative composition of biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes
exhibited varying percentages during different seasons in two year study period. The
average values of biodegradable, non-biodegradable Solid Wastes and inert material per
day at Vegetable Market were calculated to be 82.395±11.937 kg, 2.195±0.657 kg and
43.779±5.403 kg respectively with the average Solid Waste generation of 128.368±16.56
kg/day.
4.3. SOLID WASTE GENERATION AT INSTITUTIONAL AREAS OF KATHUA
TOWN.
4.3.a Solid Waste Generation in Banks of Kathua Town.
4.3.a.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table-XXII, Fig- 15):
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Banks of
Kathua Town was observed not to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two
years study period. The average gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
generation was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two years
study period i.e., the average values increased from January-March to April-June,
decrease from April-June to July-September and further increase from July-September
to October-December during 1st year study as well as 2nd year study period. Whereas the
average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste and inert material was observed not to
exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two years study period.
4.3.a.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table-XXII, Fig-15):
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Banks of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern of increase or
decrease in different seasons during two year study period. The average separation of
recyclable/reused biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) also
exhibited a haphazard pattern in different seasons of two year study period.
4.3.a.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table-XXII, Fig-15).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Banks of Kathua
Town was not observed to exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons during
two years study period. The average net biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation also did not exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in different
seasons of two year study period. The inert material was found to exhibit the same trend like
that of average gross Solid Waste generation.
4.3.a.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of an Average
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation at Banks of Kathua Town
(Table-XXII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation, the paperware was found to
exhibit maximum (49.21%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (32.12%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The
percentage of cardboard was found to be maximum (14.91%) during October-December, 2008
(2nd year study period) and minimum (4.36%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The percentage of foliage was found to be maximum (1.13%) during July-September,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.07%) percentage during January-March, 2008
(2nd year study period). The percentage of wood was found to be maximum (1.44%) during
October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.17%) during July-September,
2007 (1st year study period). The percentage of food/garbage was found to be maximum
(14.69%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (1.61%) during
April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste, exhibited the
maximum (27.22%) percentage of paperware during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (2.33%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period).
The percentage of cardboard exhibited the maximum (6.11%) during July-September, 2008
and minimum (1.17%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
In the Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware was
observed to be maximum (34.84%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (9.54%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The percentage of
cardboard was observed to be maximum (12.51%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (3.59%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
(Table- XXII).
The Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have
maximum (17.36%) percentage of plasticware during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (2.15%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
percentage of metallicware was found to be maximum (2.94%) during January-March, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (0.20%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period). The percentage of glassware was found to be maximum (10.61%) during April-June,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (1.91%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The percentage of thermocoal was found to be maximum (0.30%) during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.09%) during January-March, 2007
(1st year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited
maximum (6.61%) percentage of plasticware during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (2.99%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period). The
percentage of metallicware was observed to be maximum (0.88%) during April-June, 2008
(2nd year study period) and minimum (0.85%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period). The percentage of glassware was observed to be maximum (3.62%) during April-June,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.71%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period).
In the Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (12.02%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (2.15%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The percentage of metallicware was observed to be maximum (2.94%) during January-March,
2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.20%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period). The percentage of glassware was observed to be maximum (6.54%) during April-June,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.68%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period) (Table-XXII).
4.3.b Solid Waste Generation in Offices of Kathua Town.
4.3.b.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg./capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XXIII, Fig-16).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Offices of Kathua
Town was observed to follow a specific trend in various seasons during two years study period
i.e. the average value increased from January-March to April-June, decreased from April-June
to July-September and again increased from July-September to October-December during first
year study period as well as 2nd year study period. The average gross biodegradable and non-
biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also exhibited the same trend. The inert
material was also observed to exhibit a specific trend of increase or decrease in various seasons
of two years study period.
4.3.b.ii. Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table-XXIII, Fig-16).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in various
Offices of Kathua Town was not observed to exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in
various seasons during the two years study period. The average non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separated in various Offices were also did not exhibit a set pattern of increase or
decrease in various seasons of two year study period. But the average biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) separated was observed to follow a specific trend i.e., the average value
increased from January-March to April-June, decrease from April-June to July-September and
again increased from July-September to October-December during 1st year as well as second
year study period.
4.3.b.iii Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXIII, Fig-16).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Offices of Kathua
Town was observed to follow a specific trend in various seasons during two years study period
i.e. the average value increased from January-March to April-June, decreased from April-June
to July-September and again increased from July-September to October-December during 1st
year as well as 2nd year study period. The average gross biodegradable and non-biodegradable
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also exhibited the same trend like that of average net
Solid Waste. The inert material was also observed the same trend i.e., the average value
increased from January-March to April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and
again increased from July-September to October-December during 1st year study period as well
as 2nd year study period.
4.3.b.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of an Average
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation at Offices of Kathua Town
(Table- XXIII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (44.63%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (28.10%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period). The cardboard
exhibited the maximum (14.00%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (7.70%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period). The foliage
was observed to be maximum (1.09%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (0.90%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
wood was observed to be maximum (0.82%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (0.09%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The food/garbage was observed to be maximum (9.99%) percentage during
July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (2.12%) percentage during April-
June, 2007 (1st year study period).
The Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the maximum
(11.40%) percentage of paperware during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (6.00%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period). The
cardboard was observed to be maximum (3.98%) percentage during October-December, 2008
(2nd year study period) and minimum (1.14%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (1st year
study period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have the
maximum (38.38%) percentage of paperware during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (19.50%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The cardboard was observed to have the maximum (14.00%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (6.37%) percentage during April-June,
2007 (1st year study period) (Table- XXIII).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (25.00%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (14.45%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
metallicware was observed to be maximum (0.35%) percentage during July-September, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (0.16%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year
study period). The glassware was observed to be maximum (12.46%) percentage during July-
September, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (4.30%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the
maximum (4.55%) percentage of plasticware during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (3.33%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The glassware was observed to be maximum (6.32%) percentage during July-September, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (3.19%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd
year study period).
In the Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (24.64%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (14.45%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The metallicware was observed to be maximum (0.35%) percentage during July-
September, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.16%) percentage during April-June,
2007 (1st year study period). The glassware was observed to be maximum (10.67%) percentage
during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (2.68%) percentage
during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) (Table- XXIII).
4.3.c Solid Waste Generation in Hospitals of Kathua Town (Figs-17-25).
4.3.c.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table-XXIV, Fig-25).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Hospitals of Kathua
Town was not observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two years study period
i.e., the average value decreased from January-March to April-June, increased from April-June
to July-September and further decreased from July-September to October-December sampling
period during 1st year as well as 2nd year study period. The average gross biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also followed a specific trend like that of the average gross
Solid Waste. The non-biodegradable and inert materials were found to exhibit a haphazard
pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons of two years study period.
4.3.c.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table- XXIV, Fig-25).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Hospitals of Kathua Town did not exhibit a set pattern of increase or decrease in various
seasons of two years study period. The average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
separated in various Hospitals exhibited a haphazard pattern of increase or decrease in various
seasons of two years study period.
4.3.c.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXIV, Fig-25).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Hospitals of Kathua
Town was observed to follow a specific trend in different seasons of two year study period i.e.,
the average value decrease from January-March to April-June, increased from April-June to
July-September and further decreased from July-September to October-December sampling
period during first year as well as second year study period. The average net biodegradable
waste follows the same trend as like that of gross biodegradable Solid Waste. The average net
non-biodegradable Solid Waste generation was not observed to follow a specific trend in
various seasons of two years study period, whereas the inert material was found to exhibit the
same pattern of increase or decrease in various seasons like that of average gross Solid Waste
generation.
4.3.c.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg./capita/day) Generation and Separation in Hospitals of Kathua Town
(Table- XXIV).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was found to be maximum (11.46%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (3.91%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The clothware was
found to be maximum (27.91%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (16.24%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
cotton was found to be maximum (7.60%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (4.51%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The wood was found to be maximum (2.22%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (0.40%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year
study period). The food/garbage was found to be maximum (27.74%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (8.72%) percentage during April-June,
2007 (1st year study period).
None of Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so the
values of Net Biodegradable Solid Waste remained same (Table- XXIV).
The composition of Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation exhibited the
maximum (26.06%) percentage of plasticware during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (4.40%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
metallicware was found to be maximum (8.71%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (4.32%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period). The
glassware was observed to be maximum (9.90%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (6.70%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The rubber was found to be maximum (2.10%) percentage during October-December, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (1.11%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The egg shell/bones were found to be maximum (1.02%) percentage during October-
December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.32%) during July-September, 2008
(2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to
have the plasticware in maximum (5.21%) percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (0.85%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period). The
glassware was observed to have maximum (3.19%) percentage during October-December,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (1.13%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period).
In the Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of plasticware
was observed to be maximum (25.21%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (4.40%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The glassware was
observed to be maximum (7.26%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (3.82%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period) (Table- XXIV).
4.3.d Solid Waste Generation in Primary Schools of Kathua Town.
4.3.d.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXV, Fig-26).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Primary schools of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two years study
period i.e., the average value increased from January-March to April-June, decreased from
April- June to July-September and further increased from July-September to October-December
during 1st year as well as 2nd year study period. The average gross biodegradable, non-
biodegradable and inert material (kg/capita/day) was not observed to be exhibit a specific trend
of increase or decrease in different seasons of two year study period.
4.3.d.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg./capita/day)
Generation at Source (Table-XXV, Fig-26).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Primary schools of Kathua Town was not observed because none of biodegradable, non-
biodegradable or inert material separation at source.
4.3.d.iii Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXV, Fig-26).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Primary schools of
Kathua Town was observed same as like that of average gross Solid Waste because none of the
Solid Waste separated at source.
4.3.d.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at Source (Table- XXV).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (39.81%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (17.19%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
cardboard was observed to be maximum (9.16%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (3.73%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The clothware was observed to be maximum (5.25%) percentage during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.55%) during July-September, 2008
(2nd year study period). The wood was observed to be maximum (6.77%) percentage during
July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (2.15%) during October-December,
2007 (1st year study period). The foliage was observed to be maximum (10.91%) percentage
during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (4.71%) during April-June,
2008 (2nd year study period). The food/garbage was found to be maximum (9.55%) percentage
during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (5.35%) during January-
March, 2008 (2nd year study period).
None of the Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so
the values of the Net-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained same (Table- XXV).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (26.35%) percentage during July-September, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (7.42%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The metallicware was found to be maximum (4.55%) percentage during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.22%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The glassware was found to be maximum (2.50%) percentage during April-
June, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.40%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The rubber was found to be maximum (3.19%) percentage during January-
March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.55%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year
study period). The thermocoal was found to be maximum (2.52%) percentage during July-
September, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.60%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd
year study period).
None of the Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so
the values of Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained the same (Table- XXV).
4.3.e Solid Waste Generation in Middle Schools of Kathua Town.
4.3.e.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXVI, Fig-27).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Middle schools of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two years study
period i.e. the average value decreased from January-March to April-June, increase from April-
June to July-September and further decreased from July-September to October-December
during 1st year as well as 2nd year study period. The average gross biodegradable and non-
biodegradable also followed the same trend as like that of average gross Solid Waste. The inert
material (kg/capita/day) was observed not to be exhibit a specific trend of increase or decrease
in different seasons of two year study period.
4.3.e.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table- XXVI, Fig-27).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Middle schools of Kathua Town was not observed because none of biodegradable, non-
biodegradable or inert material separated at source.
4.3.e.iii Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXVI, Fig-27).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Middle schools of
Kathua Town was observed same as like that of average gross Solid Waste because none of the
Solid Waste separated at source.
4.3.e.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in Middle Schools of Kathua
Town (Table- XXVI).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (29.20%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (10.26%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The cardboard was
observed to be maximum (7.15%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period) and minimum (2.71%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
clothware was observed to be maximum (3.99%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (1.10%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period).
The wood was observed to be maximum (5.15%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (1.09%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
foliage was observed to be maximum (4.16%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (1.20%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The food/garbage was found to be maximum (6.71%) percentage during July-September, 2008
(2nd year study period) and minimum (3.16%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period).
None of the Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so the
values of the Net-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained same (Table- XXVI).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (37.41%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (20.07%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The metallicware was found to be maximum (3.71%) percentage during October-December,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.72%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period). The glassware was found to be maximum (6.31%) percentage during January-
March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (2.16%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The rubber was found to be maximum (4.72%) percentage during October-
December, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.00%) during October-December, 2008
(2nd year study period). The thermocoal was found to be maximum (3.16%) percentage during
January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.09%) during January-March,
2008 (2nd year study period).
None of the Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source,
so the values of Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained the same (Table- XXVI).
4.3.f Solid Waste Generation in High Schools of Kathua.
4.3.f.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXVII, Fig-28).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various High schools of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern in different seasons of two year study
period. The average gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day), non-biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) and inert material (kg/capita/day) were also observed to exhibit a
haphazard trend in various seasons of two year study period.
4.3.f.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table- XXVII, Fig-28).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various High schools of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern in various
seasons of two years study period. The average biodegradable Solid Waste was also observed
the same trend as like that of average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste.
4.3.f.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at
Source (Table- XXVII, Fig-28).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various High schools of
Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern in two years study period. The
average net biodegradable Solid Waste was also followed the same trend as like that of average
net Solid Waste. None of the non-biodegradable and inert material was to be separated at
source, so the values remained the same.
4.3.f.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Source (Table- XXVII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (35.24%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (12.61%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period). The cardboard was
found to be maximum (11.51%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (2.39%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The clothware was
found to be maximum percentage (3.16%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (1.15%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The wood was found to
be maximum (5.19%) percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (1.00%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period). The foliage was found
to be maximum (7.06%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (4.54%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period). The jute was found
to be maximum (6.70%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (1.70%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The food/garbage was
found to be maximum (4.15%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (1.50%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the
maximum (12.50%) percentage of paperware during January-March, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (4.00%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have the
maximum (29.36%) percentage of paperware during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (4.75%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period) (Table- XXVII).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation, the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (23.81%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (4.17%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period).
The metallicware was found to be maximum (6.10%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (1.67%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period). The glassware was found to be maximum percentage (3.15%) during April-June, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (1.00%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period). The rubber was found to be maximum (3.50%) percentage during July-September,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (1.80%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The thermocoal was found to be maximum (4.20%) percentage during January-March,
2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.60%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period).
None of the Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source,
so the values of Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained the same (Table- XXVII).
4.3.g Solid Waste Generation in Higher Secondary Schools of Kathua Town.
4.3.g.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXVIII, Fig-29).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Higher
secondary schools of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trends in different
seasons of two year study period i.e., the average value decreased from January-March
to April-June, increased from April-June to July-September and further decreased from
July-September to October-December during first year study period as well as second
year study period. The average gross biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert
material also followed the same trend as like that of average gross Solid Waste.
4.3.g.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table- XXVIII, Fig-29).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Higher secondary schools of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trends in
different seasons of two years study i.e. the average value decreased from January-March to
April-June, increased from April-June to July-September, further decreased from July-
September to October-December during first year study period as well as second year study
period. The average gross biodegradable also followed the same trend as like that of average
separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste.
4.3.g.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXVIII, Fig-29).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Higher secondary
schools of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in different seasons of two
years study period i.e., the average value decreased from January-March to April-June,
increased from April-June to July-September further decreased from July-September to
October-December during first year study period as well as second year study period. The
average net biodegradable Solid Waste follows the same trend as like that of average net Solid
Waste. The average net non-biodegradable and inert material follows the same trends as like
that of average gross Solid Waste.
4.3.g.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in Higher Secondary School of
Kathua Town (Table- XXVIII).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation, the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (34.40%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (20.43%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period). The cardboard was found
to be maximum (9.73%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (2.48%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period). The clothware was
found to be maximum (0.71%) percentage during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (0.22%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period). The wood was
found to be maximum (2.96%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (1.21%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period). The foliage was found
to be maximum (1.10%) percentage during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period) and
minimum (0.96%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The food/garbage was
found to be maximum (17.34%) percentage during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (7.74%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the
maximum (13.04%) percentage of paperware during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (9.26%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period). The
cardboard was found to be maximum (5.65%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (1.53%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have the
maximum (22.86%) percentage of paperware during April-June, 2008 (2nd year study period)
and minimum (10.52%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period). The cardboard was
found to be maximum (5.93%) percentage during July-September, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (2.48%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period) (Table-
XXVIII).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (29.27%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period) and minimum (10.22%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period). The
metallicware was observed to be maximum (3.41%) percentage during April-June, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (0.85%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The glassware was found to be maximum (10.86%) percentage during July-
September, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (3.89%) during April-June, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The rubber was found to be maximum (0.90%) percentage during April-
June, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.13%) during July-September, 2008 (2nd
year study period). The thermocoal was found to be maximum (2.71%) percentage during
April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (0.47%) during July-September, 2008
(2nd year study period).
None of Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so
the values of Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained the same (Table- XXVIII).
4.3.h Solid Waste Generation in Colleges of Kathua Town.
4.3.h.i Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXIX, Fig-30).
The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Colleges of Kathua
Town was observed to exhibit a specific trends in different seasons of two year study period i.e.
the average value decreased from January-March to April-June, increased from April-June to
July-September and further decreased from July-September to October-December during first
year study period as well as second year study period. The average gross biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation also followed the same trend as like that of average gross
Solid Waste. The average gross non-biodegradable and inert material was observed to exhibit a
haphazard trend in various seasons of two years study period.
4.3.h.ii Seasonal Variations in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Source (Table- XXIX, Fig-30).
The average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in
various Colleges of Kathua Town was observed to exhibit a haphazard pattern in various
seasons of two years study period. The average biodegradable was also observed the same trend
as like that of average separation of recyclable/reused Solid Waste.
4.3.h.iii Seasonal Variations in the Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at
Source (Table- XXIX, Fig-30).
The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in various Colleges of Kathua
Town was observed to exhibit a specific trend in two year study i.e. the average value increased
from January-March to April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and further
increased from July-September to October-December during first year study period as well as
second year study period. The average net biodegradable Solid Waste was also followed the
same trend as like that of average net Solid Waste. None of the non-biodegradable and inert
material was observed to be separated at source, so the values remained the same.
4.3.h.iv Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in Colleges of Kathua Town
(Table- XXIX).
In the Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation the percentage of paperware
was observed to be maximum (57.67%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (31.38%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period). The
cardboard was found to be maximum (8.96%) percentage during January-March, 2008 (2nd
year study period) and minimum (2.17%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The clothware was found to be maximum (1.80%) percentage during January-March,
2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (0.70%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period). The wood was found to be maximum (5.10%) percentage during April-June,
2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (2.10%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period). The foliage was found to be maximum (3.15%) percentage during April-June, 2008
(2nd year study period) and minimum (1.25%) during January-March, 2007 (1st year study
period). The food/garbage was found to be maximum (9.10%) percentage during January-
March, 2008 (2nd year study period) and minimum (2.51%) during January-March, 2007 (1st
year study period).
The Separated Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable Solid Waste exhibited the
maximum (16.42%) percentage of paperware during July-September, 2008 (2nd year study
period) and minimum (7.15%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period). The cardboard
was found to be maximum (2.65%) percentage during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period)
and minimum (0.92%) during October-December 2007, (1st year study period).
The Net Biodegradable Solid Waste Generation was observed to have the maximum
(48.37%) percentage of paperware during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study period) and
minimum (17.23%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study period). The cardboard
was found to be maximum (6.98%) percentage during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period) and minimum (1.54%) during April-June, 2007 (1st year study period) (Table- XXIX).
In the Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste generation the percentage of
plasticware was observed to be maximum (13.97%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year
study period) and minimum (8.33%) during January-March, 2008 (2nd year study period). The
metallicware was observed to be maximum (2.17%) percentage during January-March, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (1.10%) during October-December, 2007 (1st year study
period). The glassware was found to be maximum (2.60%) during January-March, 2007 (1st
year study period) and minimum (0.55%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year study
period). The rubber was observed to be maximum (1.69%) percentage during April-June, 2007
(1st year study period) and minimum (0.38%) during July-September, 2007 (1st year study
period). The thermocoal was found to be maximum (2.90%) percentage during April-June,
2007 (1st year study period) and minimum (1.36%) during October-December, 2008 (2nd year
study period).
None of Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste was observed to be separated at source, so
the values of Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste remained the same (Table- XXIX).
4.3.i Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Institutional
Areas of Kathua Town (Table-XXX).
The gross biodegradable gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was
observed to range from 0.003-0.046 kg with an average value of 0.015±0.003 kg at Banks;
0.003-0.044 kg with an average value of 0.016±0.005 kg at Offices; 0.220-4.490 kg with an
average value of 1.264±0.354 kg at Hospitals; 0.002-0.040 kg with an average value of
0.011±0.004 kg at Primary Schools; 0.001-0.034 kg with an average value of 0.009±0.003 kg
at Middle Schools; 0.002-0.029 kg with an average value of 0.011±0.002 kg at High Schools;
0.004-0.086 kg with an average value of 0.029±0.004 kg at Higher Secondary Schools; 0.011-
0.094 kg with an average value of 0.035±0.007 kg at Colleges. The average gross
biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Institutional area was calculated
to be 0.174±0.441 kg with a range of 0.001-4.490 kg (Table- XXX).
The biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source was observed to
range from 0.004-0.011 kg with an average value of 0.003±0.002 kg at Banks; 0.0005-0.009 kg
with an average value of 0.003±0.001 kg at Offices; 0.001-0.010 kg with an average value of
0.002±0.001 kg at High Schools; 0.001-0.021 kg with an average value of 0.007±0.002 kg at
Higher Secondary Schools; 0.001-0.029 kg with an average value of 0.008 ±0.003 kg at
Colleges. The average biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at Institutional
area was found to be 0.003±0.003 kg with a range of 0.0004-0.029 kg (Table-XXX).
The net biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range
from 0.0006-0.036 kg with an average value of 0.012±0.004 kg at Banks; 0.003-0.037 kg with
an average value of 0.013±0.004 kg at Offices; 0.001-0.021 kg with an average value of
0.009±0.002 kg at High Schools; 0.003-0.071 kg with an average value of 0.022±0.004 kg at
Higher Secondary Schools; 0.011-0.059 kg with an average value of 0.026±0.005 kg at
Colleges. The average net biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at
Institutional area was observed to be 0.171±0.442 kg with a range of 0.0006-4.490 kg
(Table- XXX).
The gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to
range from 0.007-0.014 kg with an average value of 0.004±0.002 kg at Banks; 0.001-0.031 kg
with an average value of 0.010±0.004 kg at Offices; 0.159-1.610 kg with an average value of
0.739±0.129 kg at Hospitals; 0.001-0.025 kg with an average value of 0.005±0.002 kg at
Primary Schools; 0.001-0.029 kg with an average value of 0.009±0.003 kg at Middle Schools;
0.001-0.021 kg with an average value of 0.006±0.002 kg at High Schools; 0.002+ 0.046 kg with
an average value of 0.014±0.004 kg at Higher Secondary Schools; 0.001-0.025 kg with an
average value of 0.008±0.003 kg at Colleges. The average gross non-biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Institutional area was calculated to be 0.009+0.258 kg
with a range of 0.0007-1.610 kg (Table- XXX).
The non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source observed to
range from 0.003-0.004 kg with an average value of 0.001±0.001 kg at Banks; 0.0006-0.006 kg
with an average value of 0.001±0.001 kg at Offices; 0.022-0.350 kg with an average value of
0.087±0.031 kg at Hospitals. The average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
separated at Institutional area was observed to be 0.011+0.031 kg with a range of 0.0003-
0.350 kg (Table- XXX).
The net non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) was observed to range from
0.0006-0.014 kg with an average value of 0.003±0.001 kg at Banks; 0.001-0.031 kg with an
average value of 0.009±0.004 kg at Offices; 0.131-1.393 kg with an average value of
0.652±0.138 kg at Hospitals. The average net non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Institutional area was calculated to be 0.088+0.228 kg with a
range of 0.0006-1.393 kg (Table- XXX).
The value of gross as well as net generation of the material (kg/capita/day) was
observed to range from 0.001-0.023 kg with an average value of 0.007±0.005 kg at Banks;
0.001-0.023 kg with an average value of 0.007±0.003 kg at Offices; 0.043-0.991 kg with an
average value of 0.214±0.054 kg at Hospitals; 0.001-0.022 kg with an average value of
0.003±0.002 kg at Primary Schools; 0.001-0.031 kg with an average value of 0.005±0.002 kg
at Middle Schools; 0.001-0.033 kg with an average value of 0.007±0.004 kg at High Schools;
0.004-0.040 kg with an average value of 0.014±0.004 kg at Higher Secondary Schools; 0.002-
0.056 kg with an average value of 0.018±0.005 kg at Colleges. The average value of gross as
well as net generation of the inert material (kg/capita/day) generation at Institutional area
was observed to be 0.034+0.073 kg with a range of 0.001-0.991 kg (Table- XXX).
The gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from
0.005-0.097 kg with an average value of 0.026±0.008 kg at Banks; 0.007-0.084 kg with an
average value of 0.033±0.010 kg at Offices; 0.510-5.919 kg with an average value of
2.217±0.344 kg at Hospitals; 0.003-0.061 kg with an average value of 0.019±0.004 kg at
Primary Schools; 0.010-0.078 kg with an average value of 0.023±0.006 kg at Middle Schools;
0.005-0.060 kg with an average value of 0.024±0.005 kg at High Schools; 0.017-0.151 kg with
an average value of 0.058±0.008 kg at Higher Secondary Schools; 0.014-0.149 kg with an
average value of 0.061±0.012 kg at Colleges. The average gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
generation at Institutional area was calculated to be 0.308+0.772 kg with a range of 0.003-
5.919 kg (Table- XXX).
The Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source was observed to range from
0.0007-0.014 kg with an average value of 0.004±0.002 kg at Banks; 0.0005-0.011 kg with an
average value of 0.004±0.002 kg at Offices; 0.022-0.350 kg with an average value of
0.087±0.031 kg at Hospitals; 0.001-0.010 kg with an average value of 0.002±0.001 kg at High
Schools; 0.001-0.021 kg with an average value of 0.007±0.002 kg at Higher Secondary
Schools; 0.001-0.029 kg with an average value of 0.008±0.003 kg at Colleges. The average
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at source at Institutional area was calculated to be
0.014+0.030 kg with a range of 0.0005-0.350 kg (Table- XXX).
The net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from 0.004-
0.083 kg with an average value of 0.002±0.009 kg at Banks; 0.007-0.077 kg with an average
value of 0.029±0.009 kg at Offices; 0.415-5.773 kg with an average value of 2.130±0.342 kg at
Hospitals; 0.004-0.052 kg with an average value of 0.022±0.004 kg at High Schools; 0.016-
0.142 kg with an average value of 0.051±0.007 kg at Higher Secondary Schools; 0.012-0.129
kg with an average value of 0.053±0.009 kg at Colleges. The average net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Institutional area was calculated to be 0.294+0.742 kg with a
range of 0.003-5.773 kg (Table-XXX).
4.4 AVERAGE WEIGHT OF SOME RECYCLABLE/REUSEDBIODEGRADABLE AND NON-BIODEGRADABLE ITEMS (TABLE-XXXI).
The average weight of some recyclable/reused biodegradable items was observed to vary from50 gm of Sikh Fulwari Magazine to 590 gm of Jute bag (100kg), whereas the average weight ofsome recyclable/reused non-biodegradable items varied from 8.522 gm of Hydrogen peroxidebottle/Spirit bottle to 600 gm. of Tomato sauce bottle (glass).
Table-XXXI: Average Weight of Some Recyclable/Reused Biodegradable andNon-Biodegradable Items.
S.No ITEMS Weight(gms)
S.No ITEMS Weight(gms)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1.
Biodegradable
Newspaper
Times of India
Sunday Times of India
Ajeet
Daily Excelsior
Hindustan Times
State Times
Kashmir Times
Punjab Kesari
Indian Express
The Hindu
Jug Bani
Amar Ujala
Danik Jagran
Employment
Magazines
Sikh Pulwari
134
217
77.200
66
131
64.200
66.320
114
83.500
139
64.100
65.00
112.5
98.00
50
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Icela
India Today
Pratijogita Kiran
Front Line
Computer Magazine
Today Week
Star Dust
Jute
Jute bag (10kg)
Jute bag (50 kg)
Jute bag (100 kg)
Non-Biodegradable
Plastic
Plastic bag (10 kg.)
Plastic bag (50 kg.)
Plastic bag (100 kg.)
50
106.500
27.5
230.5
200
110.5
172
150
315
590
120
290
460
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Grahashoba
Cricket
Outdoor Indoor
Competition Success
Sarita
Competition Wizard
Women Era
Filmfare
Science Reporter
Front Reporter
Femina
Meri Saheli
Down to Earth
Competition Refresher
Manorama
310
150
350
350
320
155
245
215
250
248
255
315
60.5
170
210
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
Bisleri Water bottle
Hydrogen peroxide bottle
Spirit bottle
Glucose bottle
Coca-cola bottle (small)
Oil bottle (2lt.)
Glass
Tomato sauce bottle
Betadine bottle
Savlon bottle
Beer bottle
Wine bottle
Metal
Tin container 2 lt.
Tin container (Large)
Tin container 1 lt.(metallic)
63
8.522
8.522
22.75
50
275
600
115.52
175
590
250
250
550
90.5
4.5 AVERAGE GROSS AND NET SOLID WASTE (KG/CAPITA/DAY) GENERATION
IN STUDY AREA (KATHUA TOWN) (Table- XXXII; Fig-31).
The gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to be
ranged from 0.020-1.613 kg with an average value of 0.361±0.073 kg at Residential Areas
(Households), 0.001-4.509 kg with an average value of 0.204±0.133 kg at Commercial Areas
and 0.001-4.490 kg with an average value of 0.174±0.441 kg at Institutional Areas. The
average gross biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area was
calculated to be 0.246+0.100 kg with range of 0.001-4.509 kg. (XXXII, Fig-31).
The biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated was observed to range from
0.003-0.290 kg with an average value of 0.044±0.008 kg at Residential Areas (Households),
0.001-0.635 kg with an average value of 0.017±0.009 kg at Commercial Areas and 0.0004-
Contd….
0.029 kg with an average value of 0.003±0.003 kg at Institutional Areas. The average
biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at Study Area was calculated to be
0.021+0.021 kg with range of 0.0004-0.635 kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31).
The net-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to be
ranged from 0.010-1.301 kg with an average value of 0.317±0.069 kg at Residential Areas
(Households), 0.002-3.874 kg with an average value of 0.188±0.123 kg at Commercial Areas
and 0.0006-4.490 kg with an average value of 0.171±0.442 kg at Institutional Areas. The non-
biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area ranged from 0.0006-
4.490 kg with an average value of 0.225+0.080 kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31).
The gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to be range
from 0.003-0.600 kg with an average value of 0.112±0.045 kg at Residential Areas
(Households), 0.001-1.940 kg with an average value of 0.119±0.091 kg at Commercial Areas;
0.007-1.610 kg with an average value of 0.099±0.258 kg at Institutional Areas; The average
gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area was
calculated to be 0.110-0.010kg with a range value of 0.007-1.940kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31).
The non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated was observed to be ranged
from 0.001-0.300 kg with an average value of 0.038±0.015 kg at Residential Areas
(households), 0.001-1.200 kg with an average value of 0.041±0.034 kg at Commercial Areas;
0.0003-0.350 kg with an average value of 0.011±0.031 kg at Institutional Areas. The average
non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated at Study Area was observed to be
0.030+0.017 kg with a ranged value of 0.0001-1.200 kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31)
The net non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to
range from 0.002-0.452 kg with an average value of 0.073±0.031 kg at Residential Areas
(Households); 0.0006-1.493 kg with an average value of 0.078±0.057 kg at Commercial Areas
and 0.0006-1.393 kg with an average value of 0.088±0.228 kg at Institutional Areas. The
average net non-biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area was
found to be 0.080+0.008 kg with a range of 0.0006-1.493 kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31).
The value of gross as well as net generation of inert material (kg/capita/day) was
observed to be range from 0.003-0.300 kg with an average value of 0.064±0.028 kg at
Residential Areas (Households); 0.001-1.560 kg with an average value of 0.042±0.043 kg at
Commercial Areas and 0.001-0.991 kg with an average value of 0.034±0.073 kg at
Institutional Areas. The average value of gross as well as net generation of inert material
(kg/capita/day) at Study Area was observed to be 0.047+0.016 kg with a range value of
0.001-1.560 kg (Table-XXXII, Fig-31)
The gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from 0.054-
1.960 kg with an average value of 0.536+0.141 kg at Residential Areas (Households), 0.004-
5.919 kg with an average value of 0.364+0.225 kg at Commercial Areas and 0.003-5.919 kg
with an average value of 0.308+0.772 kg at Institutional Areas. The average gross Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area was observed to be 0.403+0.119 kg with a
range of 0.003-5.919 kg (Table-XXXII, Fig-31).
The Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separated was observed to range from 0.012-0.0369
kg with an average value of 0.082±0.022 kg at Residential Areas (Households), 0.0005-1.225
kg with an average value of 0.057±0.044 kg at Commercial Areas and 0.0005-0.350 kg with an
average value of 0.014±0.030 kg at Institutional Areas. The average Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separated at Study Area was calculated to be 0.051+ 0.034 kg with a range
value of 0.0005-1.225 kg (Table-XXXII, Fig-31).
The net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation was observed to range from 0.032-
1.664 kg with an average value of 0.454±0.124 kg at Residential Area (Households), 0.002-
5.284 kg with an average value of 0.308±0.183 kg at Commercial Areas and 0.003-5.773 kg
with an average value of 0.294±0.742 kg at Institutional Areas. The average net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area observed to be 0.352±0.089 kg with a range value
of 0.002-5.773 kg (Table- XXXII, Fig-31).
As per Census Report (2001), population of Municipal limits of Kathua Town was
about 40,208. Taking this population same at present, the gross Solid Waste generation per day
in the Kathua Town comes out to be 16.20 tonnes/day. After adding 150.280 kg/day (the average
Solid Waste generated at Bus Stands of Kathua town per day) and 128.368 kg/day (the average
Solid Waste generated at Vegetable Market of Kathua town per day), the average gross Solid
Waste generation at Kathua Town becomes 16.48 tonnes/day, comprising 10.2 tonnes/day
(60.80%) biodegradable, 4.48 tonnes/day (27.18%) non-biodegradable and 1.98 tonnes/day
(12.01%) inert material. The gross Solid Waste generation includes fallen trees and its branches,
road sweepings, construction and demolition wastes. Taking these wastes into account, the gross
Solid Waste generation at Kathua Town would be more than 17 tonnes/day.
4.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF WASTE COLLECTORS/BUYERS IN STUDYAREA (KATHUA TOWN).
4.6. a Socio-Economic Status of Ragpickers in Study Area (Kathua Town)
(Table-XXXIII, Fig-32-33).
Table- XXXIII: Socio-Economic Status of Ragpickers in Study Area (Kathua Town
S.NoSurvey enquiry (As per
questionnaire format-1 forRagpickers)
Percentage ofRagpickers S.No
Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format-1 for
Ragpickers)
Percentage ofRagpickers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7(a)
7(b)
8(a)
Age5-15 years15-30 years30-35 yearsFamily Member involved inRagpicking123Home StateBengalRajasthanJ&KBiharGujaratPunjabU.PM.P.Andhra PradeshBangla DeshDelhiOrissaWaste Material PreferencePaper onlyPlastic onlyMetal onlyGlass onlyAll (paper, plastic, metal andglass)All (paper, plastic, cardboard andmetal)All (paper, plastic, metal, glassand cardboard).Ragpicked Waste is Sold toItinerant Waste BuyersSmall Enterprises MiddelmanRecycling Unit
Time Duration in Ragpicking< 2 years2 years2-4 years4-6 years5-6 years6-10 years
Part of the Day Spend inCollection of WasteWhole DayMorning & EveningHours Spend in Ragpicking1-22-33-44-55-6Amount of Waste RagpickedDaily (kg)3-99-1515-2121-27
72.16%15.84%12.00%
79.11%17.33%3.56%
2.91%2.90%2.41%13.99%2.17%10.16%2.10%42.10%8.57%3.00%6.69%3.00%
0%0%0%0%22%
5.52%
72.48%
33%67%0%
21.29%26.71%34.52%10.11%5.34%2.03%
34.19%65.81%
21.19%15.00%43.08%11.14%9.59%
23.33%34.19%22.15%20.33%
8(b)(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
9
10
Qualitative Collection of WastePaper (kg)1-3.53.5-6Plastic (kg)1-5.55.5-10Metal (kg)0.35-1.551.55-2.752.75-3.95Glass (kg)0.50-1.581.58-2.66Cardboard (kg)0.15-2.30
2.30-4.45
Daily Earning from the RagpickedWasteRs.12.5-26Rs. 26-39.5Rs.39.5-53Rs.53-66.5Rs.66.5-80Methods of Ragpicking
Only ManuallyManually & MagnetOnly with StickStick & MagnetOnly with Hook StickHook Stick & Magnet
58.39%41.61%
46.89%53.89%
32.61%47.20%20.19%
40.80%59.20%
55.40%44.60%
7%15.10%11.10%13.15%53.65%
15.61%22.11%21.45%20.19%11.15%9.49%
Contd….
72.16% of the surveyed Ragpickers were observed to be in the age of 5-15 years belonging
mostly to Madhya Pradesh (42.10%), followed by Bihar (13.99%), Punjab (10.66%), and other
states. Majority (72.48%) of the Ragpickers was observed to show preference for the collection
of all types of wastes (paper, plastic, glass and cardboard) and few (22.10%) showing preference
for collection of (paper, plastic, metal and glass). Most (67%) of the Ragpickers were observed
to sell their collected waste to Small Enterprises Middlemen (SEM) and some (33%) of the
Ragpickers were observed to sell collected waste even to the ltinerant Waste Buyer (IWB).
(61.23%) of the Ragpickers were observed to be in the business of ragpicking for the last 2-4
years. Most (65.81%) of the Ragpickers were observed to prefer morning and evening hours,
whereas some (34.19%) were observed to prefer whole day spending 1-6 hours per day for
ragpicking.
The amount of waste ragpicked daily by Ragpickers was observed to be in the range of
21-27 kg (20-33%), 15-21kg (22.15%), 9-15 kg (34.19%) and 3-9 kg (23.33%) collecting paper-
1-3.5 kg (58.39%), 3.5-6 kg (41.61%); plastic- 1-5.5 kg (46.89%), 5.5-10 kg (53.11%); metal-
0.35-1.55 kg (32.61%), 155-2.75 kg (47.20%), 2.75-3.95 kg (20.19%); glass- 0.50-1.58 kg
(40-80%), 1.58-2.66 kg (59.20%); cardboard- 0.15-2.30 kg (55.40%), 2.30-4.45 (44.60%)
respectively (Table- XXXIII).
The daily earning of Ragpickers by selling collected waste i.e. paper, plaster, metal, glass
and cardboard was observed to be in the range of Rs. 12.5-26 (7.0%), Rs. 26-39.5 (15.10%), Rs.
39.5-53 (11.10%), Rs. 53-66.5 (13.15%) and Rs. 66.5-80 (53.65%). The percentage of
Ragpickers using manual, manual and magnet , stick, stick and magnet, hook stick, hook stick
and magnet methods for ragpicking of waste were observed to be 15.61%, 22.11%, 21.45%
20.49%, 11.15%, 9.49% respectively.
4.6. b Socio-Economic Status of Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) in Study Area(Kathua Town) (Table - XXXIV, Fig-34-35).
On the basis of survey conducted on the socio-economic status of IWB in the study area,
90.11% of the surveyed Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to be in the age group of
15-45 years belonging mostly to Bihar (45.22%) followed by Punjab-(38.63%), Jammu (16.15%)
and other states. Majority (65.00%) of the Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to show
preference for the collection of all types of wastes (paper, plastic, metal, glass, and cardboard)
and few (15.33%) showed preference for collection of (plastic woven sack and jute woven sack).
70.41% of the surveyed Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to sell their
collected waste to Small Enterprises Middleman (SEM) and 22.10% to Wholesale Waste Dealers
(WWD). Most (45.5%) of Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to be in job of waste
collection for the last 2-6 years. The Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to prefer
morning and evening (79.61%) as well whole day (20.39%) spending 1-6 hours/day for the
collection of waste.
The amount of waste collected daily was observed to be in the range of 77.3-99.2 kg
(16.64%), 55.4-77.3 kg (15.10%), 33.5-55.4 kg (22.15%) and 11.6-33.5 kg (46.11%) collecting
waste paper in the range of 2.5-5.7 kg (30.25%), 5.7-8.9 kg (50.44%), 8.9-12.1 kg (11.11%) and
12.1-15.3 kg (8.20%); plastic in the range of 2.0-6.7 kg (75.55%), 6.7-11.4 kg (15.91%) and
11.4-16.1 kg (8.54%); metal in the range of 2.25-6.07 kg (47.73%), 6.07-9.89 kg, (27.27%),
9.89-13.71 kg (4.59%)
Table- XXXIV: Socio-Economic Status of Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) in Study
Area (Kathua Town).S.No Survey enquiry (As per
questionnaire format–II forItinerant Waste Buyers)
Percentage ofItinerant WasteBuyer (IWB)
S.No Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format-II forItinerant Waste Buyer)
Percentage ofItinerant WasteBuyer (IWB)
1
2
3
4
5
Age15-45 yearsAbove 45 years
Family Members Involved inWaste Collection Job123
Home StateJammuBiharAndra PradeshMadhya PradeshUttar PradeshPunjabRajasthan
Waste Material PreferencePaper onlyPlastic onlyMetal onlyGlass onlyAll(paper, plastic, metal, glassand cardboard)All(paper, plastic, metal, glassand rubber)Plastic woven sack and jutewoven sackCollected Waste is Sold toSmall Enterprise MiddlemanWholesale Waste DealerRecycling Unit
90.11%9.89%
60.55%36.21%3.24%
16.15%45.22%4.15%0%0%38.63%0%
0%0%0%0%65.00%
19.67%
15.33%
70.41%22.10%7.49%
(v)8(a)
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)8(b)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
5-6Amount of Waste CollectedDaily (kg)11.6-33.533.5-55.455.4-77.377.3-99.2Qualitative Collection ofWastePaper (kg.)2.5-5.75.7-8.98.9-12.112.1-15.3Plastic (kg)2-6.76.7-11.411.4-16.1Metal (kg)2.25-6.076.07-9.899.89-13.7113.71-17.54Glass (kg)1-3.73.7-6.46.4-9.1Cardboard (kg)1.5-5.55.5-9.59.5-13.5Plastic woven sack (kg)0.15.0.740.74-1.33
10.88%
46.11%22.15%15.10%16.64%
30.25%50.44%11.11%8.20%
75.55%15.91%8.54%
47.73%27.27%4.59%20.41%
71.61%18.18%10.21%
22.73%54.54%22.73%
51.00%9.00%
6
7(a)
7(b)
Time Duration in WasteCollection<2 years2 years2-6 years6-10 years10-14 years14-18 years18-22 years
Part of the Day Spend inCollection of WasteWhole DayMorning and Evening
Hours Spend in Collection ofWaste1-22-33-44-5
6%36.73%38.77%16.33%0%0%2.17%
20.39%79.61%
14.08%10%33.68%31.36%
(vii)
(viii)
9
1.33-1.921.92-2.51Jute woven sack (kg)2-55-88-1111-1414-1717-20Rubber (kg)0.2-0.90.9-1.61.6-2.32.3-3.03.0-3.73.7-4.44.4-5.1Daily Earning from theCollected Waste (Rs.)Rs.35-100
7.90%32.10%
40%10%10%10%10%20%
22.22%55.56%0%0%11.11%0%11.11%
18.11%
S.No Survey enquire (As perquestionnaire format-II forItinerant Waste Buyer )
Percentage ofItinerant WasteBuyer (IWB)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Rs 100-165Rs 165-230Rs 230-295Rs 295-380
Possession of Bicycle forCollection of WasteOwnedHired
Number of MohallasCovered per Day for WasteCollection1-22-33-44-55-6
Maximum Waste CollectionDuringSummer Season
Summer Season and afterExaminationFestival TimeWinter Season and afterExamination PeriodFestival Time and afterExamination PeriodAfter Examination Period
Awareness about their roleSolid Waste
Awareness of their role inRecycling of Solid Waste
Awareness of their role inEnvironment Protection
Awareness about their rolein Helping Municipality
19.53%46.04%10.20%6.12%
79.17%20.83%
26.53%18.37%8.16%20.41%26.53%
2.04%
2.04%2.04%
28.57%
48.98%16.33%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Maximum Waste CollectionfromLow income family and highincome familyMiddle income family andhigh income familyLow income family, Middleincome family and highincome familyHigh income family
4.10%
79.61%
8.16%
8.13%
and 13.71-17.53 kg (20.41%); glass: 1.0-3.7 kg (71.61%), 3.7-6.4 kg (18.18%) and 6.4-9.1 kg
(10.21%), cardboard: 1.5-5.5 kg (22.73%), 5.5-9.5 kg (54.54%) and 9.5-13.5 kg (22.73); plastic
woven sack: 0.15-0.74 kg (51%), 0.74-1.33 kg (9.0%), 1.33-1.92 kg (7.90%) and 1.92-2.51 kg
(32.10%); jute woven sack: 2.0-5.0 kg (40%), 5.0-8.0 kg (10%), 8.0-11.0 kg (10%), 11.0-14.0
kg (10%), 14.0-17.0 kg (10%) and 17.0-20.0 kg (20%); rubber: 0.2-0.9 kg (22.22%), 0.9-1.6 kg
(55.56%), 1.6-2.3 kg (0%), 23-3.0 (0%), 3.0-3.7 kg (11.11%), 3.7-4.4 kg (0%) and 4.4-5.1 kg
(11.11%).
The daily earning of the Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) from the sales of collected wastes
was observed to range from Rs. 35-100 (18.4%), Rs. 100-165 (19.53%), Rs. 165-230 (46.04%),
Rs. 230-295 (10.20%) and Rs. 295-360 (6.12%). Most (79.17%) of the Itinerant Waste Buyers
(IWB) were observed to possess hired bicycle for the collection of waste. The surveyed Itinerant
Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to cover 1-2 mohallas (26.53%), 2-3 (18.37%), 3-4 (8.16%),
4-5 (20.41%) and 5-6 (26.53%) for waste collection.
Most (48.98%) of the surveyed Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) were observed to collect
maximum waste during festival time and after examination period followed by 28.57% collecting
maximum during winter season and after examination period and 16.33% during and after
examination (Table-XXXIV).
None of surveyed Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) was observed to be awarded regarding
their role in Solid Waste Management (SWM), Recycling of Solid waste, Environment
Protection and Helping Municipally. Majority (79.61%) of the Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB)
were observed to collect maximum waste from middle income and high income families
followed by (8.16%) collecting maximum from low income, middle income and high income
families (Table- XXXIV).
4.6. c Socio-Economic Status of Small Enterprises Middlemen (SEM) in StudyArea (Kathua Town). (Table- XXXV, Fig-36-37).
