Role of Psychosocial Factors in Effective Design of Solid Waste Management Programmes: Evidence from India

Abstract

The critical need for behavioural change for effective solid waste management is well known. However, policies and programmes continue to underemphasize this crucial component in their design, especially in developing countries such as India. Further, empirical research on the psychosocial factors in solid waste management in developing countries is limited, including within India, where a large national programme for solid waste management is currently being implemented. Using a household survey based on the theory of planned behavioural change, we examine the psychosocial factors towards household waste segregation. We find that more than knowledge and attitude, consequences to behaviour play a critical role in intention as well as actual behaviour towards household waste segregation. Based on our findings, we draw implications for redesigning the national programme and contribute to empirical evidence on the role of psychosocial factors in solid waste management in the context of developing countries.

Keywords

Waste segregation waste management psychosocial factors Theory of Planned Behaviour Swatchh Bharat Abhiyan urban waste India

Introduction

Inadequate management of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a global concern, affecting the quality of life in urban areas, especially within developing nations (Vergara & Tchobanoglous, 2012). The case of India is no different (Das & Bhattacharya, 2014). High population density, rapid urbanization and increasing consumption have made solid waste management a challenging task. India alone generates more than 100,000 metric tonnes of solid waste every day, which is higher than the total daily waste generation of many countries taken together (Kumar et al., 2017). But on an average, only 70 per cent of waste collection is observed, and only 12.45 per cent of the collected waste is scientifically processed, while the rest is disposed in open dumps (Joshi & Ahmed, 2016). One of the most critical phases of effective waste management is the segregation of waste at its source. Alarmingly, studies suggest limited or almost no segregation of waste at the