On the basis of the survey conducted in the Study Area, most (61.92%) of the surveyed
Small Enterprises Middleman (SEM) or Kabariwalas were observed to be in the age group of 20-
40 years followed by 35.14% the age group 40-60 years, 2.94% of SEM were observed even in
age group of 50-80 years. Half (45.42%) of surveyed Small Enterprises Middlemen (SEM) were
observed in the business of waste purchase and sale for 3-6 years followed by 40.15% in business
for 6-9 years and even 4.92% of surveyed SEM were observed in business for the last 12-15
years. 26-47% of (SEM) were observed to purchase waste from IWB only, 26.47% were
observed to purchase waste from IWB and Ragpicker followed by 17.65% purchasing waste
from IWB and Common man/ Shopkeeper, 14.71% purchasing waste from IWB, Ragpicker and
Common man/ Shopkeeper, 8.82% purchasing waste from Common man/ Shopkeeper and
5.88% were observed to purchase waste from Ragpicker only.
The amount of different types of wastes purchased daily was observed to be plastic in the
range of 5-70 kg (70.41%), 70-135 kg (26.03%) and 135-200 kg (3.56%); metal in the range of
13.5-130.5 kg (79.61%), 130.5-247.5 kg (11.15%), 247.5-364.5 kg (9.24%) and 364.5-481.5 kg
(0%); paper in the range of 3-93 kg (69.24%), 93-183 kg (16.70%), 183-273 kg (8.40%), 273-
363 kg (3.55%) and 363-153 kg (2.11%); glass in the range of 15-69 kg (78.40%), 69-123 kg
(11.26%) and 123-177 kg (10.34%); rubber in the range of 5-53 kg (76.48%), 55-105 kg (0%),
105-155 kg (0%) and 155-205 kg (23.52%); cardboard in the range of 3.8-78.8 kg (76.48%),
78.8-153.8 kg (5.88%) and 153.8-228.8 kg (17.64%); plastic woven sack in the range of 1-12 kg
(50%), 12-23 kg (40%) and 23-34 kg (10%); jute woven sack in the range of 5-40 kg (50%), 40-
75 kg (25%) and 75-110 kg (25%).
The quantitative composition of waste materials purchased by SEM per day from
Ragpickers was observed to be plastic in the range of 1-5.5 kg (65.11%) and 5.5-10 kg
(34.89%); paper in the range of 1-3.5 kg (70.53%) and 3.5-6 kg (29.47%); metal in the range of
0.35-1.55 kg (25.67%), 1.55-2.75 kg (47.19%) and 2.75-3.95 kg (27.14%); glass in the range of
0.50-1.58 kg (47.72%) and 1.58-2.66 kg (57.08%); cardboard in the range of 0.15-2.30 kg
(69.53%) and 2.30-4.45 kg (30.47%) and the waste material purchased from, Itinerant Waste
Buyers (IWB) were observed to be plastic in the range of 2-6.7 kg (61.41%), 6.7-11.4 kg
(29.41%) and 11.4-16.1 kg (9.18%); paper: 2.5-5.7 kg (28.61%), 5.7-8.9 kg (32.49%), 8.9-12.1
kg (9.36%) and 12.1-15.3 kg (29.54%); metal in the range of 2.25-6.07 kg (29.54%), 6.07-9.89
kg (11.63%), 9.89-13.71 kg (14.71%) and 13.71-17.53 kg (44.12%); glass: 1-5 kg (65.59%) and
5-9 kg (34.41%); cardboard: 1.5-7.5 kg (69.18%) and 7.5-13.5 kg (30.82%); plastic woven
sack in the range of 0.15-0.74 kg (55.10%), 0.74-1.33 kg (10.11%), 1.33-1.92 kg (5.38%), 1.92 -
2.51 kg (29.41%); jute woven sack in the range of 2-11kg (70-59%) and 11-20 kg (29.41%);
rubber: 0.2-0.9 kg (27.22%), 0.9-1.6 kg (50.56%), 1.6-2.3 kg (0%), 2.3-3.0 kg (0%), 3.0-3.7 kg
(11.11%), 3.7-4.4 kg (0%) and 4.4-5.1 kg (11.11%).
The composition of waste material purchased by SEM from Common men/Shopkeepers
was observed to be paper in the range of 1-10 kg (55.28%), 10-19 kg (18.25%) and 19-28 kg
(26.47%); plastic in the range of 1-6.5 kg (44.42%), 6.5-12 kg (30.11%) and 12-17.5 kg
(25.47%); metal in the range of 1.5-11.5 kg (43.15%), 11.5-21.5 kg (30.59%) and 21.5-31.5 kg
(26.26%); glass: 0.5-9.5 kg (60.65%), 9.5-18.5 kg (0%), 18.5-27.5 kg (22.18%), 27.5-36.5 kg
(0%) and 36.5-45.5 kg (17.17%); cardboard: 1-14.5 kg (70.59%) and 14.5-28 kg (29.41%);
plastic woven sack: 0.75-12.75 kg (70.59%) and 12.75-24.75 kg (29.41%); jute woven sack: 2-
40 kg (75.61%) and 40-78 kg (24.39%); rubber from Shopkeepers only in the range of 1-8 kg
(65.61%), 8-15 kg (5.10%), 15-22 kg (0%), 22-29 kg (0%) and 29-36 kg (29.29%) (Table-
XXXV).
Half (50%) of SEM dealing with rubber material were observed to purchase rubber
waste/tires from IWB only and other half (50%) were observed to purchase from Shopkeepers
only. Most (76.47%) of SEM were observed to transport less than four vehicles per month to
Wholesale Waste Dealers (WWD) for sale of purchased waste and 23.53% were observed to
transport 4-6 vehicles per month for sale of purchased waste. The daily earning of SEM from the
purchase and sale of waste was observed to range from Rs. 125-584 (55.56%), Rs. 584-1043
(34.73%) and Rs.1043-1502 (9.71%) (Table- XXXV).
59.94% of SEM was observed to be aware about their role in Recycling of Solid Waste and
only 6.71% each were observed to be aware about Environmental Laws, Conservation of
Resources and Protection of Environment. Most 89.71% of SEM was observed to be aware
about their role in helping Municipality, whereas only 7.86% of SEM was observed to get help
from Municipality (Table- XXXV).
Table- XXXV: Socio-Economic Status of Small Enterprise Middleman (SEM) inStudy Area (Kathua Town).
S.No Survey enquire (As perquestionnaire format-III forSmall Enterprises Middleman)
Percentage ofSmall EnterpriseMiddleman (SEM)
S.No Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format-iii forSmall Enterprise Middleman)
Percentage ofSmall EnterpriseMiddleman(SEM)
1
2
3
4(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Age20-40 years40-60 years60-80 years
Duration in Business3-6 years6-9 years9-12 years12-15 years
Percentage of SEM CollectingWaste fromIWB onlyIWB and RagpickerIWB, Ragpicker andCommon man/shopkeeperRagpicker onlyIWB and Commonman/ShopkeeperCommon man/ Shopkeeper
Daily purchase of WastePlastic (kg)5-7070-135135-200Metal (kg)13.5-130.5130.5-247.5247.5-364.5364.5-481.5Paper (kg)3-9393-183183-273273-363363-453Glass (kg)15-6969-123123-177Rubber (kg)5-5555-105105-155155-205Cardboard (kg)3.8-78.878.8-153.8153.8-228.8Plastic woven sack (kg)1-1212-2323-34
61.92%35.14%2.94%
45.42%40.15%9.51%4.92%
26.47%26.47%14.71%
5.88%17.65%
8.82%
70.41%26.03%3.56%
79.61%11.15%9.247%1%
69.24%16.70%8.40%3.55%2.11%
78.40%11.26%10.34%
76.48%0%0%23.52%
76.48%5.88%17.64%
50%40%10%
(viii)
5
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Jute Woven Sack (kg)5-4040-7575-110
Quantitative Purchase of WasteMaterial per Day fromRagpickersPlastic (kg)1-5.55.5-10Paper (kg)1-3.53.5-6Metal (kg)0.35-1.551.55-2.752.75-3.95Glass (kg)0.50-1.581.58-2.66Cardboard (kg)0.15-2.302.30-4.45
IWBPlastic (kg)2-6.76.7-11.411.4-16.1Paper (kg)2.5-5.75.7-8.98.9-12.112.1-15.3Metal (kg)2.25-6.076.07-9.899.89-13.7113.71-17.53Glass (kg)1-55-9Cardboard (kg)1.5-7.57.5-13.5Plastic Woven Sack (kg)0.15-0.740.74-1.331.33-1.921.92-2.51Jute Woven Sack (kg)2-1111-20Rubber (kg)0.2-0.9
50%25%25%
65.11%34.89%
70.53%29.47%
25.67%47.19%27.14%
47.72%57.08%
69.53%30.47%
61.41%29.41%9.18%
28.61%32.49%9.36%29.54%
29.54%11.63%14.71%44.12%
65.59%34.41%
69.18%30.82%
55.10%10.11%5.38%29.41%
70.59%29.41%
27.22%
.
S.No Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format–III forSmall Enterprises Middlemen )
Percentageof SmallEnterprisesMiddlemen(SEM)
S.No Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format-III forSmall Enterprises Middlemen)
Percentage ofSmallEnterprisesMiddlemen(SEM)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
6
7
0.9-1.61.6-2.32.3-3.03.0-3.73.7-4.44.4-5.1Common men/ ShopkeeperPaper (kg)1-1010-1919-28Plastic (kg)1-6.56.5-1212-17.5Metal (kg)1.5-11.511.5-21.521.5-31.5Glass (kg)0.5-9.59.5-18.518.5-27.527.5-36.536.5-45.5Cardboard (kg)1-14.414.4-28Rubber (kg) (from Shopkeepersonly)1-88-1515-2222-2929-36Plastic Woven Sack (kg)0.75-12.7512.75-24.75Jute Woven Sack (kg)2-4040-70Percentage of SEM purchasingRubber Waste/ Tyres fromIWB OnlyShopkeeper OnlyNumber of Transport VehiclesCarrying Waste to WWD perMonth1-22-44-6
50.56%0%0%11.11%0%11.11%
55.28%18.25%26.47%
44.42%30.11%25.17%
43.15%30.59%26.26%
60.65%0%22.18%0%17.17%
70.59%29.41%
65.61%5.10%0%0%29.29%
70.59%29.41%
75.61%24.39%
50%50%
76.47%17.65%5.88%
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Daily earning from the WasteCollected (Rs.)Rs. 125-584Rs. 584-1043Rs. 1043-1502
Awareness about their role inRecycling of Solid Waste
Awareness about theEnvironmental Laws
Awareness about their role inthe Conservation of Resources
Awareness about their role inthe Protection of Environment
Awareness about their role inHelping Municipality
Percentage of SEM get Helpfrom Municipality
55.56%34.73%9.71%
59.94%
6.67%
4.65%
3.17%
89.71%
7.86%
4.6. d Socio-Economic Status of Wholesale Waste Dealers (WWD) in Study Area
(Kathua Town) (Table- XXXVI, Fig-38-47).
On the basis of survey in the Study Area, 40% each of the surveyed WWD were observed
to be in the groups 25-35 years and 35-45 years followed by 20% in the age group 45-55 years.
Most (65%) WWD were observed in the business of waste purchase and sale from 3-14 years
followed by (20%) from 14-25 years and (10%) from 25-36 years. Most (80%) of WWD were
observed to purchase waste from SEM only followed by some (20%) from both SEM and IWB
(Table-XXXVI).
The amount of different types of wastes purchased daily by WWD was observed to be
plastic in the range of 100-400 kg (50%), 400-700 kg (25%) and 700-1000 kg (25%); metal in
the range of 100-550 kg (30.86%), 550-1000 kg (29.91%), 1000-1450 kg (24.94%) and 1450-
1900 kg (14.29%); paper in the range of 120-400 kg (60%), 400-680 kg (20%), 680-960 kg
(10%) and 960-1240 kg (10%); glass: 200-600 kg (70%), 600-1000 kg (20%) and 1000-1400 kg
(10%); rubber: 123-423 kg (70%), 423-723 kg (20%) and 723-1023 kg (10%); cardboard: 150-
380 kg (30.33%), 380-610 kg (34.45%), 610-840 kg (10%), 840-1070 kg (12.22%) and 1070-
1300 kg (13%); plastic woven sack: 14-82 kg (50%) and 82-150 kg (50%); jute woven sack;
28-164 kg (50%) and 164-300 kg (50%) (Table- XXXVI).
The quantitative purchase of waste materials by WWD per day from IWB was observed to
be plastic in the range of 2-9.1 kg (65%) and 9.1-16.2 kg (35%); paper: 2.5-9 kg (30%) and 9-
15.5 kg (70%); metal: 2.25-9.90 kg (22.22%) and 9.90-17.55 kg (77.78%); glass- 1-5 kg (60%)
and 5-9 kg (40%); cardboard: 1.5-7.5 kg (70%) and 7.5-13.5 kg (30%); rubber: 0.2-1.8 kg
(70%), 1.8-3.4 kg (20%) and 3.4-5.0 kg (10%); plastic woven sack: 0.15-1.33 kg (77.10%) and
1.33-2.51 kg (22.90%); jute woven sack: 2-11 kg (61.41%) and 11-20 kg (38.59%); whereas the
quantitative purchase of waste materials from SEM were observed to be plastic in the range of 5-
70 kg (62.5%), 70-135 kg (12.5%) and 135-200 kg (25%); paper in the range of 3-93 kg (50%),
93-183 kg (15%), 183-273 kg (15%), 273-363 kg (10%) and 363-453 kg (10%); metal: 13.5-
130.5 kg (28.57%), 130.5-247.5 kg (14.28%), 247.5-364.5 kg (14.28%) and 364.5-481.5 kg
(42.97%); glass: 15-69 kg (40%), 69-123 kg (30%) and 123-177 kg (30%);
Table XXXVI Socio-Economic Status of Wholesale Waste Dealer (WWD) in Study
Area (Kathua Town)S.No Survey enquiry (As per
questionnaire format-IV forWholesale Waste Dealer)
Percentage ofWholesale WasteDealer (WWD)
S.No Survey enquire (As perquestionnaire format-IV forWholesale Waste Dealer)
Percentage ofWholesale WasteDealer (WWD)
1
2
3
4(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
5
(i)
Age25-35 years35-45 years45-55 years
Duration in Business3-14 years14-25 years25-36 years36-47 years
Percentage of WWDCollecting waste fromSEM onlyBoth SEM and IWB
Daily purchase of wastePlastic (kg)100-400400-700700-1000Metal (kg)150-550550-10001000-14501450-1900Paper (kg)120-400400-690690-960960-1240Glass (kg)200-600600-10001000-1400Rubber (kg)123-423423-723723-1023Cardboard (kg)150-380380-610610-840840-10701070-1300Plastic Woven Sack (kg)14-8282-150Jute Woven Sack (kg)28.164164-300
Quantitative Purchase ofWaste Materials per DayfromIWBPlastic (kg)
40%40%20%
65%20%10%5%
80%20%
50%25%25%
30.86%29.91%24.94%14.29%
60%20%10%10%
70%20%10%
70%20%10%
30.33%34.45%10.00%12.22%13.00%
50%50%
50%50%
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
2-9.19.1-16.2Paper (kg)2.5-99-15.5Metal (kg)2.25-9.909.90-17.55Glass (kg)1-55-9Cardboard (kg)1.5-7.57.5-13.5Rubber (kg)0.2-1.81.8-3.43.4-5Plastic woven sack (kg)0.15-1.331.33-2.51Jute woven sack (kg)2-1111-20SEMPlastic (kg)5-7070-135135-200Paper (kg)3-9393-183183-273273-363363-453Metal (kg)13.5-130.5130.5-247.5247.5-364.5364.5-481.5Glass (kg)15-6969-123123-177Cardboard (kg)3.8-78.878.8-153.8153.8-228.8Rubber (kg)5-5555-105105-155155-205Plastic woven (kg)1-1212-2323-34
65%35%
30%70%
22.22%77.78%
60%40%
70%30%
70%10%
77.10%22.90%
61.41%38.59%
62.5%12.5%25%
50%15%15%10%10%
28.57%14.28%14.28%42.87%
40%30%30%
55.56%22.22%22.22%
50%15%15%20%
40%35%25%
Contd….
S.No Survey enquiry (As perquestionnaire format-IV forWholesale Waste Dealer)
Percentage ofWholesale WasteDealer (WWD)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Jute Woven Sack( kg)5-4040-7575-110
Percentage of WWDPurchasing RubberWaste/Tyres fromSEM OnlyBoth SEM and IWB
Number of TransportVehicles Carrying WastePer Month to RecyclingUnit
3-1111-1919-2727-3535-4343-5151-59Daily Earning from theWaste Collected.
Rs.1300-2300Rs. 2300-3300Rs. 3300-4300Rs. 4300-5300
Awareness about their rolein Recycling of Solid Waste
Awareness about theEnvironmental Laws
Awareness about their rolein Conservation ofResources
Awareness about their rolein the Protection ofEnvironment
Awareness about their rolein Helping Municipality
Percentage of WWD getHelp from Municipality
40%35%35%
70%30%
50%15%10%5%5%5%10%
40%40%10%10%
70%
0%
0%
0%
100%
5%
Cardboard: 3.8-78.8 kg (55.56%), 78.8-153.8 kg (22.22%) and 153.8-228.8 kg (22.22%);
rubber: 5-55 kg (50%), 55-105 kg (15%) and 105-155 kg (15%) and 155-205 kg (20%); plastic
woven sack: 1-12 kg (40%), 12-23 kg (35%) and 23-34 kg (25%); jute woven sack: 5-40 kg
(40%), 40-75 kg (35%) and 75-110 kg (25%).
Most (70%) of WWD dealing with rubber waste material were observed to purchase
rubber waste/tyres from SEM only and some (30%) from both SEM and IWB. Most (50%) of
WWD were observed to sell waste by transporting 3-11 vehicles per month, 15% transporting
11-19 vehicles per month and 10% transporting 19-27 vehicles per month carrying waste to
recycling units. The daily earning from the purchase and sale of waste was observed to range
from Rs. 1300-2300 (40%), Rs. 2300-3300 (40%), Rs. 3300-4300 (10%) and Rs. 4300-5300
(10%).
Most (70%) of WWD were observed to be aware about their role in Recycling of Solid
Waste, but none was observed to be aware about Environmental Laws, Conservation of
Resources and Environmental Protection. At the same time they surveyed WWD were observed
to be aware about their role in helping Municipality is 100% and even few (5%) were observed to
get help from Municipality (Table- XXXVI).
4.7 SOCIO-PERSONAL SURVEY REGARDING HEALTH AND AWARENESS
ABOUT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMAENT IN KATHUA TOWN.
4.7. a In the Residential Areas (Households) (Table- XXXVII).On the basis of socio-personal survey conducted in the Study Area, the number of family members
per surveyed households was observed to range from 4-8 having 38% of the surveyed households with 6
family members, 32% of the households with 5 family members, 15% with 7 family members and 12%
with 4 family members. Only 3% of the surveyed households were observed to be with 8 family
members. Most (55%) of the family members in the surveyed households were observed to be
males and (45%) were observed to be females.
The percentage of males in the age groups of 0-20 years, 20-40 years and >40 years were
observed to be 42.20%, 30.40% and 27.40% respectively, whereas the percentage of females in
the age group of 0-20 years, 20-40 years and >40 years were observed to be 26.15%, 30.11% and
43.74% respectively. The monthly income per household was observed to be more than Rs.
10,000 (53%), Rs. 5000-10,000 (32%) and Rs. 1000-5000 (15%) as per surveyed data.
57% of the surveyed households (Residential areas) were observed to be installed with
Municipal dustbins, but only 37% of the surveyed residents were reported to have Municipal bin
for waste disposal, rest of the residents were observed to dispose off their waste in drains (12%),
road (24%) and open space (27%).
As per respondents, waste disposal by Municipality in the surveyed Residential areas
(Households) was done at weekly intervals (53.69%) followed by fortnightly (28.90%) and daily
(11.10%). However, in some (6.31%) areas, the waste disposal is done at an interval of month.
Most (81%) of the respondents having awareness regarding recycling/reuse of waste were
observed to segregate waste before disposing off. The percentage frequencies of aware
respondents regarding awareness about recycling/reuse of paper, plastic, jute, cardboard, metal
and glass were observed to be 100%, 42.35%, 35.29%, 22.36%, 12.95% and 10.59%
respectively.
About 25% of the surveyed households were observed to be located near the dumping
sites (like drains, open space where the waste disposal by Municipality was not regular). The
residents in the 40% households were observed to suffer from foul smell, dusty air and spread of
waste followed by 24% suffering only from foul smell and spread of waste and 8% each
suffering from foul smell only, both from foul smell and dusty air, foul smell, files or germs
infestations around their residence and spread of waste. 53% of the respondents were observed to
view Land pollution (open dumping of waste) as the most dangerous pollution, whereas 43% of
the respondents were observed to view Air and Noise pollution by vehicles as the most
dangerous pollution in the area.
29% of the surveyed households were observed to be located near Medical Institutes. The
residents in 46.19% of the households near Medical Institutes were observed to view Medical
waste as a cause of bad look and odour, whereas 53.81% viewed Medical waste to have no effect
on the health.
Only 8.91% of the surveyed households were observed to have privately and door to door
waste collection scheme at regular intervals of daily (27.78%), alternatively (33.33%) and
irregular interval (38.89%) respectively. 59% of the surveyed households were observed to be of
the view of collecting waste door to door daily. 55% respondents of the surveyed households
were observed to have opinion that waste disposal by only land filling method should be
implemented in Kathua Town (Table- XXXVII).
Table- XXXVII: Socio-Personal Survey Regarding Health and Awareness about Solid
Waste Management in Residential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town.S.No Parameters Studied % age S.No. Parameters Studied % age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)
Number of family members perSurveyed Households45678Number of Family Members SexWise in Surveyed HouseholdsMaleFemaleAge wise sex of surveyed residentsMale0-20 years20-40 years> 40 yearsFemale0-20 years20-40 years> 40 years
Educational Qualification ofSurveyed Residents1-12th
Under graduateGraduatePost Graduate
Monthly Income of SurveyedResidentsRs. 1000-5000Rs. 5000-10000Rs.>10000
Site of waste disposal used bysurveyed residents.RoadDrainsOpen SpaceMunicipal bin
Installation of Dust bin byMunicipality in Surveyed Area
Waste Disposal by Municipality inSurveyed Area at an Interval ofDailyWeeklyFortnightlyMonthly
Awareness regardingRecycling/Reused of Waste.
Awareness regarding Type ofWaste Recycling/ReusedPaperPlasticJuteCardboardMetalGlass
12%32%38%15%3%
55%45%
42.2%30.40%27.40%
26.15%30.11%43.74%
46.71%19.70%18.18%15.41%
15%32%53%
24%12%27%37%
57%
11.10%53.69%28.90%6.31%
81%
100%42.35%35.29%22.36%12.95%10.59%
11
12
13
(i)
(ii)
(iii)(iv)(v)
(vi)(vii)
(viii)
14
(a)
(b)
(c)(d)
15
16
(i)(ii)
17
18
(i)(ii)(iii)
Surveyed ResidentsSegregating Waste beforeDisposing Off
Surveyed Household locatednear Dumping Sites (withoutRegular Disposing Off Waste)
The most Affecting Effect ofnear by Dumping SitesFoul smell, Dusty air andSpread of WasteFoul smell and Flies or GermsInfest more around ResidentFoul smell onlyFoul smell and Spread of WasteFoul smell, Flies or GermsInfest more around Residentand Dusty airFoul smell and Dusty airFoul smell, Flies or GermsInfest more around Resident andSpread of Waste onlySpread of Waste Only
The most Dangerous Pollutionin view of Surveyed ResidentsLand pollution (Open Dumpingof Waste) OnlyAir and Noise pollution byvehiclesAir pollution by Waste OnlyNoise pollution by CommercialActivities Only
Location of SurveyedHouseholds Near Institutes
The most affecting effect ofMedical Waste in view ofSurveyed Residents Nearlocated Medical InstitutesGive bad look and odourNo effect
Implementation of privatelypaid door to door WasteCollection Scheme inSurveyed Household
Door to door Collection ofWaste at Regular Intervals ofDaily
AlternativelyIrregular Intervals
46%
25%
40%
4%
8%24%4%
8%8%
4%
53%
43%
2%2%
29%
46.19%53.81%
8.91%
27.78%33.33%38.89%
Contd….
S. No. Parameters Studied % age S. No. Parameters Studied % age
19
(i)(ii)
20
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
(v)(vi)
Daily Waste Collection (to beImplemented) in view of SurveyedResidentsDoor to DoorArea to Area
Mode of Waste Disposal (to beImplemented) in view of SurveyedResidentsLandfill OnlyLandfill and Incineration MethodLandfill and Composting MethodLandfill, incineration and CompostingMethodOpen Dumping OnlyNo Response
59%41%
55%13%12%6%
10%4%
21 (a)
(i)
(ii)(iii)
21 (b)
(i)
(ii)(iii)
1
Health status of Individuals inInstitutes located nearDumping SitesOccasionally Suffering Only(OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Health status of Individuals inInstitutes located far offDumping SitesOccasionally Suffering Only(OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
38.66%
31.40%29.94%
31.54%
16.69%51.77%
Table- XXXVIII: Age wise and Sexwise Health Status of Residents Residing Near
and Far Off Dumping Sites in Kathua Town.Age
group(years)
Health Status of the Residents
Near Dumping Site* Far off Dumping Sites**Occasionally
suffering (OS)Frequently
suffering (FS)Healthy
(H)Occasionally
suffering (OS)Frequently
suffering (FS)Healthy
(H)Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
0-20
20-40
>40
28.57
31.25
51.43
26.67
38.46
55.56
42.86
25
28.57
46.66
23.07
22.22
28.57
43.75
20
26.67
38.47
22.22
28
26
31.82
45.45
25
33
26.67
14
13.64
15.16
16.67
14
45.33
60
54.54
39.39
58.33
53
* Waste disposal sites like drains, open spaces where waste disposed by Municipality is not regular.
** Sites with regular cleanup and waste disposal by Municipality.
All values shown in table are in %age.
Near the dumping sites like drains, open space where the waste disposal by Municipality
was not regular, the percentages of males in the age groups 0-20 year, 20-40 years and >40 years
which were observed to suffer frequently were 42.86%, 25% and 28.57% respectively and the
percentages of females in the age groups 0-20 year, 20-40 years and > 40 years which were
observed to suffer frequently were 46.66%, 23.07% and 22.22% respectively. The percentages of
healthy males and females in the age group of 0-20 years were 28.57% and 26.67%, in the age
group of 20-40 years were 43.75% and 38.47% and in the age group of more than 40 years were
20% and 22.22% respectively near the dumping sites. Whereas in the households away from the
dumping sites the percentages of males in the age groups of 0-20 years, 20-40 yeas and >40 years
which were observed to suffer frequently were 26.67%, 14% and 13.64% respectively and that of
females in the age groups of 0-20 years, 20-40 yeas and > 40 years were observed to be 15.16%,
16.67% and 14% respectively. The percentages of healthy males and females in the age group of
0-20 years were observed to be 45.33% and 39.39% respectively, in the age group of 20-40 years
were observed to be 60% and 58.33% and that of >40 years were observed to be 54.54% and
53% respectively (Table- XXXVIII).
The percentage frequencies of occurrence of gastrointestinal infection, respiratory
ailments, viral infection, allergic problems and malaria in the males of age group of 0-20 years
near the dumping sites were observed to be 31.10%, 61.46%, 30.49%, 15.40% and 13.10%
respectively and those far off from the dumping sites was observed to be 28%, 42%, 16%, and
7% respectively. The percentage frequencies of occurrence of gastrointestinal infection,
respiratory ailments, viral infection allergic problems and malaria in the females of age group of
0-20 years near the dumping sites was observed to be 45.10%, 69.11%, 40.10%, 14.50% and
27.20 respectively and those far off from the dumping sites was observed to be 28%, 51%, 35%,
22% and 18% respectively (Table-XXXIX).
Males in age group of 20-40 years exhibited the percentage frequencies of occurrence of
gastrointestinal infection, respiratory ailments, viral infection, allergic problems and malaria as
47.12%, 62.5%, 31%, 12% and 18% respectively near dumping sites and 40.78%, 55%, 29.10%
10.71% and 10.71% far off from dumping sites respectively, whereas the females in the same age
group exhibited the percentage frequencies of occurrence of various respective diseases as
44.10%, 66.67%, 34.16%, 16% and 25% respectively near dumping sites and as 51.10%, 61%,
40%, 10% and 10% respectively far off from dumping sites (Table-XXXIX).
The percentage frequencies of occurrence of gastrointestinal infection, respiratory
ailments, viral infections, allergy problems and malaria in the males of age group of >40years
near the dumping sites was observed to be 50%, 72%, 47%, 36%, 33.33% respectively and those
far off from the dumping sites were observed to be 35.67%, 60.76%, 46.66%, 30.34% and
28.10% respectively. The percentage frequencies of occurrence of gastrointestinal infection,
respiratory ailments, viral infection, allergic problems and malaria in the females of age group of
>40 years at near
Table-XXXIX: Agewise and Sexwise Occurrence of Various Communicable
Diseases in Residents Residing Near Dumping Sites and Far off
Dumping Sites in Kathua Town.AgeGroup(Year)
Types of Diseases%Age Frequencies of Occurrence of Various
Communicable Diseases in Residents Residing
NearDumping
Sites
Male
NearDumping
Sites
Female
Far OffDumping
Sites
Male
Far OffDumping
Sites
Female
0-20
20-40
>40
Gastrointestinal- InfectionRespiratory- AilmentsViral- InfectionAllergic- ProblemsMalaria
Gastrointestinal- InfectionRespiratory- AilmentsViral- InfectionAllergic- ProblemsMalaria
Gastrointestinal- InfectionRespiratory- AilmentsViral- InfectionAllergic- ProblemsMalaria
31.10%61.46%30.49%15.40%13.10%
47.12%62.5%31%12%18%
50%72%47%36%
33.33%
45.10%69.11%40.10%14.50%27.20%
44.10%66.67%34.16%
16%25%
43.75%62%44%
30.1%29.10%
28%42%16%13%7%
40.78%55%
29.10%10.71%10.71%
35.67%60.76%46.66%30.34%28.10%
28%51%35%22%18.1%
51.10%61%40%10%10%
40.10%66.44%32.14%38.16%22.24%
the dumping sites was observed to be 43.75%, 62%, 44%, 30.1% and 29.10% respectively and
those far off from the dumping sites was observed to be 40.10%, 66.44%, 32.14%, 38.16% and
22.24% respectively (Table-XXXIX).
4.7 b In Commercial Areas (Shops) (Table- XL).
On the basis of socio-personal survey conducted in the Study Area, the average number of
Individuals in the surveyed shops was observed to range from 2-5 in various types of shops.
36.76% of the respondents were observed to disposes off waste on the road followed by 25.16%
disposing off waste at open space, 16.67% in the drains and only 21.41% of the respondents were
observed to dispose off waste in the Municipal bin, though 40.77% of the surveyed Commercial
area was observed to be installed with dustbin (Table-XL).
59% of the respondents were observed to have awareness regarding recycling/reuse of the
waste and were observed to segregate waste before disposing off. The percentage frequencies of
the aware respondents regarding the recycling/reused of paper, plastic, metal, cardboard, glass
jute, rubber and wood were observed to be 100%, 61.18%, 40.64%, 27.46%, 13.28%, 8.19%,
6.31% and 6.49% respectively. All the surveyed Chemist shops, Garage and Shoes making shops
were observed to segregate recyclable/reused waste before disposal and only 33% of the
surveyed Dhabas, Karyana shops, Vegetables/ Fruit shops and Tailor/ Boutique shops were
observed to segregate waste before disposal. 34.19% of the surveyed shops were observed to be
located near the dumping sites like drains, open space where the waste disposal by Municipality
was not regular and 60% of these surveyed respondents were observed to have suffering from
foul smell, dusty air and spread of waste followed by 20% suffering only from foul smell and
dusty air and 20% suffering from foul smell and flies or germs infestation around their shop.
49.19% of the respondents were observed to view Land pollution (open dumping of waste) as the
most dangerous pollution, whereas 39.15% of the respondents were observed to view Air and
Noise pollution by vehicles as the most dangerous pollution in the area (Table- XL).
28.15% of the surveyed shops were observed to be located near the Medical Institutes and the
respondents in 26.32% of the shops near Medical Institutes were observed to view Medical waste
as a cause of a bad look and odour, whereas 73.68% viewed Medical waste to have no effect on
the health. The percentage of the respondents suffering frequently at near the dumping sites
(where the waste disposal by Municipality was irregular) was observed to be more (25%) as
compared with that (12.5%) of those far off from dumping sites. Whereas the percentage of
healthy individuals (Shopkeeper) at nearby dumping sites was observed to be less (25%) as
compared with that (50%) of those far off from dumping sites (Table-XL).
50% of the respondents near the dumping sites (like drains, open space where the waste
disposal by Municipally was irregular) were observed to view dumping sites and vehicular
pollution as the cause of ill health and only 10% of the respondents were observed to view
dumping sites as only the cause of ill health, whereas 55% of the respondents far off from
dumping sites were observed to view vehicular pollution as the cause of ill health in the area
(Table-XL).
The percent frequencies of occurrence of respiratory-aliments, gastro-intestinal infection,
viral-infection, allergic-problems and malaria in individuals working in shops located near
dumping sites were observed to be of 60%, 40%, 30%, 20% and 20% respectively and those far-
off from the dumping sites were observed to be 50%, 30%, 25%, 20% and 15 % respectively
(Table-XL).
Only 8.33% of the surveyed shops were observed to have shop to shop waste collection
scheme at an regular intervals of daily (40%) and alternatively (60%). 51.67% of the surveyed
shopkeepers favoured daily collection of waste from shop to shop and 48.33% favoured daily
collection of waste from area to area. 88.33% of the surveyed shopkeepers were observed to have
opinion that waste disposal by only land filling method should be implemented in Kathua Town
(Table-XL).
4.7. c In Instititutional Areas (Table -XLI).
On the basis of socio-personal survey conducted in the Study Area, the average number
of individuals in the surveyed Institutes was observed to range from 35-761 in various types of
Institutes. 40% of the surveyed Institutes were observed to dispose off waste in the Municipal bin
followed by 35% disposing waste at open space, 17% Surveyed Institutes disposing on the roads
and even 8% disposing waste in drains. 64% of the surveyed Institutes were observed to be
installed with dustbin.
The waste disposal by Municipality in the surveyed Institutes was observed to be at a
weekly interval (59.10%) followed by fortnightly (20-23 %) and daily (20.67%). 75% of the
respondents of the surveyed Institutes were observed to segregate the waste before disposal.
Table- XL: Socio-Personal Survey Regarding Health and Awareness about Solid Waste
Management in Commercial Areas (Shops) of Kathua Town.S.No Parameters Studied % age S. No Parameters Studied % age
1
abcdefghijklmnopqrst
2
3
4
5
6
abcde
Average Number ofIndividuals Working inSurveyed ShopsTeaDhabaTextilePhotostat/TypingSTD/PCOChemistKaryanaElectricalFurniture MakingDry CleanerVegetable/FruitStationaryHardware/ SanitarywareSweetGarageTailor/BoutiqueMeat/ChickenJuiceHair Dresser/ Beauty ParlourShoe Making
Site of Waste disposal usedby Surveyed ShopkeeperRoadDrainsOpen SpaceMunicipal Bin
Installation of Dustbins byMunicipality in SurveyedArea
Waste Disposal byMunicipality in SurveyedArea at an interval ofDailyWeeklyFortnightly
Awareness regardingrecycling/ reused of waste
Awareness regarding type ofwasteRecycled/reused for differenttypes of ShopsPaperPlasticMetalCardboardGlass
2±0.54 (1-3)4±0.57(3-6)3±1.73 (1-5)4±2.08 (1-7)2±0.57 (1-3)3±1.52 (1-6)3±1.73 (1-5)3±1 (1-4)5±1 (3-6)2±0.57 (1-3)2±0.57 (1-3)3±0.57 (1-4)4±2.51 (1-7)4±1 (2-5)3±1.73 (4-8)3±1.52 (1-5)2±0.57 (1-3)3±1.52 (1-5)3±1 (1-4)4±2 (1-6)
36.76%16.67%25.16%21.41%
40.77%
15.81%72.73%11.46%
59%
100%61.18%40.64%27.46%13.28%
fgh
7
8
abcdefghijklmnopqrst
9
10
a
bc
11
a
b
cd
12(a)
JuteRubberWood
Percentage of ShopkeeperSegregating of Waste BeforeDisposal
Type of Shops SegregateWaste before DisposalTeaDhabaTextilePhotostat/TypingSTD/PCOChemistKaryanaElectricalFurniture MakingDry CleanerVegetable/FruitStationaryHardware/ SanitarywareSweetGarageTailor/BoutiqueMeat/ChickenJuiceHair Dresser/ Beauty ParlourShoe Making
Surveyed Shops locatednear the dumping Sites(without regular disposingoff Waste)
The most affecting effect ofnearby dumping SitesFoul Smell and flies or germsinfest more around shopFoul Smell and Dusty AirFoul Smell. Dusty Air andSpread of Waste
The most DangerousPollution in view ofIndividuals working atShopsLand pollution (opendumping of Waste) OnlyAir and Noise Pollution byVehiclesAir Pollution by Waste OnlyNoise Pollution byCommercial activities only
Location of Surveyed Shopsnear Medical Institutes
8.19%6.31%6.49%
56%
66.66%33.33%62.15%60.21%63.71%100%33.33%66.66%59.10%55.90%33.33%59.10%64.20%65.66%100%33.33%60.11%66.66%66.67%100%
34.19%
20%
20%
60%
49.19%
39.15%
1.50%10.16%
28.15%
Contd….
S. No Parameters Studied % age S. No Parameters Studied % age
12 (b)
ab
13(a)
abc
13 (b)
abc
14 (a)
ab
c
d
14 (b)
ab
c
d
15 (a)
abcde
The most affecting effecting ofMedical Waste in view ofworking Individuals of ShopsGive Bad Look and OdourNo Effect
Health Status of individualsworking in Shops nearbyDumping SitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Health Status of individualsworking in Shops located FarOff Dumping SitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Reason for ill health in view ofIndividuals Working in Shopslocated near Dumping SitesDumping Sites OnlyDumping Sites and vehicularPollutionDumping Sites, Hospitals andWeather changesDumping Sites and WeatherChanges
Reason for ill health in view ofIndividuals Working in Shopslocated far-off Dumping SitesDumping Sites OnlyDumping Sites and vehicularPollutionDumping Sites, Hospitals andWeather changesDumping Sites and WeatherChanges
Frequency of occurrence ofvarious Communicable diseasesin individuals working in Shopslocated near Dumping SitesRespiratory -AlimentsGastrointestinal-InfectionsViral-InfectionsAllergic-ProblemsMalaria
26.32%73.68%
50%25%25%
37.50%12.50%50.00%
10%50%
10%
30%
37.5%55%
5%
2.5%
60%40%30%20%20%
15 (b)
abcde
16
17
ab
18
ab
19
abcd
Frequency of occurrence of variousCommunicable diseases inindividuals working in Shops locatedFar Off Dumping SitesRespiratory-AlimentsGastrointestinal-InfectionsViral-InfectionsAllergic-ProblemsMalaria
Implemented of privately paid Shopsto Shops Waste collection Scheme inSurveyed Shops
Shop to Shop Collection of Waste atregular intervals ofDailyAlternatively
Daily Waste Collection (to beimplemented) in view of workingindividuals of Surveyed ShopsShop to ShopArea to Area
Mode of Waste Disposal (to beimplemented) in view of workingindividuals of Surveyed ShopsLandfill OnlyLandfill and Incineration MethodLandfill and Composting MethodLandfill, Incineration and CompostingMethod
50%30%25%20%15%
8.33%
40%60%
51.67%48.33%
88.33%5%5%1.67%
The percentage frequencies of the aware respondents regarding the recycling/ reuse of
paper, plastic, cardboard, metal and glass were observed to be 100%, 52.65%, 52.65%, 40.58%
and 35.10% respectively.
18% of the surveyed Institutes were observed to be located near the dumping sites (like
drains, open space where the waste disposal by Municipality was irregular). The respondents in
42.86% of these Institutes were observed to be effected from foul smell, flies or germs infections
and dusty air followed by 25.75% suffering from foul smell and dusty air only and 31.39%
suffering from foul smell, flies or germs infections around Institute, dusty air and spread of
waste. 48% of the surveyed respondents were observed to view Land pollution (open dumping of
waste) as the most dangerous pollution, whereas 48% of the respondents were observed to view
Air and Noise pollution by vehicles as the most dangerous pollution in the area (Table- XLI)
15% of the surveyed Institutes were observed to be located near the Medical Institutes.
40.45% of the respondents of the surveyed Institutes were observed to view Medical waste as a
cause of bad look and odour and 59.55% open Medical waste to have no effect on the health. The
percentage of the respondents suffering frequently with illness near the dumping sites was
observed to be more (9.29%) as compared with those (6.66%) residing from far off dumping sites
(Table- XLI).
42.86% of the respondents of the surveyed Institutes near the dumping sites (like drains,
open space where the waste disposal by Municipality was irregular) were observed to view
dumping sites only as the cause of ill health and only 14.28% of the respondents were observed
to view both dumping sites and vehicular pollution as the cause of ill health whereas 40.93% of
the respondents far off from the dumping sites were observed to view vehicular pollution as the
cause of ill health (Table- XLI).
Only 35% of the respondents of the surveyed Institutes favoured daily collection of waste from
Institute. 55% of the respondents of the surveyed Institutes were of the opinion that the waste
disposal by only land filling method should be implemented in Kathua Town (Table- XLI).
4.8 ESXISTING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
IN KATHUA TOWN.
As per information given by the Kathua Municipality, a man power of 235 persons has
been deployed for Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) in the area. The hierarchal
position of the Municipal man power is tabulated (Table- XLII). As per Municipal record, the
Municipal Solid Waste is transported to dumping site by various types of vehicles (Table-XLIII).
Solid Waste is removed from the Study Area by collecting from 80 collection points that include
62 open collection points,
Table- XLI: Socio-Personal Survey Regarding Health and Awareness about Solid Waste
Management in Institutional Areas (Offices and Schools) of Kathua Town.S. No Parameters Studied % age S. No Parameters Studied % age
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
2
abcd
3
4
abc
5
6
abcde
7
8
9
ab
c
Average number of Individuals inSurveyed InstitutesPrimary School161±126.19 (10-290)Middle School200±131.55 (21-350)High School550±240.19(290-699)Higher Secondary School761±350.15 (213-919)Bank35±7.77 (22-50)Offices68±62.18 (5-290)
Site of Waste Disposal used bysurveyed InstitutesRoadsDrainsOpen SpacesMunicipal Bins
Installation of Dustbin byMunicipality in Surveyed Area
Waste Disposal by Municipality inSurveyed Area at an interval ofDailyWeeklyFortnightly
Awareness regardingrecycling/reused of Waste
Awareness regarding type of Wasterecycling/reusedPaperPlasticCardboardMetalGlass
Surveyed Institutes segregatingWastes before disposal
Surveyed Institutes located nearDumping Sites (without regulardisposing off Waste)
The most affecting effect of near byDumping SitesFoul Smell and Dusty AirFoul Smell and flies or germs infestmore around Institute and Dusty AirFoul Smell, flies or germs infest morearound Institute, Dusty Air and Spreadof Waste
17%8%35%40%
64%
20.67%59.10%20.23%
75%
100%52.65%52.65%40.58%35.10%
70%
18%
25.75%42.86%
31.59%
10
a
b
cd
11
12
ab
13(a)
abc
13(b)
abc
14
ab
c
d
15
ab
cd
The most Dangerous Pollutionin view of Individuals ofSurveyed InstitutesLand pollution (open dumpingof Waste) OnlyAir and Noise Pollution byVehiclesAir Pollution by Waste OnlyNoise Pollution by Commercialactivities only
Location of Surveyed Institutenear Medical Institute
Most affecting effect ofMedical Waste in view ofIndividuals of InstituteGive Bad Look and OdourNo Effect
Health Status of individualsworking in Institute nearbyDumping SitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Health Status of individualsworking in Institute locatedFar Off Dumping SitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Reasons for ill health in viewof Individuals of Instituteslocated near Dumping SitesDumping Site OnlyDumping Sites and WeatherChangesDumping Sites, VehicularPollution and Weather ChangesDumping Sites and VehicularPollution
Reasons for ill health in viewof Individuals of Instituteslocated Far Off Dumping SitesWeather Changes OnlyVehicular Pollution andWeather ChangesVehicular Pollution OnlyHospital and VehicularPollution
48%
48%
2%2%
15%
40.45%59.55%
45.86%9.29%44.85%
35.91%6.66%57.43%
42.86%14.29%
28.57%
14.28%
33.49%20.93%
40.93%4.65%
Contd….
S. No Parameters Studied % age S. No Parameters Studied % age
16
ab
17
Daily Waste Collection (to beImplemented) in view of Individualsof Surveyed InstitutesInstitutes to InstitutesArea to Area
Mode of Waste Disposal (to beImplemented) in view of Individualsof Surveyed Institutes
35%75%
ab
c
d
Landfill OnlyLandfill and IncinerationMethodLandfill and CompostingMethodLandfill, Incineration andComposting Method
55%19%
15%
11%
1 filth depot covered, 2 filth depot uncovered, 05 yellow bins and 10 refuse collector bins
installed in various wards of the Municipal area (Table- XLIV).
In this existing system of the Solid Waste Management (SWM), no proper facilities for
the primary storage of waste at source of generation were observed. There was no proper
segregation of waste at source of generation, except the waste separated to be sold to waste
collectors by public itself and most of the Households, Commercial units and Institutes were
observed not to have proper bins to store their waste and many a times waste collected in plastic
or paper bag was observed to be thrown in Community bins (32.80%), on the road (25.92%),
open space (29.05%) and drains (12.22%) (Table- XLV). This creates nuisance and chocking of
drains. Waste collected from the sweeping, biomedical waste, construction and demolition waste,
garden waste and slaughter house waste are also being mixed with Municipal Solid Waste
without proper segregation at source. The existing storage facilities for Municipal Solid Waste do
not synchronies with primary and secondary collection and transportation system. The Solid
Waste collected from the Study Area used to be dumped at the banks of adjoining nullaha till last
year, but now the dumping site has been shifted to another place and that too again on the banks
of adjoining nullaha.
The waste disposal is done by open dumping except for a short period; the waste disposal
was done by land filling in which first a pit was made, it is then filled with Solid Waste and
covered with soil with the help of loader.
Table- XLII: Existing Man Power Deployment for Municipal Solid WasteManagement in Kathua Town
S.No Name of the Official Numbers
1 Administrator 01
2 Executive Officer 01
3 Executive Engineer 01
4 Sanitary Inspector 02
5 Sanitary Supervisor
(a) Permanent (03)
(b) Temporary Daily Labour (03)
06
6 Food Inspector (3 post, 2 vacant) 01
7 Sr. Asstt. Clerk 02
8 Jr. Asstt. Clerk 01
9 Work Supervisor ( 3 post, 1 vacant) 02
10 Drivers (Casual Basis) 07
11 Safai Karamchari
(a) Permanent
(b) Temporary Daily Labour
(c) Casual
87
48
70
12 Peon 02
13 Maski 04
Total 235
A critical observed revealed that part of the total Solid Waste generated at source finds its way
into storage bins installed by the by Municipal Committee of Kathua, but much of the Solid
Waste even in the storage bins is not properly disposed off and many dustbins were observed to
be over spilled and it attracts various stray animals beside providing breeding grounds for flies
and germs and part of Solid Waste in the collection site/storage bin is removed by ragpickers.
The further critical observation revealed that waste of the Hospitals is not properly disposed off
and this also find its way in the collection site to be disposed off along with Municipal waste.
Table- XLIII: Type and Number of Transportation Vehicles to Carry Municipal
Solid Waste to disposal site (Kathua Town).
S.No Types of Transportation Vehicle No of Vehicle
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Tractor
Tipper 1409
Tipper 709
Auto carriers
JCB
Ambulance
02
01
01
02
01
01
Table-XLIV: List of Ward-wise Collection Points at Study Area (Kathua Town).Ward No. Open
Collection
Points
Fifth Depot
Covered
Fifth Depot
Uncovered
Yellow Bin Refuse
collector Bin
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Total
06
01
01
01
06
04
02
01
03
01
03
-
04
02
06
15
06
62
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
02
01
-
01
-
-
01
-
-
-
-
-
01
-
01
-
-
-
05
02
-
-
01
01
-
01
-
-
-
01
01
01
01
-
-
01
10
Table- XLV Public Awareness Regarding Solid Waste Disposal and Managementin Residential, Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town.
S.No Parameters Studied Residential Area(RA)
Commercial Area(CA)
Institutional Area(IA)
Study AreaRA+CA+IA
31(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
2
3
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)
4
5
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii)
6
7
8
(i)(ii)(iii)
9
(i)(ii)(iii)
Site for Waste DisposalRoadDrainsOpen SpaceMunicipal Bin
Installation of Dustbin byMunicipality in SurveyedAreaWaste Disposal byMunicipality in SurveyedArea at an Interval ofDailyWeeklyFortnightlyMonthly
Awareness regardingRecycling/Reused of Waste
Awareness regarding type ofwaste Recycling/ReusedPaperPlasticJuteCardboardMetalGlassWoodRubber
Segregation of Waste beforeDisposing Off
Location near Dumping Site(without regular disposingoff Waste)
Health Status near DumpingSitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
Health Status Far OffDumping SitesOccasionally Suffering (OS)Frequently Suffering (FS)Healthy (H)
24%12%27%37%
57%
11.10%53.69%28.90%6.31%
81%
100%42.35%35.29%22.36%12.95%10.59%0%0%
86%
23%
38.66%31.40%
29.94%
31.54%16.69%51.77%
36.76%16.67%25.16%21.41%
40.77%
15.81%72.73%11.46%0%
59%
100%61.18%8.19%27.46%40.64%13.28%6.31%6.49%
56%
34.19%
50%25%25%
37.50%12.50%50%
17%8%35%40%
64%
20.67%59.10%20.23%0%
75%
100%52.65%0%52.65%40.58%35.10%0%0%
70%
18.1%
48.86%9.29%44.85%
35.91%6.66%57.43%
25.92%12.22%29.05%32.80%
53.92%
15.86%61.84%20.20%2.10%
71.67%
100%52.06%14.49%34.16%31.39%19.66%2.10%2.16%
70.67%
25.10%
45.84%21.90%33.26%
34.98%11.95%53.07%
Contd….
S.No Parameters Studied Residential Area
(RA)
Commercial Area
(CA)
Institutional Area
(IA)
Study Area
RA+CA+IA
3
10
11
(a)
(b)
12
(a)
(b)
13
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Location of Surveyed Area near
Medical Institute
Impact of Medical Waste as per
Surveyed Respondents (near
Medical Institutes)
Give bad look and Odour
No Effect
Daily Waste Collection (to be
Implemented) in view of
Surveyed Respondents
Door to Door
Area to Area
Mode of Waste Disposal (to be
Implemented) in view of
Surveyed Respondents
Landfill Only
Landfill and Incineration Method
Landfill and Composting Method
Landfill, Incineration and
Composting Method
Open Dumping Only
No Response
29%
46.19%
53.81%
59%
41%
55%
13%
12%
6%
10%
4%
28.15%
26.32%
73.68%
51.67%
4833%
88.33%
5%
5%
1.67%
0%
0%
15%
40.45%
59.55%
35%
75%
55%
19%
15%
11%
0%
0%
24.05%
37.65%
62.35%
48.56%
54.78%
66.11%
12.33%
10.67%
6.22%
3.33%
1.33%
Parts of the Solid Waste do not reach the collection site and it is thrown in open areas like
parks, street, on the road sides, open spaces or vacant plots or it is burnt or it is dumped into big
open drains, nullaha passing through the locality. Some Solid Waste does not find its way to the
storage bin because in some parts of the locality of some zones, Solid Waste is removed from
door to door by a tricycle storage bin. While collecting Solid Waste door to door, it is partially
segregated so that paper and polythene are collected into separate bag (Fig-48-73).
DISCUSSIONS
Solid Wastes are defined as useless, unwanted or discarded material in solid state that
arises from human activities. The problems associated with Solid Waste began at the dawn of
civilization. Before human beings become civilized, the only Solid Waste they generated was in
the form of un-utilizable portion of their hunts i.e., animal hair, bones and the night soil. With the
onset of civilization, other types of Solid Wastes like torn clothes, broken parts, discarded tools
etc. began to appear. With the progress in civilization, the quantity as well as variety of Solid
Wastes increased.
In the modern super consumerist society, every human being is veritable trash factory.
About 20-25 years ago, one could not think of going out for a shopping without taking 2 or 3
shopping bags or thallies. But now this exercise is no longer required, because every shopkeeper
likes to provide his customer with a paper bag (if the purchase is small) or a plastic bag (if the
purchase is substantial). The bigger the value of purchase, the larger and sturdier the plastic bags.
Even the vegetable vendors pull-out plastic bags from their baskets and put their vegetables/fruit
in them before handing them to the customer. On reaching home, people simply pullout all the
items from these bags and throw bags in the dustbin, thus adding to the Nation’s ever-growing
burden of the Solid Waste.
Solid Waste is generated right at the start of the process beginning with mining of raw
material. Therefore, it is generated at every stage of the manufacturing process, wherein raw
materials are transformed into finished goods for consumption. Thereafter, use of product and the
disposal of used product again generated Solid Waste.
All activities of animals, including humans result in the residual materials which are not
of immediate use where they originate and these are released into air, water and land, as a waste.
Each person throw out his daily quota of newspaper, garbage, can, bottles and other waste-large
and small-without a second thought. Waste is known as annoying headache and unending
problem or ever-growing pile of garbage. The Municipal Solid Waste generated in India contain
mainly garbage with minimum quality of paper and plastic (Abbasi and Ramasamy, 2001).
As a country proceeds on the path of industrial and urban growth, the generation of Solid
Waste in cities would continue to grow. Due to fast growing population and the advent of rapid
urbanization with industrial and commercial development, the problem of collection, transport
and disposal of Municipal Solid Waste is increasing day by day. Thus Solid Waste Management
becomes a challenging task in most of the cities of the developing countries like India.
A study of generation, storage, collection and disposal of Solid Waste is important to any
community which recognizes the potentially harmful effects of waste on public health,
environment and on its general welfare. Solid Waste comprises of countless different materials
like dust, food waste packaging in form of paper, metals, plastics or glass, discarded clothing’s,
furnishings, garden wastes as well as hazardous and radio-active wastes.
For designing the Solid Waste Management system of an area, the first important aspect
is to know how much Solid Waste is generated at the specific area. The present investigation has
been undertaken to study Generation, Disposal and Management of Solid Waste at Kathua
Town of Jammu Division.
The analysis of seasonal data of the Solid Waste (tonnes/day) generation at Study Area
(Kathua Town) revealed that the average Gross Solid Waste (tonnes/day) generation followed the
specific seasonal trend in a two year study period i.e., the average value increased from January-
March to April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and again increased from
July-September to October-December. The average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste
(tonnes/day) generation exhibited a haphazard pattern in a two year study period. The average
Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (tonnes/day) generation also exhibited the same trend as
that of average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste i.e. haphazard pattern. But average Gross Inert
Material also follows the same trend like that of average Gross Solid Waste. The average Solid
Waste (tonnes/day) separated; average Biodegradable Solid Waste (tonnes/day) separated and
average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (tonnes/day) separated did not follow a specific trend in
two years study period. The average Net Solid Waste (tonnes/day), average Net Biodegradable
(tonnes/day) and average Net Non-Biodegradable (tonnes/day) Solid Waste did not follow a
specific trend in a two years study period. The average values of Net Inert Material exhibited a
specific trend like that of average Gross Solid Waste generation during two years study period
(Table- XLVI; Fig-78).
A critical analysis of the seasonal data on Solid Waste generation in the Study Area
revealed that average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in Residential areas,
Shops, Restaurants of Commercial areas and Offices, Primary schools of Institutional areas;
average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in Residential areas, Shops and
Restaurants of Commercial areas and Banks, Offices of Institutional areas; average Gross Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in Shops, Restaurants of Commercial areas and
Offices of Institutional areas; average Inert-Material (kg/capita/day) in Restaurants, Vegetable
Markets of Commercial areas and Offices of Institutional areas; average Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separation in Restaurants of Commercial areas; average Biodegradable Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) separation in Hotels, Restaurants of Commercial areas and Offices of
Institutional areas; average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation in
Restaurants of Commercial areas; average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in Residential
areas, Shops, Restaurants of Commercial areas and Offices of Institutional areas; average Net
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in Residential areas, Shops, Restaurants of
Commercial areas; average Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in
Restaurants of Commercial areas and Offices of Institutional areas; average Non-Biodegradable
Solid Waste (kg/day) in Bus Stands of Commercial areas; average Solid Waste (kg/day),
average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day), average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/day) generation in Vegetable Market of Commercial areas followed a specific trend i.e., the
respective values of Solid Waste generation and separation increased from January-March to
April-June, decreased from April-June to July-September and again increased from July-
September to October-December during two years study period (Table-XLVII).
The average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in Cinema of Commercial
areas and Hospitals, Middle schools, Higher secondary schools, Colleges of Institutional areas;
average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) in Cinemas of Commercial areas
and Hospitals, Middle schools, Higher secondary schools, Colleges of Institutional areas;
average Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in Cinema of
Commercial areas and Middle schools and Higher secondary schools of Institutional areas;
average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) generation at Cinema of Commercial areas and Higher
secondary schools of Institutional areas; average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation at
Cinema of Commercial areas and Higher secondary schools of Institutional areas; average Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation at Cinema of Commercial areas;
average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Cinema of Commercial areas and Hospitals, Higher
secondary schools, Colleges of Institutional areas; average Net Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Hospitals, Colleges of Institutional areas followed a same
specific trend i.e., the respective values of Solid Waste generation and separation decreased from
January-March to April-June, increased from April-June to July-September and again decreased
from July-September to October-December during two years study period (Table-XLVII).
The average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) generation at Residential areas followed a
specific trend i.e., values of Solid Waste generation increased from January-March<April-
June<July-September< October-December during two years study period (Table-XLVII).
The average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Hotels of Commercial
areas; average Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hotels of
Commercial areas; average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation at Hotels of Commercial
areas followed a specific trend i.e., values of Solid Waste generation decreased from January-
March to April-June; further decreased from April-June to July-September and then increased
from July-September to October-December during two years study period (Table-XLVII).
The average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Banks, High schools of
Institutional areas; average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hotels of
Commercial areas and Primary schools, High schools of Institutional areas; average Gross Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Residential Areas, and Banks, Hospitals,
Primary schools, High schools, Colleges of Institutional areas; average Inert Material
(kg/capita/day) generation at Shops, Hotel, Bus-Stands of Commercial areas and Banks,
Hospitals, Primary schools, Middle schools, High schools, Colleges of Institutional areas;
average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation at Residential areas, Shops of Commercial
areas and Banks, Offices, Hospitals, High schools, Colleges of Institutional areas; average
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation at Residential areas, Shops, Cinemas of
Commercial areas and Banks of Institutional areas; average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) separation at Residential areas, Shops, Hotel of Commercial areas and Banks,
Offices, Hospitals of Institutional areas; average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at
Hotels of Commercial areas and Banks, High schools of Institutional areas; average Net
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Hotels of Commercial areas and
Banks, Offices, High schools, Higher secondary schools of Institutional areas; average Net Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Residential areas, Shops, Cinemas, Hotels of
Commercial areas and Banks, Hospitals of Institutional areas; average Solid Waste (kg/day)
and average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) generation at Bus Stands of Commercial
areas were observed not to follow a specific trend of increase or decrease during first year and
second year study period (Table-XLVII).
The qualitative composition of average gross biodegradable Solid Waste (0.361±0.073
kg/capita/day) of Residential areas was observed to consist of 0.047±0.010kg paperware,
0.047±0.017kg cardboard, 0.012±0.004kg jute, 0.007±0.002kg wood, 0.003±0.002kg cotton,
0.006±0.003kg clothware, 0.025±0.013kg foliage, 0.216±0.049kg food/garbage. The qualitative
composition of average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.112±0.045kg/capita/day) of
Residential areas was observed to be composed of 0.039±0.021kg plasticware, 0.028±0.012kg
metallicware, 0.015±0.005kg glassware, 0.006±0.003kg thermocoal, 0.010±0.007kg rubber,
0.009±0.005kg leather and 0.005±0.003kg eggshells/bones (Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The qualitative composition of the average biodegradable Solid Waste (0.044±0.008
kg/capita/day) separated at source in Residential area exhibited 0.023±0.006kg paperware,
0.019±0.002kg cardboard and 0.002±0.002kg jute, whereas the qualitative composition of the
average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.038±0.015 kg/capita/day) separated exhibited
0.014±0.008kg metallicware, 0.005±0.002kg glassware, 0.001±0.001kg rubber and
0.002±0.002kg leather (Table- XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The qualitative composition of average net biodegradable Solid Waste (0.317±0.069
kg/capita/day) generation at Residential area exhibited values of paperware, cardboard, jute,
wood, cotton, clothware, foliage and food/garbage as 0.024±0.006kg, 0.029±0.018kg,
0.010±0.004kg, 0.007±0.002kg, 0.003±0.002kg, 0.006±0.003kg, 0.025±0.013kg, 0.216±0.049kg
respectively, whereas the qualitative composition of the average net non-biodegradable Solid
Waste (0.073±0.031 kg/capita/day) generation exhibited 0.024±0.016kg plasticware,
0.013±0.005kg metallicware, 0.009±0.005kg glassware, 0.006±0.003kg thermocoal,
0.009±0.008kg rubber, 0.007±0.005kg leather, 0.005±0.003kg egg shells/bones (Table- XXXII
& XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
Table-XLVII: Different Seasonal Trends of Solid Waste Values at Different Sitesof Study Area (Kathua Town).
Seasonal Trends Solid Waste at Sites
Increase from
January-March to
April-June; decrease
from April-June to
July-September;
increase from July-
September to
October-December.
Decrease from
January-March to
April-June; increase
from April-June to
July-September;
decrease from July-
September to
October-December
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Residential areas,
Shops, Restaurants, Offices, Primary schools; Average Gross
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Residential areas,
Shops, Restaurants, Banks, Offices. Average Gross Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Shops, Restaurants,
Offices; Average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) at Restaurants,
Vegetable Markets, Offices; Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Restaurants; Average Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) Separation at Hotels, Restaurants, Offices;
Average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Restaurants; Average Net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) at Residential areas, Shops, Restaurants, Offices;
Average Net Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at
Residential areas, Shops, Restaurants; Average Net Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Restaurants,
Offices; Average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) at
Bus Stands; Average Solid Waste (kg/day), Average
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day), Average Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) at Vegetable Markets.
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Cinemas,
Hospitals, Middle schools, Higher secondary schools, Colleges;
Average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at
Cinemas, Hospitals, Middle schools, Higher secondary schools,
Colleges; Average Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) at Cinemas, Middle schools, Higher secondary
schools; Average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) at Cinemas,
Higher secondary schools; Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
Separation at Cinemas, Higher secondary schools; Average Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation atContd…
Increase from
January-March to
April-June to July-
September to
October-December.
Decrease from
January-March to
April-June; further
decrease from April-
June to July-
September; increase
from July-September
to October-
December.
No Specific Trend
Cinemas; Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Cinemas,
Hospitals, Higher secondary schools, Colleges; Average Net
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hospitals,
Colleges.
Average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) at Residential areas.
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hotels; Average
Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hotels;
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Hotels.
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Banks, High
schools; Average Gross Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) at Hotels, Primary schools, High schools; Average
Gross Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at
Residential areas, Banks, Hospitals, Primary schools, High schools,
Colleges; Average Inert Material (kg/capita/day) at Shops,
Hotels, Bus-Stands, Banks, Hospitals, Primary schools, Middle
schools, High schools, Colleges;
Contd…
Seasonal Trends Solid Waste at Sites
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at Residential
areas, Shops, Banks, Offices, Hospitals, High Schools, Colleges;
Average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation
at Residential areas, Shops, Cinemas, Banks; Average Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separation at
Residential areas, Shops, Hotels, Banks, Offices, Hospitals;
Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Hotels, Banks, High
schools; Average Net Biodegradable Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) at Hotels, Banks, High schools, Cinemas, Offices,
Higher secondary schools; Average Net Non-Biodegradable
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at Residential areas, Shops, Hotels,
Banks, Offices, Hospitals; Average Solid Waste (kg/day) and
Average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) at Bus Stands.
The compilation of data of the average gross Solid Waste generation at Residential
areas (Households) of the Kathua Town revealed that average per capita per day values ranged
from 0.054-1.960kg with an average value of 0.536±0.141kg. The average Solid Waste
separation of the recyclable/reused waste (to be sold to waste buyers at source) ranged from
0.012-0.369kg with an average value of 0.082±0.022kg. The average net Solid Waste per
capita per day generation in the Residential areas (Households) was observed to be ranged
from 0.032-1.664kg with an average value of 0.454±0.124kg (Table-XXXII).
At Commercial areas, the qualitative composition of average gross biodegradable Solid
Waste (0.204±0.133 kg/capita/day) was observed to be 0.032±0.022kg paperware,
0.024±0.020kg cardboard, 0.001±0.002kg jute, 0.006±0.006kg wood, 0.001±0.002kg cotton,
0.004±0.007kg clothware, 0.002±0.003kg foliage, 0.131±0.112kg food/garbage. The qualitative
composition of average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.119±0.091 kg/capita/day) was
observed to be 0.039±0.032kg plasticware, 0.015±0.015kg metallicware, 0.053±0.066kg
glassware, 0.001±0.002kg thermocoal, 0.002±0.003kg rubber, 0.002±0.004kg leather,
0.005±0.004kg egg shells/bones (Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The qualitative composition of the average biodegradable Solid Waste (0.017±0.009
kg/capita/day) separated at source exhibited 0.008±0.006kg paperware, 0.006±0.005kg
cardboard, 0.0003±0.0005kg jute, 0.0003±0.0005kg clothware, whereas the qualitative
composition of the average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.041±0.034 kg/capita/day)
separated at source exhibited 0.007±0.004kg plasticware, 0.001±0.002kg metallicware,
0.024±0.029kg glassware, 0.001±0.001kg rubber and 0.0003±0.0005kg leather respectively
(Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The average net biodegradable Solid Waste (0.188±0.123 kg/capita/day) generation
exhibited qualitatively paperware 0.024±0.017kg; cardboard 0.018±0.017kg; jute
0.0005±0.0010; wood 0.006±0.006; cotton 0.001±0.002kg; clothware 0.004±0.006kg; foliage
0.002±0.003kg and food/garbage 0.131±0.112kg respectively. Whereas the average net non-
biodegradable Solid Waste (0.078±0.057 kg/capita/day) generation exhibited qualitatively
plasticware 0.032±0.029kg; metallicware 0.014±0.014kg; glassware 0.029±0.036kg; thermocoal
0.001±0.002kg; rubber 0.001±0.002kg; leather 0.002±0.004kg; egg shells/bones 0.005±0.004kg
respectively (Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The compilation of data further revealed that the average gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial areas of the Kathua Town was observed to range
from 0.004-5.919kg with an average value of 0.364±0.225kg. The average Solid Waste
separation (kg/capita/day) of the recyclable/reused waste to be sold to waste buyers at source
ranged from 0.0005-1.225kg with an average value of 0.057±0.044kg. The average net Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Commercial areas was observed to be ranged from 0.002-
5.284kg with an average of 0.308±0.183kg (Table-XXXII).
The analysis of the compiled data of Solid Waste generation at Institutional areas
revealed that the qualitative composition of average gross biodegradable Solid Waste
(0.174±0.441 kg/capita/day) to be 0.031±0.056kg paperware, 0.002±0.001kg cardboard,
0.0001±0.0004kg jute, 0.003±0.005kg wood, 0.015±0.043kg cotton, 0.060±0.167kg clothware,
0.0005±0.0005kg foliage and 0.061±0.165kg food/garbage. The qualitative composition of
average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.099±0.258 kg/capita/day) was observed to be
plasticware 0.053±0.134kg, metallicware 0.018±0.048kg, glassware 0.023±0.061kg, thermocoal
0.0003±0.0002kg, rubber 0.004±0.012kg and egg shells/bones 0.002±0.005 (Table-XXXII &
XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The qualitative composition of the average biodegradable Solid Waste (0.003±0.003
kg/capita/day) separated exhibited 0.003±0.003kg paperware and 0.0003±0.0003kg cardboard,
whereas that of average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.011±0.031 kg/capita/day) separated
exhibited 0.005±0.014kg plasticware and 0.006±0.017kg glassware (Table-XXXII & XLVIII;
Fig-79-82).
The qualitative composition of average net biodegradable Solid Waste (0.171±0.442
kg/capita/day) generation was observed to exhibit paperware 0.028±0.057kg, cardboard
0.002±0.001kg, jute 0.0001±0.0004kg, wood 0.003±0.005kg, cotton 0.015±0.043kg, clothware
0.060±0.167kg, foliage 0.0005±0.0005kg and food/garbage 0.061±0.165kg, whereas the average
net non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.088±0.228 kg/capita/day) generation exhibited
qualitatively 0.047±0.119kg plasticware, 0.018±0.048kg metallicware, 0.017±0.044kg glassware,
0.0003±0.0002kg thermocoal, 0.004±0.012kg rubber and 0.002±0.005kg egg shells/bones
(Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The compilation of data further revealed that the average gross Solid Waste generation
(kg/capita/day) at Institutional areas of the Kathua Town was observed to be ranged from
0.003-5.919kg with an average value of 0.308±0.772kg. The average Solid Waste separation
of the recyclable/reused waste (kg/capita/day) (to be sold to waste buyers at source) ranged
from 0.0005-0.350kg with an average value of 0.014±0.030kg. The average net Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation in the Institutional areas was observed to be ranged from 0.003-
5.773kg with an average value of 0.294±0.742kg (Table-XXXII & XLVIII; Fig-79-82).
The critical analysis of the data of Solid Waste generation at Study Areas further
revealed that the qualitative composition of average gross biodegradable Solid Waste
(0.246±0.100 kg/capita/day) generation as 0.037±0.009kg paperware, 0.024±0.023kg cardboard,
0.004±0.007kg jute, 0.005±0.002kg wood, 0.006±0.008kg cotton, 0.023±0.032kg, clothware,
0.011±0.013kg foliage and 0.136±0.078kg food/garbage (Fig-83), whereas the qualitative
composition of average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.110±0.010 kg/capita/day)
generation was observed to exhibit plasticware 0.044±0.008kg, metallicware 0.020±0.007kg,
glassware 0.030±0.020kg, thermcoal 0.002±0.003kg, rubber 0.005±0.004kg, leather
0.004±0.005kg and egg shells/bones 0.004±0.002kg (Table-XXXII & XLIX; Fig-83).
The qualitative composition of the average biodegradable Solid Waste (0.021±0.021
kg/capita/day) separated at source in Study Area exhibited 0.011±0.010kg paperware,
0.008±0.010kg cardboard, 0.001±0.001kg jute and 0.0001±0.0002kg clothware (Fig-83),
whereas that of average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.030±0.017 kg/capita/day) separated at
source exhibited plasticware 0.009±0.005kg, metallicware 0.005±0.008kg, glassware
0.012±0.011kg, rubber 0.001±0.001kg and leather 0.001±0.001kg (Table-XXXII & XLIX; Fig-
83).
The average net biodegradable Solid Waste (0.225±0.080 kg/capita/day) generation at
Study Area exhibited qualitatively paperware 0.026±0.002kg, cardboard 0.016±0.014kg, jute
0.003±0.006kg, wood 0.005±0.002kg, cotton 0.006±0.008kg, clothware 0.022±0.032kg, foliage
0.011±0.013kg and food/garbage 0.136±0.078kg respectively (Fig-83). Whereas the average net
non-biodegradable Solid Waste (0.080±0.008 kg/capita/day) generation exhibited qualitatively
0.034±0.012kg plasticware, 0.015±0.003kg metallicware, 0.018±0.010kg glassware,
0.002±0.003kg thermocoal, 0.004±0.004kg rubber, 0.003±0.004kg leather and 0.004±0.002kg
egg shells/bones (Table-XXXII & XLIX; Fig-83).
The values of gross as well as net generation of the inert material kg/capita/day at Study
Area were observed to range from 0.001-1.560kg with an average value of 0.047±0.016kg
(Table-XXXII).
The compilation of data further revealed that the average gross Solid Waste
(kg/capita/day) generation at Study Area (Kathua Town) ranged from 0.003-5.919kg with an
average value of 0.403±0.119kg comprising 0.246±0.100kg biodegradable waste,
0.110±0.010kg non-biodegradable Solid Waste and 0.047±0.016kg inert material. The
average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation of the recyclable/reused waste (to be sold to
waste buyers at source) ranged from 0.0005-1.225kg with an average value of
0.051±0.034kg/capita/day with 0.021±0.021kg biodegradable and 0.030±0.017kg non-
biodegradable. The average net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in the Study Area
was observed to be ranged from 0.002-5.773kg with an average value of 0.352±0.089kg with
average biodegradable, non-biodegradable and inert material as 0.225±0.080kg,
0.080±0.008kg and 0.047±0.016kg respectively (Table- XXXII).
Cointreau (1982) reported that per capita generation of Municipal Solid Waste varied
between 2.75-4.0 kg/day in developed countries and 500 gm/day in developing countries.
NEERI (1983) calculated an average of 0.33 kg/capita/day generation of Solid Waste in India,
whereas Jain et al. (1996) reported generation of average 427 gm/day/household in Mohal. Thus
the Solid Waste generation (per capita per day) at Kathua was observed to be low as compared
with that of other countries and at National level (India) as reported by Ravindera and Tripathi
(1997). They placed Canada at first with per capita per day generation of 2.7 kg of Solid Waste
followed by Switzerland 2.6 kg, France 0.9-2.5 kg, the United States 1.6 kg, the Netherlands 1.6
kg, Germany 1.1 kg, Japan 0.9-1 kg and India 0.5 kg.
As per Census Report (2001) of Kathua, population of Municipal Limits of Kathua Town
was about 40208. Taking this population into consideration at present, the gross Solid Waste
generation per day in the Kathua Town comes to be 16.20 tonnes/day. After adding 150.280
kg/day (the average Solid Waste generated at Bus Stands of Kathua per day) and 128.368
kg/day (the average Solid Waste generated at Vegetable Market of Kathua Town), the average
gross Solid Waste generation at Kathua Town becomes 16.48 tonnes/day comprising 10.62
tonnes/day (62.80%) biodegradable, 4.48 tonnes/day (27.18%) non-biodegradable and 1.98
tonnes/day (12.01%) inert material. Of this (16.48 tonnes/day) 2.05 tonnes/day (12.44%)
(With 0.84 tonnes/day i.e., 5.12% biodegradable and 1.21 tonnes/day i.e., 7.32% non-
biodegradable) was observed to be separated at source to be sold to waste buyers by the residents
themselves without the involvement of Municipality (Table-L).
Table- L: Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Study Area(Kathua Town)
Solid Waste Biodegradable
(B)
Non-Biodegradable
(NB)
InertMaterial (IM)
Total=(B+NB+IM)
Average Gross SolidWaste (kg/capita/day)generated at source (G1)
Average Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) separatedat source (r)
Average Net Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) generatedat source (G1-r)
Average Gross SolidWaste (tonnes/day)generated at samplingunits of Study Area(G1x40208*)
Average Solid Waste(kg/day) generated at BusStands of Study Area (G2)
0.264±0.100[0.001-4.509]
(61.04)
0.021±0.021[0.0004-0.635]
(5.21)
0.225±0.080[0.0006-4.490]
(55.83)
9.89
49.876
0.110±0.010[.0007-1.940]
(27.30)
0.030±0.017[0.0001-1.200]
(7.44)
0.080±0.008[0.0006-1.493]
(19.85)
4.42
53.546
0.047±0.016[0.001- 1.560]
(11.66)
-
0.047±0.016[0.001-1.560]
(11.66)
1.89
46.860
0.403±0.119[0.003-5.919]
(100)
0.051±0.034[0.0005-1.225]
(12.66)
0.352±0.089[0.002-5.773]
(87.34)
16.20
150.280
Average Solid Waste(kg/day) generated atVegetable Market ofStudy Area (G3)
Average Gross SolidWaste (tonnes/day)generated at Study Area(G=G1X40208* +G2)
Average Solid Waste(tonnes/day) separated atStudy Area (r X 40208*)
Average Net Solid Waste(tonnes/day) generated atStudy Area (G-rX 40208*)
82.395
10.02(60.80)
0.84(5.10)
9.05(54.92)
2.195
4.48(27.18)
1.21(7.34)
3.22(19.54)
43.779
1.98(12.01)
-
1.89(11.47)
128.368
16.48(100)
2.05(12.44)
14.15(87.56)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight).
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
*40208 – population of Kathua Municipal Area as per Census Report (2001) of Kathua.
This resulted in the net Solid Waste generation 14.15 tonnes/day. Of this 14.15
tonnes/day (87.56% of gross Solid Waste) 9.05 tonnes/day (54.92%) was biodegradable,
3.22 tonnes/day (19.54%) was non-biodegradable and 1.89 tonnes/day (11.47%) was
observed to be inert material (Table-L). Cook and Kalbermatten (1982) also reported the
highest component (60-85%) of Municipal Solid Waste to be decomposable organic matter. But
Kuniyal et al. (1997) while assessing Solid Waste Management in and around valley of flowers
observed 96.32% Solid Waste as non-biodegradable waste comprising 68.48% cold drink bottles
25.48% plastic and 2.06% metal of reusable and recyclable type, whereas only 3.65% of Solid
Waste was observed to be of biodegradable nature.
At Study Area, the qualitative composition of average gross biodegradable Solid
Waste (10.02 tonnes/day) was observed to be 1.51 tonnes (9.18%) paperware, 0.98 tonnes
(5.96%) cardboard, 0.17 tonnes (1.03%) jute, 0.21 tonnes (1.28%) wood, 0.24 tonnes (1.46%)
cotton, 0.93 tonnes (5.65%) clothware, 0.46 tonnes (2.80%) foliage and 5.53 tonnes (33.62%)
food/garbage. The qualitative composition of average gross non-biodegradable Solid Waste
(4.48 tonnes/day) exhibited 1.79 tonnes (10.88%) plasticware, 0.81 tonnes (4.92%)
metallicware, 1.22 tonnes (7.42%) glassware, 0.08 tonnes (0.49%) thermocoal, 0.21 tonnes
(0.13%) rubber, 0.17 tonnes (1.03%) leather and 0.16 tonnes (0.97%) egg shells/bones (Table-
XLIX & L, Fig-84).
The qualitative composition of the average biodegradable Solid Waste of 0.84
tonnes/day separated at Study Area exhibited the values of 0.44 tonnes (2.67%) paperware,
0.32 tonnes (1.95%) cardboard, 0.04 tonnes (0.24%) jute and 0.04 tonnes (0.24%) clothware. The
qualitative composition of the average non-biodegradable Solid Waste (1.21 tonnes/day)
separated at Study Area exhibited the values of 0.36 tonnes (2.20%) plasticware, 0.20 tonnes
(1.22%) metallicware, 0.48 tonnes (2.93%) glassware, 0.04 tonnes (0.24%) rubber and 0.04
tonnes (0.24%) leather (Table-XLIX & L, Fig-84).
The average net biodegradable Solid Waste generation 9.05 tonnes/day exhibited the
quantitatively paperware, cardboard, jute, wood, cotton, clothware foliage and food/garbage as
1.07 tonnes (6.47%), 0.66 tonnes (3.98%), 0.13 tonnes (0.80%), 0.21 tonnes (1.28%), 0.24 tonnes
(1.48%), 0.89 tonnes (5.44%), 0.46 tonnes (2.80%) and 5.53 tonnes (33.62%) respectively.
Whereas the composition of the average net non-biodegradable Solid Waste generation of
3.22 tonnes/day exhibited 1.43 tonnes (8.67%) of plasticware, 0.61 tonnes (3.73%) of
metallicware, 0.74 tonnes (4.45%) of glassware, 0.08 tonnes (0.49%) of thermocoal, 0.17 tonnes
(1.04%) of rubber, 0.12 tonnes (0.74%) of leather and 0.16 tonnes (0.97%) of egg shells/bones
(Table-XLIX & L, Fig-84).
Increasing amount of wastes both solids and liquids are being generated as a result of
rapid rate of urbanization. This in turn presents a greater difficulty for disposal. This problem is
more acute in developing countries like India where economic growth as well as urbanization is
more rapid. On a global level, it is estimated that in 1990 approximately 1.3 billion metric tonnes
of Municipal Solid Waste generated averaging two-third of kilo per person per day (Beede and
Bloom, 1995).
But, there is considerable difference in the composition of Solid Waste between high-
income and low-income countries. As economic prosperity increased, the amount of Solid Waste
produced consisted mostly of luxury waste say paper, cardboard, plastic and heavier organic
material (Cointreau et al., 1984). The level of service for waste collection also varies markedly.
In most of industrialized countries, the waste collection efficiency is more than 90%, but this is
not the case in developing countries (UNEP, 1991). The failure to provide adequate services
poses a serious threat to human health in many developing countries (WHO, 1992).
In India very few cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Ahmadabad and Bhopal have a collection
efficiency of 90% and some cities like Madurai, Cochin, Tiruchi, Calicut and Salem have poor
collection efficiency below 50% (Mehta et al., 1994).
As management is the judicious use of means to bring about a positive result. In Solid
Waste Management, the result desired are in the handling and proposal of Solid Waste at a
reasonable cost with minimum adverse effect on environment i.e. the principal objective of Solid
Waste Management is to collect and dispose off Solid Waste of community at minimal costs
while preserving public health and ensuring negligible impact on environment.
Solid Waste Management involves interplay of six functional elements like generation of
waste; storage; collection; transfer and transport; processing and recovery and disposal. It
involves planning, organization, administration, financial, legal and technological aspects
involving interdisciplinary relationships.
Waste Management is becoming a serious environmental problem. Hand in hand with this
is increasing the problem of resource exhaustion from earth. To overcome the twin problems of
resource exhaustion and waste generation both of which are resulting from population explosion,
some simple technology of Waste Management is needed where ecology can be combined with
economy. It has to be based on the principle of recycling and conservation of material and energy
utilising the cleaning capacity of nature (Sinha and Sinha, 2000).
Any material becomes waste only when a specific owner ceases to have uses for it today.
For example, yesterday’s newspaper is waste to man who bought it, but it could be a raw material
for a paper mill. The best way to dispose off waste products is to find uses for them. What is
needed is the perfect product, which is consumed after it is used. Short of that, we must attempt
to close the loop from the original natural resources to the user to another resource, so that a
thing once used is turned back into the system (Small, 1971).
Recycling is a process rather than single activity as it extends the life of resources and
minimizes waste entering the environment. Current waste disposal philosophy is to treat all waste
as resource materials-some for recycling, some for conversion to fertilizer, some as source of
energy and balance for land reclamation. The recycling and recovery of resources in the Solid
Waste Management conserve the natural resources besides solving the waste disposal problems.
The waste recovery and recycling has been of great interest in both developed and
developing countries. In the Industrialized countries, recycling has started due to the political
pressure of public, opposition to the disposal sites and economic pressure of high cost of waste
disposal due to land shortage, whereas in the developing countries recycling of the waste is
carried in the direct response to industrial demand for material to use as raw material (Cointreau
and de Kadt, 1991).
Today, reuse and recycling of material has become both economical as well as ecological
necessity. Vogler (1983) discussed the possible use of various types of the waste in various
recycling and reprocessing products e.g., waste paper is used for animal beddings viz., pigs,
poultry and other livestock, for laying eggs and manufacture of fruit boxes from old cartons, for
manufacture of paper bags and funnels. The waste paper is also used as building materials, as an
insulating material and as a fuel. Metal scrap is re-rolled, re-melted and reused into various new
products, say oil drum (Standard 200 litres) is used for as a container for liquids or solids; as a
waste bins; converted into small (but short lived) furnace; mounted on a cart or lorry or cut open
to make an animal trough, buckets, dustbins, stoves etc. And also is widely used as a source of
raw material by the recycling units. Tin plate cans and can making scrap is used to manufacture
air conditioners and filters. The tin can skeleton is used as the frame to support wire wool
stuffing and manufacture of animal pens and cages. For plastic recycling process cable stripping
and moulding of the mixed plastic waste is done. Recycled products drain pipe, post, fence post
and stake are produced from the recycling of mixed plastic with the help of the reverser machine.
Plastic material is reused as per the quality. Polyethylene sheeting is used for roofs and walls of
shanty houses. Polyethylene bottles are cut down to make drinking mugs, drums and containers.
Polyethylene bags are washed, dried and used for dustbins. Expanded polystyrene foam make
useful plant pots, seed boxes, tool boxes etc. Tyres are reused as artificial fish reefs, ducks and
boats fenders, plant pots, children’s toys and swings, lining of ping and goat pens. Tyres are
reshaped to make new products like shoes, cords for tethering animals, mats for cars, household’s
doormats, pads for handling glass in the glass industry, kindling in the firing of brick kilns,
hangers for the gates, for shoe soles, for making sheds and stools and chair seats. Bottle glass
breakage cullet is used for the manufacture of bangles, beads, spin glass ornaments and
handicrafts, crockery and vases, lamps, light bulbs tiles for decorative floors and walls, school
and laboratory glassware, fibreglass, window glass and balloting (fine balls of glass to make
reflective paints for roads signs, etc.). Whereas bottles are reused because bottle fetch a better
price when sold to be reused than broken and sold as cullet.
Waste collector plays an important role in the informal sector. Waste collectors are those
who quite simply pick up the recyclable waste and feed it to the recycling chain which is
complex based on hierarchies. In the informal sector at the bottom of the chain forming the
critical and primary levels are ragpickers and IWB, followed by Small Enterprises Middle Man
(Kabariwalas) and Wholesale Waste Dealers at the top of the hierarchies.
The Solid Waste collection system starts at the point of waste generation. Solid Wastes
may be collected in small garbage containers and consolidated into larger container.
Alternatively recyclable components may be separated from other wastes stream. Sometime, the
recyclable materials are kept for Itinerant buyers or a number of containers may be left for the
collection crew to collect these materials separately. The practice is highly dependent on standard
of living, the market for recyclable material and enforcement of Solid Waste collection policies.
The analysis of the working and socio-economic status of 84 waste collectors comprising
44 (52.38%) Ragpickers, 20 (23.81%) IWB, 15 (17.86%) SEM and 5 (5.95%) WWD (Table-
LI, Fig-85) revealed that maximum (42.10%) of the waste collectors in the lowest hierarchial
group (ragpickers) belonged to Madhya Pradesh. 65.81% of the ragpickes were observed to
spend morning and evening parts of the day in collecting waste by scanning one to many
localities without wearing any gloves and masks. They scan each site from drains to garbage and
from road sweep to dumping sites. About 16% of the ragpickers were observed to collect waste
manually without using any implement and about 84% of the ragpickers were observed to collect
waste using implements like magnet, stick, hookstick etc. (Table-XXXIII).
Police and common man were observed to view the ragpickers with suspicion. But are
being illiterate ragpickers have no option except to join ragpicking which needs least skills. Of
all the waste collectors, ragpickers were observed to collect least waste per day thereby earning
least as compared with the earning of other waste collectors. The possible reason for the least per
capita collection of the waste and least daily earning was observed due to their unorganized way
of working and they collect waste from the dumping sites due to which the quality of product is
not worthwhile. Moreover in the rainy season, they collect the least amount of waste due to high
rate of degradation process.
The interim report of committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India on Solid
Waste Management in class I cities in India June 1998 highlighted volunteer services of
ragpickers for collecting waste throughout the day. The report suggested that the waste pickers
can be organised and can get better quality of waste from door to door collection step to give a
better living and much higher dignity of work as they save cores of rupees of the Government
(Chaturvedi, 1998).
Table-LI: Qualitative Composition of Surveyed Waste Collectors in Study Area (KathuaTown).
Type of Waste Collector Number PercentageRagpickers
Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB)
Small Enterprises Middlemen (SEM)
Wholesale Waste Dealer (WWD)
44
20
15
5
52.38
23.81
17.86
5.95
Ahsan (1999) also reported that the collection of waste paper, glass and metal from
Municipal Solid Waste by ragpickers effectively reduces the waste load in waste disposal sites
and lesser area is required for their disposal. Agarwal and Chaturvedi (1997) observed that 12-
15% of the recyclable material is collected by the ragpickers and from bins these materials are
channeled into distribution network of small traders. Ratra (2001) also highlighted the services
of ragpickers in keeping the railway platform and track clean at New Delhi Railway Station.
Activity of ragpicker was observed to keep some study area clean without involvement of
Municipality.
The analysis of the surveyed data regarding Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) revealed that
majority (79.61%) of IWB were observed to spend morning and evening parts of the day in
collecting waste paper, plastic, metal, glass, cardboard, jute, rubber by moving door to door from
one to many localities (Table-XXXIV).
On analysis, the surveyed data regarding SEM revealed that SEM were found to purchase
waste from IWB only (26.47%); from both IWB and ragpicker (26.47%); from IWB and
Common man/Shopkeepers (17.65%); from IWB, ragpickers and Common man/Shopkeepers
(14.71%); from Common man/Shopkeeper (8.82%) and from ragpicker only (5.88%) (Table-
XXXV). The SEM in turn sell their waste to Wholesale Waste Dealer who is in the top of
hierarchical chain of the waste collectors, being most stable and earning better than waste dealers
of low hierarchical order.
The analysis of the compiled data further revealed that ragpickers on an average collect
3.49±2.19kg of paper, 2.66±1.47kg of plastic, 1.63±0.72kg of metal, 1.69±0.73kg of glass and
1.48±0.98kg of cardboard, whereas IWB on an average daily collects 7.90±3.99kg, 4.75±2.78kg,
6.30±3.50kg, 2.39±1.21kg, 6.77±2.78kg, 0.26±0.73kg, 1.32±3.77kg and 1.40±0.68kg of paper,
plastic, metal, glass, cardboard, plastic woven sack, jute woven sack and rubber respectively.
Average daily collection of paper, plastic, metal, glass, cardboard, plastic woven sack, jute
woven sack and rubber of SEM was calculated to be 46.55±84.83kg, 30.75±25.37kg,
70.48±88.36kg, 48.64±31.30kg, 54.72±50.76 kg, 1.63±6.62kg, 5.06±20.82kg and 5.26±28.81kg
respectively, whereas the daily collection of respective waste by WWD was calculated as
325±508.22kg, 205±307.32kg, 462±263.41kg, 231±672.41kg, 386.25±832.14kg, 14.02±43.29kg,
29.4±90.51kg and 125±390.76kg respectively (Table-LII, Fig-86-87).
The analysis of the compiled data regarding collection and earning of waste dealers
further revealed that the daily collection of waste and daily earning increased with increase in
hierarchy of the waste collectors i.e., on an average the ragpicker was observed to collect
10.95±7.01kg waste per day, IWB was observed to collect 31.09±11.42kg waste per day, SEM
was observed to collect 263.09±222.84kg waste per day and WWD was observed to collect
1778.22±1410.66kg waste per day, thereby earning Rs. 49.42±17.13 per day, Rs. 93.71±34.03
per day, Rs. 378.09±217.64 per day and Rs. 2176.5±802.06 per day respectively (Table-LII, Fig-
86-87).
Thus from above analysis, it can be concluded that increased in the daily earning was
directly proportional to increase in waste collection.
The ragpickers and IWB though constituted 76.19% of the surveyed waste collectors yet
daily waste collection and earning was observed to be less, whereas SEM constituted 17.86%
were observed to collect more waste per day, thereby earning more than ragpickers and IWB.
The WWD constituted least percentage (5.95%) were observed to collect waste as well as earn
much more per day as compared to ragpickers, IWB and SEM.
The total number of waste collectors in various hierarchical groups could not be
established because of lack of any specific registered union or organization in Kathua Town.
Table-LII: Average Waste Collected (kg/capita/day) and Earning of Waste Collectors at Study Area (Kathua Town).
Type of WasteCollector
Average Waste Collected (kg/capita/day)
Paper Plastic Metal Glass Cardboard Plasticwoven sack
Jute wovensack
Rubber Average WasteCollected
(kg/capita/day)
Average Earning(capita/day)
(Rs)
Ragpickers 3.49±2.19
(1-6)
2.66±1.47
(1-10)
1.63±0.72
(0.35-3.9)
1.69±0.73
(0.50-2.65)
1.48±0.98
(0.15-4.45)
- - - 10.95±7.01
(3-27)
49.42±17.13
(12.5-80)
Itinerant Waste
Buyers (IWB)
7.90±3.99
(2.5-15)
4.75±2.78
(2-16)
6.30±3.50
(2.25-17.5)
2.39±1.21
(1.0-9)
6.77±2.78
(1.5-13.5)
0.26±3.77
(2-20)
1.32±3.77
(2-20)
1.40±0.68
(0.2-5)
31.09±11.42
(11.6-98.5)
93.71±34.03
(35-360)
Small Enterprises
Middleman (SEM)
46.55±84.83
(3-450)
30.75±25.37
(5-200)
70.48±88.36
(13.5-480)
48.64±31.30
(15-175.25)
54.72±50.76
(3.85-225)
1.63±6.62
(5-100)
5.06±20.82
(5-100)
5.26±28.81
(5-205)
263.09±222.84
(51.35-1869.25)
378.09±217.64
(125-1502)
Wholesaler Waste
Dealer (WWD)
325±508.22
(120-1200)
205±307.32
(100-1000)
462±263.41
(100-1900)
231.55±672.41
(200-1400)
386.25±832.14
(150-1290)
14.02±43.29
(14-150)
29.4±90.51
(28-300)
125±390.76
(123-1020)
1778.22±1410.66
(835-8260)
2176.5±802.06
(1300-5000)
Figures ( ) showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Most of the ragpickers and IWB changes their profession after earning sufficient
amount. So the average total waste collected per day by all the waste collectors in the
town could not be estimated. But one thing is obvious that 1.92 tonnes/day of Solid
Waste separated at source during generation and collection goes to the waste
collectors/dealers. In addition to this Solid Waste @ 10.95± 7.01 kg/ragpicker was also
observed to be separated from dumping sites and drains to be put into recycling and
reuse process.
The generation of average potential recyclable/reused Solid Waste/day was
observed to be 7.62tonnes/day i.e., 45.20% of the gross Solid Waste generation
16.48tonnes/day. This included recyclable/reused biodegradable Solid Waste of 3.59
tonnes/day (21.86% of gross Solid Waste generation), consisting of paperware 1.51
tonnes (9.18%), cardboard 0.98 tonnes (5.96%), jute 0.17 tonnes (1.03%) and clothware
0.93 tonnes (5.68%) . whereas the recyclable/reused non-biodegradable Solid Waste of
4.03 tonnes/day (23.35% of gross Solid Waste generation) was observed to comprise of
plasticware 1.79 tonnes (10.88%), metallicware 0.81 tonnes (4.92%), glassware 1.22
tonnes (7.42%) and rubber 0.21 tonnes (0.13%) respectively. Presently on an average
0.44 tonnes/day (2.67%) of paperware out of 1.51 tonnes/day (9.18%) is actually
collected at source to be sold to waste buyers. Similarly, the other recyclable/reused
materials separated from generated waste were observed to cardboard 0.32 tonnes
(1.95%), jute 0.04 tonnes (0.24%), clothware 0.04 tonnes (0.24%), plasticware 0.36
tonnes (2.20%), metallicware 0.20 tonnes (1.22%), glassware 0.48 tonnes (2.93%) and
rubber 0.04 tonnes (0.24%). On a total 1.92 tonnes/day (11.69%) of gross Solid Waste
generation of 16.48 tonnes/day was observed to be separated at source to be put to
recycling activity by waste collectors, through the net recyclable/reused materials/day
was observed to be 5.70 tonnes/day (34.58%) of gross Solid Waste generation of 16.48
tonnes per day (Table-LIII). Bhuyan (1999) observed that domestic Solid Waste like
textiles, papers, bottles, metal pins, plastic carry bag etc. were reused or sold to dents or
to the rags-man by the rural households of Assam. Thus in the present study, it was
concluded that the awareness of people regarding the sale of various recyclable/reused
wastes can decrease the waste load to a maximum of 7.62 (45.20%) tonnes/day without
the involvement of the Municipality services (Table-LIII).
Table-LIII: Average Generation and Separation of Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste at Study Area (Kathua Town)
(Commuted from data of Table-L)Average Solid Waste
(tonnes/day)Biodegradable (B)
TotalB=P+Ca+J+Cl
Non-biodegradable (NB)Total
NB=Pw+Mw+Gw+RGrand Total
=B+NBPaperware
(P)Cardboard
(Ca)Jute(J)
Clothware(Cl)
Plasticware(Pw)
Metallicware(Mw)
Glassware(Gw)
Rubber(R)
Average Solid Waste
generated at source (R)
1.51
(9.18)
0.98
(5.96)
0.17
(1.03)
0.93
(5.68)
3.59
(21.85)
1.79
(10.88)
0.81
(4.92)
1.22
(7.42)
0.21
(0.13)
4.03
(23.35)
7.62
(45.20)
Average Solid Waste
separated at source (r)
0.44
(2.67)
0.32
(1.95)
0.04
(0.24)
0.04
(0.24)
0.84
(5.10)
0.36
(2.20)
0.20
(1.22)
0.48
(2.93)
0.04
(0.24)
1.08
(6.59)
1.92
(11.69)
Average Net Solid Waste
generated at source (R-r)
1.07
(6.47)
0.66
(3.98)
0.13
(0.80)
0.89
(16.69)
2.75
(16.69)
1.43
(8.67)
0.61
(3.73)
0.74
(4.45)
0.17
(1.04)
2.95
(17.89)
5.70
(34.58)
Figures ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight)Paperware – Newspaper, Books, Copies, Magazine.Cardboard – Craft, Sweep.Jute – Jute woven sack.Cloth ware – Old Clothes and Rags.Plastic ware – Plastic bottles, Scraps, Buckets, Plastic woven sack, Containers, Glucose bottles, Sprite bottles, Bisleri water bottles.Metallic ware – Tin containers, Scrap.Glass ware– Beer and Wines bottles, Bottles.Rubber – Tubes, Tyres, Scrap.
Therefore, this network of the waste collectors i.e. ragpickers and Itinerant
Waste Buyers (IWB) feeding to the waste dealer (SEM) which in turn feeds to WWD
who finally disposed off the waste in the recycling unit is playing a very important role
in reducing the problem of waste disposal beside helping a lot in the conservation of
natural resources and energy. Though all the waste collectors were found to be unaware
about their role in conservation of resources, environmental laws and protection of
environment, Yet 57.14% of the SEM and 78% of WWD were found to be awared
regarding their role in recycling of the Solid Waste and even 88.24% of SEM and all the
WWD were of the opinion that they are helping the Municipality in one way or the
other in Solid Waste Management (Table-LIV).
Sinha and Rawat (1991) also emphasised the need for recycling and
reutilisation of Solid Waste for environmental safety and sustainable development.
Einisedel (1998) and Alappat and Dikshit (1999) also stressed recycling of waste as
better option for Solid Waste Management (SWM) instead of burning of the waste.
Katakam (2001) highlighted that all the waste collectors are unprotected by law and
largely ignored by the society inspite of playing an important role in reprocessing of
scrap and employment generation. He also reported that in Pune there are about 3014
registered waste pickers who collect 81 tonnes of waste every day (an average of 27kg
per waste picker). The Municipality spent about Rs. 300 to dispose off every tonnes of
garbage and waste picker save Rs. 24413 per day, thereby, contributing Rs. 246 worth
of unpaid labour every month. Most of the scrap traders enter the trade either because it
is family business or they have some contact in the trade.
The critical analysis of the compiled data of the socio-personal survey regarding
awareness about health status, waste disposal and management in the Residential,
Commercial and Institutional areas of the Kathua Town revealed that only 37%
respondents in Residential areas (Households) were disposing off waste in Municipal
bin, whereas 57% of the surveyed Residential areas (Households) was observed to be
installed with the Municipal dustbins.
Table-LIV: Percentage of Waste Collectors regarding EnvironmentalAwareness in Kathua Town.
Type of WasteCollector
Percentage of Waste Collectors regarding
Recyclingof SolidWaste
EnvironmentalLaws
Conservationof Resources
Protection ofEnvironment
HelpingMunicipality
Help fromMunicipality
Itinerant WasteBuyer (IWB)
Small EnterprisesMiddleman (SEM)
Wholesale WasteDealer (WWD)
0%
57.14%
78%
0%
9.10%
2.44%
0%
5.10%
5.99%
0%
5.91%
2.11%
0%
88.24%
100%
0%
10.10%
9%
Only 21.41% of the respondents in Commercial areas were observed to make use of
Municipal dustbin for waste disposal, though 40.77% of surveyed Commercial areas was
observed to be installed with Municipal dustbins similarly, 64% of the surveyed Institutes
were observed to be installed with Municipal dustbins, but only 40% of the Institutes were
observed to make use of Municipal dustbin for waste disposal. Overall in the Study Area
53.92% of the Surveyed Area was installed with Municipal dustbin and an average 32.80% of
the Surveyed public was observed to make use of Municipal dustbins (Table-XLV).
The survey further revealed that 27% respondents in the Residential areas, 25.16%
respondents in Commercial areas and 35% respondents in Institutional areas with an average
of 29.05% respondents in Study Area were observed to dispose off waste in open space
(including vacant plots, unused land and grounds etc.). An average of 25.92% of the public in
Study Area comprising 24% in Residential areas, 36.76% in Commercial areas and 17.00% in
Institutional areas were disposing waste on the road sides, 12.22% of the surveyed public was
observed to make use of drains as site for waste disposal. The waste disposal even in the
surveyed area, with installation of Municipal dustbin or Municipal recognized collection sites
on road sides or in open space was reported to be daily (15.86%), weekly (61.84%),
fortnightly (20.20%) and monthly (2.10%) as per public responses (Table-XLV).
A large proportion of public was observed to be fully aware with recycling/reused of
Solid Waste in the Study Area-71.67% which includes Residential Areas-81%, Commercial
Areas-59% and Institutional Areas-75% (Table-XLV). The critical analysis further revealed
that public in Kathua Town was having awareness regarding recycling/reused of paper
(100%), plastic (52.6%), jute (14.49%), cardboard (34.16%), metal (31.39%), glass (19.66%),
wood (2.10%) and rubber (2.16%) respectively. Considerable number of respondents i.e.
25.10% of the Study Area was observed to be located near the dumping sites (without regular
disposing off waste facility). The percentage of respondents occasionally suffering (45.84%),
frequently suffering (21.90%) near the dumping site was observed to be more as compared
with that of occasionally suffering (34.98%) and frequently suffering (11.95%) residing far
off from the dumping sites and the percentage of healthy respondents was observed to be less
(33.26%) near dumping sites as compared with that (53.07%) of respondents residing far off
from the dumping sites (Table–XLV, Fig-88). Khan and Eswari (1993) in eco-
epidemiological studies on children exposed to Solid Waste dumps also reported high
incidence of skin diseases on direct or indirect physical contact with Solid Waste, thereby,
concluding that Solid Waste dumps create health hazards.
29% of the Households in the Residential areas, 28.15% of the Commercial units in
the Commercial areas and 15% of the Institutes in the Institutional areas were observed to be
located near the medical institutes, but a large proportion of the respondents (62.35%) were
of the opinion that waste from the medical institutes have no effects on the health and only
37.65% of the respondents were observed to be of the opinion that the medical wastes give
bad look and odour (Table-XLV).
From the critical analysis of the compiled data of Solid Waste generation and disposal
at Kathua Town the existing Solid Waste Management system revealed that out of 16.48
tonnes/day of the Gross Solid Waste generation, 2.05 tonnes/day (12.44%) is separated at
source to be put to recycling and reused with the help of waste collectors without the
involvement of the Municipality services. Of the rest 14.15 tonnes/day (87.56%) of the Solid
Waste generation/day, 4.64 tonnes/day (32.79%) of Gross Solid Waste is disposed in
community bins, 4.11 tonnes/day (29.05%) of Gross Solid Waste is disposed in open space,
3.67 tonnes/day (25.94%) of Gross Solid Waste is disposed on the roads and 1.73
tonnes/day (12.23%) of Gross Solid Waste is disposed in drains (Fig-89).
As per Municipality record, 11.18 tonnes/day of Municipal Solid Waste is transported
to dumping site by various types of vehicles, collecting from 80 collection points and this
disposal is done by open dumping method, but in actual practice 11.18 tonnes/day is not
removed per day because in the Study Area the waste disposal by Municipality was observed
to be done at an interval of daily (15.86%), weekly (61.84%), fortnightly (20.20%) and
monthly (2.10%). Even taking this figure correct as per Municipal record 2.97 tonnes/day
waste remains (14.15 tonnes/day Net generation-11.18 tonnes/day as per Municipal record)
scattered in the Study Area on the roads, open spaces and drains. Part of waste (@
10.95+7.01 kg/ragpicker/day) from dumping sites, roads, drains, open spaces and collection
sites are put into reused/recycling activity (Table-XLV; Fig-89).
Moreover, in the present Solid Waste Management (MSW) system, it was observed
that mostly waste is carried by open vehicles that scatter waste in the way and also spread
flies and germs in the area of their way to dumping site and rarely enclosed system is
observed. Beside this, hospital waste is dumped along-with Municipal Waste. (Pasrija et al.,
1995) also made similar observation while studying Solid Waste Management of Chandigarh
city.
Regarding the daily waste collection to be implemented, 48.56% of surveyed
respondents in Study Area favoured Door to Door collection of the waste and 54.78%
respondent’s favoured Area to Area waste collection (Table-XLV). In the survey enquiry
regarding method of waste disposal to be implemented in the Kathua Town, most of 66.11%
of the respondents were observed to be of the opinion that landfill method should be adopted,
though 12.33% favoured both landfill and incineration methods of waste disposal, 10.67%
favoured both landfill and composting method only and 6.22% were found to be of the
opinion that all the three land filling, incineration and composting methods should be
employed for the disposal. Only 3.33% favoured open dumping and 1.33% of the respondents
gave no opinion for the method of waste disposal (Table-XLV).
Keeping in view, the existing Solid Waste Management system and average
limitations, a model for the Solid Waste Management has been worked out (Fig-90). The
proposed system of Solid Waste Management, the Door to Door collection in Residential
areas (Households), Shop to Shop/Commercial unit to Commercial unit collection in
Commercial areas and Institute to Institute in the Institutional areas should be done with the
help of cart wheels/wheel barrows/waste carrier which ever is applicable in specific area.
While collecting wastes it should be partially segregated into recyclable and non-recyclable
waste utilizing the services of waste collectors/Municipal workers.
In the areas where door to door or shop to shop collection is not possible, it should be
dumped on suitable collection site with roads access. After collection, the recyclable waste
should be further segregated to paper, cardboard, jute, cloth, plastic, metal, glass, thermocoal,
leather and rubber to be transported to the respective recycling units involving the services of
the local waste collectors, waste dealers and Municipal workers. This is possible only, if
Municipality recognises and utilises the services of waste collectors (ragpickers, IWB, SEM
and WWD) which constitute important informal network for Solid Waste Management. The
non-recyclable waste can be further segregated into organic waste-biodegradable as well as
non-biodegradable, inert material and hazardous waste of the hospital. The biodegradable
organic waste can be managed by composting/vermin-composting; the non-biodegradable
organic waste like egg shells/bones can be burned to form ash. Inert material can be used for
landfilling of the lowland areas and hazardous waste of the hospital which can be incinerated
should be incinerated and hospital waste which cannot be incinerated should be put to
specialised landfill. Beside this, any other type of the hazardous as well as non-hazardous
waste can be planned according to specific requirement. If this proposed plan of the Solid
Waste Management is followed (Fig-91), the potential 6.95 tonnes/day (42.17%) of the
Gross Solid Waste can be separated at source to be put to recycling units through local chain
of waste collectors, waste dealers and Municipal workers. Of the rest of 9.53 tonnes/day
(57.83%), 1.98 tonnes/day (12.01%) inert material can be used for lowland area. 6.22
tonnes/day (37.74%) of biodegradable organic waste can be put to composting/vermin-
composting, 1.11 tonnes/day (6.74%) of hazardous waste of hospital can be put to
incinerator for incineration and remaining non-biodegradable organic waste of 0.16
tonnes/day (0.98%) can be burned. Roy (1988a), Ultrich (1989), Alagappan (1993), Foley
et al., (1993) advocated the recycling of Municipal Solid Waste as a technique for waste
disposal and resource conservation.
To make this proposed model of Solid Waste Management successful, the awareness
of public regarding the utility of waste is very important. So the public can be awared through
media, seminars, discussions, door to door campains about the utility and importance of
various wastes which can be recycled/reused or reprocessed to generate the resources as well
as to minimize the waste load of the city or country thereby making it self sufficient and more
eco-friendly.
Important Highlights/Conclusions:
A total of 16.48 tonnes/day of Solid Waste with 10.02 tonnes/day of Biodegradable
Solid Waste, 4.48 tonnes/day of Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste and 1.98
tonnes/day of Inert Material is generated at source in Study Area (Kathua Town).
A total of 11.18 tonnes/day of Solid Waste (as per Municipality record) is disposed off
daily to dumping site by method of open dumping and hospital waste is being dumped
along-with Municipal waste.
A total of 2.05 tonnes/day of Solid Waste is separated at source to be sold to waste
buyers to put to recycling/reused process.
A total of 2.97 tonnes/day of waste remained indisposed in drains, roads, open spaces
and collective sites of Study Area.
Ragpickers @ 10.95 + 7.01 kg/day were observed to remove waste from drains,
dumping sites, open spaces and dustbins, thereby, earning Rs. 49.42 + 17.13/day on
selling it to waste collectors of higher hierarchies.
IWB on an average purchase 31.09 + 11.42 kg/day waste by moving into one to many
localities, thereby, earning Rs. 93.71 + 34.03/day on selling it to SEM or waste
collectors of higher hierarchies.
SEM on an average purchase 263.09 + 222.84 kg/day waste and earn Rs. 378.09
+217.64/day on selling it to WWD.
WWD being higher in hierarchy of waste collectors, purchase 1778.22 + 1410.66
kg/day of waste and earn Rs. 2176.5 + 802.06/day on selling it to recycling units.
IWB, SEM, WWD on an average take 2.05 tonnes/day of waste separated at source to
recycling units.
Awareness of public regarding the utility of waste can further reduce Net Solid Waste
generation, thereby, generating resources and minimizing the menace of Solid Waste
generation.
Recommendations:
It has been observed that there has been lack of civic sense among the people of
Kathua and also lack of determination on the part of Municipality and Government in respect
of Solid Waste Management. Therefore, there is an urgent need to organize mass awareness
campaign in this regard.
Municipality of Kathua should pay due attention towards Solid Waste Management
in the area, otherwise problem is likely to become acute with the present rate of
increase in Solid Waste generation.
The number of storage bins should be increased to avoid over-spilling and dumping
in open areas.
The Solid Waste from hospitals should be disposed off separately, preferably by
incineration and specialized land-filling.
Municipality should identify more collection sites at Study Area.
People should not be allowed to burn the Solid Waste because of health hazards
arising from burning.
Municipality workers should collect waste properly from a collection site.
Municipality should provide covered vehicles for transport of waste.
Municipality should start sanitary land-filling system and install compost treatment
plant for the Management of Solid Waste.
Ragpickers should not be allowed to throw any leftovers on the roads rather they
should be directed to put left over in dustbins.
Services of ragpickers should be utilized by Municipality for collection of waste
from door to door and segregation of waste into recyclable and non-recyclable
waste.
Municipal employees should keep a check on the public for proper disposal of waste
into the dustbins or collection site and one who offends the laws should be given
penalty.
Interactive participation of NGO’s and local residents with the waste management
body should be encouraged to create mass awareness.
Manpower development should be in proportion to the waste generation in
respective wards.
Composting and vermi-composting is the most beneficial and eco-friendly method
for Solid Waste disposal.
Segregation of waste at Household’s level should be encouraged. Source
segregation into two separate bins for biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid
Waste should be promoted through mass awareness programmes.
Solid Waste from Vegetable Market should be segregated and processed separately.
Technology must be needed where ecology meet with economy.
Street food vendors should be directed to have their own storage bins to store the
waste generated during their activities.
Waste generated during cleaning such as sludge etc. should be stored and disposed
separately.
Collection and transportation system may be privatized phase wise.
Special attention should be paid to Solid Waste worker by providing them adequate
protective measures.
We must follow the triple ‘R’ policy i.e. Reuse, Recycle and Reduce policy.
We must shun The Dilute and Dispersion Policy.
We must follow the Waste Management Hierarchy. This approach involves the
options ordered from the most desirable to least desirable.
Government should enact the “Polluter Pays Principle”.
Government should promote the “Industrial Ecosystem” or “Resource recovery”
or “Sustainable Waste Management” or “Resource Management” and must
consider the Solid Waste as “URBAN ORE”.
In the last but not least we should “Just Curve Our Unnecessary Wishes and
Desires and refrain ourselves from being a veritable trash factory,” the greatest
weapon to deal with this kind of menace.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Solid Wastes are defined as useless, unwanted or discarded material in solid state that
arises from human activities. The problems associated with Solid Waste began at the dawn of
civilization, when man started living in groups or societies in settled communities. Prior to
this, the waste of primitive societies could readily be absorbed and dissipated by natural
process because population densities were small and the available land was relatively large.
Moreover, being nomadic in habit, man used to move away from the waste he generated.
As village grew, into towns and then cities, it became common practice to throw
waste into access ways, waterways and vacant plots where they intermingled with the
excrement of community and that of domesticated animals. At all the levels of development,
human beings produce domestic wastes, agricultural wastes, industrial wastes, hospital
wastes and wastes at the public places.
A study of generation, storage, collection and disposal of Solid Waste is important to
any community which recognizes the potentially harmful effects of waste on public health,
environment and on its general welfare. Proper collection and disposal of Solid Waste is very
important for the over all-health of urban citizens. It is surprising to note that none of the
cities in the country collects and disposes its Solid Waste in a safe way.
The main aim of the present work is to study the Generation, Disposal and
Management of Solid Waste in Kathua Town. Jammu and Kashmir, the north-western
state of India is located between 320 17/ and 370 5/ north latitude and 720 40/ and 800 30/ east
longitude. The total area of state including 120849 km2 under unlawful occupation of China
and Pakistan is 222236 km2. The state is divisible into three regions viz. Jammu, Kashmir and
Ladakh, each drained by a well defined riverine system. The Jammu region is divisible into
eight districts viz; Jammu, Kathua, Samba, Udhampur, Doda, Poonch, Rajouri and Kishtwar.
The site of present study area lies in the Municipality limits of Kathua Town.
Geographically, Kathua district lies in south-east of the state. It is situated 320 17/ to 320 55/
north latitude and 750 32/ to 750 76/ east longitude, spread over an area of 2651 sq. kms.,
constituting 1.9% of the total area of the state. The district has population of over 4.92 lacks
as per 2001 estimates.
Kathua, the site of present studies is about 85kms. from Jammu city on Jammu-
Pathankot National Highway. The two main rivers of the district are Ravi and Ujh which are
the major contributors to the prestigious Ravi-Tawi irrigation complex. The significance of
the Study Area i.e. Kathua is its importance because it is situated near Lakhanpur which is the
Gateway of India to Jammu And Kashmir State. The Study Area was divided into four zones.
The average Gross Solid Waste generation of 0.536±0.141 kg/capita/day in the
Residential Areas (Households) of the Kathua Town was calculated by taking thirty
samples of Solid Waste from each zone in a period of three months for two years. The
qualitative and quantitative compositions of the average Gross Biodegradable and Non-
Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) were also calculated during different seasons in
two years study period. The average weight of various Biodegradable and Non-
Biodegradable waste items was calculated by weighing five items.
Data from each households regarding the separation of various wastes viz. paperware
(books, copies, newspapers, magazines); plasticware (containers, buckets, bottles, plastic
wovensack, scrap); metallicware (tin containers, scrap); glassware (beer and wine bottles,
bottles); cardboard (craft, sweep); jute (jute wovensack) to be sold to Itinerant Waste
Buyer (IWB) or Waste Dealer at weekly or monthly intervals were also recorded to
calculated average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation of the recycled/reused waste at
each household.
Seasonal variation in average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation, Solid
Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation
including various Biodegradable, Non-Biodegradable and Inert Material were calculated.
Data on Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation and separation in eight seasons of the
two years study period were compiled to calculate average Solid Waste of 0.082±0.022
kg/capita/day separation and Net Generation of 0.454±0.124 kg/capita/day at
Households (Residential Areas) of Kathua Town.
Average Gross Solid Waste generation of 0.491±0.097 kg/capita/day in the Shops
of Kathua town was calculated by taking sixty samples of Solid Waste from various types of
Shops in a period of three months during two years study period. The qualitative and
quantitative compositions of Biodegradable and Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste were
also calculated by analysing the Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at each Shop
during different seasons in a study period of two years.
The amount of various recyclable/reused waste which were separated by
shopkeepers to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals
were also recorded to calculate average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation of the
recyclable/reused waste at each type of Shop. The data on Solid Waste at each type of the
Shop during eight seasons of the two years study period was compiled to find the qualitative
and quantitative compositions (percentage by weight) of the various Biodegradable and
Non-Biodegradable Solid Wastes and subsequently the average Solid Waste of
0.073±0.019 kg/capita/day separation and Net Generation of 0.419±0.084 kg/capita/day
at average Shop in Study Area.
Similarly, average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and Net Generation in
the Cinemas, Hotels and Restaurants of Kathua Town was calculated by taking specific
number of samples of Solid Waste from various respective units of Commercial areas in a
period of three months during two years study period. The qualitative and quantitative
compositions of Biodegradable and Non-Biodegradable wastes were also calculated by
analyzing the Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation. The quantity of various
recyclable/reused wastes which are separated to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyers (IWB)
at weekly or monthly intervals were also recorded to calculate the separation of average
Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) and subsequently the Net Solid Waste generation per
Commercial Unit. The values of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and Net
Generation at various Commercial Units during eight seasons of the study period were
compiled to find the average Solid Waste separation of 0.057±0.044 kg/capita/day and
Net Generation of 0.308±0.183 kg/capita/day at Commercial areas.
Average Solid Waste (kg/day) generation per day at Bus Stand and Vegetable
Market were calculated by taking six samples and five samples respectively in a period of
three months during two years study period. The qualitative and quantitative compositions
of Biodegradable and Non-Biodegradable wastes at Bus Stands and Vegetable Market
were also calculated by analyzing the Solid Waste (kg/day) generation.
The values of Solid Waste (kg/day) generation at Bus Stand and Vegetable
Market during eight seasons were compiled to find the average Solid Waste at Bus Stand
@ 75.140±10.263 kg/day and Vegetable Market @ 128.368±16.560 kg/day respectively.
The average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation in the Institutional Areas
were calculated by taking specific number of samples of Solid Waste from various
Institutional units like Banks, Offices, Hospitals, Primary schools, Middle schools, High
schools, Higher secondary schools and Colleges in a period of three months during two
years study period.
The qualitative and quantitative composition of Biodegradable and Non-
Biodegradable wastes were also calculated by analyzing the Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)
generation. The quantity of various recyclable/reused wastes which were separated by
sweepers to be sold to Itinerant Waste Buyer (IWB) at weekly or monthly intervals were
recorded to calculate average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and net generation. The
values of Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) separation and Net Generation during eight seasons
of the study period at various Institutional Units were compiled to find the average Solid
Waste separation of 0.014±0.030 kg/capita/day and Net generation of 0.294±0.742
kg/capita/day at Institutional areas.
From average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) generation at Households (Residential
area), Commercial Area and Institutional Area, the average Solid Waste of 0.403±0.119
kg/capita/day was calculated at Study Area (Kathua Town). This value was multiplied
with population of Kathua Town to evaluate average Solid Waste generation of 16.48
tonnes/day at source in Study Area (Kathua Town).
The Socio-economic Survey of various waste collectors i.e., Ragpicker, Itinerant
Waste Buyers (IWB), Small Enterprises Middlemen (SEM) and Wholesale Waste
Dealer (WWD) was carried out on specific format for each category of waste collectors, to
investigate daily waste collection (kg/day) and earning (Rs/day).
Most (67%) of the Ragpickers were observed to sell their collected waste to Small
Enterprises Middlemen. Ragpickers @ 10.95±7.01kg/day removed waste from drains,
dumping sites, open spaces, dustbins and thereby earns Rs. 49.42±17.13/day on selling it to
waste collectors of higher hierarchies.
IWB on an average purchase 31.09±11.42 kg/day waste by moving into one to many
localities and thereby earns Rs. 93.71±34.03/day on selling it to SEM or waste collectors of
higher hierarchies. SEM on an average purchase 263.09±222.84 kg/day waste and earn Rs.
378.09±217.64/day on selling it to WWD. WWD being higher in hierarchy of waste
collectors purchase 1778.22±1410.66 kg/day of waste and earn Rs. 2176.5±802.06/day on
selling it to recycling units. IWB, SEM, WWD on an average were observed to collect 1.92
tonnes/day of waste separated at source to recycling units.
The Socio-personal Survey regarding health and awareness about Solid Waste
Management was conducted by using specific formats in Residential (Households),
Commercial and Institutional areas.
Public in Kathua Town was having awareness regarding recycling/reused of paper
(100%), plastic (52.6%), jute (14.49%), cardboard (34.16%), metal (31.39%), glass (19.66%),
wood (2.10%) and rubber (2.16%) respectively.
Regarding the method of waste collection to be implemented, 48.56% of surveyed
respondents in Study Area favored door to door collection of the waste and 54.78%
respondents’ favored area to area waste collection. Regarding method of waste disposal to be
implemented in the Kathua Town, most of (66.11%) of the respondents were observed to be
of the opinion that landfill method should be adopted, though few favored landfill and
incineration method (12.33%), landfill and composting method (10.67%) and land-filling,
incineration and composting methods (6.22%) for the waste disposal.
The existing Solid Waste Management system was also discussed. The respondents in
Study Area were observed to dispose off waste in dustbin (32.80%), open spaces including
vacant plots, unused land and grounds etc. (29.05%), road sides (25.92%) and drains
(12.22%).
The waste disposal even in the Surveyed Area, with installation of Municipal dustbin
or Municipal recognized collection sites on road sides or in open space was reported to be
carried out daily (15.86%), weekly (61.84%), fortnightly (20.20%) and monthly (2.10%) as
per public response.
A Solid Waste Management plan was proposed and the fate of waste after adopting
proposed Solid Waste Management plan was discussed.
Important Highlights/Conclusions:
A total of 16.48 tonnes/day of Solid Waste with 10.02 tonnes/day of Biodegradable
Solid Waste, 4.48 tonnes/day of Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste and 1.98
tonnes/day of Inert Material is generated at source in Study Area (Kathua Town).
A total of 11.18 tonnes/day of Solid Waste (as per Municipality record) is disposed off
daily to dumping site by method of open dumping and hospital waste is being dumped
along-with Municipal waste.
A total of 2.05 tonnes/day of Solid Waste is separated at source to be sold to waste
buyers to put to recycling/reused process.
A total of 2.97 tonnes/day of waste remained indisposed in drains, roads, open spaces
and collective sites of Study Area.
Ragpickers @ 10.95 + 7.01 kg/day were observed to remove waste from drains,
dumping sites, open spaces and dustbins, thereby, earning Rs. 49.42 + 17.13/day on
selling it to waste collectors of higher hierarchies.
IWB on an average purchase 31.09 + 11.42 kg/day waste by moving into one to many
localities, thereby, earning Rs. 93.71 + 34.03/day on selling it to SEM or waste
collectors of higher hierarchies.
SEM on an average purchase 263.09 + 222.84 kg/day waste and earn Rs. 378.09
+217.64/day on selling it to WWD.
WWD being higher in hierarchy of waste collectors, purchase 1778.22 + 1410.66
kg/day of waste and earn Rs. 2176.5 + 802.06/day on selling it to recycling units.
IWB, SEM, WWD on an average take 2.05 tonnes/day of waste separated at source to
recycling units.
Awareness of public regarding the utility of waste can further reduce Net Solid Waste
generation, thereby, generating resources and minimizing the menace of Solid Waste
generation.
Recommendations:
It has been observed that there has been lack of civic sense among the people of
Kathua and also lack of determination on the part of Municipality and Government in respect
of Solid Waste Management. Therefore, there is an urgent need to organize mass awareness
campaign in this regard.
Municipality of Kathua should pay due attention towards Solid Waste Management
in the area, otherwise problem is likely to become acute with the present rate of
increase in Solid Waste generation.
The number of storage bins should be increased to avoid over-spilling and dumping
in open areas.
The Solid Waste from hospitals should be disposed off separately, preferably by
incineration and specialized land-filling.
Municipality should identify more collection sites at Study Area.
People should not be allowed to burn the Solid Waste because of health hazards
arising from burning.
Municipality workers should collect waste properly from a collection site.
Municipality should provide covered vehicles for transport of waste.
Municipality should start sanitary land-filling system and install compost treatment
plant for the Management of Solid Waste.
Ragpickers should not be allowed to throw any leftovers on the roads rather they
should be directed to put left over in dustbins.
Services of ragpickers should be utilized by Municipality for collection of waste
from door to door and segregation of waste into recyclable and non-recyclable
waste.
Municipal employees should keep a check on the public for proper disposal of waste
into the dustbins or collection site and one who offends the laws should be given
penalty.
Interactive participation of NGO’s and local residents with the waste management
body should be encouraged to create mass awareness.
Manpower development should be in proportion to the waste generation in
respective wards.
Composting and vermi-composting is the most beneficial and eco-friendly method
for Solid Waste disposal.
Segregation of waste at Household’s level should be encouraged. Source
segregation into two separate bins for biodegradable and non-biodegradable Solid
Waste should be promoted through mass awareness programmes.
Solid Waste from Vegetable Market should be segregated and processed separately.
Technology must be needed where ecology meet with economy.
Street food vendors should be directed to have their own storage bins to store the
waste generated during their activities.
Waste generated during cleaning such as sludge etc. should be stored and disposed
separately.
Collection and transportation system may be privatized phase wise.
Special attention should be paid to Solid Waste worker by providing them adequate
protective measures.
We must follow the triple ‘R’ policy i.e. Reuse, Recycle and Reduce policy.
We must shun The Dilute and Dispersion Policy.
We must follow the Waste Management Hierarchy. This approach involves the
options ordered from the most desirable to least desirable.
Government should enact the “Polluter Pays Principle”.
Government should promote the “Industrial Ecosystem” or “Resource recovery”
or “Sustainable Waste Management” or “Resource Management” and must
consider the Solid Waste as “URBAN ORE”.
In the last but not least we should “Just Curve Our Unnecessary Wishes and
Desires and refrain ourselves from being a veritable trash factory,” the greatest
weapon to deal with this kind of menace.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbasi, S.A. and E.V. Ramasamy (2001). Solid Waste Management with earthworms.
Discovery publishing house, New Delhi: 178.
*Abu Qdais, H.A., M.F. Hamoda and J. Newham (1997). Analysis of residential Solid
Waste at generation sites. Waste Manag. and Res., 15: 395-406.
Abu-Qudais, M. and H.A. Abu-Qdais (2000). Energy content of Municipal Solid Waste in
Jordan and its potential utilization. Energy Conversion and Manag., 41: 983-991.
Adhikari, B.K., S.F. Barrington and J. Martinez (2009). Urban food waste generation,
challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Environment and Waste
Management, 3 (1/2): 4-21.
Agrawal, R. (2000). Medical waste disposal in India. Span, Nov/Dec: 22-26.
Agrawal, R. and B. Chaturvedi (1997). Solid Waste disposal and recycling in Delhi: A
case study. In: Waste Disposal in Engineer-ing Landfils (Ed. M. Dutta), Narosa
Publishing House, New Delhi, India:221-236.
Agarwal, S.K. (1998). Solid Waste and disposal. In: Perspectives in Environment (Eds.
S.K. Agarwal, J.P. Kaushik, K.K. Koul and A.K. Jain), A.P.H. Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi: 1-27.
Agrawal, G.D., A.P.S. Rathore and A.B. Gupta (2004). A simple approach for estimating
energy content of Municipal Solid Waste. Indian. J. Environ. Prot., 24 (2): 106-112.
Aggarwal, T.R., B.N. Singh and A.K. Gupta (2000). Effect of domestic wastes on
physico-chemical characteristics of soil at Varuna river corridor. Polln Res., 19 (2):
303-305.
*Agunwamba, J.C. (1998). Solid Waste Management in Nigeria: Problems and issues.
Environ. Manag., 22 (6): 849-856.
Ahmad, M. (1999).Recycling of waste. Popular Science, 7 (1): 45-47.
Ahsan, N. (1999). Solid Waste Management Plan for India megacities. Indian J. Environ.
Prot., 19 (2): 90-95.
Akhter, N., Z. Hussain, J. Trankler and P. Parkpian (2002). Hospital Waste
Management and its probable health effect: A lesson learned from Bangladesh. Indian
J. Environ. Hlth., 44 (2): 124-137.
Alagappan, L. (1993). From Waste to Wealth. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 13 (3): 224-225.
Alappat, B.J. and A.K. Dikshit (1999). Management of plastic wastes. Indian J. Environ.
Prot., 19 (12): 892-897.
Alexander, J.H. (1993). In defense of garbage. New York: Praeger.
Ali Khan, M.Z. and Z.H. Abu-Ghararah (1991). New approach for estimating energy
content of Municipal Solid Waste. J. Environ. Engng., 117 (3): 376-380.
*American public works Association, Institute for Solid Wastes, (1966). Proceedings
Chicago, APWA.
Banerjee, S.K. and K. Bagchi (1999). Hospital Solid Waste and its Management
Approach- A case study of a hospital in Calcutta, Indian J. Environ. Prot., 19 (12):
932-938.
Barnhart, B.J. (1978). The Disposal of hazardous wastes. Environ. Sci. & Techno., 12 (10):
1132-1136.
Basu, J. (2002). Plastic purge. Down to Earth (February): 40.
Basu, S. (1998). Medical Waste Disposal Burning Problem. The Hindu Survey of
Environment. Pub. S. Rangarajan, Madras: 25-30.
*Battacharayya, J.K., S.K. Titus and A.D. Bhide (1996). Industrial Solid Waste:
Characterization and disposal. In Proc. 22nd WEDC Conference: Reaching the
unreached challenges for the 21st century, New Delhi: 273-275.
Beede, D.N. and D.E. Bloom (1995). The economics of Municipal Solid Waste. The world
Bank Research Observer, 10 (2): 113-50.
Beukering, P.V., M. Sehker, R. Gerlagh and V. Kumar (1999). Analyzing Urban Solid
Waste in developing countries: a Perspective on Bangalore, Indian, IIED., working
paper 24, CREED working paper series: 1-36.
Bhargava, R. and M. Gupta (2002). Expert system for Solid Waste Management. J. Indian
Assoc. Environ. Manag., 29: 81-84.
Bhatia, M.S. and P.T. Gurnani (1996). Urban Waste Management privatization. 22nd
WEDC Conference, New Delhi, India: 313-314.
*Bhattacharayya, A.K. (1997). Solid waste Management. Yojna-Dev. and Env., 41 (8):
100-104.
*Bhiday, M. (1994). Earthworm in Agriculture. Indian Farming, 43 (12): 31-33.
*Bhide, A.D. (1984). Urban Solid Waste Management. An assessment Silver Jubilee
Commemoration proceeding, NEERI, Nagpur: 219-225.
Bhide, A.D. and B.B. Sundaresan (2004). Solid Waste Management in developing
countries. Indian National Scientific Document Centre, New Delhi.
http://www.bases.brime.br.
Bhoyar, R.V., S.K. Titus, A.D. Bhide and P. Khanna (1996). Municipal and Industrial
Solid Waste Management in India. J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag., 23: 53-64.
Bhuyan, M.S.K. (1999). Waste Management practices in rural households of Assam. Ecol.
Env. and Cons., 5 (4): 395-397.
Borthakur, A.B. (2001). Poser on Plastic. Down to Earth (November): 24.
Bridgewater, A. and K. Lidgren (1981). Household waste management in Europe:
Economics and techniques. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Careless, J. (1992). Taking out the trash. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Carpenter, D.O., M. Cikrt and W.A. Suk (1999). Hazardous waste in Eastern and Central
Europe: Technology and Health effects. Environ. Hlth. Perspectives, 107 (4): 249-
250.
Chakrabarty, P., V.K. Srivastava and S.N. Chakrabarti (1995). Solid Waste Disposal
and the environment-A review. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 15 (1): 39-43.
Chaturvedi, B. (1998). Public Waste Private Enterprise. The Hemrichboll Spisturg
Publication, New Delhi.
Chaturvedi, B. (1999). Plastic bags: A modern day blight. The Hindu Survey of the
Environment. Pub. S. Rangarajan, Chennai: 175-177.
*Cointreau, S.J. (1982). Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes. The World
Bank, Washington, D.C.
*Cointreau, S.J. and C.G. Gunnerson, J.M. Huls and N.N. Seldman (1984). Recycling
from Municipal refuse: A state of the art review and annotated bibliography. World
Bank Technical Paper No. 30. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
*Cointreau, S.J. and M. de Kadt (1991). Living with garbage: Cities learn to recycle.
Development Forum, January- February: 12-13.
*Cook, D. and J. Kalbermatten (1982). Prospects for resource recovery from urban Solid
Wastes in developing countries. Conference on the practical implications of the reuse
of Solid Wastes. Thomas Telford, London: 139-146.
Das, D., M. Srinivasu and M. Bandyopadhyay (1998). Solid State Acidification of
Vegetable Waste: Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 40 (4): 333-342.
Datta, M. (1999). Integrated Solid Waste Management. In: Industrial Solid Waste
Management and landfilling practice. (Eds. M. Dutta, B.P. Parida, B.K. Guha and
T.R. Sreekrishnan), Narosa publishing house, New Delhi: 10-23.
*De Renzo, D.J. (1977). Energy from bioconversion of waste materials. Noyes Data
corporation, U.S.A.: 223.
Dhussa, A.K. and A.K. Varshney (2000). Energy recovery from Municipal Solid Waste
potential and possibilities. Bio Energy News (March): 7-8.
Dhussa, A.K. and R.C. Tiwari (2000). Waste to energy in India. Bio Energy News
(March): 12-14.
Einisedel, N. (1998). Critical consideration of Solid Waste disposal in Asian Cities.
URL:http://www.rti.org/cid/identify.html.
Everett, J.W. and S. Shahi (1996). Estimating route time. J. Environ. Engng., 122 (2): 107-
113.
Farrell, D. (2001). Solid Waste to Energy Recycling-The future is now reality. Bio Energy
News, March: 12-15.
Foley, D., G.D. Mckenzie and R.O. Utgard (1993). Management of Solid Waste,
Urbanores and Recycling. In: Investigations in Environmental Geology. Mc Millian
publishing company, New York: 231-241.
Foolmaun, R.K. and T. Ramjeawon (2008). Life cycle assessment of bottles and
comparative life cycle assessment of 3 disposal options in Mauritius. International
Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 2(1/2): 125-138.
*Freeman, H. (1990). Hazardous waste minimization. Mc Graw Hill, London.
Gandhi, M. (1999). Household waste-generation and disposal. Polln. Res., 18 (3): 297-300.
Gamse, T. and C. Meidiana (2010). Development of Waste Management Practices in
Indonesia. European Journal of Scientific Research, 40 (2): 199-210.
Giri, A.K. and A.K. Bhattacharyya (1999). Characterization of Solid Waste generated in
Wazirpur Industrial area of Delhi. J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Monit., 9 (1): 51-61.
*Glenn, J. (1999). The state of garbage in America. Biocycle, 40 (4): 60-66.
Gupta, V.J. (1999). Environment: an interdisciplinary approach. Printed and published by
associated printers, 226 Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigrah.
Haq, I., S.S. Pal, N.K. Verma and S.P. Chakrabarti (1998). Hazardous wastes generation
and Management in Punjab and Jammu province. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 40 (1): 93-
105.
Hazra, T. and S. Goel (2008). Solid Waste Management in Kolkata, India: Practices and
challenges, Waste Management; 29 (1): 470-478.
Heart, S. (1999). Technology of managing solid and hazardous wastes in cement kilns.
Indian J. Environ. Prot., 19 (12): 881-891.
Hershaft, A. (1972). Solid Waste treatment technology. Environ. Sci. & Techno., 6 (5): 412-
421.
Hoffman, D.A. (1968). Batch Retort pyrolysis of Solid Municipal Wastes. Environ. Sci. &
Techno., 2 (11): 1023-1026.
Hueber, D. (1989). Criteria for the disposal of Hospital waste. Gate, 3: 35-37.
Ingle, S.T. and D.S. Mali (2000). Solid Waste Management system for Kolhapur City,
Maharashtra. Polln. Res., 19 (2): 185-189.
Jacobs, T.L and J.W. Everett (1992). Optimal scheduling of consecutive landfill
operations with recycling. J. Environ. Engng., 118 (3): 420-429.
Jain, A.K. (2000). Management of Solid Waste in Mumbai. Bio Energy News, 4 (1): 9-11.
Jain, A.P. (1994). Solid Waste Management in India. 20th WEDC Conference, Colombo,
Srilanka; 177-182.
*Jain, A.P. and J.C. Kuniyal (1994). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): a tool for
effective Management and decision making for Tourism development in the
Himalayan region of India. In Himachal- India: Souvenir of 7th Himalayan Tourist
Advisory Board, HIMTAB. Department of Tourism-Himachal Pradesh, Shimla: 28-30.
Jain, A.P., J.C. Kuniyal and A.S. Shannigrahi (1996). Solid Waste Management in
Mohal. 22nd WEDC Conference, New Delhi, India, 2: 266-267.
Jain, C.K., K.K. Bhatia and S.M. Seth (1998). Effect of waste disposal on the waste
quantity of River Kali. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 40 (4): 372-375.
Jalan, R.K. (1999). Solid Waste generation and recycling for energy recovery and other
uses. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 19 (12): 902-914.
Jha, R. (1998). Solid Waste Management in Pune- A case study. Bio Energy News
(September): 19-21.
Kaiser, B., P.D. Eagan and H. Shaner (2001). Solutions to health care waste: Life-cycle
thinking and “Green” purchasing. Environ. Hlth. Perspectives, 109 (3): 205-207.
Kantharia, M.L. (1999). Biowaste Recycling. Bio Energy News, March: 19-20.
Karthikeyan, J. (1996). Solid Waste Management in urban areas: some problems and
perspectives. In: National Seminar on Environmental Conservation and Management
(ECOMAN), 7-8 March, Visakhapatnam.
Katakam, A. (2001). On the scrap heap. Front Line, August 3: 89-92.
Kathuria, P.N. (2000). How harmful are the synthetic plastic carry bags? Indian J. Environ.
Prot., 20 (1): 76-78.
*Keseva, M.E. and S.K. Gupta (1996). Recycling-an environmentally friendly and income
generating activity towards sustainable Solid Waste Management. Case study- Dar es
Salaam City, Tanzania. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 17 (4): 299-309.
Khan, A.B. and K. Eswari (1993). Eco-epidemiological studies on children exposed to
Solid Waste dumps. Poll Res., 12 (1): 49-55.
Khan, R.R. (1994). Environmental Management of Municipal Solid Wastes. Indian J.
Environ. Prot., 14 (1): 26-30.
Khandelwal, K.C. (1996). Harnessing wealth from wastes an overview. Indian Renewable
Energy Development Agency, 7 (1): 7-9.
King, B.F. and R.C. Murphy (1996). Survey to establish residential Solid Waste
Management. J. Environ. Engg., 122 (10): 897-901.
Kirubakaren, V., V.S. Ramakrishnan, M. Premlatha and P. Subramanian (2005).
Investigation of energy recovery from poultry litter and Municipal Solid Waste by
thermo-chemical conversion method in India. Indian Journal of Environmental
Science and Engineering, 47(4): 266-275.
Kishore, J., P. Goel, B. Sagar and T.K. Joshi (2000). Awareness about biochemical waste
Management and infection control among dentists of a teaching hospital in New
Delhi, India. IJDR., 11 (4): 157-161.
Kishore, J., T.K. Joshi and B. Sagar (1999). Hospital Waste Management in India. India
J. Occupl. and Environ. Med., 3 (2): 79-84.
Klee, A.J. (1969). Tactics, Strategy: the Solid Waste battle. Environ. Sci. and Techno., 3
(10): 898-902.
Krishna Murti, C.R. (1988). Health Implications of Hazardous Waste Management. Indian
J. Environ. Hlth., 31 (1): 1-10.
Kumar, A. and D.A. Patil (2001). Solid Waste generation from a glass manufacturing unit
and its impact on environment. J. Indi. Polln. Contl., 17 (1): 19-25.
Kumar, J. S., K.V. Subbaiah and P.V. Rao (2010). Waste to Energy-A case study of Eluru
city, Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Environmental Science, 1 (2).
Kumar, P. and C.P. Singh (1999). Managing Solid Waste: A case study of Ghazipur City.
Polln. Res., 18 (3): 231-234.
Kumar, S., J.K. Bhattacharyya, A.N. Vaidya, T. Chakrabarti, S. Devotta and A.B.
Akolkar (2009). Assessment of the status of Municipal Solid Waste Management in
metro cities, state capitals, class-I cities and class-II town in India: An insight. Waste
Management, 29: 888-895.
Kuniyal, J.C. and A.P. Jain (1999). Public Involvement in Environmental Assessment of
Solid Waste Management in U.P. Himalayan Tourists treks. India. Environ. And
Waste Manag., 2 (4): 279-291.
Kuniyal, J.C. and A.P. Jain (2000). Tourists Involvement in Solid Waste Management in
Himalayan trials: A case study in and around valley of flowers, India. J. Environ.
Syst., 28 (2): 91-115.
*Kuniyal, J.C., A.P. Jain and A.S. Shannigrahi (1997). Environmental Assessment of
Solid Waste Management in and around the valley of flowers. Final technical project
report submitted to G.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and Development,
Kosi-Katarmal (UP), India.
Kuniyal, J.C., A.P. Jain and A.S. Shannigrahi (1998a). Solid Wastes. A Refuse or
Resource in the Himalaya? Research for Mountain Development: Some Initiatives
and Accomplishments: 215-234.
Kuniyal, J.C., A.P. Jain and A.S. Shannigrahi (1998b). Public involvement in Solid
Waste Management in Himalayan trails in and around the valley of flowers, India.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 24: 299-322.
*Kuniyal, J.C., S.C. Ram, G.S. Singh and A.P. Jain (1995). Environmental assessment of
Kullu Dussehra in Himachal Himalaya, India. In: Proceedings of third International
symposium on sustainable reconstruction of highland and head water regions, (Eds.
R.B. Singh and M.J. Haigh), 6-8 October, Oxford and IBH publishing Co., New
Delhi: 73-85.
*Ladhar, S.S. (1996). Solid Waste Management in Punjab. In: Proc. 22nd WEDC
Conference. Reaching the unreached-challenges for the 21st century, New Delhi: 284-
285.
Lohani, B.N. and S.M. Ko (1988). Optimal sampling of domestic Solid Waste. J. Environ.
Engng., 114 (6): 1479-1483.
Lund, J.R. (1990). Least-cost scheduling of Solid Waste recycling. J. Environ. Engng., 116
(1): 182-190.
Lusugga Kironde, J.M. and M. Yhdego (1997). The governance of Waste Management in
urban Tanzania: towards a community based approach. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 21: 213-226.
*Malik, I. (1997). Hospital waste and garbage Management. Yojana Dev. Environ., 41(8):
107-110.
Mamtaz, R. and M.H. Choudhary (2008). Environmental pollution at a Solid Waste
disposal site in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Pollution Research, 217 (2): 207-212.
Manohar, D., P.R. Reddy and B. Ktaiah (1998). Characterization of Solid Waste of a
super specialty hospital-A case study. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 40 (4): 319-326.
Maudgal, S.C. (1995). Waste Management in India. J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag., 22:
203-208.
Mazumdar, N.B. (1996). Municipal Solid Waste Management: the Indian perspective.
Energy Environment Monitor, 12 (2): 57-69.
Mehta, D., U.P. Ragupati and R. Sharma (1994). Squalor that need not be. In: the Hindu
Survey of Environment. Pub. S. Rangaranjan, Madras: 11-17.
*Menon, S., S. Arun and V. Menon (1996). Hospital waste: A deadly menace to public
health. India Today (April): 132-135.
Moghissi, A.A. (1994). Recycling and environmental protection. Env. Int., 20 (2): 139-140.
Mohan, D., R. Christopher, M.A. Pretz, K.G. Urynowicz, Gerow and J.M. Reddy
(2011). Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Kathmandu, Nepal. Journal of
Environmental Management 92 (1): 240-243.
Momoh, J.J. and D.H. Oladebeye (2010). Assessment of awareness, attitude and
willingness of people to participate in Household Solid Waste recycling programme
in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 5 (1):
93-105. http://www.trisanita.org.
Mor, S., R. Khaiwal, A.D. Visscher, R.P. Dahiya and A. Chandra (2006). Municipal
Solid Waste characterization and its assessment of potential methane generation at
Ghazipur landfill site, Delhi: A case study. The Science of Total Environment, 371(1-
3): 1-10.
Nagori, S. (2002). Municipal Solid Waste generation and its disposal in Morena. Acta Ecol.,
24 (1): 5-7.
*Nath, K.J. (1984). Metropolitan Solid Waste Management in India. John Wiley, New
York: 47-70.
*NEERI (1970). Short term study of health status of refuse workers at Trivandrum-NEERI
Report.
*NEERI (1983). Solid Waste Management. A course manual. National Environmental
Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur.
Norrie, J., P. Lafortune and C.J. Beauchamp (1997). Characterization of waste materials
originating from Quebec supermarkets and an assessment of recycling potential.
Recourses, Conservation and Recycling, 19: 265-277.
*Nunan, F. (2000). Urban organic waste markets: responding to change in Hubli-Dharwad,
India. Habitat-Int., 24 (3): 347-360.
Olaniya, M.S., M.S. Sur, A.D. Bhide and S.N. Swarnakar (1998). Heavy metal pollution
of agricultural soil and vegetation due to application of Municipal Solid Waste-A case
study. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 40 (2): 160-168.
Olaniya, M.S., R.V. Bhoyar and A.D. Bhide (1991). Effects of Solid Waste disposal on
land. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 34 (2): 143-150.
Panda, S.P., C.S.K. Mishra and D.K. Behera (2003). Generation and disposal practices of
Municipal Solid Waste of Bhubaneshwar city-A case study. Indian J. Environ. &
Ecoplan., 7 (2): 283-286.
Pande, S., S.S. Patel and V.S. Shrivastava (2004). Organic matter in Industrial (textile
dyeing and printing) and Municipal Solid Waste. Polln. Res., 23 (1): 189-191.
Pandey, J. and K. Chaplot (2005). Environmental status evaluation of biomedical waste of
Udaipur. IJEP, 25 (11): 1016-1020.
Pasrija, H.B.D., S. Chander and S. Kumar (1995). Solid Waste Management in
Chandigarh city. In: Environment pollution and protection (Eds. M.R. Garg, V.K.
Bansal and N.S. Tiwana) Deep and Deep publications, New Delhi.
Patel, M. and A.K. Tripathi (1998). Municipal Solid Waste: Its utilization and disposal in
a few European countries. Bio Energy News: 6-7.
Patel, R.K. (1999). Physico-chemical characteristics of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in
Rourkela, the industrial city of Orissa. Polln, Res., 18 (4): 515-517.
Pojasek, R.B. (1978). Stabilization, Solidification of hazardous wastes. Environ. Sci. And
Techno., 12 (4): 382-386.
Prabhakarachary, D., A. Ramachandraiah, K.L. Reddy and S. Raghavachari (1998).
Characterization of Urban Solid Waste. J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag., 26: 134-
135.
Prasad, D. and E. Khan (1992). Environmental Pollution: Land (General Ed. S.G. Mishra)
Venus publishing house, New Delhi: 277.
Rampal, R.K. and D. Sharma (2003). Generation and disposal of Solid Waste at Bagh-e-
Bahu complex of Jammu, India. India J. Environ. and Ecoplan., 7 (1): 51-54.
Rampal, R.K., J. Kour and R. Jamwal (2002). Solid Waste generation in Government
hospitals of Jammu City, India. Polln. Res., 21 (1): 39-43.
Rao, K.J. and C.S. Ramalakshmi (2002). Vermiculture technology for effective urban
Waste Management. In: National seminar on Solid Waste Management-current status
and strategies for future, 12-14 December, Bangalore. 317-324.
Rao, K.J. and M.V. Shantaram (1993). Physical characteristics of Urban Solid Waste of
Hyderabad. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 13 (10): 724-725.
Rao, K.J. and M.V. Shantaram. (1999). Potentially toxic elements in soils treated with
urban Solid Waste. Indian J. Environ. Hlth., 41 (4): 364-368.
Rao, K.J., Y.S.S. Vimal Devi and A. Sreenivasa Raju (2003). Physical properties and
Elements analysis of Urban Solid Wastes of Hyderabad. Indian J. Environ and
Ecoplan., 7 (3): 543-548.
*Rao, V.S. (1996). Solid Waste Management-A case study of Hyderabad. In: proc. 22nd
WEDC Conference: Reaching the unreached-challenges for the 21st century, New
Delhi: 353-354.
Ratra, O.P. (2001). Garbage collection in Connaught place privatized, role for ragpickers.
Eco Echoes, 2 (2):6.
*Ravindera and A.K. Tripathi (1997). Waste to energy initiatives world wide. Bio Energy
News: A quarterly Newsletter of the National Bio Energy Board: 18-21.
Ravinder, V.C., K. Ravinder, and K.V. Rao (2005). Ground water pollution due to
dumping of Municipal Solid Waste at Warangal. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 25 (6): 523-
526.
Ray, C.N., B. Ahmadi and A.K. Singh (2001). Neglect of hospital waste control-A case
study in Ahmedabad. Economic and Political Weekly, January, 13: 105-107.
*Reid, L. and M. Tittlebaum (1993). Energy cost savings associated with Municipal Solid
Waste recycling. J. Environ. Engg., 119: 1196-1216.
RITES (1999). Solid Waste Management for Jammu Municipality. Feasibility study
conducted by RITES Environmental Engineering (G.O.I undertaking).
Roy, G.K. (1998 a). Municipal Solid Waste Recycle-An Economic proposition for a
developing Nation. India J. Environ. Prot., 8 (1): 51-54.
Roy, G.K. (1998 b). Economics of Urban Solid Waste Management. Indian J. Environ.
Prot., 8 (9): 676-680.
*Saini, R.S. and P.J.S. Dadhwal (1995). Clinical Waste Management-A case study. J.
Indian Assoc. Enviorn. Manag., 22: 172-174.
Sandwar, B.B. (1991). Hazardous Waste Management: A global problem. J. Indian Assoc.
Enviorn. Manag., 18: 186-189.
Santra, S.C. (1994). Ecology: Basic and applied. M.D. Publications, New Delhi: 250.
Sharma P.C. (2001). Energy from Municipal waste: An overview with special reference to
India. Bio Energy News. June: 11-14.
Schaefer, B.M. (1975). Disposing of Solid Waste by pyrolysis. Environ. Sci. & Techno., 9
(2): 98-99.
Seema, M. and S.P. Joshi (2011). Municipal Solid Waste and the plant diversity on landfill
site of Doon valley. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 8 (1): 95-
101.
Shah, K.A. (1994). Recycling of Municipal Waste. Indian J. Environ. Prot., 14 (5): 328-
330.
Sharholy, M., K. Ahmad, G. Mahmod and R.C. Trivedi (2008). Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Indian Cities. International Journal of Integrated Waste
Management, 28 (2): 459-467.
Sharma, S., S. Kashyap and P.Vasudevan (2004). Studies on the use of Municipal Solid
Waste for mushroom cultivation. Indian J. Environ. & Ecoplan., 8 (1): 01-06.
*Shekdar (1999). Municipal Solid Waste Management-the Indian perspective. J. Indian
Assoc. Enviorn. Manag., 26 (2): 100-108.
Shen, T.T. and G.H. Sewell (1988). Control of VOC Emissions from waste Management
facilities. J. Environ. Engng., 114 (6): 1392-1400.
Shivakumar, D., B.S. Thandaveswara and K.D. Chandarasekaran (2004). Solid Waste
leachate quality and its effect on soil properties. Polln. Res., 23 (1): 69-81.
*Sikka, P., P. Sikka, R.C. Maheshwari and P. Chaturvedi (1997). Management of
Municipal Solid Waste. Bio Energy for rural energisation: 205-209.
Singh, B., M. Gupta and A. Verma (1994). Plastic waste an overview. J. Indian Assoc.
Environ. Manage., 21: 24-29.
Singh, D., T.B. Singh and C.G. Anand (2001). Effects of hazardous Solid Waste disposal
on Land. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotech. & Env. Sci., 3 (1-2): 25-28.
Singh, S. (2001). Mismanaging Hospital Waste. Economic and Political Weekly, April 21:
1297-1298.
Sinha, R.K. and A.K. Sinha (2000). Waste Management-Embarking on the 3R’s
philosophy of waste reduction, reuse and recycling. Ina Shree Publishers, Jaipur.
Sinha, R.K. and R. Rawat (1991). Waste recycling and reutilization essential for
environmental safety and sustainable development-A case study. J. Eco. Bio., 3 (3):
193-198.
Singhal, S. and S. Pandey (2001). Solid Waste Management in India: Status and future
directions. Environ. Sci. 6 (1): 1-4.
Small, W.E. (1971). Third pollution-The National Problem of Solid Waste Disposal. Pall
Mall Press, London.
Snel, M. (1998). NGO’s/CBO’s in Solid Waste Management in Hyderabad (India). 24th
WEDC Conference, Islamabad, Pakistan: 82-85.
*Sonesson, U., A. Bjorklund, M. Carlsson and M. Dalemo (2000). Environmental and
economic analysis of Management system for biodegradable waste. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 28 (1-2): 29-53.
*Suess, M.J. (1985). Solid Waste Management-Selected topics. World Health Organization,
Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.
Sundararajan, R., S. Jayanthi and R. Elango (1997). Anaerobic digestion of organic
fraction of Municipal Solid Waste and domestic sewage of Coimbatore. Indian J.
Environ. Hlth., 39 (3): 193-196.
*Sushil (1980). System approach to Waste Management in India. M.Tech. Dissertation,
Indian Institute of technology, Delhi.
Tay, J.H. and A.T.C. Goh (1991). Engineering properties of Incinerator residue. J.
Environ. Engg., 117 (2): 224-235.
Tembhurkar, A.R. and M. Landge (2002). Medical Waste Management Plan. J. Indian
Assoc. Environ. Manag., 29: 50-56.
*Trehan, N.C. (1992). Environmental aspect of Hazardous Solid Waste Disposal.
Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries: 125-131.
Tripathi, R. D., U.N. Rai and V.S. Baghel (2006). The challenge of Solid Waste. Science
Reporter, June 2006: 39-42.
Trivedi, P.R. and G. Raj (1992). Solid Waste pollution (Ed. Encyclopedia of
Environmental Sciences), Akashdeep publishing house, New Delhi: 1-7.
Ultrich, D. (1989). Recycling-Potentials, Risks and Limititations. Gate, 3: 3-6.
U.N.E.P. (1991). Environmental data report 1991/92. United Nations Environment
Program. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, U.K.
U.N.E.P. (1991). Caring for the Earth: A strategies for sustainable Living, London,
Earthscan.
Upreti, M. and R. Kandpal (2000). Domestic fuel from mix of forest and Municipal waste.
Bio Energy News, March: 27-28.
Varadarajan, R. and T. Viraraghavan (1992). Sampling analysis of the Municipal Solid
Waste. J. Indian Assoc. Environ. Manag., 19: 58-61.
Vogler, J.A. (1983). Work from waste-Recycling waste to create employment. Intermidiate
technology Publication Lyd. And Oxfam: 396.
Vogler, J.A. (1984). Waste recycling in developing countries. A review of the social,
technological and market forces. In: Managing Solid Waste in Developing Countries,
(Eds. John R. Holmes, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.): 241-266.
*Vrat, P. (1979). Waste Management in India: The need for organized systems approach.
Country paper. APO symposium on Waste Management, Japan.
Vunan, F. (2000). Urban organic waste markets: responding to change in Hubli- Dharwad,
India. Habitat Int., 24 (3): 347-360.
Wenger, R.B., C.R. Rhyner and E.E. Wagoner (1997). Relating disposal-based Solid
Waste reduction rates to recycling rates. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 20:
267-276.
W.H.O. (1992). Our Planet, Our Health: Report of the W.H.O. Commission on Health and
the Environment. World Health Organization, Geneva.
*Wilson, D.C. (1981). Waste Management Planning and Evaluation Technologies, Oxford.
Wilson, D.G. (1976). A brief history of Solid-Waste Management. Int. J. Environ. Stud., 9:
123-129.
*Wilson, D.G. (1977). Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, U.S.A.: 197-225.
Yousuf, T.B. and M. Rahman (2007). Monitoring quality and characteristics of Municipal
Solid Waste in Dhaka city. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 135: 3-11.
*PAPER NOT SEEN IN ORIGINALS
Fig. 1 (a): Base Map of Kathua District
Zone-I Zone-II
Zone-III Zone-IV
Fig. 1(b): Zone wise maps of Study Area
Fig. 1 (c): View of Municipal Council Kathua Town.
Fig. 2: 100g, 1000g and 10kg Spring Balances used for Weighing ofSolid Waste.
Fig. 3: Weighing Balance (Digital balance) used for weighing.
Fig. 4: Hand Gloves used for Safety Purpose.
Fig-5: Showing Variation in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (Kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential Area (Households) ofDifferent Zones of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-6: Showing Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Residential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig. 7: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential Areas(Households) of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-8: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Shops of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-9: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation Cinemas of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable NB – Non-Biodegradable IM – Inert Material
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-10: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Hotels of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig. 111: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential Areas(Households) of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-11: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Restaurants of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-13: Showing Average Solid Waste Generation at Bus Stands of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-14: Showing Average Solid Waste Generation at Vegetable Markets of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-15: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Banks of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-16: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Offices of Kathua Town
Fig. 17: Burning of Hospital Waste in Open Space.
Fig. 18: Dumping of Hospital Waste in Open Space.
Fig. 19: Burning of Hospital Waste in Hospital Vicinity.
Fig. 20: Burning of Hospital Waste in Hospital Vicinity.
Fig. 21: Open Dumps of Hospital Waste.
Fig. 22: Open Dumps of Hospital Waste in Study Area.
Fig. 23: Burning of Solid Waste in Open Plot.
Fig. 24: Hospital Waste thrown in Open Space.
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-25: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Hospitals of Kathua Town
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-26: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Primary Schools of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-27: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Middle Schools of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-28: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in High Schools of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-29: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Higher Secondary Schoolsof Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-30: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Colleges of Kathua Town
Oct-Dec-08
RB-Residential BiodegradableCB-Commercial BiodegradableIB-Institutional BiodegradableSB-Study Area Biodegradable
RNB-Residential Non-BiodegradableCNB-Commercial Non-BiodegradableINB-Institutional Non-BiodegradableSNB-Study Area Non-Biodegradable
RIM-Residential Inert MaterialCIM-Commercial Inert MaterialIIM-Institutional Inert MaterialSIM-Study Area Inert Material
R-Biodegradable at Study AreaC-Non-Biodegradable at Study AreaI-Inert Material at Study AreaS-Total Solid Waste at Study Area
Fig-31: Showing Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Residential(Households), Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town
Fig. 32: Ragpicker collecting recyclable waste in Study Area.
Fig. 33: Living status of Ragpickers in Study Area.
Fig. 34: Itinerant Waste Buyer Collecting Waste Door-to-Door.
Fig. 35: Itinerant Waste Buyer Weighing Waste.
Fig. 36: Dumps of Plastic Waste at Waste Collector Shop.
Fig. 37: Metallic Waste Segregated at Waste Collector Shop.
Fig. 38: Waste Collector Segregating the Solid Waste
Fig. 39: Dumps of Cardboard Waste at Waste collector Shop.
Fig. 40: Solid Waste chocking the Drains.
Fig. 41: Waste Collector Segregating the Solid Waste
Fig. 42: Metal Scrap Waste dumped for Recycling.
Fig. 43: Electronic Waste Dumped at Waste Collectors Shop.
Fig. 44: Dumps of Plastic Waste at Waste Collector Shop.
Fig. 45: Plastic Bottles in the Recycling Unit.
Fig. 46: Transportation of Solid Waste to Recycling Units.
Fig. 47: Transportation of Solid Waste
Fig. 48: Stray Animals Feeding on Solid Waste.
Fig. 49: Stray Animals Feeding on Solid Waste.
Fig. 50: Solid Waste thrown in Open Area.
Fig.51: Solid Waste thrown in Open Area.
Fig.52: Solid Waste thrown recklessly in Open Space.
Fig. 53: Solid Waste thrown recklessly in Open Space.
Fig. 54: Stray animal feeding on Solid Waste in Streets.
Fig. 55: Stray Animal feeding on Solid Waste in Streets.
Fig. 56: Dumping of Solid Waste in Drains.
Fig. 57: Burning of Solid Waste in Streets.
Fig. 58: Dumping of Solid Waste in Main Chowk of Study Area.
Fig. 59: Dumping of Solid Waste in Main Chowk of Study Area.
Fig. 60: Solid Waste is scattered on the road in Study Area.
Fig. 61: Dumps of Solid Waste damages Beauty of Town.
Fig. 62: Dumping of Solid Waste in Street.
Fig. 63: Dumping of Solid Waste in Street.
Fig. 64: Solid Waste chocking the drains.
Fig. 65: Solid Waste chocking the Drains.
Fig. 66: Over Spilling of Solid Waste in Municipal Dust Bins.
Fig. 67: Solid Waste Dumped in Nearby Nullaha.
Fig. 68: Solid Waste dumped Outside Inspite of Yellow Bin.
Fig. 69: Solid Waste dumped Outside Inspite of Yellow Bin.
Fig. 70: Municipal Truck used for Collecting Solid Waste.
Fig. 71: Municipal Truck used for Collecting Solid Waste.
Fig. 72: Chocking of Drains by Solid Waste.
Fig. 73: Chocking of Drains by Solid Waste.
Fig. 74: Final disposal site of Solid Waste at Muggar Khad, Kathua.
Fig. 75: Municipal Truck carrying Solid Waste for final disposal site.
Fig. 77: Open dumping of Solid waste at final disposal site.
Fig. 76: Tricycle used for carrying recyclable Solid Waste at finaldisposal site.
B – Biodegradable N – Non-Biodegradable I – Inert Material T – Total
Fig-78: Showing Seasonal Variations in Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (Tonnes/day) Generation in Study Area (Kathua Town)
Oct-Dec-08Jan-Mar-08Jan-Mar-07 Oct-Dec-07
Fig-79: Showing Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Biodegradable Solid Waste (Kg/capita/day)Generation in Residential (Households), Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town
Fig-80: Showing Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (Kg/capita/day)Generation in Residential (Households), Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town
Fig-81: Showing Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Inert Material (Kg/capita/day) Generation inResidential (Households), Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town
Fig-82: Showing Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (Biodegradable, Non-Biodegradableand Inert Material) Generation (Kg/capita/day) in Study Area (Kathua Town)
Fig-83: Showing Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Solid Waste (Biodegradable, Non-Biodegradableand Inert Material) Generation (Tonnes/day) in Study Area (Kathua Town)
Fig-85: Showing Percentage of Various Types of Surveyed Waste Collectors in Kathua Town
Small Enterprises Middleman Wholesale Waste Dealer
Fig-86: Showing Average Waste Collection (kg/capita/day) of Surveyed Waste Collectors in Study Area (Kathua Town)
Ragpicker Itinerant Waste Buyer
Fig-87: Showing Average Earning (Rs/day) and Waste Collection (Kg/Day) of Surveyed Waste Collectors in the Study Area
(Kathua Town)
Average waste collection per day
(In Kg)
Average Earning per day
(IN Rs)
Fig-88: Health Status of Respondents Near and Far Off Dumping Sites in Kathua Town
Table-VII: Seasonal Variation in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential Area (Households) of Different Zones
of Kathua Town.Zones of
StudyArea
Type of Solid Waste First Year Study Second Year StudyJan.-March 2007 April-June 2007 July-Sept. 2007 Oct.-Dec. 2007 Jan.-March 2008 April-June 2008 July-Sept. 2008 Oct.-Dec. 2008
ZoneI
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.307±0.151[0.020-0.830]0.096±0.022[0.014-0.290]0.048±0.025[0.003-0.140]
0.383±0.045[0.160-0.860]0.176±0.032[0.020-0.550]0.076±0.053[0.010-0.250]
0.420±0.083[0.060-1.310]0.133±0.019[0.029-0.310]0.081±0.015[0.030-0.219]
0.490±0.050[0.080-1.310]0.204±0.052[0.046-0.480]0.113±0.027[0.041-0.175]
0.310±0.166[0.029-0.810]0.072±0.020[0.017-0.200]0.033±0.013[0.010-0.121]
0.315±0.016[0.088-1.136]0.054±0.011[0.009-0.110]0.050±0.006[0.003-0.090]
0.327±0.074[0.037-1.120]0.083±0.028[0.020-0.202]0.047±0.029[0.010-0.170]
0.356±0.048[0.090-0.955]0.095±0.013[0.030-0.243]0.066±0.010[0.021-0.130]
Total 0.450±0.192[0.054-1.186]
0.636±0.136[0.355-1.350]
0.635±0.092[0.124-1.540]
0.806±0.076[0.255-1.623]
0.415±0.182[0.060-1.233]
0.419±0.027[0.127-1.780]
0.457±0.121[0.080-1.633]
0.517±0.070[0.201-1.200]
Zone2
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.351±0.065[0.066-1.197]0.072±0.032[0.015-0.303]0.036±0.009[0.003-0.120]
0.543±0.032[0.330-1.075]0.180±0.079[0.028-0.600]0.083±0.033[0.030-0.245]
0.317±0.072[0.120-1.000]0.110±0.017[0.020-0.310]0.078±0.029[0.030-0.199]
0.529±0.119[0.142-0.990]0.154±0.051[0.056-0.444]0.113±0.023[0.021-0.143]
0.306±0.062[0.073-0.933]0.068±0.024[0.030-0.200]0.038±0.013[0.021-0.146]
0.328±0.101[0113-1.613]0.065±0.027[0.015-0.122]0.042±0.019[0.018-0.111]
0.277±0.050[0.100-0.720]0.093±0.029[0.020-0.244]0.040±0.004[0.015-0.137]
0.438±0.073[0.176-0.915]0.118±0.025[0.031-0.240]0.077±0.015[0.030-0.180]
Total 0.459±0.105[0.080-1.381]
0.805±0.110[0.610-1.440]
0.505±0.111[0.180-1.120]
0.796±0.170[0.160-1.530]
0.412±0.094[0.111-1.599]
0.436±0.147[0.140-1.910]
0.410±0.043[0.191-0.889]
0.633±0.043[0.222-1.619]
Zone3
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.296±0.073[0.067-1.013]0.105±0.074[0.010-0.423]0.044±0.014[0.007-0.100]
0.435±0.171[0.090-1.200]0.160±0.068[0.035-0.500]0.079±0.042[0.005-0.210]
0.388±0.091[0.060-1.307]0.110±0.034[0.033-0.317]0.083±0.017[0.011-0.300]
0.526±0.026[0.160-0.855]0.209±0.088[0.100-0.295]0.115±0.014[0.023-0.214]
0.273±0.027[0.066-1.302]0.101±0.045[0.020-0.246]0.044±0.015[0.017-0.120]
0.374±0.130[0.090-1.610]0.071±0.043[0.017-0.110]0.045±0.014[0.017-0.100]
0.326±0.067[0.120-1.201]0.078±0.002[0.021-0.180]0.043±0.007[0.020-0.120]
0.422±0.027[0.125-1.336]0.105±0.038[0.040-0.210]0.057±0.019[0.025-0.120]
Total 0.445±0.101[0.104-1.163]
0.673±0.261[0.195-1.530]
0.581±0.140[0.216-1.774]
0.850±0.066[0.399-1.910]
0.417±0.071[0.130-1.566]
0.491±0.174[0.144-1.800]
0.447±0.059[0.190-1.600]
0.584±0.006[0.200-1.960]
Zone4
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.256±0.045[0.070-0.572]0.073±0.023[0.003-0.310]0.042±0.019[0.004-0.133]
0.337±0.055[0.150-0.600]0.134±0.041[0.028-0.320]0.078±0.039[0.003-0.233]
0.266±0.037[0.049-0.555]0.137±0.056[0.009-0.300]0.101±0.045[0.015-0.180]
0.443±0.049[0.175-1.115]0.201±0.073[0.036-0.401]0.120±0.036[0.031-0.119]
0.257±0.012[0.051-0.776]0.064±0.005[0.029-0.161]0.039±0.016[0.010-0.101]
0.320±0.100[0.121-1.200]0.056±0.015[0.022-0.120]0.037±0.004[0.019-0.199]
0.266±0.013[0.099-0.780]0.079±0.034[0.017-0.155]0.038±0.011
[0.017±0.120]
0.352±0.046[0.099-1.200]0.101±0.019[0.035-0.219]0.056±0.015[0.025-0.145]
Total 0.372±0.061[0.109-0.783]
0.549±0.129[0.260-0.970]
0.504±0.120[0.139-1.560]
0.764±0.109[0.295-1.412]
0.360±0.031[0.118-0.950]
0.413±0.119[0.171-1.600]
0.383±0.049[0.177-0.881]
0.509±0.041[0.151-1.915]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-VIII: Seasonal Variation in Average Recyclable/Reused Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separated in Residential Area (Households) ofDifferent Zones of Kathua Town.
Zones ofStudyArea
Type of Solid Waste First Year Study Second Year Study
Jan.-March 2007 April-June 2007 July-Sept. 2007 Oct.-Dec. 2007 Jan.-March 2008 April-June 2008 July-Sept. 2008 Oct.-Dec. 2008
ZoneI
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
0.058±0.037[0.010-0.200]0.036±0.011[0.001-0.125]
0.051±0.014[0.020-0.200]0.057±0.023[0.010-0.210]
0.047±0.019[0.014-0.290]0.041±0.010[0.008-0.117]
0.053±0.015[0.022-0.156]0.060±0.018[0.004-0.251]
0.037±0.020[0.009-0.170]0.020±0.005[0.003-0.099]
0.035±0.009[0.003-0.131]0.020±0.004[0.001-0.051]
0.040±0.013[0.010-0.111]0.023±0.009[0.003-0.090]
0.027±0.003[0.007-0.040]0.027±0.007[0.004-0.090]
Total 0.094±0.047[0.020-0.260]
0.108±0.037[0.040-0.345]
0.088±0.028[0.040-0.350]
0.113±0.032[0.034-0.284]
0.057±0.020[0.015-0.234]
0.055±0.012[0.012-0.180]
0.063±0.022[0.019-0.147]
0.054±0.008[0.020-0.134]
Zone2
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
0.055±0.019[0.010-0.197]0.031±0.023[0.001-0.150]
0.051±0.012[0.020-0.100]0.064±0.051[0.015-0.300]
0.044±0.012[0.006-0.180]0.043±0.015[0.003-0.151]
0.063±0.023[0.019-0.160]0.055±0.020[0.009-0.144]
0.046±0.014[0.010-0.150]0.022±0.012[0.010-0.103]
0.041±0.017[0.011-0.117]0.030±0.014[0.003-0.087]
0.037±0.016[0.010-0.090]0.035±0.013[0.014-0.096]
0.037±0.009[0.014-0.060]0.036±0.012[0.007-0.087]
Total 0.085±0.041[0.015-0.247]
0.114±0.040[0.060-0.350]
0.087±0.027[0.028-0.250]
0.117±0.040[0.049-0.201]
0.067±0.022[0.027-0.222]
0.070±0.030[0.025-0.187]
0.072±0.026[0.029-0.144]
0.073±0.010[0.030-0.130]
Zone3
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
0.045±0.013[0.010-0.100]0.039±0.015[0.005-0.110]
0.065±0.021[0.030-0.200]0.064±0.046[0.016-0.300]
0.050±0.006[0.017-0.139]0.027±0.003[0.005-0.161]
0.056±0.004[0.017-0.190]0.072±0.027[0.004-0.150]
0.044±0.003[0.020-0.190]0.037±0.017[0.008-0.113]
0.038±0.014[0.014-0.091]0.022±0.014[0.001-0.074]
0.045±0.009[0.011-0.096]0.026±0.009[0.003-0.063]
0.040±0.006[0.015-0.089]0.033±0.012[0.010-0.091]
Total 0.084±0.017[0.020-0.180]
0.129±0.067[0.047-0.350]
0.077±0.008[0.030-0.172]
0.128±0.026[0.029-0.203]
0.081±0.017[0.031-0.233]
0.060±0.024[0.020-0.110]
0.071±0.016[0.019-0.117]
0.073±0.017[0.030-0.144]
Zone4
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
0.046±0.010[0.010-0.150]0.032±0.016[0.001-0.150]
0.040±0.002[0.020-0.080]0.047±0.033[0.005-0.200]
0.038±0.020[0.007-0.119]0.043±0.024[0.001-0.110]
0.047±0.008[0.009-0.175]0.064±0.025[0.013-0.130]
0.040±0.001[0.018-0.166]0.025±0.004[0.020-0.133]
0.034±0.007[0.009-0.075]0.025±0.009[0.004-0.045]
0.033±0.013[0.014-0.150]0.030±0.022[0.003-0.100]
0.028±0.002[0.010-0.080]0.028±0.003[0.015-0.100]
Total 0.078±0.020[0.015-0.250]
0.087±0.033[0.040-0.240]
0.080±0.043[0.032-0.369]
0.112±0.027[0.025-0.197]
0.064±0.005[0.027-0.222]
0.058±0.016[0.015-0.089]
0.062±0.035[0.024-0.200]
0.056±0.002[0.030-0.120]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-IX: Seasonal Variation in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation in Residential Area (Households) of Different Zones of Kathua Town.Zones of
StudyArea
Type of Solid Waste First Year Study Second Year StudyJan.-March 2007 April-June 2007 July-Sept. 2007 Oct.-Dec. 2007 Jan.-March 2008 April-June 2008 July-Sept. 2008 Oct.-Dec. 2008
ZoneI
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.249±0.114[0.010-0.7400.059±0.020[0.007-0.200]0.048±0.025[0.003-0.140]
0.333±0.032[0.135-0.660]0.119±0.030[0.010-0.340]0.076±0.053[0.010-0.250]
0.373±0.072[0.035-1.000]0.093±0.026[0.017-0.259]0.081±0.015[0.030-0.219]
0.437±0.051[0.063-1.000]0.143±0.035[0.031-0.452]0.113±0.027[0.041-0.175]
0.273±0.146[0.019-0.745]0.052±0.018[0.011-0.171]0.033±0.013[0.010-0.121]
0.280±0.008[0.061-0.989]0.034±0.013[0.004-0.089]0.050±0.006[0.003-0.090]
0.287±0.061[0.025-0.951]0.060±0.023[0.011-0.161]0.047±0.029[0.010-0.170]
0.329±0.044[0.071-0.811]0.068±0.012[0.019-0.201]0.066±0.010[0.021-0.130]
Total 0.356±0.147[0.032-1.080]
0.528±0.099[0.240-1.115]
0.547±0.077[0.070-1.400]
0.693±0.052[0.110-1.210]
0.358±0.162[0.041-0.947]
0.364±0.024[0.100-1.200]
0.394±0.099[0.061-1.470]
0.462±0.066[0.189-0.879]
Zone2
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.297±0.046[0.037-1.000]0.041±0.010[0.003-0.153]0.036±0.009[0.003-0.120]
0.492±0.035[0.137-0.975]0.116±0.031[0.008-0.400]0.083±0.033[0.030-0.245]
0.273±0.065[0.100-0.635]0.066±0.022[0.014-0.210]0.078±0.029[0.030-0.199]
0.466±0.106[0.103-0.888]0.099±0.036[0.031-0.211]0.113±0.023[0.021-0.143]
0.260±0.048[0.059-0.785]0.046±0.016[0.021-0.161]0.038±0.013[0.021-0.146]
0.288±0.084[0.071-1.301]0.036±0.016[0.010-0.091]0.042±0.019[0.018-0.111]
0.241±0.034[0.050-0.611]0.058±0.023[0.010-0.201]0.040±0.004[0.015-0.137]
0.401±0.064[0.134-0.880]0.082±0.013[0.021-0.201]0.077±0.015[0.030-.180]
Total 0.374±0.064[0.060-1.134]
0.691±0.084[0.246-1.190]
0.417±0.107[0.150-0.910]
0.678±0.147[0.144-0.930]
0.344±0.075[0.070-0.916]
0.366±0.117[0.119-1.410]
0.338±0.017[0.120-0.769]
0.560±0.040[0.180-1.133]
Zone3
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.251±0.061[0.048-0.913]0.067±0.059[0.010-0.363]0.044±0.014[0.007-0.100]
0.370±0.157[0.060-1.000]0.096±0.024[0.003-0.280]0.079±0.042[0.005-0.210]
0.337±0.092[0.033-1.207]0.083±0.036[0.027-0.307]0.083±0.017[0.011-0.300]
0.470±0.023[0.127-0.765]0.137±0.065[0.035-0.217]0.115±0.014[0.023-0.214]
0.229±0.030[0.045-0.888]0.064±0.033[0.015-0.197]0.044±0.015[0.017-0.120]
0.336±0.117[0.061-0.958]0.050±0.032[0.011-0.078]0.045±0.014[0.017-0.100]
0.281±0.065[0.090-0.855]0.052±0.008[0.015-0.167]0.043±0.007[0.020-0.120]
0.382±0.031[0.109-0.955]0.072±0.029[0.027-0.175]0.057±0.019[0.025-0.120]
Total 0.361±0.086[0.074-0.983]
0.544±0.206[0.105-1.280]
0.503±0.143[0.171-1.664]
0.722±0.049[0.185-1.231]
0.336±0.069[0.067-1.123]
0.431±0.152[0.111-1.123]
0.367±0.062[0.150-1.000]
0.511±0.014[0.160-1.200]
Zone4
Biodegradeable
Non Biodegradeable
Inert Material
0.210±0.036[0.045-0.500]0.041±0.008[0.002-0.160]0.042±0.019[0.004-0.133]
0.297±0.057[0.100-0.550]0.087±0.038[0.010-0.250]0.078±0.039[0.003-0.233]
0.229±0.021[0.038-0.400]0.095±0.034[0.007-0.250]0.101±0.045[0.015-0.180]
0.395±0.042[0.090-0.935]0.137±0.049[0.025-0.333]0.120±0.036[0.031-0.119]
0.217±0.011[0.039-0.644]0.039±0.003[0.019-0.123]0.039±0.016[0.010-0.101]
0.287±0.094[0.100-0.887]0.031±0.007[0.011-0.0900.037±0.004[0.019-0.119]
0.233±0.005[0.075-0.599]0.050±0.018[0.013-0.124]0.038±0.011[0.017-0.120]
0.325±0.044[0.080-0.891]0.073±0.018[0.025-0.180]0.056±0.015[0.025-0.145]
Total 0.294±0.050[0.103-0.633]
0.462±0.129[0.175-0.810]
0.424±0.077[0.096-0.960]
0.652±0.082[0.219-1.000]
0.296±0.026[0.089-0.759]
0.355±0.104[0.110-1.100]
0.321±0.023[0.120-0.750]
0.453±0.041[0.141-1.310]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-X: Seasonal Variation in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation inResidential Area (Households) of Kathua Town
January-March 2007 April-June 2007
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.303±0.039[0.020-1.197]
(70.70)
0.051±0.006[0.010-0.200]
(11.90)
0.252±0.036[0.010-1.000]
(58.80)
0.425±0.089[0.090-1.200]
(64.50)
0.052±0.010[0.020-0.200]
(8.00)
0.373±0.085[0.060-1.000]
(56.60)PaperwareCardboardClothware
JuteFoliageCottonWood
Food/Garbage
(10.50)(8.70)(1.00)(3.50)
(10.30)(0.80)(2.40)
(33.40)
(5.50)(5.00)
-(1.30)
----
(5.00)(3.70)(1.00)(2.20)
(10.30)(0.80)(2.40)
(33.40)
(8.60)(8.50)(1.50)(1.90)(6.80)(0.90)(1.20)
(35.20)
(4.50)(3.10)
-(0.40)
----
(4.10)(5.40)(1.50)(1.50)(6.80)(0.90)(1.20)
(35.20)
Non-Biodegradable0.087±0.017[0.003-0.423]
(19.60)
0.034±0.004[0.001-0.150]
(7.90)
0.052±0.013[0.002-0.363]
(11.70)
0.163±0.021[0.020-0.600]
(24.10)
0.058±0.008[0.005-0.300]
(8.30)
0.104±0.016[0.003-0.400]
(15.80)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(8.10)(4.40)(3.30)(0.60)(1.00)(1.40)(0.90)
(4.30)(2.40)(1.00)
--
(0.10)-
(3.80)(2.00)(2.20)(0.60)(1.00)(1.30)(0.90)
(10.10)(6.70)(2.60)(0.30)(1.30)(1.70)(1.30)
(2.50)(3.90)(0.50)
-(0.40)(0.30)(0.60)
(7.60)(2.80)(2.10)(0.30)(0.90)(1.40)(0.70)
Inert Material0.043±0.005[0.003-0.140]
(9.70)-
0.043±0.005[0.003-0.140]
(9.70)
0.079±0.003[0.003-0.280]
(11.50)-
0.079±0.003[0.003-0.280]
(11.50)
Total0.433±0.040[0.054-1.381]
(100)
0.085±0.007[0.015-0.260]
(19.70)
0.346±0.035[0.032-1.134]
(80.30)
0.666±106[0.195-1.530]
(100)
0.110±0.017[0.040-0.350]
(16.30)
0.557±0.097[0.105-1.280]
(83.70)
July-September 2007 October-December 2007
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.348±0.069[0.049-1.310]
(62.60)
0.045±0.005[0.006-0.290]
(8.00)
0.303±0.064[0.033-1.207]
(54.60)
0.497±0.024[0.080-1.310]
(62.20)
0.055±0.008[0.009-0.190]
(6.80)
0.442±0.025[0.063-1.000]
(56.40)PaperwareCardboardClothware
JuteFoliageCottonWood
Food/Garbage
(8.20)(8.50)(0.10)(1.00)(3.20)(0.40)(1.40)
(39.80)
(4.20)(3.80)
------
(4.00)(4.70)(0.10)(1.00)(3.20)(0.40)(1.40)
(39.80)
(7.90)(10.80)(0.40)(1.10)(2.50)(0.20)(0.70)
(38.50)
(4.10)(2.20)
------
(3.80)(8.60)(0.40)(1.10)(2.50)(0.20)(0.70)
(38.50)
Non-Biodegradable0.123±0.015[0.009-0.317]
(22.10)
0.038±0.008[0.001-0.161]
(6.80)
0.084±0.014[0.007-0.307]
(15.30)
0.192±0.065[0.036-0.480]
(23.50)
0.063±0.023[0.004-0.251]
(7.70)
0.129±0.046[0.025-0.452]
(15.80)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(8.40)(7.20)(3.60)(0.50)(0.70)(0.20)(1.50)
(2.70)(3.20)(0.90)
----
(5.70)(4.00)(2.70)(0.50)(0.70)(0.20)(1.50)
(8.90)(4.90)(2.70)(0.90)(3.30)(2.10)(0.80)
(3.50)(3.00)(1.20)
----
(5.40)(1.90)(1.50)(0.90)(3.30)(2.10)(0.80)
Inert Material0.086±0.010[0.011-0.300]
(15.40)-
0.086±0.010[0.011-0.300]
(15.40)
0.115±0.013[0.021-0.214]
(14.30)-
0.115±0.013[0.021-0.214]
(14.30)
Total0.556±0.064[0.124-1.774]
(100)
0.083±0.005[0.028-0.369]
(14.90)
0.473±0.063[0.070-1.664]
(85.30)
0.804±0.089[0.160-1.910]
(100)
0.118±0.031[0.025-0.284]
(14.50)
0.687±0.067[0.110-1.231]
(85.50)
January-March 2008 April-June 2008
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.287±0.058[0.029-1.302]
(71.60)
0.042±0.008[0.009-0.190]
(10.40)
0.245±0.051[0.019-0.888]
(61.10)
0.335±0.048[0.088-1.613]
(76.10)
0.037±0.005[0.003-0.131]
(8.40)
0.298±0.043[0.061-1.301]
(67.70)PaperwareCardboardClothware
JuteFoliageCottonWood
Food/Garbage
(9.40)(9.00)(1.40)(2.40)(3.70)(0.40)(1.20)
(44.10)
(4.60)(4.50)
-(1.30)
----
(4.80)(4.50)(1.40)(1.10)(3.70)(0.40)(1.20)
(44.10)
(8.60)(8.10)(1.80)(2.20)(6.10)(0.70)(1.00)
(47.80)
(4.10)(4.10)
-(0.30)
----
(4.50)(4.00)(1.80)(1.90)(6.00)(0.70)(1.00)
(47.80)
Non-Biodegradable0.077±0.016[0.017-0.246]
(19.10)
0.026±0.007[0.003-0.133]
(6.50)
0.050±0.014[0.011-0.197]
(12.40)
0.062±0.014[0.009-0.112]
(14.10)
0.024±0.001[0.001-0.087]
(5.50)
0.038±0.014[0.004-0.091]
(8.60)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(5.40)(4.40)(2.10)(1.90)(2.20)(2.10)(0.90)
(2.70)(2.20)(1.40)
-(0.30)
--
(2.70)(2.20)(0.70)(1.90)(1.90)(2.10)(0.90)
(4.10)(3.50)(1.60)(1.10)(1.30)(2.00)(0.30)
(2.00)(1.80)(0.80)
--
(1.00)-
(2.10)(1.70)(0.80)(1.10)(1.30)(1.00)(0.30)
Inert Material0.038±0.013[0.010-0.146]
(9.40)-
0.038±0.013[0.010-0.146]
(9.40)
0.043±0.010[0.003-0.119]
(9.80)-
0.043±0.010[0.003-0.119]
(9.80)
Total0.401±0.083[0.060-1.599]
(100)
0.068±0.012[0.015-0.234]
(17.00)
0.333±0.074[0.041-1.123]
(82.90)
0.440±0.069[0.127-1.910]
(100)
0.061±0.006[0.012-0.187]
(13.90)
0.379±0.063[0.100-1.410]
(86.10)
July-Sepetember 2008 October-November 2008
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.299±0.012[0.037-1.201]
(70.80)
0.039±0.009[0.010-0.150]
(9.00)
0.260±0.003[0.025-0.951]
(61.60)
0.392±0.026[0.090-1.336]
(69.80)
0.033±0.001[0.007-0.089]
(5.90)
0.359±0.025[0.071-0.955]
(64.00)PaperwareCardboardClothware
JuteFoliageCottonWood
Food/Garbage
(8.20)(7.80)(1.30)(2.30)(3.00)(0.40)(0.90)
(46.90)
(4.50)(4.20)
-(0.40)
----
(3.70)(3.60)(1.30)(1.90)(3.00)(0.40)(0.90)
(46.90)
(8.90)(8.50)(1.10)(3.30)(3.30)(0.20)(1.30)
(43.10)
(3.10)(2.80)
------
(5.80)(5.70)(1.10)(3.30)(3.30)(0.20)(1.30)
(43.10)
Non-Biodegradable0.083±0.022[0.017-0.244]
(19.40)
0.029±0.012[0.003-0.100]
(6.70)
0.055±0.018[0.010-0.201]
(12.90)
0.105±0.005[0.030-0.243]
(18.80)
0.031±0.005[0.004-0.100]
(5.60)
0.074±0.001[0.019-0.201]
(13.10)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(5.70)(4.90)(2.60)(1.60)(1.80)(2.00)(0.90)
(2.40)(1.70)(1.30)
-(0.20)(1.10)
-
(3.30)(3.20)(1.30)(1.60)(1.60)(0.90)(0.90)
(4.90)(4.00)(2.60)(2.00)(2.40)(2.30)(0.60)
(2.00)(1.90)(1.10)
--
(0.70)-
(2.90)(2.10)(1.50)(2.00)(2.40)(1.60)(0.60)
Inert Material0.042±0.009[0.010-0.170]
(9.90)-
0.042±0.009[0.010-0.170]
(9.90)
0.064±0.005[0.021-0.180]
(11.40)-
0.064±0.005[0.021-0.180]
(11.40)
Total0.425±0.038[0.080-1.633]
(100)
0.067±0.020[0.019-0.200]
(15.60)
0.357±0.025[0.061-1.470]
(84.30)
0.561±0.018[0.151-1.960]
(100)
0.069±0.003[0.020-0.144]
(11.50)
0.497±0.021[0.141-1.310]
(88.50)
Table-XI: Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Residential Areas (Households) of Kathua Town (Commuted from TwoYear Study Data of Table-X).
Solid Waste(kg)
Biodegradable(B)
Non-Biodegradable(NB)
Inert Material(IM)
Total=(B+NB+IM)
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)generated at Source (G)
0.361±0.073[0.020-1.613]
0.112±0.045[0.003-0.600]
0.064±0.028[0.003-0.300]
0.536±0.141[0.054-1.960]
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)separated at Source (r)
0.044±0.008[0.003-0.290]
0.038±0.015[0.001-0.300] -
0.082±0.022[0.012-0.369]
Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)generated at Source (G-r)
0.317±0.069[0.010-1.301]
0.073±0.031[0.002-0.0452]
0.064±0.028[0.003-0.300]
0.454±0.124[0.032-1.664]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (percentage by weight) Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste
Table– XII: Seasonal Variations in Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at Different Shops of Kathua Town.January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Type of Shops Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable
InertMaterial
Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable
InertMaterial
Total
TeaDhaba
PhotostatShoes Making
STD/PCOMedical Shop
KaryanaElectrical Shop
Furniture Making ShopDry Cleaning Shop
Veg./Fruit ShopStationary ShopHardware Shop
Sweet ShopGarage
Tailor/BoutiqueMeat/Chicken Shop
Juice ShoHair Dresser/Beauty
ParlourBar/Restaurant
0.0300.1000.0200.0250.0230.0400.0200.0102.9990.0040.1500.0020.0700.0330.0040.0400.2190.2100.0190.050
0.0050.0100.0060.0800.0150.0350.0050.0300.2810.0030.0100.0010.0350.0051.5630.0150.0900.0200.0461.500
0.0040.0090.0040.0150.0100.0120.0050.0101.5600.0060.0170.0010.0240.0030.4150.0060.0100.0100.1100.540
0.0390.1190.0300.1200.0480.0870.0300.0504.8400.0130.1770.0040.1290.0411.9820.0610.3190.2400.1752.090
0.0620.0900.0220.0290.0340.0800.0360.0124.5090.0140.2100.0160.0950.0700.0200.0300.2400.2000.0180.088
0.0120.0200.0050.1100.0100.0510.0090.0700.2000.0050.0300.0150.0800.0101.1200.0170.0800.0150.0551.940
0.0090.0130.0080.0160.0050.0190.0130.0221.2100.0190.0210.0090.1100.0160.5540.0050.0150.0400.1330.300
0.0830.1230.0350.1550.0490.1500.0580.1045.9190.0380.2610.0400.2850.0961.6940.0520.3350.2550.2062.328
Average/capita/shop/ day 0.203±0.661[0.002-2.999]
0.188±0.464[0.001-1.563]
0.139±0.365[0.001-1.560]
0.530±1.179[0.004-4.840]
0.294±0.995[0.012-4.509]
0.193±0.479[0.005-1.940]
0.127±0.288[0.005-1.210]
0.613±1.382[0.035-5.919]
.
July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert Material Total
0.0440.0810.0160.0140.0110.0450.0260.0051.2440.0060.1750.0140.0500.0590.0100.0200.2000.1700.0200.076
0.0110.0180.0120.0500.0120.0200.0100.0570.2100.0130.0160.0100.0710.0200.7200.0220.0490.0240.0501.100
0.0060.0120.0130.0120.0060.0300.0040.0310.3500.0090.0200.0050.0610.0110.5100.0170.0170.0500.1150.200
0.0610.1110.0410.0760.0290.0950.0400.0931.8040.0280.2110.0290.1820.0901.2400.0590.2660.2440.1851.376
0.0570.0960.0260.0190.0290.0890.0440.0151.9100.0110.3000.0150.0650.0620.0200.0220.2090.1850.0150.090
0.0200.0290.0150.0850.0300.0330.0190.0760.3810.0150.0300.0130.0880.0290.8440.0250.0680.0270.0301.100
0.0150.0180.0190.0180.0200.0310.0090.0250.8500.0100.0210.0090.0600.0150.4990.0210.0180.0450.1400.350
0.0920.1430.0600.1220.0790.1530.0720.1163.1410.0360.3510.0370.2130.1061.3630.0680.2950.2570.1851.540
0.144±0.272[0.005-1.244]
0.125±0.279[0.010-1.100]
0.074±0.133[0.004-0.510]
0.313±0.514[0.029-1.804]
0.164±0.418[0.011-1.910]
0.148±0.296[0.013-1.100]
0.110±0.216[0.009-0.850]
0.421±0.761[0.036-3.141]
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert Material Total
0.0600.0900.0330.0290.0310.0960.0500.0142.1000.0170.3120.0190.0810.0650.0220.0160.0220.1800.0211.400
0.0230.0320.0190.0800.0360.0370.0200.0800.3890.0250.0350.0190.0890.0390.8500.0290.0720.0400.0371.800
0.0150.0210.0290.0170.0340.0300.0180.0310.7110.0110.0250.0190.1090.0100.5150.0290.0380.0490.1500.410
0.0980.1430.0810.1260.1010.1630.0880.1253.2000.0530.3720.0570.2790.1141.3870.0740.3320.2690.2083.610
0.0620.1000.0370.0360.0290.1000.0550.0162.2000.0190.3000.0290.0870.0690.0250.0200.2600.1960.0221.610
0.0250.0330.0200.0850.0400.0400.0250.0820.4120.0450.0360.0260.0900.0400.8550.0390.0380.0380.0491.900
0.0190.0220.0300.0250.0410.0390.0210.0330.7120.0120.0260.0200.1100.0150.5300.0300.0400.0500.1600.505
0.1060.1550.0870.1460.1100.1890.1010.1313.3240.0760.3620.0750.2870.1241.4100.0890.3380.2950.2274.015
0.243±0.534[0.014-2.100]
0.188±0.426[0.019-1.800]
0.114±0.196[0.010-0.711]
0.544±1.022[0.053-3.610]
0.264±0.575[0.016-2.200]
0.196±0.446[0.020-1.900]
0.122±0.205[0.012-0.712]
0.582±1.101[0.075-4.015]
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Inert
MaterialTotal
0.0450.0700.0210.0310.0350.0910.0420.0201.9100.0300.2400.0300.0810.0700.0170.0180.2100.1950.0211.331
0.0150.0250.0160.0800.0290.0350.0210.0800.3750.0400.0300.0060.0590.0550.5150.0360.0380.0410.0401.570
0.0200.0250.0160.0190.0210.0190.0100.0130.4150.0150.0220.0210.0600.0200.3300.0290.0550.0350.1390.210
0.0800.1200.0530.1300.0850.1450.0730.1132.7000.0850.2920.0570.2000.1450.8620.0830.3030.2710.2003.111
0.0490.0900.0250.0300.0390.0960.0470.0221.9900.0410.2550.0310.0850.0760.0210.0220.2160.1960.0251.339
0.0190.0290.0190.0850.0360.0390.0250.0880.3700.0560.0310.0150.0710.0630.0290.0250.2190.1950.0291.670
0.0290.0300.0190.0220.0220.0200.0150.0180.4200.0190.0290.0250.0610.0220.3350.0300.0590.0390.1460.255
0.0970.1490.0630.1370.0970.1550.0870.1282.7800.1160.3150.0710.2170.1610.3850.0770.4940.4300.2003.264
0.225±0.491[0.017-1.910]
0.155±0.357[0.006-1.570]
0.075±0.114[0.010-0.415]
0.455±0.859[0.053-3.111]
0.235±0.505[0.021-1.990]
0.156±0.367[0.015-1.670]
0.081±0.117[0.015-0.420]
0.471±0.885[0.063-3.264]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table– XIII: Seasonal Variations in Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Separated at Different Shops of Kathua Town.January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Type of Shops Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable TotalTea
DhabaPhotostat
Shoes MakingSTD/PCO
Medical ShopKaryana
Electrical ShopFurniture Making Shop
Dry Cleaning ShopVeg./Fruit ShopStationary ShopHardware Shop
Sweet ShopGarage
Tailor/BoutiqueMeat/Chicken Shop
Juice ShopHair Dresser/Beauty Parlour
Bar/Restaurant
0.0040.0150.0020.003
-0.0040.002
-0.433
-0.010
-0.009
--
0.0060.016
-0.0070.010
0.001----
0.0050.0010.010
----
0.007-
0.070----
0.600
0.0050.0150.0020.003
-0.0090.0030.0100.433
-0.010
-0.016
-0.0700.0060.016
-0.0070.610
0.0150.0110.0020.0030.0040.0040.0060.0010.6350.0020.0100.0060.0130.0100.0100.0010.0120.0020.0010.014
0.002----
0.0090.0010.020
----
0.015-
0.120----
1.200
0.0170.0110.0020.0030.0040.0130.0070.0210.6350.0020.0100.0060.0280.0100.1300.0010.0120.0020.0011.214
Average/capita/shop/ day 0.026±0.096[0.002-0.433]
0.035±0.134[0.001-0.600]
0.061±0.161[0.002-0.610]
0.038±0.141[0.001-0.635]
0.068±0.268[0.001-1.200]
0.106±0.296[0.001-1.214]
July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total
0.0040.0030.0060.0040.0020.0050.006
-0.1150.0020.0050.0020.0100.0030.007
--
0.010-
0.009
0.0020.0060.0030.0050.0020.0040.0040.007
----
0.011-
0.039----
0.830
0.0060.0090.0090.0090.0040.0090.0100.0070.1150.0020.0050.0020.0210.0030.046
--
0.010-
0.839
0.0070.0060.0050.0080.0050.0190.0140.0030.1400.0010.0100.0010.0050.0020.0030.0020.0090.0050.0030.010
0.002----
0.0030.0020.006
----
0.003-
0.049----
0.566
0.0090.0060.0050.0080.0050.0220.0160.0090.1400.0010.0100.0010.0080.0020.0520.0020.0090.0050.0030.576
0.010±0.025[0.002-0.115]
0.046±0.185[0.002-0.830]
0.055±0.186[0.002-0.839]
0.013±0.030[0.001-0.140]
0.032±0.126[0.002-0.566]
0.044±0.129[0.001-0.576]
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total
0.0100.0110.0030.0030.0040.0060.0050.0040.1000.0070.0120.0030.0030.0050.0020.0060.0220.0100.0060.150
0.003----
0.0070.0050.0400.080
---
0.009-
0.100----
1.00
0.0130.0110.0030.0030.0040.0130.0100.0440.1800.0070.0120.0030.0120.0050.1020.0060.0220.0100.0060.150
0.0020.0050.0070.0060.0090.0100.0050.0030.2000.0010.0100.0090.0070.0090.0050.0020.0100.0160.0020.070
0.0050.0100.0100.0150.0210.0150.0050.0020.012
---
0.010-
0.155----
0.966
0.0070.0150.0170.0210.0300.0250.0100.0050.2120.0010.0100.0090.0170.0090.1600.0020.0100.0160.0021.036
0.019±0.038[0.002-0.150]
0.062±0.223[0.003-1.000]
0.081±0.255[0.003-1.150]
0.019±0.045[0.001-0.200]
0.061±0.216[0.002-0.966]
0.081±0.231[0.001-1.036]
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable Total
0.0050.0100.0020.0030.0050.0100.0020.0020.3100.0030.0100.0030.0080.0070.0010.0030.0240.0050.0010.210
0.0050.0050.0060.0100.0090.0050.0010.0100.0490.0050.003
-0.009
-0.040
----
0.710
0.0100.0150.0080.0130.0140.0150.0030.0120.3590.0090.0130.0030.0170.0070.1410.0030.0240.0050.0010.920
0.0090.0060.0050.0050.0090.0060.0070.0020.0150.0010.0040.0030.0060.0050.0040.0020.0160.0060.0050.225
0.003----
0.0210.0050.0180.070
---
0.006-
0.009----
1.000
0.0120.0060.0050.0050.0090.0270.0120.0200.0850.0010.0040.0030.0120.0050.0130.0020.0160.0060.0051.225
0.031±0.080[0.001-0.310]
0.048±0.159[0.001-0.710]
0.080±0.214[0.001-0.920]
0.017±0.049[0.001-0.225]
0.057±0.223[0.003-1.000]
0.074±0.272[0.001-1.225]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table– XIV: Seasonal Variations in Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation at Different Shops of Kathua Town.January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Type of Shops Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable
InertMaterial
Total Biodegradable Non-Biodegradable
Inert Material Total
TeaDhaba
PhotostatShoes Making
STD/PCOMedical Shop
KaryanaElectrical Shop
Furniture Making ShopDry cleaning Shop
Veg./fruit ShopStationary ShopHardware Shop
Sweet ShopGarage
Tailor/BoutiqueMeat/Chicken Shop
Juice ShopHair Dresser/Beauty
ParlourBar/Restaurant
0.0260.0850.0180.0220.0230.0360.0180.0102.5660.0040.1400.0020.0610.0330.0040.0340.2030.2100.0120.040
0.0040.0100.0060.0800.0150.0300.0040.0200.2810.0030.0100.0010.0280.0051.4930.0150.0900.0200.0460.900
0.0040.0090.0040.0150.0100.0120.0050.0101.5600.0060.0170.0010.0240.0030.4150.0060.0100.0100.1100.540
0.0340.1040.0280.1170.0480.0780.0270.0404.4070.0130.1670.0040.1130.0411.9120.0550.3030.2400.1681.480
0.0470.0790.0200.0260.0300.0760.0300.0113.8740.0120.2000.0100.0820.0600.0100.0290.2280.1980.0170.074
0.0100.0200.0050.1100.0100.0420.0080.0500.2000.0050.0300.0150.0650.0101.0000.0170.0800.0150.0550.740
0.0090.0130.0080.0160.0050.0190.0130.0221.2100.0190.0210.0090.1100.0160.5540.0050.0150.0400.1330.300
0.0660.1120.0330.1520.0450.1370.0510.0835.2840.0360.2510.0340.2570.0861.5640.0510.3230.2530.2051.114
Average/capita/shop/ day 0.177±0.566[0.002-2.566]
0.153±0.375[0.001-1.493]
0.139±0.365[0.001-1.560]
0.469±1.055[0.004-4.407]
0.256±0.854[0.010-3.874]
0.124±0.263[0.005-1.000]
0.127±0.288[0.005-1.210]
0.507±1.190[0.033-5.284]
July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert Material Total
0.0400.0780.0100.0100.0090.0400.0200.0051.1290.0040.1700.0120.0400.0560.0030.0200.2000.1600.0200.067
0.0090.0120.0090.0450.0100.0160.0060.0500.2100.0130.0160.0100.0600.0200.6810.0220.0490.0240.0500.270
0.0060.0120.0130.0120.0060.0300.0040.0310.3500.0090.0200.0050.0610.0110.5100.0170.0170.0500.1150.200
0.0550.1020.0320.0670.0250.0860.0300.0861.6890.0260.2060.0270.1610.0871.1940.0590.2660.2340.1850.537
0.0500.0900.0210.0110.0240.0700.0300.0121.7700.0100.2900.0140.0600.0600.0170.0200.2000.1800.0120.080
0.0180.0290.0150.0850.0300.0300.0170.0700.3810.0150.0300.0130.0850.0290.7950.0250.0680.0270.0300.534
0.0150.0180.0190.0180.0200.0310.0090.0250.8500.0100.0210.0090.0600.0150.4990.0210.0180.0450.1400.350
0.0830.1370.0550.1140.0740.1310.0560.1073.0010.0350.3410.0360.2050.1041.3110.0660.2860.2520.1820.964
0.105±0.248[0.002-1.129]
0.079±0.158[0.006-0.681]
0.074±0.133[0.004-0.510]
0.258±0.430[0.025-1.689]
0.151±0.388[0.010-1.770
0.116±0.208[0.013-0.795]
0.110±0.216[0.009-0.850]
0.377±0.698[0.035-3.001]
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert Material Total
0.0500.0790.0300.0260.0270.0900.0450.0102.0000.0100.3000.0160.0780.0600.0200.0100.2000.1700.0151.250
0.0200.0320.0190.0800.0360.0300.0150.0400.3090.0250.0350.0190.0800.0390.7500.0290.0720.0400.0370.800
0.0150.0210.0290.0170.0340.0300.0180.0310.7110.0110.0250.0190.1090.0100.5150.0290.0380.0490.1500.410
0.0850.1320.0790.1230.0970.1500.0780.0813.0200.0460.3600.0540.2670.1091.2850.0680.3100.2590.2022.460
0.0600.0950.0300.0300.0200.1000.0500.0132.0000.0180.2900.0200.0800.0600.0200.0180.2500.1800.0201.540
0.0200.0230.0100.0700.0190.0350.0200.0500.4000.0450.0360.0260.0800.0400.7000.0390.0380.0490.0450.934
0.0190.0220.0300.0250.0410.0390.0210.0330.7120.0120.0260.0200.1100.0150.5300.0300.0400.0500.1600.505
0.0990.1400.0700.1250.0800.1740.0910.1263.1120.0750.3520.0660.2700.1151.2500.0870.3280.2790.2252.979
0.224±0.550[0.010-2.000]
0.125±0.231[0.015-0.800]
0.714±0.196[0.010-0.711]
0.463±0.829[0.046-3.020]
0.245±0.533[0.013-2.000]
0.135±0.250[0.010-0.700]
0.122±0.205[0.012-0.712]
0.502±0.908[0.066-3.112]
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert
MaterialTotal Biodegradable Non-
BiodegradableInert Material Total
0.0400.0600.0190.0280.0300.0810.0400.0781.6100.0270.2300.0270.0730.0630.0160.0150.1860.1900.0201.121
0.0100.0200.0100.0700.0200.0300.0200.0700.3260.0350.0270.0060.0500.0550.3750.0360.0380.0410.0400.860
0.0200.0250.0160.0190.0210.0190.0100.0130.4150.0150.0220.0210.0600.0200.3300.0290.0550.0350.1390.210
0.0700.1050.0450.1170.0710.1300.0700.1012.3510.0770.2790.0540.1830.1380.7210.0800.2790.2660.1992.191
0.0400.0840.0200.0250.0300.0900.0400.0201.9750.0400.2510.0280.0790.0710.0170.0200.2000.1900.0201.114
0.0160.0290.0190.0850.0360.0180.0200.0700.3000.0560.0310.0150.0650.0630.0200.0250.2190.1950.0290.670
0.0290.0300.0190.0220.0220.0200.0150.0180.4200.0190.0290.0250.0610.0220.3350.0300.0590.0390.1460.255
0.0850.1430.0580.1320.0880.1280.0750.1082.6950.1150.3110.0680.2050.1560.3720.0750.4780.4240.1952.039
0.195±0.413[0.015-1.610]
0.107±0.203[0.006-0.860]
0.075±0.114[0.010-0.415]
0.376±0.666[0.045-2.351]
0.218±0.479[0.020-1.175]
0.099±0.155[0.016-0.670]
0.081±0.117[0.015-0.420]
0.398±0.693[0.058-2.695]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-XV: Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) Generation and Separation in Different Shops of KathuaTown
TEA STALL DHABA
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.051±0.011[0.030-0.062]
(62.20)
0.007±0.004[0.002-0.015]
(8.54)
0.044±0.010[0.026-0.060]
(53.66)
0.090±0.010[0.070-0.100]
(67.67)
0.008±0.004[0.003-0.015]
(6.02)
0.081±0.010[0.060-0.095]
(61.65)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(5.53)-
(7.69)--
(0.51)-
(48.47)
(2.54)-
(6.00)-----
(2.99)-
(1.69)--
(0.51)-
(48.47)
(8.10)-
(8.90)--
(2.20)-
(48.47)
(2.64)-
(3.38)-----
(5.46)-
(5.52)--
(2.20)-
(48.47)
Non-Biodegradable0.016±0.007[0.005-0.025]
(19.51)
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.005]
(3.66)
0.013±0.006[0.004-0.020]
(15.85)
0.025±0.008[0.010-0.033]
(18.80)
0.003±0.004[0.005-0.010]
(2.26)
0.022±0.008[0.010-0.032]
(16.54)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(5.53)(0.69)(2.91)
---
(10.38)
(2.10)-
(1.56)----
(3.43)(0.69)(1.35)
---
(10.38)
(8.30)-----
(10.50)
(2.26)------
(6.04)-----
(10.50)
Inert Material0.015±0.008[0.004-0.029]
(18.29)-
0.015±0.008[0.004-0.029]
(18.29)
0.019±0.007[0.009-0.030]
(14.29)-
0.019±0.007[0.009-0.030]
(14.29)
Total0.082±0.022[0.039-0.106]
(100)
0.010±0.004[0.005-0.017]
(12.20)
0.072±0.021[0.034-0.099]
(87.80)
0.133±0.016[0.111-0.155]
(100)
0.011±0.004[0.006-0.015]
(8.27)
0.122±0.018[0.102-0.143]
(92.73)
PHOTOSTAT SHOP SHOE MAKING SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.025±0.007[0.016-0.037]
(44.64)
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.007]
(7.14)
0.021±0.007[0.010-0.030]
(37.50)
0.027±0.007[0.014-0.036]
(21.26)
0.004±0.002[0.003-0.008]
(3.15)
0.022±0.008[0.010-0.030]
(18.32)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(39.20)-
(5.44)-----
(5.20)-
(1.94)-----
(34.00)-
(3.50)-----
(8.20)-
(13.06)-----
(3.15)-------
(5.05)-
(13.06)-----
Non-Biodegradable0.014±0.006[0.005-0.020]
(25.00)
0.002±0.004[0.003-0.010]
(3.57)
0.012±0.005[0.005-0.019]
(21.43)
0.082±0.016[0.050-0.110]
(64.57)
0.004±0.006[0.005-0.015]
(3.15)
0.078±0.018[0.045-0.110]
(61.42)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(18.70)(6.30)
-----
(3.00)(0.57)
-----
(15.70)(5.73)
-----
(14.60)(19.47)
---
(30.50)-
-----
(3.15)-
(14.60)(19.47)
---
(27.35)-
Inert Material0.017±0.009[0.004-0.030]
(30.36)-
0.017±0.009[0.004-0.030]
(30.36)
0.018±0.004[0.012-0.025]
(14.17)-
0.018±0.004[0.012-0.025]
(14.17)
Total0.056±0.021[0.030-0.087]
(100)
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.017]
(10.71)
0.050±0.019[0.028-0.079]
(89.29)
0.127±0.024[0.076-0.155]
(100)
0.008±0.006[0.003-0.021]
(6.30)
0.118±0.024[0.067-0.152]
(93.70)
STD/PCO SHOP MEDICAL/CHEMIST SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.029±0.009[0.011-0.039]
(38.67)
0.005±0.003[0.002-0.009]
(6.67)
0.024±0.007[0.009-0.030]
(32.00)
0.081±0.025[0.040-0.110]
(57.04)
0.008±0.005[0.004-0.019]
(5.63)
0.073±0.023[0.036-0.100]
(51.41)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(29.69)-
(8.98)-----
(5.55)-
(1.12)-----
(24.14)-
(7.86)-----
(14.21)(10.85)(29.40)(2.58)
----
(5.63)-------
(8.58)(10.85)(29.40)(2.58)
----
Non-Biodegradable0.026±0.012[0.010-0.040]
(34.67)
0.004±0.008[0.002-0.021]
(5.33)
0.022±0.011[0.010-0.036]
(29.33)
0.036±0.009[0.020-0.051]
(25.35)
0.009±0.006[0.003-0.021]
(6.34)
0.029±0.008[0.016-0.042]
(19.01)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(23.50)(11.17)
-----
(3.42)(1.91)
-----
(20.08)(9.26)
-----
(21.11)(12.20)(2.04)
----
(5.88)-
(0.46)----
(15.23)(2.20)(1.58)
----
Inert Material0.020±0.013[0.005-0.041]
(26.67)-
0.020±0.013[0.005-0.041]
(26.67)
0.025±0.009[0.012-0.039]
(17.61)-
0.025±0.009[0.012-0.039]
(17.61)
Total0.075±0.029[0.029-0.110]
(100)
0.009±0.010[0.004-0.030]
(12.00)
0.066±0.024[0.025-0.097]
(88.00)
0.142±0.034[0.087-0.189]
(100)
0.017±0.007[0.009-0.027]
(11.97)
0.127±0.031[0.078-0.174]
(88.03)
KARYANA SHOP ELECTRICAL SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.040±0.012[0.020-0.055]
(57.97)
0.006±0.004[0.002-0.014]
(8.70)
0.034±0.012[0.018-0.050]
(49.28)
0.014±0.005[0.005-0.022]
(12.96)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(1.85)
0.012±0.005[0.005-0.020]
(11.11)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(29.09)-
(21.00)-
(7.88)---
(3.45)-
(2.00)-
(3.25)---
(25.64)-
(19.00)-
(4.63)---
(4.16)-
(8.00)-
(0.80)---
(1.85)-------
(2.31)-
(8.00)-
(0.80)---
Non-Biodegradable0.017±0.008[0.005-0.025]
(24.64)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.005]
(4.35)
0.014±0.007[0.004-0.020]
(20.29)
0.070±0.019[0.030-0.088]
(64.81)
0.014±0.012[0.002-0.040]
(12.96)
0.056±0.020[0.020-0.080]
(51.85)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(15,40)(9.24)
-----
(3.26)(1.09)
-----
(12.14)(8.15)
-----
(35.69)(17.11)(4.50)(4.51)(3.00)
--
(8.80)(4.16)
-----
(26.89)(12.95)(4.50(4.51)(3.00)
--
Inert Material0.012±0.006[0.005-0.021]
(17.39)-
0.012±0.006[0.005-0.021]
(17.39)
0.023±0.009[0.010-0.033]
(21.30)-
0.023±0.009[0.010-0.033]
(21.30)
Total0.069±0.025[0.030-0.101]
(100)
0.009±0.004[0.003-0.016]
(13.04)
0.060±0.023[0.027-0.091]
(86.96)
0.108±0.026[0.050-0.131]
(100)
0.016±0.013[0.005-0.044]
(14.81)
0.092±0.026[0.040-0.126]
(85.19)
FURNITURE SHOP DRY CLEANING SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable2.358±0.993[1.244-4.509]
(68.07)
0.344±0.265[0.100-0.815]
(9.93)
2.016±0.884[1.129-3.874]
(58.14)
0.018±0.012[0.004-0.041]
(32.14)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.007]
(3.57)
0.016±0.012[0.004-0.040]
(28.57)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(7.77)(1.25)(5.69)
--
(53.36)--
(5.39)-
(4.54)-----
(2.38)(1.25)(1.15)
--
(53.36)--
(16.45)(10.19)(5.50)
-----
(3.57)-------
(12.88)(10.19)(5.50)
-----
Non-Biodegradable0.327±0.085[0.200-0.412]
(9.44)
0.026±0.034[0.012-0.080]
(0.75)
0.301±0.071[0.200-0.400]
(8.69)
0.025±0.020[0.003-0.056]
(44.64)
0.001±0.002[0.005-0.005]
(1.79)
0.024±0.019[0.003-0.056]
(42.85)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(3.26)(6.18)
-----
-(0.75)
-----
(3.26)(5.43)
-----
(31.55)(13.09)
-----
(1.79)------
(29.76)(13.09)
-----
Inert Material0.779±0.423[0.350-1.560]
(22.49)-
0.779±0.423[0.350-1.560]
( 22.49)
0.013±0.005[0.006-0.019]
(23.21)-
0.013±0.005[0.006-0.019]
(23.21)
Total3.464.±1.305[1.804-5.919]
(100)
0.370±0.272[0.115-0.885]
(10.68)
3.095±1.225[1.689-5.284]
(89.35)
0.056±0.034[0.013-0.116]
(100)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.009]
(5.36)
0.053±0.034[0.013-0.115]
(94.64)
VEGETABLE/FRUIT SHOP STATIONERY SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross SolidWaste (G)
Separated SolidWaste (r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.243±0.061[0.150-0.312]
(82.94)
0.009±0.003[0.004-0.012]
(3.07)
0.234±0.060[0.140-0.300]
(78.86)
0.020±0.010[0.002-0.031]
(43.48)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.009]
(6.52)
0.016±0.009[0.002-0.028]
(34.78)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(10.50)-
(10.11)----
(62.33)
(0.87)-
(2.20)-----
(9.63)-
(7.91)----
(62.33)
(27.58)-
(15.90)-----
(6.52)-------
(21.06)-
(15.90)-----
Non-Biodegradable0.027±0.009[0.010-0.036]
(9.22)
0.0004±0.0011[0.003-0.003]
(0.14)
0.027±0.009[0.010-0.036]
(9.08)
0.013±0.008[0.001-0.026]
(28.26)-
0.013±0.008[0.001-0.026]
(28.26)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(8.50)--
(0.72)---
(0.14)------
(8.36)--
(0.72)---
(24.27)(2.30)(1.69)
----
-------
(24.27)(2.30)(1.69)
----
Inert Material0.023±0.004[0.017-0.029]
(7.85)-
0.023±0.004[0.017-0.029]
(7.85)
0.014±0.009[0.001-0.025]
(30.43)-
0.014±0.009[0.001-0.025]
(30.43)
Total0.293±0.072[0.177-0.372]
(100)
0.009±0.005[0.004-0.013]
(3.07)
0.283±0.071[0.167-0.360]
(96.59)
0.046±0.024[0.004-0.075]
(100)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.009]
(6.52)
0.043±0.022[0.004-0.068]
(93.48)
HARDWARE SHOP SWEET SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.077±0.014[0.050-0.095]
(34.38)
0.008±0.003[0.003-0.013]
(3.57)
0.069±0.015[0.040-0.082]
(30.80)
0.063±0.013[0.033-0.076]
(57.27)
0.005±0.003[0.002-0.010]
(4.55)
0.058±0.011[0.033-0.071]
(52.73)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
--
(11.90)---
(22.48)-
------
(3.57)-
--
(11.90)---
(18.91)-
(9.56)-
(5.29)----
(42.42)
(4.55)-------
(5.01)-
(5.29)----
(42.42)
Non-Biodegradable0.073±0.019[0.035-0.090]
(32.59)
0.009±0.004[0.003-0.015]
(4.02)
0.064±0.019[0.028-0.085]
(28.57)
0.033±0.021[0.005-0.063]
(30.00)-
0.033±0.021[0.005-0.063]
(30.00)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(14.02)(13.57)
-(5.00)
---
(4.02)------
(10.00)(13.57)
-(5.00)
---
(29.00)---
(1.00)--
-------
(29.00)---
(1.00)--
Inert Material0.074±0.032[0.024-0.110]
(33.04)-
0.074±0.032[0.024-0.110]
( 33.04)
0.014±0.006[0.003-0.022]
(12.73)-
0.014±0.006[0.003-0.022]
(12.73)
Total0.224.±0.056[0.129-0.287]
(100)
0.016±0.006[0.008-0.028]
(7.14)
0.208±0.056[0.113-0.270]
(92.86)
0.110±0.037[0.041-0.161]
(100)
0.005±0.003[0.002-0.010]
(4.55)
0.105±0.035[0.041-0.156]
(95.45)
GARAGE TAILOR/BOUTIQUE SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.017±0.007[0.004-0.025]
(1.32)
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.010]
(0.31)
0.013±0.007[0.003-0.020]
(1.01)
0.024±0.008[0.016-0.040]
(34.29)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(4.29)
0.021±0.008[0.010-0.034]
(30.00)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(0.32)-
(1.00)-----
(0.31)-------
(0.01)-
(1.00)-----
(5.50)(28.79)
------
-(4.29)
------
(5.50)(24.50)
------
Non-Biodegradable0.812±0.443[0.029-1.563]
(62.95)
0.085±0.052[0.009-0.155]
(6.59)
0.727±0.430[0.020-1.493]
(56.36)
0.026±0.008[0.015-0.039]
(37.14)-
0.026±0.008[0.015-0.039]
(37.14)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(9.04)(23.80)(10.11)(2.00)
(15.00)(3.00)
-
(1.09)---
(5.50)--
(7.95)(23.80)(10.11)(2.00)(9.50)(3.00)
-
(29.64)(5.60)(1.90)
----
-------
(29.64)(5.60)(1.90)
----
Inert Material0.461±0.089[0.330-0.554]
(35.74)-
0.461±0.089[0.330-1.554]
( 35.74)
0.021±0.011[0.005-0.030]
(30.00)-
0.021±0.011[0.005-0.030]
(30.00)
Total1.290±0.489[0.385-1.282]
(100)
0.089±0.052[0.046-0.160]
(6.90)
1.201±0.475[0.372-1.912]
(93.10)
0.070±0.013[0.052-0.089]
(100)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(4.29)
0.068±0.013[0.051-0.087]
(97.14)
MEAT/CHICKEN SHOP JUICE SHOP
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.222±0.019[0.200-0.260]
(66.27)
0.014±0.008[0.009-0.024]
(4.18)
0.208±0.020[0.186-0.250]
(62.09)
0.192±0.013[0.170-0.210]
(67.84)
0.007±0.005[0.002-0.016]
(2.47)
0.185±0.016[0.160-0.210]
(65.37)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(5.30)------
(60.97)
(4.18)-------
(1.12)------
(60.97)
(15.20)-
(10.30)-
(5.36)--
(36.98)
(2.47)-------
(12.73)-
(10.30)-
(5.36)--
(36.98)
Non-Biodegradable0.082±0.059[0.038-0.219]
(24.48)-
0.082±0.059[0.038-0.219]
(24.48)
0.051±0.059[0.015-0.195]
(18.02)-
0.051±0.059[0.015-0.195]
(18.02)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(4.50)-----
(19.98)
-------
(4.50)-----
(19.98)
(16.82)-
(1.20)----
-------
(16.82)-
(1.20)----
Inert Material0.032±0.019[0.010-0.059]
(9.55)-
0.032±0.019[0.010-0.059]
( 9.55)
0.040±0.013[0.010-0.050]
(14.13)-
0.040±0.013[0.010-0.050]
(14.13)
Total0.335.±0.069[0.266-0.494]
(100)
0.014±0.008[0.009-0.024]
(4.18)
0.322±0.067[0.266-0.478]
(96.12)
0.283±0.062[0.240-0.430]
(100)
0.007±0.005[0.002-0.016]
(2.47)
0.276±0.061[0.234-0.424]
(97.53)
HAIR DRESSER/BEAUTY PARLOUR BAR/RESTUARANT
Type of WasteGross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable0.020±0.003[0.015-0.025]
(10.10)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.007]
(1.52)
0.017±0.004[0.012-0.020]
(8.59)
0.748±0.724[0.050-1.610]
(28.05)
0.087±0.094[0.009-0.225]
(3.26)
0.661±0.650[0.040-1.540]
(24.78)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
CottonJute
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(5.50)(4.20)(0.40)
-----
(1.52)-------
(3.98)(4.20)(0.40)
-----
(6.30)-
(4.40)----
(17.35)
(2.20)-
(1.06)-----
(4.10)-
(3.34)----
(17.35)
Non-Biodegradable0.042±0.009[0.029-0.055]
(21.21)-
0.042±0.009[0.029-0.055]
(21.21)
1.573±0.328[1.100-1.940]
(58.98)
0.859±0.222[0.566-1.200]
(32.21)
0.714±0.222[0.270-0.934]
(26.77)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
RubberLeather
Egg Shells/Bones
(5.91)(15.30)
-----
-------
(5.91)(15.30)
-----
(10.80)-
(48.18)----
--
(32.21)----
(10.80)-
(15.97)----
Inert Material0.137±0.017[0.110-0.160]
(69.19)-
0.137±0.017[0.110-0.160]
( 69.19)
0.346±0.129[0.200-0.540]
(12.97)-
0.346±0.129[0.200-0.540]
(12.97)
Total0.198±0.016[0.175-0.287]
(100)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.007]
(1.52)
0.195±0.017[0.168-0.225]
(98.48)
2.667±0.974[1.376-4.015]
(100)
0.946±0.257[0.576-1.225]
(35.47)
1.721±0.833[0.537-2.979]
(64.53)
Table- XVI: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.029±0.007[0.003-0.035]
(38.67)
0.002±0.0001[0.0003-0.005]
(2.67)
0.027±0.007[0.002-0.033]
(36.00)
0.016±0.010[0.003-0.031]
(34.04)
0.004±0.003[0.0008-0.006]
(8.51)
0.012±0.008[0.002-0.026]
(25.53)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(15.96)(0.91)(0.61)
(21.19)
(2.67)---
(13.29)(0.91)(0.61)
(21.19)
(10.65)-
(1.96)(21.43)
(8.51)---
(2.14)-
(1.96)(21.43)
Non-Biodegradable 0.010±0.003[0.001-0.019]
(13.33)
0.004±0.001[0.001-0.009]
(5.33)
0.006±0.002[0.0007-0.016]
(8.00)
0.008±0.005[0.0009-0.015]
(17.02)
0.002±0.001[0.0005-0.004]
(4.26)
0.006±0.004[0.0007-0.012]
(12.77)Plastic wareMetallicware
Glassware
(9.36)(0.81)(3.16)
(3.00)-
(2.33)
(6.36)(0.81)(0.83)
(11.06)(0.97)(4.99)
(2.11)-
(2.15)
(8.95)(0.97)(2.84)
Inert Material 0.036±0.021[0.007-0.052]
(48.00)-
0.036±0.021[0.007-052]
(48.00)
0.023±0.018[0.001-0.024]
(48.94)-
0.023±0.018[0.001-0.024]
(48.94)Total 0.075±0.028
[0.012-0.081](100)
0.006±0.001[0.001-0.011]
(8.00)
0.069±0.034[0.011-0.070]
(92.00)
0.047±0.029[0.005-0.052]
(100)
0.006±0.003[0.0009-0.010]
(12.77)
0.041±0.024[0.002-0.043]
(87.23)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (percentage by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Generation in Cinemas of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.025±0.014[0.004-0.037]
(36.23)
0.003±0.002[0.0006-0.010]
(4.35)
0.022±0.016[0.003-0.031]
(31.88)
0.020±0.016[0.003-0.041]
(35.09)
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.008]
(7.02)
0.016±0.014[0.002-0.034]
(28.07)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(10.10)(1.02)(0.73)
(24.38)
(4.35)---
(5.75)(1.02)(0.73)
(24.38)
(16.23)-
(0.50)(18.36)
(7.02)---
(9.21)-
(0.50)(18.36)
Non-Biodegradable 0.015±0.009[0.001-0.022]
(21.74)
0.002±0.001[0.0005-0.009]
(2.90)
0.013±0.010[0.0006-0.019]
(18.84)
0.012±0.006[0.0007-0.028]
(21.05)
0.003±0.006[0.0004-0.008]
(5.26)
0.009±0.007[0.001-0.021
(15.79)Plastic wareMetallicware
Glassware
(15.24)(2.94)(3.56)
(2.27)-
(0.63)
(12.97)(2.94)(2.93)
(15.11)(2.15)(3.79)
(4.34)-
(0.92)
(10.77)(2.15)(2.87)
Inert Material 0.029±0.021[0.006-0.036]
(42.03)-
0.029±0.021[0.006-0.036]
(42.03)
0.025±0.020[0.004-0.040]
(43.86)-
0.025±0.020[0.004-0.040]
(43.86)Total 0.069±0.036
[0.015-0.075](100)
0.005±0.002[0.001-0.016]
(7.25)
0.064±0.041[0.013-0.071]
(92.75)
0.057±0.037[0.010-0.062]
(100)
0.007±0.003[0.002-0.019]
(12.28)
0.050±0.039[0.007-0.053]
(87.72)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.033±0.024[0.010-0.047]
(38.37)
0.006±0.003[0.0004-0.010]
(6.98)
0.027±0.023[0.007-0.041]
(31.39)
0.030±0.025[0.005-0.041]
(38.96)
0.002±0.0007[0.0003-0.004]
(2.60)
0.028±0.025[0.003-0.036]
(36.36)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(14.86)-
(0.90)(22.61)
(6.98)---
(7.88)-
(0.90)(22.61)
(11.72)(0.96)(1.02)
(25.26)
(2.60)---
(9.12)(0.96)(1.02)
(25.26)
Non-Biodegradable 0.022±0.016[0.006-0.033]
(25.58)
0.004±0.002[0.0002-0.009]
(4.65)
0.018±0.015[0.003-0.027]
(20.93)
0.017±0.015[0.004-0.031]
(22.08)
0.001±0.0004[0.0001-0.003]
(1.30)
0.016±0.015[0.003-0.029]
(20.78)Plastic wareMetallicware
Glassware
(19.39)(3.78)(2.41)
(3.29)-
(1.36)
(16.10)(3.78)(1.05)
(17.00)(3.31)(1.77)
(0.70)-
(0.60)
(16.30)(3.31)(1.17)
Inert Material 0.031±0.019[0.009-0.037]
(36.05)-
0.031±0.019[0.009-0.037]
(36.05)
0.030±0.026[0.004-0.049]
(38.96)-
0.030±0.026[0.004-0.049]
(38.96)Total 0.086±0.051
[0.018-0.096](100)
0.010±0.002[0.008-0.021]
(11.63)
0.076±0.055[0.010-0.083]
(88.37)
0.077±0.061[0.010-0.082]
(100)
0.003±0.0009[0.0005-0.007]
(3.90)
0.074±0.057[0.006-0.080]
(96.10)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.032±0.027[0.003-0.051]
(35.56)
0.004±0.003[0.0009-010]
(4.44)
0.028±025[0.001-0.044]
(31.12)
0.026±0.013[0.001-0.036]
(33.33)
0.003±0.001[0.0006-0.009]
(3.85)
0.023±0.014[0.0007-0.030]
(29.48)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(14.35)-
(0.85)(20.36)
(4.44)---
(9.91)-
(0.85)(20.36)
(10.66)(0.81)(1.76)
(20.10)
(3.85)---
(6.81)(0.81)(1.76)
(20.10)Non-Biodegradable 0.025±0.023
[0.006-0.039](27.78)
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.008]
(4.44)
0.021±0.020[0.002-0.034]
(23.34)
0.020±0.011[0.009-0.031]
(25.64)
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.010]
(3.85)
0.017±0.013[0.005-0.027]
(21.79)Plastic wareMetallicware
Glassware
(18.94)(2.77)(6.07)
(2.57)-
(1.87)
(16.37)(2.77)(4.20)
(17.86)(3.55)(4.23)
(3.00)-
(0.85)
(14.86)(3.55)(3.38)
Inert Material 0.033±0.031[0.007-0.055]
(36.67)-
0.033±0.031[0.007-0.055]
(36.67)
0.032±0.025[0.007-0.049]
(41.03)-
0.032±0.025[0.007-0.049]
(41.03)Total 0.090±0.073
[0.011-0.097](100)
0.008±0.005[0.001-0.015]
(8.89)
0.082±0.071[0.008-0.084]
(91.13)
0.078±0.035[0.013-0.096]
(100)
0.006±0.002[0.001-0.018]
(7.69)
0.072±0.041[0.010-0.090]
(92.31)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XVII: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.333±0.074[0.142-0.444]
(54.59)
0.010±0.006[0.005-0.023]
(1.64)
0.323±0.074[0.136-0.429]
(52.95)
0.364±0.123[0.135-0.501]
(60.07)
0.025±0.012[0.018-0.086]
(4.13)
0.339±0.113[0.126-0.488]
(55.94)PaperwareCardboardClothware
CottonWood
FoliageFood/Garbage
(3.62)(2.41)(0.09)(0.03)(0.19)(0.18)
(48.07)
(0.70)(0.94)
-----
(2.92)(1.47)(0.09)(0.03)(0.19)(0.18)
(48.07)
(5.55)(6.00)
-(1.09)(1.24)
-(46.19)
(1.87)(2.26)
-----
(3.68)(3.74)
-(1.09)(1.24)
-(46.19)
Non-Biodegradable 0.265±0.094[0.100-0.346]
(43.44)
0.115±0.049[0.046-0.151]
(18.85)
0.150±0.049[0.069-0.295]
(24.59)
0.233±0.115[0.054-0.296]
(38.45)
0.031±0.011[0.016-0.072]
(5.12)
0.202±0.106[0.046-0.276]
(33.33)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
ThermocoalEgg Shell/bones
(5.62)(0.60)
(36.50)(0.09)(0.63)
(2.59)-
(16.26)--
(3.03)(0.60)
(20.24)(0.09)(0.63)
(6.51)(1.82)
(29.29)(0.30)(0.53)
(1.08)-
(4.04)--
(5.43)(1.82)
(25.25)(0.30)(0.53)
Inert Material 0.012±0.006[0.002-0.023]
(1.97)-
0.012±0.006[0.002-0.023]
(1.97)
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.025]
(1.49)-
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.025]
(1.49)Total 0.610±0.144
[0.212-0.689](100)
0.125±0.048[0.059-0.196]
(20.49)
0.485±0.101[0.189-0.601]
(79.51)
0.606±0.209[0.220-0.801]
(100)
0.056±0.019[0.024-0.099]
(9.24)
0.550±0.191[0.201-0.767]
(90.76)
Generation in Hotels of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.299±0.044[0.142-0.311]
(62.82)
0.014±0.003[0.001-0.036]
(2.94)
0.285±0.046[0.129-0.289]
(59.87)
0.284±0.090[0.135-0.316]
(57.03)
0.019±0.010[0.007-0.055]
(3.82)
0.265±0.100[0.119-0.297]
(53.21)PaperwareCardboardClothware
CottonWood
FoliageFood/Garbage
(6.79)(2.81)(1.00)(0.50)(0.46)
-(51.26)
(2.94)------
(3.85)(2.81)(1.00)(0.50)(0.46)
-(51.26)
(4.04)(4.20)(1.30)(1.10)(2.25)(0.90)
(43.24)
(1.93)(1.89)
-----
(2.11)(2.31)(1.30)(1.10)(2.25)(0.90)
(43.24)
Non-Biodegradable 0.156±0.033[0.089-0.221]
(32.77)
0.032±0.016[0.030-0.086]
(6.72)
0.124±0.027[0.065-0.200]
(26.05)
0.196±0.071[0.080-0.276]
(39.36)
0.055±0.018[0.021-0.146]
(11.04)
0.141±0.063[0.071-0.255]
(28.31)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
Egg Shell/bones
(10.11)(2.19)
(19.51)-
(0.96)
(1.00)(0.22)(5.50)
--
(9.11)(1.97)
(14.01)-
(0.96)
(9.76)(8.81)
(19.41)(0.90)(0.48)
(2.14)-
(8.90)--
(7.62)(8.81)
(10.51)(0.90)(0.48)
Inert Material 0.021±0.007[0.018-0.065]
(4.41)-
0.021±0.007[0.018-0.065]
(4.41)
0.018±0.007[0.002-0.033]
(3.61)-
0.018±0.007[0.002-0.033]
(3.61)Total 0.476±0.072
[0.210-0.615](100)
0.046±0.012[0.032-0.110]
(9.66)
0.430±0.079[0.193-0.559]
(90.34)
0.498±0151[0.180-0.610]
(100)
0.074±0.019[0.036-0.212]
(14.86)
0.424±0.164[0.160-0567]
(85.14)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.415±0.180[0.241-0.482]
(63.36)
0.013±0.003[0.003-0.029]
(1.98)
0.402±0.200[0.215-0.433]
(61.37)
0.386±0.136[0.214-0.444]
(63.07)
0.016±0.011[0.005-0.026]
(2.61)
0.370±0.155[0.200-0.389]
(60.46)PaperwareCardboardClothware
CottonWood
FoliageFood/Garbage
(4.11)(5.73)
-(0.97)
--
(52.55)
-(1.98)
-----
(4.11)(3.75)
-(0.97)
--
(52.55)
(3.51)--
(0.55)--
(59.01)
(2.61)------
(0.90)--
(0.55)--
(59.01)Non-Biodegradable 0.225±0.101
[0.148-0.340](34.35)
0.146±0.051[0.019-0.221]
(22.29)
0.079±0.061[0.047-0.180]
(12.06)
0.205±0.099[0.086-0.310]
(33.50)
0.100±0.051[0.033-0.141]
(16.34)
0.105±0.056[0.059-0.189]
(17.16)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
Egg Shell/bones
(9.76)(5.32)
(17.66)(1.00)(0.61)
(5.21)(3.52)
(13.56)--
(4.55)(1.80)(4.10)(1.00)(0.61)
(6.81)(1.31)
(24.72)(0.40)(0.26)
(2.08)-
(14.26)--
(4.73)(1.31)
(10.46)(0.40)(0.26)
Inert Material 0.015±0.003[0.003-0.046]
(2.29)-
0.015±0.003[0.003-0.046]
(2.29)
0.021±0.003[0.017-0.039]
(3.43)-
0.021±0.003[0.017-0.039]
(3.43)Total 0.655±0.251
[0.286-0.815](100)
0.159±0.042[0.122-0.316]
(24.27)
0.496±0.025[0.196-0.609]
(75.73)
0.612±0.216[0.368-0.915]
(100)
0.116±0.046[0.055-0.188]
(18.95)
0.496±0.199[0.300-0.867]
(81.05)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.296±0.158[0.133-0.361]
(58.15)
0.011±0.006[0.004-0.031]
(2.16)
0.285±0.177[0.129-0.355]
(55.99)
0.404±0.176[0.216-0.656]
(57.63)
0.090±0.031[0.021-0.173]
(12.84)
0.314±0.166[0.186-0.451]
(44.79)PaperwareCardboardClothware
CottonWood
FoliageFood/Garbage
(4.91)(5.61)
-(1.20)(0.36)
-(46.07)
(0.30)(1.86)
-----
(4.61)(3.75)
-(1.20)(0.36)
-(46.07)
(10.11)(12.50)
-(0.70)(1.00)
-(33.32)
(4.85)(7.99)
-----
(5.26)(4.51)
-(0.70)(1.00)
-(33.32)
Non-Biodegradable 0.187±0.096[0.111-0.231]
(36.74)
0.036±0.017[0.010-0.087]
(7.07)
0.151±0.083[0.103-0.222]
(29.67)
0.266±0.103[0.136-0.416]
(37.95)
0.150±0.061[0.076-0.250]
(21.40)
0.116±0.052[0.066-0.231]
(16.55)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
Egg Shell/bones
(3.21)(1.66)
(31.57)-
(0.30)
--
(7.07)--
(3.21)(1.66)
(24.50)-
(0.30)
(10.10)(2.56)
(24.69)-
(0.60)
(0.85)-
(20.55)--
(9.25)(2.56)(4.14)
-(0.60)
Inert Material 0.026±0.016[0.015-0.061]
(5.11)-
0.026±0.016[0.015-0.061]
(5.11)
0.031±0.016[0.019-0.088]
(4.42)-
0.031±0.016[0.019-0.088]
(4.42)Total 0.509±0.215
[0.380-0.717](100)
0.047±0.010[0.017-0.144]
(9.23)
0.462±0.236[0.171-0.696]
(90.77)
0.701±0.276[0.351-0.916]
(100)
0.240±0.089[0.121-0.331]
(34.24)
0.461±0.227[0.246-0.640]
(65.76)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XVIII: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.183±0.101[0.059-0.210]
(72.62)
0.008±0.004[0.001-0.015]
(3.17)
0.175±0.099[0.058-0.199]
(69.44)
0.197±0.110[0.053-0.256]
(71.38)
0.012±0.008[0.002-0.030]
(4.35)
0.185±0.105[0.046-0.234]
(67.03)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(10.55)(11.83)(1.11)
(49.13)
(2.16)(1.01)
--
(8.39)(10.82)(1.11)
(49.13)
(9.24)(12.69)(1.39)
(48.06)
(0.99)(3.36)
--
(8.25)(9.33)(1.39)
(48.06)Non-Biodegradable 0.062±0.031
[0.013-0.104](24.60)
0.017±0.008[0.009-0.033]
(6.75)
0.045±0.028[0.008-0.091]
(17.86)
0.069±0.041[0.025-0.142]
(25.00)
0.021±0.013[0.008-0.048]
(7.61)
0.048±0.033[0.020-0.123]
(17.39)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareEgg shell/ Bones
(4.99)(3.11)
(14.58)(1.92)
(0.74)-
(6.01)-
(4.25)(3.11)(8.57)(1.92)
(5.69)(2.51)
(14.70)(2.1)
(1.11)-
(6.50)-
(4.58)(2.51)(8.20)(2.1)
Inert Material 0.007±0.0009[0.0008-0.020]
(2.78)-
0.007±0.009[0.008-0.020]
(2.78)
0.010±0.004[0.006-0.023]
(3.62)-
0.010±0.004[0.006-0.023]
(3.62)Total 0.252±0.121
[0.091-0.311](100)
0.025±0.016[0.010-0.061]
(9.92)
0.227±0.117[0.083-0.299]
(90.08)
0.276±0.136[0.086-0.399]
(100)
0.033±0.017[0.016-0.092]
(11.96)
0.243±0.129[0.071-0.333]
(88.04)
Generation in Restaurants of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.166±0.071[0.063-0.214]
(75.80)
0.010±0.009[0.007-0.016]
(4.57)
0.156±0.068[0.058-0.200]
(71.23)
0.222±0.119[0.120-+0.361]
(74.75)
0.018±0.015[0.011-0.037]
(6.06)
0.204±0.111[0.114-0.343]
(68.69)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(8.61)(13.62)(1.55)
(52.02)
-(4.57)
--
(8.61)(9.05)(1.55)
(52.02)
(11.26)(16.39)(1.51)
(45.59)
-(6.06)
--
(11.26)(10.33)(1.51)
(45.59)Non-Biodegradable 0.048±0.031
[0.018-0.088](21.92)
0.018±0.011[0.004-0.024]
(8.22)
0.030±0.026[0.015-0.077]
(13.70)
0.061±0.048[0.033-0.176]
(20.54)
0.022±0.019[0.014-0.059]
(7.41)
0.039±0.036[0.025-0.155]
(13.13)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareEgg shell/Bones
(10.76)(0.91)(9.14)(1.11)
(3.16)-
(5.06)-
(7.60)(0.91)(4.08)(1.11)
(7.11)(1.49)
(10.38)(1.56)
(2.02)-
(5.39)-
(5.09)(1.49)(4.99)(1.56)
Inert Material 0.005±0.003[0.001-0.016]
(2.28)-
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.016]
(2.28)
0.014±0.009[0.003-0.027]
(4.71)-
0.014±0.009[0.003-0.027]
(4.71)Total 0.219±0.087
[0.090-0.313](100)
0.028±0.022[0.014-0.046]
(12.79)
0.191±0.079[0.081-0.296]
(87.21)
0.297±0.151[0.141-0.421]
(100)
0.040±0.026[0.018-0.89]
(13.47)
0.257±0.133[0.126-0.389]
(86.53)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.244±0.167[0.188-0.490]
(75.08)
0.022±0.017[0.006-0.061]
(6.77)
0.222±0.155[0.177-0.463]
(68.31)
0.261±0.193[0.165-0.510]
(68.15)
0.024±0.018[0.006-0.065]
(6.27)
0.237±0.181[0.153-0.460]
(61.88)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(8.88)(12.52)(1.10)
(52.58)
(2.17)(4.60)
--
(6.71)(7.92)(1.10)
(52.58)
(9.40)(9.55)(0.90)
(48.30)
(1.84)(4.43)
--
(7.56)(5.12)(0.90)
(48.30)
Non-Biodegradable 0.065±0.051[0.039-0.111]
(20.00)
0.029±0.022[0.013-0.038]
(8.92)
0.036±0.034[0.028-0.086]
(11.08)
0.101±0.068[0.054-0.240]
(26.37)
0.034±0.025[0.017-0.066]
(8.88)
0.067±0.057[0.046-0.210]
(17.49)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareEgg shell/Bones
(7.61)(2.47)(8.05)(1.87)
(3.99)-
(4.93)-
(3.62)(2.47)(3.12)(1.87)
(5.39)(1.09)
(18.78)(1.11)
--
(8.88)-
(5.39)(1.09)(9.90)(1.11)
Inert Material 0.016±0.011[0.005-0.036]
(4.92)-
0.016±0.011[0.005-0.036]
(4.92)
0.021±0.014[0.010-0.042]
(5.48)-
0.021±0.014[0.010-0.042]
(5.48)Total 0.325±0.189
[0.212-0.481](100)
0.051±0.031[0.024-0.093]
(15.69)
0.274±0.163[0.191-0.433]
(84.31)
0.383±0.219[0.231-0.625]
(100)
0.058±0.037[0.024-0.081]
(15.14)
0.325±0.207[0.202-0.570]
(84.86)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.253±0.188[0.147-0.435]
(70.28)
0.018±0.012[0.002-0.029]
(5.00)
0.235±0.180[0.138-0.415]
(65.28)
0.259±0.192[0.163-0.421]
(69.81)
0.019±0.011[0.007-0.038]
(5.12)
0.240±0.188[0.150-0.401]
(64.69)Paperware
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(6.63)(9.74)(0.77)
(53.14)
-(5.00)
--
(6.36)(4.74)(0.77)
(53.14)
(8.88)(10.71)(1.99)
(48.23)
(1.33)(3.79)
--
(7.55)(6.92)(1.99)
(48.23)
Non-Biodegradable 0.089±0.055[0.038-0.162]
(24.72)
0.029±0.021[0.015-0.044]
(8.06)
0.060±0.037[0.027-0.149]
(16.66)
0.092±0.068[0.040-0.171]
(24.80)
0.030±0.019[0.016-0.061]
(8.09)
0.062±0.055[0.033-0.160]
(16.71)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareEgg shell/Bones
(6.21)(1.33)
(16.38)(0.80)
--
(8.06)-
(6.21)(1.33)(8.32)(0.80)
(7.33)(0.90)
(15.06)(1.51)
(1.39)-
(6.70)-
(15.94)(0.90)(8.36)(1.51)
Inert Material 0.018±0.008[0.005-0.043]
(5.00)-
0.018±0.008[0.005-0.043]
(5.00)
0.020±0.013[0.006-0.047]
(5.39)-
0.020±0.013[0.006-0.047]
(5.39)Total 0.360±0.237
[0.188-0.555](100)
0.047±0.029[0.017-0.083]
(13.06)
0.313±0.228[0.172-0.520]
(86.94)
0.371±0.251[0.196-0.545]
(100)
0.049±0.024[0.025-0.096]
(13.21)
0.322±0.247[0.181-0.512]
(86.79)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XIX: Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Commercial Areas of Kathua TownSHOP CINEMA
Type of Waste Gross Solid Waste(G1)
Separated Solid Waste(r1)
Net Solid WasteN=(G1-r1)
Gross SolidWaste(G2)
Separated SolidWaste
(r2)
Net Solid WasteN2=(G2-r2)
Biodegradable (B) 0.218±0.057[0.002-4.509]
0.022±0.009[0.001-0.635]
0.196±0.051[0.002-3.874]
0.026±0.006[0.001-0.051]
0.004±0.001[0.0003-0.010]
0.024±0.006[0.0007-0.044]
Non-Biodegradable(NB)
0.169±0.026[0.001-1.940]
0.051±0.013[0.001-1.200]
0.117±0.023[0.001-1.493]
0.016±0.006[0.0007.0.039]
0.003±0.001[0.0001-0.010]
0.013±0.006[0.0006-0.034]
Inert Material (IM) 0.105±0.025[0.001-1.560] -
0.105±0.025[0.001-1.560]
0.030±0.004[0.001-0.055] -
0.030±0.004[0.001-0.055]
Total = B+NB+IM 0.491±0.097[0.004-5.919]
0.073±0.019[0.001-1.225]
0.419±0.084[0.004-5.284]
0.072±0.014[0.005-0.097]
0.006±0.002[0.0005-0.021]
0.066±0.014[0.002-0.090]
(Commuted from two years Study Data of XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII and XVIII).HOTEL RESTRURANT
Type of Waste Gross Solid Waste(G3)
Separated Solid Waste(r3)
Net Solid WasteN3=(G3-r3)
Gross SolidWaste(G4)
Separated SolidWaste
(r4)
Net Solid WasteN4=(G4-r4)
Biodegradable (B) 0.348±0.052[0.133-0.656]
0.025±0.027[0.001-0.173]
0.323±0.046[0.119-0.488]
0.223±0.037[0.053-0.510]
0.016±0.006[0.001-0.065]
0.207±0.032[0.046-0.463]
Non-Biodegradable(NB)
0.217±0.038[0.054-0.416]
0.083±0.051[0.010-0.250]
0.134±0.037[0.046-0.295]
0.073±0.018[0.013-0.240]
0.025±0.006[0.004-0.066]
0.048±0.013[0.008-0.210]
Inert Material (IM) 0.019±0.007[0.001-0.088] -
0.019±0.007[0.001-0.088]
0.014±0.006[0.001-0.047] -
0.014±0.006[0.001-0.047]
Total = B+NB+IM 0.583±0.080[0.180-0.916]
0.108±0.067[0.017-0.331]
0.476±0.041[0.160-0.867]
0.310±0.059[0.086-0.625]
0.041±0.012[0.010-0.096]
0.269±0.049[0.071-0.570]
COMMERCIAL AREAType of Waste Gross Solid Waste
G=(G1+G2+G3+G4)
4
Separated SolidWaste
r= (r1+r2+r3+r4)4
Net Solid WasteN=
N1+N2+N3+N44
Biodegradable (B) 0.204±0.133[0.001-4.509]
0.017±0.009[0.001-0.635]
0.188±0.123[0.002-3.874]
Non-Biodegradable(NB)
0.119±0.091[0.001-1.940]
0.041±0.034[0.0001-1.200]
0.078±0.057[0.0006-1.493]
Inert Material (IM) 0.042±0.043[0.001-1.560] -
0.042±0.043[0.001-1.560]
Total = B+NB+IM 0.364±0.225[0.004-5.919]
0.057±0.044[0.0005-1.225]
0.308±0.183[0.002-5.284]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-XX: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/day) Generation at Bus Stands of KathuaTown.
Type of Waste Average Solid Waste (kg/day) at Bus-Stand during First Year Study Average Solid Waste (kg/day) at Bus-Stand during Second Year StudyJan-Mar 2007 April-June 2007 July-Sep. 2007 Oct-Dec 2007 Jan-Mar 2008 April-June 2008 July-Sep. 2008 Oct-Dec 2008
Biodegradable 25.455±14.269[11.217-51.166]
(33.96)
26.316±16.221[17.258-46.767]
(32.45)
21.209±16.515[6.917-49.717]
(26.12)
29.919±22.169[20.100-10.176]
(32.08)
18.177±11.246[4.415-39.056]
(30.83)
25.170±15.170[12.116-54.177]
(34.79)
30.132±16.717[18.232-89.162]
(44.41)
23.122±13.162[7.609-51.241]
(32.36)Paper wareClothwareCardboard
JuteFoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(10.91)(0.00)(3.98)(1.56)(9.91)(3.90)(3.70)
(11.72)(0.24)(5.62)(0.71)(7.26)(2.55)(4.35)
(9.16)(0.60)(2.71)(2.11)(5.32)(1.31)(4.91)
(6.21)(0.00)(6.71)(1.96)(8.81)(2.49)(5.90)
(7.45)(1.33)(5.55)(3.13)(6.71)(1.60)(5.06)
(9.16)(0.40)(6.35)(2.18)(5.00)(2.30)(9.40)
(12.31)(0.77)(8.01)(2.90)
(10.10)(4.15)(6.17)
(10.34)(1.24)(6.70)(1.90)(6.50)(4.90)(0.78)
Non-Biodegradable
29.316±21.716[18.288-90.160]
(39.11)
31.196±24.616[21.690-75.990]
(38.47)
24.544±19.786[12.285-46.100]
(30.22)
36.181±26.196[23.100-60.000]
(38.80)
22.160±16.315[3.160-32.644]
(37.59)
26.985±14.316[13.997-45.615]
(37.30)
20.158±15.699[8.100-43.691]
(29.71)
23.647±19.714[10.400-73.419]
(33.09)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
ThermocoalLeatherRubber
Egg Shells/ Bones
(18.33)(4.91)(7.76)(0.21)(2.99)(4.11)(0.80)
(20.21)(2.13)(6.00)(0.00)(3.12)(7.01)(0.00)
(10.71)(3.50)(5.76)(0.00)(3.31)(5.72)(1.22)
(14.23)(3.96)
(11.11)(0.40)(2.44)(6.30)(0.33)
(17.00)(5.10)(8.70)(0.00)(1.90)(4.56)(0.33)
(13.66)(4.15)
(10.33)(0.00)(4.01)(5.15)(0.00)
(9.82)(3.16)(5.96)(0.81)(3.16)(5.50)(1.30)
(12.39)(2.33)(5.88)(0.00)(5.44)(6.49)(0.56)
Inert Material 20.179±14.199[9.456-62.178]
(26.92)
23.584±19.946[11.337-44.179]
(29.08)
35.460±18.818[21.215-59.610]
(43.66)
27.160±15.413[13.227-53.169]
(29.12)
18.615±13.419[6.200-37.107]
(31.58)
20.190±12.616[12.000-51.816]
(27.91)
17.555±11.100[2.156-37.415]
(25.86)
24.693±15.784[7.531-62.171]
(34.55)Total 74.950±41.580
[39.289-115.819](100)
81.096±54.387[51.111-207.678]
(100)
81.213±45.126[40.316-129.115]
(100)
93.260±50.620[51.830-144.515]
(100)
56.952±34.890[13.100-111.213]
(100)
72.345±32.278[36.415-140.117]
(100)
67.845±31.197[29.133-191.100]
(100)
71.462±34.691[20.120-202.175]
(100)Average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) = 24.938±4.087 [4.415-89.162]. Average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) = 26.773±5.269 [3.160-90.160].
Average Inert Material (kg/day) = 23.430±5.843 [2.156-62.178]. Average Solid Waste (kg/day) = 75.140±10.263 [13.100-207-678].Figures in ( ) showing Percentage Values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged Values of Solid Waste.
Table-XXI: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/day) Generation at Vegetable Market of Kathua Town.Type of Waste Average Solid Waste (Kg/Day) at Vegetable Market during First Year Study Average Solid Waste (Kg/Day) at Vegetable Market during Second Year Study
Jan-Mar 2007 April-June 2007 July-Sep. 2007 Oct-Dec 2007 Jan-Mar 2008 April-June 2008 July-Sep. 2008 Oct-Dec 2008
Biodegradable 62.492±72.388[11.743-189-361]
(63.40)
79.218±93.405[10.114-220-146]
(62.82)
71.806±89.921[8.172-244.419]
(61.94)
85.696±99.276[8.216-292-112]
(61.07)
77.591±82.755[11.311-242.231]
(65.03)
94.951±110.124[8.181-277.111]
(65.23)
89.711±90.113[7.413-315.961]
(66.25)
97.691±110.317[11.217-281.211]
(67.03)PaperwareClothwareCardboard
JuteFoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(5.71)(0.50)(4.99)(2.10)(2.23)(3.85)
(44.02)
(4.21)(0.00)(5.78)(3.15)(3.10)(6.49)
(40.09)
(6.10)(0.90)(3.73)(4.12)(3.93)(4.79)
(38.37)
(5.19)(0.00)(4.20)(1.90)(0.09)(7.80)
(41.89)
(3.10)(0.00)(5.19)(2.52)(2.16)(3.41)
(48.92)
(3.90)(0.31)(2.70)(3.00)(3.49)(4.66)
(47.17)
(5.30)(0.17)(4.51)(1.81)(4.54)(6.71)
(43.21)
(5.31)(0.00)(4.42)(3.71)(4.91)(4.62)
(44.06)Non-
Biodegradable2.416±1.749[0.190-5.257]
(2.45)
2.918±3.101[0.155-6.570]
(2.31)
1.406±1.931[0.170-4.911]
(1.21)
3.304±3.416[0.211-7.810]
(2.35)
1.951±2.200[0.107-3.180]
(1.64)
2.126±2.415[0.188-5.913]
(1.46)
1.515±1.632[0.188-5.322]
(1.12)
1.922±2.162[0.210-3.511]
(1.32)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubberThermal
(1.45)(0.10)(0.00)(0.30)(0.60)
(1.75)(0.13)(0.06)(0.10)(0.27)
(1.21)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)
(1.79)(0.03)(0.00)(0.07)(0.46)
(1.25)(0.00)(0.00)(0.18)(0.21)
(0.74)(0.40)(0.05)(0.12)(0.15)
(0.40)(0.08)(0.00)(0.40)(0.24)
(1.14)(0.00)(0.00)(0.00)(0.18)
Inert Material 33.659±37.117[2.156-119.993]
(34.15)
43.966±53.451[5.510-183.442]
(34.87)
42.713±47.112[4.115-129.133]
(36.85)
51.327±54.110[10.313-222.181]
(36.58)
39.779±42.141[3.991-145.722]
(33.34)
48.480±55.620[4.595-147.246]
(33.31)
44.177±46.172[3.916-119.716]
(32.63)
46.127±49.158[5.990-151.110]
(31.65)Total 98.567±104.711
[21.191-272.115](100)
126.102±139.390[23.110-351.289]
(100)
115.925±128.931[5.942-333.820]
(100)
140.327±152.518[20.636-415.123]
(100)
119.321±123.210[15.256-318.327]
(100)
145.557±161.611[14.117-455.316]
(100)
135.403±138.912[12.529-443.600]
(100)
145.740±156.230[21.203-389.610]
(100)
Average Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) = 82.395±11.937 [7.413-315.961]. Average Non-Biodegradable Solid Waste (kg/day) = 2.195±0.657 [0.107-7.810].Average Inert Material (kg/day) = 43.779±5.403 [2.156-222.181]. Average Solid Waste (kg/day) = 128.368±16.560 [5.942-455.316].
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] Showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXII: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.018±0.006[0.003-0.034]
(45.00)
0.003±0.002[0.0005-0.008]
(7.50)
0.015±0.009[0.002-0.026]
(37.50)
0.020±0.013[0.005-0.046]
(55.56)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.010]
(5.56)
0.018±0.013[0.004-0.036]
(50.00)PaperwareCardboard
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(32.12)(4.76)
-(0.61)(7.51)
(6.33)(1.17)
---
(25.79)(3.59)
-(0.61)(7.51)
(37.21)(7.48)
-(0.30)
(10.57)
(5.56)----
(31.65)(7.48)
-(0.30)
(10.57)
Non-Biodegradable 0.005±0.003[0.001-0.012]
(12.50)
0.002±0.002[0.0005-0.004]
(5.00)
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.008]
(7.50)
0.004±0.003[0.003-0.014]
(11.11)-
0.004±0.003[0.003-0.014]
(11.11)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
(9.47)(2.94)
-(0.09)
(5.00)---
(4.47)(2.94)
-(0.09)
(10.59)(0.52)
--
----
(10.59)(0.52)
--
Inert Material 0.017±0.013[0.002-0.023]
(42.50)-
0.017±0.013[0.002-0.023]
(42.50)
0.012±0.007[0.003-0.021]
(33.33)-
0.012±0.007[0.003-0.021]
(33.33)Total 0.040±0.023
[0.008-0.097](100)
0.005±0.002[0.0009-0.014]
(12.50)
0.035±0.024[0.007-0.083]
(87.50)
0.036±0.020[0.011-0.080]
(100)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.010]
(5.56)
0.034±0.020[0.010-0.071]
(94.44)
Generation in Banks of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.014±0.010[0.009-0.029]
(51.85)
0.001±0.001[0.0004-0.003]
(3.70)
0.013±0.010[0.008-0.026]
(48.15)
0.015±0.003[0.008-0.024]
(65.22)
0.004±0.002[0.001-0.007]
(17.39)
0.011±0.002[0.007-0.017]
(47.83)PaperwareCardboard
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(35.96)(6.74)(0.21)(0.17)(8.77)
(2.33)(1.37)
---
(33.63)(5.37)(0.21)(0.17)(8.77)
(43.54)(7.90)(0.19)(0.89)
(12.70)
(15.77)(1.62)
---
(27.77)(6.28)(0.19)(0.89)
(12.70)
Non-Biodegradable 0.003±0.002[0.0009-0.005]
(11.11)
0.001±0.007[0.003-0.002]
(3.70)
0.002±0.002[0.0006-0.003]
(7.40)
0.005±0.001[0.003-0.008]
(21.74)
0.002±0.0006[0.001-0.003]
(8.70)
0.003±0.001[0.002-0.004]
(13.04)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
Thermocoal
(8.91)(0.20)(2.00)
-
(2.99)-
(0.71)-
(5.92)(0.20)(1.29)
-
(16.96)(1.19)(3.59)
-
(4.94)(0.85)(2.91)
-
(12.02)(0.34)(0.68)
-
Inert Material 0.010±0.006[0.003-0.016]
(37.04)-
0.010±0.006[0.003-0.016]
(37.04)
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(13.04)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(13.04)Total 0.027±0.014
[0.013-0.048](100)
0.002±0.0005[0.0007-0.005]
(7.40)
0.025±0.013[0.012-0.042]
(92.59)
0.023±0.004[0.012-0.036]
(100)
0.006±0.002[0.002-0.010]
(26.09)
0.017±0.003[0.010-0.025]
(73.91)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.011±0.005[0.003-0.019]
(64.71)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.004]
(17.65)
0.008±0.004[0.002-0.015]
(47.06)
0.013±0.006[0.004-0.024]
(48.15)
0.001±0.003[0.0006-0.002]
(3.70)
0.012±0.006[0.003-0.023]
(44.45)Paper
CardboardFoliageWood
Food/garbage
(49.21)(4.36)(0.07)(0.34)
(10.73)
(17.65)----
(31.56)(4.36)(0.07)(0.34)
(10.73)
(38.54)(8.00)
--
(1.61)
(3.70)----
(34.84)(8.00)
--
(1.61)
Non-biodegradable 0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(11.76)-
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(11.76)
0.008±0.003[0.005-0.010]
(29.63)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.004]
(11.11)
0.005±0.003[0.004-0.006]
(18.52)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
Thermocoal
(9.37)-
(2.39)-
----
(9.37)-
(2.39)-
(17.36)(2.11)
(10.16)-
(6.61)(0.88)(3.62)
-
(10.75)(1.23)(6.54)
-
Inert Material 0.004±0.001[0.002-0.006]
(23.53)-
0.004±0.001[0.002-0.006]
(23.53)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.008]
(22.22)-
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.008]
(22.22)Total 0.017±0.004
[0.006-0.029](100)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.004]
(17.65)
0.014±0.004[0.005-0.025]
(82.35)
0.027±0.009[0.011-0.037]
(100)
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.006]
(14.81)
0.023±0.008[0.009-0.031]
(85.19)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.012±0.005[0.003-0.021]
(66.67)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.011]
(33.33)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.011]
(33.33)
0.016±0.009[0.003-0.031]
(76.19)
0.003±0.002[0.0007-0.006]
(14.29)
0.013±0.008[0.002-0.025]
(61.90)PaperwareCardboard
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(36.76)(12.99)(1.13)(1.10)
(14.69)
(27.22)(6.11)
---
(9.54)(6.88)(1.13)(1.10)
(14.69)
(45.77)(14.91)
-(1.44)
(14.07)
(11.89)(2.40)
---
(33.88)(12.51)
-(1.44)
(14.07)
Non-Biodegradable 0.003±0.001[0.001-0.005]
(16.67)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.005]
(16.67)
0.001±0.0006[0.0007-0.003]
(4.76)-
0.001±0.0006[0.0007-0.003]
(4.76)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlass wareThermocoal
(11.79)(0.72)(3.86)(0.30)
----
(11.79)(0.72)(3.86)(0.30)
(2.15)(0.70)(1.91)
-
----
(2.15)(0.70)(1.91)
-
Inert Material 0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(16.67)-
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(16.67)
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.006]
(19.05)-
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.006]
(19.05)Total 0.018±0.005
[0.005-0.033](100)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.011]
(33.33)
0.012±0.004[0.004-0.022]
(66.67)
0.021±0.012[0.006-0.040]
(100)
0.003±0.002[0.0007-0.006]
(14.29)
0.018±0.011[0.005-0.034]
(85.71)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXIII: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.013±0.005[0.004-0.022]
(43.33)
0.002±0.001[0.0005-0.003]
(6.67)
0.011±0.005[0.004-0.020]
(36.67)
0.015±0.006[0.005-0.033]
(41.67)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(8.33)
0.012±0.004[0.004-0.027]
(33.33)PaperwareCardboard
FoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(29.85)(10.11)
--
(3.37)
(6.67)----
(23.18)(10.11)
--
(3.37)
(31.10)(8.15)
-(0.30)(2.12)
(6.55)(1.78)
---
(24.55)(6.37)
-(0.30)(2.12)
Non-Biodegradable 0.009±0.003[0.002-0.018]
(30.00)
0.001±0.001[0.009-0.003]
(3.33)
0.008±0.003[0.002-0.015]
(26.67)
0.012±0.005[0.005-0.031]
(33.33)-
0.012±0.005[0.005-0.031]
(33.33)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
Thermocoal
(25.00)-
(5.00)-
(3.33)---
(21.67)-
(5.00)-
(24.10)(0.16)(9.07)
-
----
(24.10)(0.16)(9.07)
-
Inert Material 0.008±0.003[0.002-0.015]
(26.67)-
0.008±0.003[0.002-0.015]
(26.67)
0.009±0.005[0.004-0.023]
(25.00)-
0.009±0.005[0.004-0.023]
(25.00)Total 0.030±0.006
[0.008-0.057](100)
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.006]
(10.00)
0.027±0.006[0.007-0.050]
(90.00)
0.036±0.012[0.014-0.083]
(100)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(8.33)
0.033±0.012[0.013-0.077]
(91.66)
Generation in Offices of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.011±0.005[0.006-0.019]
(39.29)
0.002±0.001[0.0009-0.005]
(7.14)
0.009±0.005[0.005-0.014]
(32.15)
0.019±0.010[0.013-0.044]
(48.72)
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.007]
(10.26)
0.015±0.009[0.011-0.037]
(38.46)paper
cardboardfoliagewood
food/Garbage
(28.10)(7.70)
-(0.10)(3.39)
(6.00)(1.14)
---
(22.10)(6.56)
-(0.10)(3.39)
(30.11)(8.85)
-(0.76)(9.00)
(10.26)----
(19.85)(8.85)
-(0.76)(9.00)
Non-Biodegradable 0.010±0.007[0.004-0.017]
(35.71)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.006]
(10.71)
0.007±0.006[0.003-0.011]
(25.00)
0.012±0.007[0.007-0.026]
(30.77)-
0.012±0.007[0.007-0.026]
(30.77)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
(22.90)(0.35)
(12.46)-
(4.39)-
(6.32)-
(18.51)(0.35)(6.14)
-
(20.10)-
(10.67)-
----
(20.10)-
(10.67)-
Inert Material 0.007±0.004[0.003-0.015]
(25.00)-
0.007±0.004[0.003-0.015]
(25.00)
0.008±0.006[0.006-0.014]
(20.51)-
0.008±0.006[0.006-0.014]
(20.51)Total 0.028±0.012
[0.014-0.041](100)
0.005±0.002[0.002-0.011]
(17.85)
0.023±0.011[0.012-0.029]
(82.14)
0.039±0.019[0.025-0.084]
(100)
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.007]
(10.26)
0.035±0.018[0.023-0.077]
(89.74)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.022±0.016[0.015-0.039]
(50.00)
0.004±0.003[0.003-0.006]
(9.09)
0.018±0.013[0.012-0.033]
(40.91)
0.023±0.012[0.011-0.036]
(48.94)
0.005±0.004[0.002-0.009]
(10.64)
0.018±0.014[0.013-0.030]
(38.30)Paper
CardboardFoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(31.44)(9.75)(1.09)(0.82)(6.90)
(9.09)----
(22.35)(9.75)(1.09)(0.82)(6.90)
(28.51)(11.75)(0.90)(0.10)(7.68)
(7.30)(3.34)
---
(21.21)(8.41)(0.90)(0.10)(7.68)
Non-Biodegradable 0.013±0.007[0.008-0.029]
(29.55)
0.002±0.001[0.0006-0.004]
(4.55)
0.011±0.007[0.007-0.025]
(25.00)
0.014±0.007[0.006-0.030]
(29.79)-
0.014±0.007[0.006-0.030]
(29.79)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
(22.61)-
(6.94)-
(4.55)---
(18.06)-
(6.94)-
(24.64)-
(5.15)-
----
(24.64)-
(5.15)-
Inert Material 0.009±0.005[0.003-0.018]
(20.45)-
0.009±0.005[0.003-0.018]
(20.45)
0.010±0.007[0.006-0.012]
(21.28)-
0.010±0.007[0.006-0.012]
(21.28)Total 0.044±0.020
[0.029-0.081](100)
0.006±0.002[0.004-0.009]
(13.64)
0.038±0.019[0.024-0.072]
(86.36)
0.047±0.021[0.026-0.069]
(100)
0.005±0.004[0.002-0.009]
(10.64)
0.042±0.020[0.025-0.055]
(89.37)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.011±0.006[0.003-0.019]
(68.75)
0.001±0.001[0.0005-0.003]
(6.25)
0.010±0.007[0.004-0.017]
(62.50)
0.013±0.008[0.004-.027]
(50.00)
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.007]
(15.38)
0.009±0.007[0.003-0.020]
(34.62)Paper
CardboardFoliageWood
Food/Garbage
(44.63)(14.00)
-(0.13)(9.99)
(6.25)----
(38.38)(14.00)
-(0.13)(9.99)
(30.90)(12.76)
-(0.09)(6.25)
(11.40)(3.98)
---
(19.50)(8.78)
-(0.09)(6.25)
Non-Biodegradable 0.003±0.001[0.001-0.006]
(18.75)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.006]
(18.75)
0.008±0.005[0.003-0.013]
(30.77)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(7.69)
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.009]
(23.08)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareThermocoal
(14.45)-
(4.30)-
----
(14.45)-
(4.30)-
(24.90)-
(5.87)-
(4.50)-
(3.19)-
(20.40)-
(2.68)-
Inert Material 0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(12.50)-
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(12.50)
0.005±0.003[0.002-0.008]
(19.23)-
0.005±0.003[0.002-0.008]
(19.23)Total 0.016±0.005
[0.007-0.025](100)
0.001±0.001[0.0005-0.003]
(6.25)
0.015±0.006[0.009-0.020]
(93.75)
0.026±0.013[0.011-0.041]
(100)
0.006±0.002[0.003-0.010]
(23.08)
0.020±0.012[0.010-0.033]
(76.92)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXIV: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 1.214±0.599[0.791-2.618]
(48.46)-
1.214±0.599[0.791-2.618]
(48.46)
0.861±0.293[0.220-1.454]
(43.55)-
0.861±0.293[0.220-1.454]
(43.55)PaperCloth
CottonWood
Food/Garbage
(3.91)(19.61)(4.53)
-(20.41)
-----
(3.91)(19.61)(4.53)
-(20.41)
(7.30)(21.18)(5.25)(1.10)(8.72)
-----
(7.30)(21.18)(5.25)(1.10)(8.72)
Non-Biodegradable 0.975±0.560[0.461-1.400]
(38.92)
0.070±0.064[0.051-0.099]
(2.79)
0.905±0.064[0.410-1.300]
(36.13)
0.880±0.410[0.267-1.000]
(44.51)
0.053±0.041[0.022-0.096]
(2.68)
0.827±0.386[0.246-0.904]
(41.83)Plastic wareMetallicwareGlass ware
RubberEgg Shells/Bones
(25.71)(4.32)(6.70)(1.23)(0.96)
(1.58)-
(1.21)--
(24.13)(4.32)(5.49)(1.23)(0.96)
(26.06)(8.71)(7.43)(1.61)(0.70)
(0.85)-
(1.83)--
(25.21)(8.71)(5.60)(1.61)(0.70)
Inert Material 0.316±0.209[0.110-0.991]
(12.61)-
0.316±0.209[0.110-0.991]
(12.61)
0.236±0.085[0.143-0.419]
(11.94)-
0.236±0.085[0.143-0.419]
(11.94)Total 2.505±1.100
[1.415-4.761](100)
0.070±0.064[0.051-0.099]
(2.79)
2.435±1.090[1.091-4.714]
(97.21)
1.977±0.621[0.630-2.451]
(100)
0.053±0.041[0.22-0.096]
(2.68)
1.924±0.615[0.601-2.376]
(97.32)
Generation in Hospitals of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 1.544±0.476[0.281-3.180]
(63.80)-
1.544±0.476[0.281-3.180]
(63.80)
1.433±0.516[0.619-3.390]
(60.57)-
1.433±0.516[0.619-3.390]
(60.57)PaperCloth
CottonWood
Food/Garbage
(9.10)(22.00)(6.26)(0.40)
(26.04)
-----
(9.10)(22.00)(6.26)(0.40)
(26.04)
(6.73)(25.10)(5.65)
-(23.09)
-----
(6.73)(25.10)(5.65)
-(23.09)
Non-Biodegradable 0.716±0.259[0.272-1.110]
(29.59)
0.089±0.030[0.041-.0146]
(3.68)
0.627±0.233[0.225-0.970]
(25.91)
0.740±0.284[0.215-1.319]
(31.28)
0.150±0.044[0.080-0.350]
(6.34)
0.590±0.247[0.143-0.999]
(24.94)Plastic wareMetallicwareGlass ware
RubberEgg Shells/Bones
(12.97)(5.79)(8.66)(1.34)(0.83)
(1.62)-
(2.06)--
(11.35)(5.79)(6.60)(1.34)(0.83)
(12..32)(8.50)(7.95)(2.10)(0.41)
(5.21)-
(1.13)--
(7.11)(8.50)(6.82)(2.10)(0.41)
Inert Material 0.160±0.053[0.044-0.219]
(6.61)-
0.160±0.053[0.044-0.219]
(6.61)
0.193±0.074[0.056-0.283]
(8.16)-
0.193±0.074[0.056-0.283]
(8.16)Total 2.420±0.711
[0.610-4.440](100)
0.089±0.030[0.041-0.146]
(3.68)
2.331±0.681[0.574-4.363]
(96.32)
2.366±0.708[0.510-3.910]
(100)
0.150±0.044[0.080-0.350]
(6.34)
2.216±0.669[0.415-3.590]
(93.66)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 1.933±0.613[0.860-4.490]
(69.81)-
1.933±0.613[0.860-4.490]
(69.81)
0.965±0.277[0.342-1.671]
(53.31)-
0.965±0.277[0.342-1.671]
(53.31)PaperwareClothware
CottonWood
Food/Garbage
(11.46)(27.91)(7.60)(2.10)
(20.74)
-----
(11.46)(27.91)(7.60)(2.10)
(20.74)
(7.10)(21.19)(5.19)(2.22)
(17.61)
-----
(7.10)(21.19)(5.19)(2.22)
(17.61)
Non-Biodegradable 0.620±0.237[0.285-1.415]
(22.39)
0.073±0.032[0.036-0.155]
(2.64)
0.547±0.212[0.233-1.269]
(19.75)
0.590±0.117[0.159-0.826]
(32.60)
0.064±0.036[0.022-0.109]
(3.54)
0.526±0.090[0.131-0.723]
(29.06)Plastic ware
Metallic wareGlass ware
RubberEgg Shells/Bones
(4.40)(5.40)(9.90)(1.83)(0.86)
--
(2.64)--
(4.40)(5.40)(7.26)(1.83)(0.86)
(18.10)(4.90)(7.76)(1.42)(0.42)
(1.42)-
(2.12)--
(16.68)(4.90)(5.64)(1.42)(0.42)
Inert Material 0.216±0.064[0.096-0.386]
(7.80)-
0.216±0.064[0.096-0.386]
(7.80)
0.255±0.071[0.060-0.622]
(14.09)-
0.255±0.071[0.060-0.622]
(14.09)Total 2.769±0.776
[1.644-5.919](100)
0.073±0.032[0.036-0.155]
(2.64)
2.696±0.759[1.613-5.773]
(97.36)
1.810±0.381[0.599-3.132]
(100)
0.064±0.036[0.022-0.109]
(3.54)
1.746±0.359[0.561-3.054]
(96.46)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 1.109±0.339[0.519-2.010]
(55.39)-
1.109±0.339[0.519-2.010]
(55.39)
1.055±0.360[0.460-2.218]
(55.85)-
1.055±0.360[0.460-2.218]
(55.85)PaperwareClothware
CottonWood
Food/Garbage
(6.90)(16.24)(4.51)
-(27.74)
-----
(6.90)(16.24)(4.51)
-(27.74)
(8.11)(17.46)(5.06)
-(25.22)
-----
(8.11)(17.46)(5.06)
-(25.22)
Non-Biodegradable 0.718±0.349[0.215-1.610]
(35.86)
0.110±0.083[0.035-0.240]
(5.49)
0.608±0.278[0.173-1.393]
(30.37)
0.673±0.241[0.219-0.918]
(35.63)
0.090±0.031[0.029-0.150]
(4.76)
0.583±0.233[0.180-0.768]
(30.87)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Egg Shells/Bones
(22.00)(5.50)(6.93)(1.11)(0.32)
(2.38)-
(3.11)-\-
(19.62)(5.50)(3.82)(1.11)(0.32)
(20.30)(5.90)(7.16)(1.25)(1.02)
(1.57)-
(3.19)--
(18.73)(5.90)(3.97)(1.25)(1.02)
Inert Material 0.175±0.110[0.043-0.223]
(8.74)-
0.175±0.110[0.043-0.223]
(8.74)
0.161±0.096[0.046-0.190]
(8.52)-
1.161±0.096[0.046-0.190]
(8.52)Total 2.002±0.798
[0.796-3.919](100)
0.110±0.083[0.035-0.240]
(5.49)
1.892±0.715[0.761-3.679]
(94.51)
1.889±0.641[0.593-3.562]
(100)
0.090±0.031[0.029-0.150]
(4.76)
1.799±0.623[0.543-3.510]
(95.24)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXV: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.018±0.012[0.006-0.040]
(75.00)-
0.018±0.012[0.006-0.040]
(75.00)
0.014±0.011[0.004-0.036]
(51.85)-
0.014±0.011[0.004-0.036]
(51.85)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(38.23)(8.90)(4.55)(6.71)
(10.91)(5.70)
------
(38.23)(8.90)(4.55)(6.71)
(10.91)(5.70)
(20.35)(6.70)(3.93)(5.77)(9.60)(5.50)
------
(20.35)(6.70)(3.93)(5.77)(9.60)(5.50)
Non-Biodegradable 0.005±0.005[0.001-0.019]
(20.83)-
0.005±0.005[0.001-0.019]
(20.83)
0.007±0.006[0.002-0.022]
(25.93)-
0.007±0.006[0.002-0.022]
(25.93)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(11.95)(2.89)(1.90)(3.19)(0.90)
-----
(11.95)(2.89)(1.90)(3.19)(0.90)
(16.37)(3.16)(2.50)(2.30)(1.60)
-----
(16.37)(3.16)(2.50)(2.30)(1.60)
Inert Material 0.001±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(4.17)-
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(4.17)
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.017]
(22.22)-
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.017]
(22.22)Total 0.024±0.011
[0.012-0.055](100)
-0.024±0.011[0.012-0.055]
(100)
0.027±0.017[0.012-0.061]
(100)-
0.027±0.017[0.012-0.061]
(100)
Generation in Primary Schools of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.009±0.009[0.003-0.015]
(50.00)-
0.009±0.009[0.003-0.015]
(50.00)
0.013±0.009[0.004-0.028]
(68.42)-
0.013±0.009[0.004-0.028]
(68.42)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(24.49)(5.90)(2.16)(4.19)(5.16)(8.10)
------
(24.49)(5.90)(2.16)(4.19)(5.16)(8.10)
(39.81)(7.14)(5.25)(2.15)(7.72)(6.35)
------
(39.81)(7.14)(5.25)(2.15)(7.72)(6.35)
Non-Biodegradable 0.006±0.003[0.002-0.019]
(33.33)-
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.019]
(33.33)
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.015]
(21.05)-
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.015]
(21.05)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(26.35)(1.66)
-(2.80)(2.52)
-----
(26.35)(1.66)
-(2.80)(2.52)
(13.11)(4.55)(0.62)(1.67)(1.10)
-----
(13.11)(4.55)(0.62)(1.67)(1.10)
Inert Material 0.003±0.003[0.001-0.006]
(16.67)-
0.003±0.003[0.001-0.006]
(16.67)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(10.53)-
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(10.53)Total 0.018±0.010
[0.008-0.031](100)
-0.018±0.010[0.008-0.031]
(100)
0.019±0.011[0.010-0.039]
(100)-
0.019±0.011[0.010-0.039]
(100)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.010±0.007[0.004-0.029]
(62.50)-
0.010±0.007[0.004-0.029]
(62.50)
0.011±0.006[0.003-0.015]
(64.71)-
0.011±0.006[0.003-0.015]
(64.71)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(32.73)(9.16)(3.16)(4.49)(7.61)(5.35)
------
(32.73)(9.16)(3.16)(4.49)(7.61)(5.35)
(35.87)(6.10)(4.92)(5.96)(4.71)(7.15)
------
(35.87)(6.10)(4.92)(5.96)(4.71)(7.15)
Non-Biodegradable 0.003±0.001[0.001-0.011]
(18.75)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.011]
(18.75)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.010]
(11.76)-
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.010]
(11.76)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(11.65)(2.61)(2.16)(1.33)(1.00)
-----
(11.65)(2.61)(2.16)(1.33)(1.00)
(9.39)(1.22)
-(0.55)(0.60)
-----
(9.39)(1.22)
-(0.55)(0.60)
Inert Material 0.003±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(18.75)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.008]
(18.75)
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.013]
(23.53)-
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.013]
(23.53)Total 0.016±0.005
[0.003-0.036](100)
-0.016±0.005[0.003-0.036]
(100)
0.017±0.007[0.008-0.029]
(100)-
0.017±0.007[0.008-0.029]
(100)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.008±0.005[0.002-0.019]
(57.14)-
0.008±0.005[0.002-0.019]
(57.14)
0.007±0.005[0.003-0.024]
(43.75)-
0.007±0.005[0.003-0.024]
(43.75)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(26.72)(4.19)(1.55)(6.77)(8.36)(9.55)
------
(26.72)(4.19)(1.55)(6.77)(8.36)(9.55)
(17.19)(3.73)(2.67)(5.19)(6.77)(8.20)
------
(17.19)(3.73)(2.67)(5.19)(6.77)(8.20)
Non-Biodegradable 0.004±0.002[0.002-0.011]
(28.57)-
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.011]
(28.57)
0.005±0.004[0.002-0.025]
(31.25)-
0.005±0.004[0.002-0.025]
(31.25)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(23.99)(2.11)(0.40)(0.96)(1.11)
-----
(23.99)(2.11)(0.40)(0.96)(1.11)
(7.42)(3.00)(1.17)(2.15)(1.10)
-----
(7.42)(3.00)(1.17)(2.15)(1.10)
Inert Material 0.002±0.002[0.001-0.014]
(14.29)-
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.014]
(14.29)
0.004±0.004[0.001-0.022]
(25.00)-
0.004±0.004[0.001-0.022]
(25.00)Total 0.014±0.006
[0.008-0.034](100)
-0.014±0.006[0.008-0.034]
(100)
0.016±0.009[0.009-0.061]
(100)-
0.016±0.009[0.009-0.061]
(100)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXVI: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.015±0.009[0.006-0.034]
(46.88)-
0.015±0.009[0.006-0.034]
(46.88)
0.010±0.006[0.007-0.026]
(45.45)-
0.010±0.006[0.007-0.026]
(45.45)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(29.20)(5.51)(1.92)(3.79)(1.20)(5.26)
------
(29.20)(5.51)(1.92)(3.79)(1.20)(5.26)
(28.84)(4.33)(2.16)(2.61)(2.90)(4.61)
------
(28.84)(4.33)(2.16)(2.61)(2.90)(4.61)
Non-Biodegradable 0.011±0.010[0.001-0.024]
(34.38)-
0.011±0.010[0.001-0.024]
(34.38)
0.008±0.007[0.003-0.021]
(36.36)-
0.008±0.007[0.003-0.021]
(36.36)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(20.23)(1.97)(6.31)(2.71)(3.16)
-----
(20.23)(1.97)(6.31)(2.71)(3.16)
(23.42)(2.10)(5.14)(3.60)(2.10)
-----
(23.42)(2.10)(5.14)(3.60)(2.10)
Inert Material 0.006±0.003[0.003-0.015]
(18.75)-
0.006±0.003[0.003-0.015]
(18.75)
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.012]
(18.18)-
0.004±0.003[0.002-0.012]
(18.18)Total 0.032±0.017
[0.012-0.069](100)
-0.032±0.017[0.012-0.069]
(100)
0.022±0.014[0.013-0.059]
(100)-
0.022±0.014[0.013-0.059]
(100)
Generation in Middle Schools of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.013±0.011[0.009-0.030]
(41.94)-
0.013±0.011[0.009-0.030]
(41.94)
0.007±0.003[0.002-0.019]
(36.84)-
0.007±0.003[0.002-0.019]
(36.84)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(19.16)(7.15)(1.10)(5.15)(3.19)(6.19)
------
(19.16)(7.15)(1.10)(5.15)(3.19)(6.19)
(19.86)(3.88)(1.59)(4.09)(1.76)(5.66)
------
(19.86)(3.88)(1.59)(4.09)(1.76)(5.66)
Non-Biodegradable 0.013±0.012[0.004-0.029]
(41.94)-
0.013±0.012[0.004-0.029]
(41.94)
0.009±0.005[0.006-0.018]
(47.37)-
0.009±0.005[0.006-0.018]
(47.37)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(31.87)(0.90)(2.73)(4.16)(3.09)
-----
(31.87)(0.90)(2.73)(4.16)(3.09)
(37.41)(0.72)(3.43)(4.72)(1.09)
-----
(37.41)(0.72)(3.43)(4.72)(1.09)
Inert Material 0.005±0.005[0.003-0.019]
(16.13)-
0.005±0.005[0.003-0.019]
(16.13)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.011]
(15.79)-
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.011]
(15.79)Total 0.031±0.023
[0.017-0.078](100)
-0.031±0.023[0.017-0.078]
(100)
0.019±0.007[0.011-0.038]
(100)-
0.019±0.007[0.011-0.038]
(100)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.008±0.006[0.004-0.022]
(34.78)-
0.008±0.006[0.004-0.022]
(34.78)
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.017]
(25.00)-
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.017]
(25.00)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(16.74)(6.91)(3.71)(2.16)(2.10)(3.16)
------
(16.74)(6.91)(3.71)(2.16)(2.10)(3.16)
(10.26)(3.91)(2.65)(1.09)(3.19)(3.90)
------
(10.26)(3.91)(2.65)(1.09)(3.19)(3.90)
Non-Biodegradable 0.010±0.005[0.005-0.023]
(43.48)-
0.010±0.005[0.005-0.023]
(43.48)
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.016]
(30.00)-
0.006±0.005[0.002-0.016]
(30.00)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(33.99)(1.61)(3.19)(2.79)(1.90)
-----
(33.99)(1.61)(3.19)(2.79)(1.90)
(20.70)(3.15)(6.15)
--
-----
(20.70)(3.15)(6.15)
--
Inert Material 0.005±0.005[0.003-0.031]
(21.74)-
0.005±0.005[0.003-0.031]
(21.74)
0.009±0.008[0.005-0.029]
(45.00)-
0.009±0.008[0.005-0.029]
(45.00)Total 0.023±0.011
[0.016-0.068](100)
-0.023±0.011[0.016-0.068]
(100)
0.020±0.013[0.012-0.051]
(100)-
0.020±0.013[0.012-0.051]
(100)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.009±0.007[0.003-0.033]
(40.91)-
0.009±0.007[0.003-0.033]
(40.91)
0.006±0.003[0.004-0.017]
(42.86)-
0.006±0.003[0.004-0.017]
(42.86)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(18.85)(2.71)(3.99)(4.49)(4.16)(6.71)
------
(18.85)(2.71)(3.99)(4.49)(4.16)(6.71)
(26.54)(3.16)(2.66)(3.90)(1.99)(4.61)
------
(26.54)(3.16)(2.66)(3.90)(1.99)(4.61)
Non-Biodegradable 0.008±0.005[0.004-0.022]
(36.36)-
0.008±0.005[0.004-0.022]
(36.36)
0.004±0.004[0.002-0.015]
(28.57)-
0.004±0.004[0.002-0.015]
(28.57)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(29.76)(2.48)(2.16)(1.96)
-
-----
(29.76)(2.48)(2.16)(1.96)
-
(20.07)(3.71)(2.20)(1.00)(1.59)
-----
(20.07)(3.71)(2.20)(1.00)(1.59)
Inert Material 0.005±0.003[0.004-0.020]
(22.73)-
0.005±0.003[0.004-0.020]
(22.73)
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.009]
(28.57)-
0.004±0.002[0.002-0.009]
(28.57)Total 0.022±0.011
[0.014-0.061](100)
-0.022±0.011[0.014-0.061]
(100)
0.014±0.006[0.010-0.020]
(100)-
0.014±0.006[0.010-0.020]
(100)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXVII-Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.013±0.006[0.002-0.023]
(61.90)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(9.52)
0.011±0.005[0.002-0.020]
(52.38)
0.011±0.007[0.003-0.019]
(64.71)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(5.88)
0.010±0.007[0.003-0.015]
(58.82)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
JuteFood/Garbage
(31.11)(11.15)(3.16)(3.10)(7.06)(4.17)(2.15)
(9.20)------
(21.59)(11.15)(3.16)(3.10)(7.06)(4.17)(2.15)
(35.24)(8.10)(2.55)(2.04)(6.12)(6.70)(3.96)
(5.88)------
(29.36)(8.10)(2.55)(2.04)(6.12)(6.70)(3.96)
Non-Biodegradable 0.005±0.003[0.001-0.011]
(23.81)-
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.011]
(23.81)
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.009]
(23.53)-
0.004±0.003[0.001-0.009]
(23.53)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(10.12)(4.34)(1.99)(3.16)(4.20)
-----
(10.12)(4.34)(1.99)(3.16)(4.20)
(7.90)(6.10)(3.15)(2.61)(3.77)
-----
(7.90)(6.10)(3.15)(2.61)(3.77)
Inert Material 0.003±0.001[0.001-0.010]
(14.29)-
0.003±0.001[0.001-0.010]
(14.29)
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.006]
(11.76)-
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.006]
(11.76)Total 0.021±0.006
[0.005-0.036](100)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(9.52)
0.019±0.005[0.004-0.028]
(90.48)
0.17±0.007[0.007-0.034]
(100)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(5.88)
0.016±0.007[0.006-0.030]
(94.12)
Generation in High Schools of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.009±0.005[0.003-0.016]
(31.03)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(10.34)
0.006±0.004[0.002-0.013]
(20.69)
0.012±0.008[0.006-0.025]
(48.00)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.005]
(4.00)
0.011±0.007[0.005-0.021]
(44.00)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
JuteFood/Garbage
(15.09)(2.85)(1.90)(1.00)(4.85)(3.15)(2.19)
(10.34)------
(4.75)(2.85)(1.90)(1.00)(4.85)(3.15)(2.19)
(29.10)(3.19)(1.90)(5.19)(4.54)(2.18)(1.90)
(4.00)------
(25.10)(3.19)(1.90)(5.19)(4.54)(2.18)(1.90)
Non-Biodegradable 0.005±0.005[0.002-0.020]
(17.24)-
0.005±0.005[0.002-0.020]
(17.24)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.009]
(12.00)-
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.009]
(12.00)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(10.48)(2.16)(1.00)(2.00)(1.60)
-----
(10.48)(2.16)(1.00)(2.00)(1.60)
(4.17)(1.67)(2.00)(2.19)(1.97)
-----
(4.17)(1.67)(2.00)(2.19)(1.97)
Inert Material 0.15±0.013[0.006-0.033]
(51.72)-
0.15±0.013[0.006-0.033]
(51.72)
0.010±0.008[0.004-0.021]
(40.00)-
0.010±0.008[0.004-0.021]
(40.00)Total 0.029±0.023
[0.011-0.060](100)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(10.34)
0.026±0.021[0.010-0.052]
(89.66)
0.025±0.018[0.011-0.044]
(100)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.005]
(4.00)
0.024±0.017[0.010-0.039]
(96.00)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.010±0.006[0.004-0.017]
(41.67)
0.003±0.004[0.001-0.009]
(12.50)
0.007±0.005[0.003-0.013]
(29.17)
0.014±0.011[0.003-0.029]
(45.16)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.010]
(9.68)
0.011±0.009[0.002-0.020]
(35.48)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
JuteFood/Garbage
(24.83)(2.39)(3.15)(2.10)(6.00)(1.70)(1.50)
(12.50)------
(12.33)(2.39)(3.15)(2.10)(6.00)(1.70)(1.50)
(23.86)(6.40)(1.15)(1.90)(5.66)(2.90)(3.29)
(9.68)------
(14.18)(6.40)(1.15)(1.90)(5.66)(2.90)(3.29)
Non-Biodegradable 0.006±0.005[0.001-0.012]
(25.00)-
0.006±0.005[0.001-0.012]
(25.00)
0.008±0.006[0.002-0.014]
(25.81)-
0.008±0.006[0.002-0.014]
(25.81)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(15.13)(3.30)(1.62)(1.80)(3.15)
-----
(15.13)(3.30)(1.62)(1.80)(3.15)
(14.53)(2.87)(2.90)(3.00)(2.15)
-----
(14.53)(2.87)(2.90)(3.00)(2.15)
Inert Material 0.008±0.007[0.002-0.013]
(33.33)-
0.008±0.007[0.002-0.013]
(33.33)
0.009±0.006[0.003-0.012]
(29.03)-
0.009±0.006[0.003-0.012]
(29.03)Total 0.024±0.018
[0.007-0.036](100)
0.003±0.004[0.001-0.009]
(12.50)
0.021±0.015[0.006-0.027]
(87.50)
0.031±0.020[0.010-0.048]
(100)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.010]
(9.68)
0.028±0.018[0.009-0.039]
(90.32)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.007±0.004[0.003-0.016]
(36.84)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(5.26)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.012]
(31.58)
0.011±0.008[0.002-0.022]
(39.29)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(7.14)
0.009±0.006[0.001-0.015]
(32.15)Paper
CardboardClothWood
FoliageJute
Food/Garbage
(12.61)(6.00)(2.09)(1.85)(6.99)(3.15)(4.15)
(5.26)------
(7.35)(6.00)(2.09)(1.85)(6.99)(3.15)(4.15)
(17.16)(5.24)(3.15)(1.10)(5.61)(3.59)(3.44)
(7.14)------
(10.02)(5.24)(3.15)(1.10)(5.61)(3.59)(3.44)
Non-Biodegradable 0.007±0.006[0.002-0.021]
(36.84)-
0.007±0.006[0.002-0.021]
(36.84)
0.010±0.011[0.004-0.020]
(35.71)-
0.010±0.011[0.004-0.020]
(35.71)Plastic ware
Metallic wareGlass ware
RubberThermocoal
(23.81)(4.12)(2.66)(3.50)(2.75)
-----
(23.81)(4.12)(2.66)(3.50)(2.75)
(23.13)(3.11)(3.00)(2.85)(3.62)
-----
(23.13)(3.11)(3.00)(2.85)(3.62)
Inert Material 0.005±0.004[0.002-0.011]
(26.32)-
0.005±0.004[0.002-0.011]
(26.32)
0.007±0.006[0.002-0.018]
(25.00)-
0.007±0.006[0.002-0.018]
(25.00)Total 0.019±0.011
[0.009-0.041](100)
0.001±0.001[0.001-0.004]
(5.26)
0.018±0.011[0.009-0.039]
(94.74)
0.028±0.020[0.012-0.051]
(100)
0.002±0.002[0.001-0.008]
(7.14)
0.026±0.019[0.012-0.042]
(92.86)Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXVIII: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.029±0.010[0.005-0.051]
(50.88)
0.010±0.004[0.001-0.020]
(17.54)
0.019±0.008[0.004-0.033]
(33.34)
0.021±0.012[0.004-0.049]
(46.67)
0.007±0.003[0.001-0.015]
(15.56)
0.014±0.010[0.003-0.035]
(31.11)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(30.12)(9.41)
-(2.51)(1.10)(7.74)
(12.90)(4.64)
----
(17.22)(4.77)
-(2.51)(1.10)(7.74)
(20.43)(9.73)
-(1.36)
-(15.15)
(9.91)(5.65)
----
(10.52)(9.08)
-(1.36)
-(15.15)
Non-Biodegradable 0.012±0.007[0.002-0.026]
(21.05)-
0.012±0.007[0.002-0.026]
(21.05)
0.009±0.007[0.006-0.021]
(20.00)-
0.009±0.007[0.006-0.021]
(20.00)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(11.51)(3.19)(6.35)
--
-----
(11.51)(3.19)(6.35)
--
(10.22)-
(6.77)(0.30)(2.71)
-----
(10.22)-
(6.77)(0.30)(2.71)
Inert Material 0.016±0.012[0.004-0.038]
(28.07)-
0.016±0.012[0.004-0.038]
(28.07)
0.015±0.010[0.005-0.031]
(33.33)-
0.015±0.010[0.005-0.031]
(33.33)Total 0.057±0.021
[0.017-0.133](100)
0.010±0.004[0.001-0.020]
(17.54)
0.047±0.019[0.016-0.116]
(82.46)
0.045±0.020[0.024-0.109]
(100)
0.007±0.003[0.001-0.015]
(15.56)
0.038±0.019[0.023-0.097]
(84.44)
Generation in Higher Secondary Schools of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.033±0.016[0.020-0.086]
(50.00)
0.008±0.005[0.006-0.019]
(12.12)
0.025±0.013[0.015-0.071]
(37.88)
0.026±0.014[0.012-0.062]
(48.15)
0.005±0.002[0.004-0.019]
(9.26)
0.021±0.012[0.008-0.048]
(38.89)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(28.51)(7.46)(0.40)
--
(13.63)
(10.59)(1.53)
----
(17.92)(5.93)(0.40)
--
(13.63)
(30.65)(2.48)
-(1.55)
-(13.47)
(9.26)-----
(21.39)(2.48)
-(1.55)
-(13.47)
Non-Biodegradable 0.014±0.011[0.009-0.029]
(21.21)-
0.014±0.011[0.009-0.029]
(21.21)
0.011±0.007[0.006-0.022]
(20.37)-
0.011±0.007[0.006-0.022]
(20.37)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(12.30)(1.25)(7.66)
--
-----
(12.30)(1.25)(7.66)
--
(13.41)(0.96)(6.00)
--
-----
(13.41)(0.96)(6.00)
--
Inert Material 0.019±0.013[0.012-0.036]
(28.79)-
0.019±0.013[0.012-0.036]
(28.79)
0.017±0.012[0.011-0.040]
(31.48)-
0.017±0.012[0.011-0.040]
(31.48)Total 0.066±0.031
[0.054-0.113](100)
0.008±0.005[0.006-0.019]
(12.12)
0.058±0.029[0.048-0.094]
(87.88)
0.054±0.029[0.033-0.130]
(100)
0.005±0.002[0.004-0.019]
(9.26)
0.049±0.026[0.029-0.120]
(90.74)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.030±0.020[0.019-0.066]
(47.62)
0.008±0.004[0.005-0.021]
(12.70)
0.022±0.018[0.013-0.049]
(34.92)
0.028±0.013[0.015-0.056]
(53.85)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.017]
(11.54)
0.022±0.011[0.013-0.042]
(42.31)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(26.94)(3.11)
-(2.96)(0.96)
(13.65)
(12.70)-----
(14.24)(3.11)
-(2.96)(0.96)
(13.65)
(34.40)(4.56)
-(1.21)
-(13.68)
(11.54)-----
(22.86)(4.56)
-(1.21)
-(13.68)
Non-Biodegradable 0.015±0.009[0.010-0.032]
(23.81)-
0.015±0.009[0.010-0.032]
(23.81)
0.013±0.008[0.008-0.026]
(25.00)-
0.013±0.008[0.008-0.026]
(25.00)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(15.25)(1.12)(7.44)
--
-----
(15.25)(1.12)(7.44)
--
(14.92)(3.41)(3.89)(0.90)(1.88)
-----
(14.92)(3.41)(3.89)(0.90)(1.88)
Inert Material 0.018±0.012[0.013-0.035]
(28.57)-
0.018±0.012[0.013-0.035]
(28.57)
0.011±0.006[0.008-0.022]
(21.15)-
0.011±0.006[0.008-0.022]
(21.15)Total 0.063±0.033
[0.036-0.141](100)
0.008±0.004[0.005-0.021]
(12.70)
0.055±0.029[0.031-0.124]
(87.30)
0.052±0.019[0.026-0.112]
(100)
0.006±0.003[0.002-0.017]
(11.54)
0.046±0.016[0.024-0.099]
(88.46)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.036±0.021[0.017-0.063]
(52.17)
0.009±0.005[0.002-0.021]
(13.04)
0.027±0.018[0.015-0.041]
(39.13)
0.030±0.018[0.011-0.051]
(52.63)
0.006±0.002[0.003-0.013]
(10.53)
0.024±0.019[0.008-0.040]
(42.11)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(32.36)(3.52)(0.71)(1.87)
-(13.71)
(13.04)-----
(19.32)(3.52)(0.71)(1.87)
-(13.71)
(30.34)(3.11)(0.22)(1.59)
-(17.37)
(10.53)-----
(19.81)(3.11)(0.22)(1.59)
-(17.37)
Non-Biodegradable 0.021±0.015[0.014-0.046]
(30.43)-
0.021±0.015[0.014-0.046]
(30.43)
0.020±0.014[0.007-0.038]
(35.09)-
0.020±0.014[0.007-0.038]
(35.09)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(16.36)(2.61)
(10.86)(0.13)(0.47)
-----
(16.36)(2.61)
(10.86)(0.13)(0.47)
(29.27)(0.85)(4.97)
--
-----
(29.27)(0.85)(4.97)
--
Inert Material 0.012±0.007[0.008-0.026]
(17.39)-
0.012±0.007[0.008-0.026]
(17.39)
0.007±0.004[0.004-0.026]
(12.28)-
0.007±0.004[0.004-0.026]
(12.28)Total 0.069±0.032
[0.053-0.151](100)
0.009±0.005[0.002-0.021]
(13.04)
0.060±0.027[0.051-0.142]
(86.96)
0.057±0.028[0.029-0.134]
(100)
0.006±0.002[0.003-0.013]
(10.53)
0.051±0.028[0.026-0.129]
(89.47)Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXIX: Seasonal Variations in Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.030±0.011[0.022-0.064]
(50.00)
0.009±0.007[0.006-0.024]
(15.00)
0.021±0.009[0.016-0.049]
(35.00)
0.024±0.013[0.016-0.041]
(47.06)
0.005±0.003[0.004-0.009]
(9.80)
0.019±0.012[0.015-0.036]
(37.25)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(35.76)(6.96)
-(3.52)(1.25)(2.51)
(15.00)-----
(20.76)(6.96)
-(3.52)(1.25)(2.51)
(33.45)(4.19)
-(5.10)(1.50)(2.82)
(7.15)(2.65)
----
(26.30)(1.54)
-(5.10)(1.50)(2.82)
Non-Biodegradable 0.009±0.003[0.005-0.024]
(15.00)-
0.009±0.003[0.005-0.024]
(15.00)
0.008±0.004[0.006-0.015]
(15.69)-
0.008±0.004[0.006-0.015]
(15.69)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(9.16)(2.17)(2.60)(1.07)
-
-----
(9.16)(2.17)(2.60)(1.07)
-
(9.90)(1.20)
-(1.69)(2.90)
-----
(9.90)(1.20)
-(1.69)(2.90)
Inert Material 0.021±0.014[0.015-0.056]
(35.00)-
0.021±0.014[0.015-0.056]
(35.00)
0.019±0.012[0.013-0.034]
(37.25)-
0.019±0.012[0.013-0.034]
(37.25)Total 0.060±0.020
[0.049-0.140](100)
0.009±0.007[0.006-0.024]
(15.00)
0.051±0.018[0.044-0.125]
(85.00)
0.051±0.018[0.039-0.135]
(100)
0.005±0.003[0.004-0.009]
(9.80)
0.046±0.017[0.035-0.129]
(90.20)
Generation in Colleges of Kathua Town.July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007
Gross Solid Waste(G)
Separated Solid Waste(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Gross SolidWaste
(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.043±0.028[0.031-0.094]
(55.13)
0.011±0.008[0.007-0.029]
(14.10)
0.032±0.025[0.024-0.059]
(41.03)
0.037±0.025[0.026-0.070]
(50.68)
0.011±0.009[0.008-0.026]
(15.07)
0.026±0.022[0.020-0.051]
(35.61)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(42.22)(5.36)
-(2.10)(1.90)(3.55)
(14.10)-----
(28.12)(5.36)
-(2.10)(1.90)(3.55)
(31.38)(7.90)(0.70)(4.15)
-(6.55)
(14.15)(0.92)
----
(17.23)(6.98)(0.70)(4.15)
-(6.55)
Non-Biodegradable 0.012±0.010[0.009-0.025]
(15.38)-
0.012±0.010[0.009-0.025]
(15.38)
0.011±0.008[0.006-0.021]
(15.07)-
0.011±0.008[0.006-0.021]
(15.07)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(13.10)(1.90)
-(0.38)
-
-----
(13.10)(1.90)
-(0.38)
-
(13.97)(1.10)
---
-----
(13.97)(1.10)
---
Inert Material 0.023±0.017[0.019-0.036]
(29.49)-
0.023±0.017[0.019-0.036]
(29.49)
0.025±0.016[0.016-0.042]
(34.25)-
0.025±0.016[0.016-0.042]
(34.25)Total 0.078±0.042
[0.063-0.149](100)
0.011±0.008[0.007-0.029]
(14.10)
0.067±0.037[0.057-0.125]
(85.90)
0.073±0.038[0.051-0.121]
(100)
0.011±0.009[0.0.008-0.026]
(15.07)
0.062±0.032[0.043-0.088]
(84.93)
January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.041±0.029[0.023-086]
(68.33)
0.008±0.006[0.005-0.023]
(13.33)
0.033±0.025[0.018-0.059]
(55.00)
0.033±0.019[0.015-0.070]
(60.00)
0.008±0.002[0.001-0.016]
(14.55)
0.025±0.018[0.014-0.059]
(45.45)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(41.97)(8.96)(1.80)(4.40)(2.10)(9.10)
(13.33)-----
(28.64)(8.96)(1.80)(4.40)(2.10)(9.10)
(42.02)(5.40)(1.00)(2.10)(3.15)(6.33)
(14.55)-----
(27.47)(5.40)(1.00)(2.10)(3.15)(6.33)
Non-Biodegradable 0.005±0.002[0.003-0.010]
(8.33)-
0.005±0.002[0.003-0.010]
(8.33)
0.007±0.005[0.002-0.014]
(12.73)-
0.007±0.005[0.002-0.014]
(12.73)Plasticware
MetallicwareGlassware
RubberThermocoal
(8.33)----
-----
(8.33)----
(11.11)(1.62)
---
-----
(11.11)(1.62)
---
Inert Material 0.014±0.010[0.005-0.031]
(23.33)-
0.014±0.010[0.005-0.031]
(23.33)
0.015±0.013[0.008-0.029]
(27.27)-
0.015±0.013[0.008-0.029]
(27.27)Total 0.060±0.031
[0.035-0.110](100)
0.008±0.006[0.005-0.023]
(13.33)
0.052±0.026[0.030-0.089]
(86.66)
0.055±0.029[0.021-+0.101]
(100)
0.008±0.002[0.002-0.016]
(14.55)
0.047±0.029[0.020-0.086]
(85.45)
July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008Gross Solid Waste
(G)Separated Solid Waste
(r)Net Solid Waste
(G-r)Gross Solid
Waste(G)
Separated SolidWaste
(r)
Net Solid Waste(G-r)
Biodegradable 0.039±0.024[0.018-0.066]
(58.21)
0.011±0.009[0.003-0.021]
(16.42)
0.028±0.016[0.015-0.047]
(41.79)
0.029±0.024[0.011-0.040]
(67.44)
0.004±0.002[0.001-0.011]
(9.30)
0.025±0.023[0.011-0.035]
(58.14)PaperwareCardboardClothware
WoodFoliage
Food/Garbage
(46.44)(3.10)
-(2.51)(1.55)(4.61)
(16.42)-----
(30.02)(3.10)
-(2.51)(1.55)(4.61)
(57.67)(2.17)
-(2.10)(2.10)(3.40)
(9.30)-----
(48.37)(2.17)
-(2.10)(2.10)(3.40)
Non-Biodegradable 0.008±0.006[0.002-0.017]
(11.94)-
0.008±0.006[0.002-0.017]
(11.94)
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.012]
(11.63)-
0.005±0.003[0.001-0.012]
(11.63)Plastic wareMetallicware
GlasswareRubber
Thermocoal
(10.10)(1.84)
---
-----
(10.10)(1.84)
---
(9.72)-
(0.55)-
(1.36)
-----
(9.72)-
(0.55)-
(1.36)Inert Material 0.020±0.016
[0.009-0.044](29.85)
-0.020±0.016[0.009-0.044]
(29.85)
0.009±0.007[0.002-0.013]
(20.93)-
0.009±0.007[0.002-0.013]
(20.93)Total 0.067±0.035
[0.031-0.120](100)
0.011±0.009[0.003-0.021]
(16.42)
0.056±0.029[0.028-0.099]
(83.58)
0.043±0.028[0.014-0.057]
(100)
0.004±0.002[0.001-0.011]
(9.30)
0.039±0.027[0.012-0.047]
(90.70)Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight). Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXX: Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Institutional Areas of Kathua Town (Commutedfrom Two
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at:BANKS OFFICES HOSPITLS
Type of Waste Gross SolidWaste(G1)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r1)
Net SolidWaste
N1 = (G1 – r1)
Gross SolidWaste(G2)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r2)
Net SolidWaste
N2 =(G2 – r2)
Gross SolidWaste(G3)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r3)
Net Solid Waste
N3 =(G3 – r3)
Biodegradable(B)
0.015±0.003[0.003-0.046]
0.003±0.002[0.0004-0.011]
0.012±0.004[0.0006-0.036]
0.016±0.005[0.003-0.044]
0.003±0.001[0.0005-0.009]
0.013±0.004[0.003-0.037]
1.264±0.354[0.220-4.490] -
1.264±0.354[0.220-4.490]
Non-Biodegradable
(NB)
0.004±0.002[.0007-0.014]
0.001±0.001[0.0003-0.004]
0.003±0.001[0.0006-0.014]
0.010±0.004[0.001-0.031]
0.001±0.001[0.0006-0.006]
0.009±0.004[0.001-0.031]
0.739±0.129[0.159-1.610]
0.087±0.031[0.022-0.350]
0.652±0.138[0.131-1.393]
Inert Material(IM)
0.007±0.005[0.001-0.023] -
0.007±0.005[0.001-0.023]
0.007±0.003[0.001-0.023] -
0.007±0.003[0.001-0.023]
0.214±0.054[0.043-0.991] -
0.214±0.054[0.043-0.991]
Total(B+NB+IM)
0.026±0.008[0.005-0.097]
0.004±0.002[0.0007-0.014]
0.022±0.009[0.004-0.083]
0.033±0.010[0.007-0.084]
0.004±0.002[0.0005-0.011]
0.029±0.009[0.007-0.077]
2.217±0.344[0.510-5.919]
0.087±0.031[0.022-0.350]
2.130±0.342[0.415-5.773]
Years Study of Tables XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX).Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at:
PRIMARY SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLSType of Waste Gross Solid
Waste(G4)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r4)
Net SolidWaste
N4 =(G4 – r4)
Gross SolidWaste(G5)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r5)
Net Solid Waste
N5 =(G5 – r5)
Gross SolidWaste(G6)
Separated SolidWaste
(r6)
Net SolidWaste
N6 =(G6 – r6)Biodegradable
(B)0.011±0.004[0.002-0.040] -
0.011±0.004[0.002-0.040]
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.034] -
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.034]
0.011±0.002[0.002-0.029]
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.010]
0.009±0.002[0.001-0.021]
Non-Biodegradable
(NB)
0.005±0.002[0.001-0.025] -
0.005-0.002±[0.001-0.025]
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.029] -
0.009±0.003[0.001-0.029]
0.006±0.002[0.001-0.021] -
0.006±0.002[0.001-0.021]
Inert Material(IM)
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.022] -
0.003±0.002[0.001-0.022]
0.005±0.002[0.001-0.031] -
0.005±0.002[0.001-0.031]
0.007±0.004[0.001-0.033] -
0.007±0.004[0.001-0.033]
Total(B+NB+IM)
0.019±0.004[0.003-0.061] -
0.019±0.004[0.003-0.061]
0.023±0.006[0.010-0.078] -
0.023±0.006[0.010-0.078]
0.024±0.005[0.005-0.060]
0.002±0.001[0.001-0.010]
0.022±0.004[0.004-0.052]
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day) at:HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOLS COLLEGES INSTITUTIONAL AREA
Type of Waste Gross SolidWaste(G7)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r7)
Net SolidWaste
N7 =(G7 – r7)
Gross SolidWaste(G8)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r8)
Net SolidWaste
N8 =(G8 – r8)
Gross Solid WasteG=G1+ G2+ G3+ G4+ G5 + G6+ G7 + G8
8
Separated SolidWaste
r=r1+ r2+ r3+ r4 + r5+ r6+ r7 + r8
8
Net Solid WasteN=N1+ N2+ N3+ N4+ N5 + N6+ N7 + N8
8
Biodegradable(B)
0.029±0.004[0.004-0.086]
0.007±0.002[0.001-0.021]
0.022±0.004[0.003-0.071]
0.035±0.007[0.011-0.094]
0.008±0.003[0.001-0.029]
0.026±0.005[0.011-0.059]
0.174±0.441[0.001-4.490]
0.003±0.003[0.0004-0.029]
0.171±0.442[0.0006-4.490]
Non-Biodegradable
(NB)
0.014±0.004[0.002-0.046] -
0.014±0.004[0.002-0.046]
0.008±0.003[0.001-0.025] -
0.008±0.003[0.001-0.025]
0.099±0.258[0.0007-1.610]
0.011±0.031[0.0003-0.350]
0.088±0.228[0.0006-1.393]
Inert Material(IM)
0.014±0.004[0.004-0.040] -
0.014±0.004[0.004-0.040]
0.018±0.005[0.002-0.056] -
0.018±0.005[0.002-0.056]
0.034±0.073[0.001-0.991] -
0.034±0.073[0.001-0.991]
Total(B+NB+IM)
0.058±0.008[0.017-0.151]
0.007±0.002[0.001-0.021]
0.051±0.007[0.016-0.142]
0.061±0.012[0.014-0.149]
0.008±0.003[0.001-0.029]
0.053±0.009[0.012-0.129]
0.308±0.772[0.003-5.919]
0.014±0.030[0.0005-0.350]
0.294±0.742[0.003-5.773]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table- XXXII: Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Residential (Households), Commercial andInstitutional Areas
Biodegradable (B) Solid Waste at Non-Biodegradable (NB) Solid Waste at Inert Material (IM) Solid Waste at
Type of Waste ResidentialArea(RB)
CommercialArea(CB)
InstitutionalArea(IB)
Study AreaRB+CB+IB
3
ResidentialArea
(RNB)
CommercialArea
(CNB)
InstitutionalArea(INB)
Study AreaRNB+CNB+INB
3
ResidentialArea
(RIM)
CommercialArea
(CIM)
InstitutionalArea(IIM)
Study AreaRIM+CIM+IIM
3Average Gross
Solid Waste(kg/capita/day)
generated atSource (G)
0.361±0.073[0.020-1.613]
0.204±0.133[0.001-4.509]
0.174±0.441[0.001-4.490]
0.246±0.100[0.001-4.509]
0.112±0.045[0.003-0.600]
0.119±0.091[0.001-1.940]
0.099±0.258[.0007-1.610]
0.110±0.010[0.0007-1.940]
0.064±0.028[0.003-0.300]
0.042±0.043[0.001-1.560]
0.034±0.073[0.001-0.991]
0.047±0.016[0.001-1.560]
Average SolidWaste
(kg/capita/day)separated atSource (R)
0.044±0.008[0.003-0.290]
0.017±0.009[0.001-0.635]
0.003±0.003[0.004-0.029]
0.021±0.021[0.004-0.635]
0.038±0.015[0.001-0.300]
0.041±0.034[.0001-1.200]
0.011±0.031[.0003-0.350]
0.030±0.017[0.0001-1.200] - - - -
Average NetSolid Waste
(kg/capita/day)generated atSource (G-R)
0.317±0.069[0.010-1.301]
0.188±0.123[0.002-3.874]
0.171±0.442[.0006-4.490]
0.225±0.080[.0006-4.490]
0.073±0.031[0.002-0.452]
0.078±0.057[.0006-1.493]
0.088±0.228[.0006-1.393]
0.080±0.008[0.0006-1.493]
0.064±0.028[0.003-0.300]
0.042±0.043[0.001-1.560]
0.034±0.073[0.001-0.991]
0.047±0.016[0.001-1.560]
of Kathua Town.Total Solid Waste at Average Solid
Waste atResidential Area
R=RB+RNB+RIMCommercial Area
C= CB+CNB+CIMInstitutional AreaI=IB+INB+IIM
Study AreaR+C+I
3
0.536±0.141[0.054-1.960]
0.364±0.225[0.004-5.919]
0.308±0.772[0.003-5.919]
0.403±0.119[0.003-5.919]
0.082±0.022[0.012-0.369]
0.057±0.044[0.0005-1.225]
0.014±0.030[0.0005-0.350]
0.051±0.034[0.0005-1.225]
0.454±0.124[0.032-1.664]
0.308±0.183[0.002-5.284]
0.294±0.742[0.003-5.773]
0.352±0.089[0.002-5.773]
Figures in [ ] showing ranged values of Solid Waste.
Table-XLVI: Seasonal Variations in Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation in Study Area (Kathua Town).Average Solid Waste (tones/day) during First Year Study
Type of Waste January-March, 2007 April-June, 2007 July-September, 2007 October-December, 2007GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
Biodegradable (B) 8.84 0.88 7.96 10.25 1.01 9.25 9.49 0.80 8.69 11.58 0.96 10.62
Non-Biodegradable (NB) 4.66 1.17 3.50 5.43 1.29 4.14 4.10 1.01 3.09 5.31 1.49 3.82
Inert Material (IM) 1.89 - 1.89 2.13 - 2.13 1.97 - 1.97 2.53 - 2.53Total = (B+NB+IM) 15.36 2.01 13.35 17.81 2.25 15.52 15.56 1.77 13.79 19.42 2.45 16.97
Average Solid Waste (tones/day) during Second Year StudyType of Waste January-March, 2008 April-June, 2008 July-September, 2008 October-December, 2008
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
GrossSolid
Waste(G)
SeparatedSolid Waste
(r)
Net SolidWaste(G-r)
Biodegradable (B) 10.45 0.80 9.65 9.49 0.72 8.77 8.77 0.80 7.97 10.29 0.88 9.41
Non-Biodegradable (NB) 3.82 1.29 2.53 3.66 1.09 2.57 3.94 0.96 2.98 4.42 1.37 3.05
Inert Material (IM) 1.57 - 1.57 1.77 - 1.77 1.45 - 1.45 1.73 - 1.73Total = (B+NB+IM) 15.84 2.09 13.75 14.92 1.85 13.07 14.19 1.77 12.42 16.45 2.33 14.12
Table-XLVIII: Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Solid Waste Separation and Net Generation inResidential,
Solid Waste (kg.)Residential (RB)
Paperware(P)
Cardboard(Ca)
Jute(J)
Wood(W)
Cotton(Co)
Clothware(Cl)
Foliage(Fl)
Food/Garbage(F/G)
Average Gross Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) generated at source (G)
0.047±0.010 0.047±0.017 0.012±0.004 0.007±0.002 0.003±0.002 0.006±0.003 0.025±0.013 0.216±0.049
Average Gross Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) separated at source (r)
0.023±0.006 0.019±0.002 0.002±0.002 - - - - -
Average Net Solid Waste(kg/capita/day) generation at source
(G-r)
0.024±0.006 0.029±0.018 0.010±0.004 0.007±0.002 0.003±0.002 0.006±0.003 0.025±0.013 0.216±0.049
Commercial and Institutional Areas of Kathua Town (Commuted from two years study data ofBiodegradable (B) Solid Waste at
Commercial (CB)Paperware
(P)Cardboard
(Ca)Jute(J)
Wood(W)
Cotton(Co)
Clothware(Cl)
Foliage(Fl)
Food/Garbage(F/G)
0.032±0.022 0.024±0.020 0.001±0.002 0.006±0.006 0.001±0.002 0.004±0.007 0.002±0.003 0.131±0.112
0.008±0.006 0.006±0.005 0.0003±0.0005 - - 0.0003±0.0005 - -
0.024±0.017 0.018±0.017 0.0005±0.0010 0.006±0.006 0.001±0.002 0.004±0.006 0.002±0.003 0.131±0.112
Tables – X, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII & XXIX)
Institutional (IB)Paperware
(P)Cardboard
(Ca)Jute(J)
Wood(W)
Cotton(Co)
Clothware(Cl)
Foliage(Fl)
Food/Garbage(F/G)
0.031±0.056 0.002±0.001 0.0001±0.0004 0.003±0.005 0.015±0.043 0.060±0.167 0.0005±0.0005 0.061±0.165
0.003±0.003 0.0003±0.0003 - - - - - -
0.028±0.057 0.002±0.001 0.0001±0.0004 0.003±0.005 0.015±0.043 0.060±0.167 0.0005±0.0005 0.061±0.165
Residential (RNB)Plasticware
(Pw)Metallicware
(Mw)Glassware
(Gw)Thermocoal
(Th)Rubber
(R)Leather
(L)Eggshells/Bones
(E/B)0.039±0.021 0.028±0.012 0.015±0.005 0.006±0.003 0.010±0.007 0.009±0.005 0.005±0.003
0.015±0.007 0.014±0.008 0.005±0.002 - 0.001±0.001 0.002±0.002 -
0.024±0.016 0.013±0.005 0.009±0.005 0.006±0.003 0.009±0.008 0.007±0.005 0.005±0.003
Non-Biodegradable (NB) Solid Waste atCommercial (CNB)
Plasticware(Pw)
Metallicware(Mw)
Glassware(Gw)
Thermocoal(Th)
Rubber(R)
Leather(L)
Eggshells/Bones(E/B)
0.039±0.032 0.015±0.015 0.053±0.066 0.001±0.002 0.002±0.003 0.002±0.004 0.005±0.004
0.007±0.004 0.001±0.002 0.024±0.029 - 0.001±0.001 0.0003±0.0005 -
0.032±0.029 0.014±0.014 0.029±0.036 0.001±0.002 0.001±0.002 0.002±0.004 0.005±0.004
Inert Material (IM) atInstitutional (INB) Residential
(RIM)Commercial
(CIM)Institutional
(IIM)Plasticware(Pw)
Metallicware(Mw)
Glassware(Gw)
Thermocoal(Th)
Rubber(R)
Leather(L)
Eggshells/Bones(E/B)
0.053±0.134 0.018±0.048 0.023±0.061 0.0003±0.0002 0.004±0.012 - 0.002±0.005 0.064±0.028 0.042±0.043 0.034±0.073
0.005±0.014 - 0.006±0.017 - - - - - - -
0.047±0.119 0.018±0.048 0.017±0.044 0.0003±0.0002 0.004±0.012 - 0.002±0.005 0.064±0.043 0.042±0.043 0.034±0.073
Table-XLIX: Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Average Gross and Net Solid Waste Generation in Study Area(Kathua
Solid WasteBiodegradable (B) Solid Waste (RB + CB + IB)**
3Paperware
(P)Cardboard
(Ca)Jute(J)
Wood(W)
Cotton(Co)
Clothware(Cl)
Foliage(Fl)
Food/Garbage(F/G)
Average Gross Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)generated at source (G1)
0.037±0.009(9.18)
0.024±0.023(5.91)
0.004±0.007(0.99)
0.005±0.002(1.24)
0.006±0.008(1.49)
0.023±0.032(5.71)
0.011±0.013(2.73)
0.036±0.078(33.75)
Average Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)separated at source (r)
0.011±0.010(2.73)
0.008±0.010(1.99)
0.001±0.001(0.25) - -
0.0001±0.0002(0.25) - -
Average Net Solid Waste (kg/capita/day)generated at source (G1-r)
0.026±0.002(6.45)
0.016±0.014(3.97)
0.003±0.006(0.74)
0.005±0.002(1.24)
0.006±0.008(1.49)
0.022±0.032(5.46)
0.011±0.013(2.73)
0.136±0.078(33.75)
Average Gross Solid Waste (tones/day)generated at Sampling Units of Study Area
(G1 x 40208*)
1.49 0.96 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.92 0.44 5.47
Average Solid Waste (kg/day) generated atBus Stands of Study Area (G2) Table-XX
14.514 8.572 3.090 4.358-
0.860 11.198 7.564
Average Solid Waste (kg/day) generated atVegetable Markets of Study Area (G3)
Table-XXI
6.229 5.700 3.580 6.792-
0.302 3.923 55.797
Average Gross Solid Waste (tones/day)generated at Study Area
(G=G1x40208*+G2+G3)
1.51(9.18)
0.98(5.96)
0.17(1.03)
0.21(1.28)
0.24(1.46)
0.93(5.65)
0.46(2.80)
5.53(33.62)
Average Solid Waste (tones/day) separated atStudy Area (r x 40208*)
0.44(2.67)
0.32(1.95)
0.04(0.24) - -
0.04(0.24) - -
Average Net Solid Waste (tones/day)generated at Study Area (G1-r x 40208*)
1.07(6.47)
0.66(3.98)
0.13(0.80)
0.21(1.28)
0.24(1.46)
0.89(5.44)
0.46(2.80)
5.53(33.62)
Figures in ( ) showing percentage values (% by weight)40208* – Population of Kathua Municipal Committee as per Census Report (2001)
Town) (Commuted from Table-XLVIII).Non-Biodegradable (NB) Solid Waste (RNB + CNB + INB)***
3Inert Material
(IIM)****Plasticware
(Pw)Metallicware
(Mw)Glassware
(Gw)Thermocoal
(Th)Rubber
(R)Leather
(L)Eggshells/Bones
(E/B)(RIM+CIM+IIM)****
3
0.044±0.008(10.92)
0.020±0.007(4.96)
0.030±0.020(7.44)
0.002±0.003(0.50)
0.005±0.004(1.24)
0.004±0.005(0.99)
0.004±0.002(0.99)
0.047±0.016(11.66)
0.009±0.005(2.23)
0.005±0.008(1.24)
0.012±0.011(2.98) -
0.001±0.001(0.25)
0.001±0.001(0.25) - -
0.034±0.012(8.44)
0.015±0.003(3.72)
0.018±0.010(4.46)
0.002±0.003(0.50)
0.004±0.004(0.99)
0.003±0.004(0.74)
0.004±0.002(0.99)
0.047±0.016(11.66)
1.77 0.80 1.21 0.08 0.20 0.16 0.16 1.89
21.856 5.492 11.552 0.266 8.424 4.954 0.858 46.718
1.561 0.100 0.018 0.339 0.188- - 43.779
1.79(10.88)
0.81(4.92)
1.22(7.42)
0.08(0.49)
0.21(0.13)
0.17(1.03)
0.16(0.97)
1.98(12.04)
0.36(2.20)
0.20(1.22)
0.48(2.93) -
0.04(0.24)
0.04(0.24) - -
1.43(8.67)
0.61(3.73)
0.74(4.45)
0.08(0.49)
0.17(1.04)
0.12(0.74)
0.16(0.97)
1.98(12.04)
**RB: Residential Biodegradable **CB: Commercial Biodegradable **IB: Institutional Biodegradable***RNB: Residential Non-Biodegradable ***CNB: Commercial Non-Biodegradable ***INB: Institutional Non-Biodegradable**** RIM: Residential Inert Material **** CIM: Commercial Inert Material **** IIM: Institutional Inert Material
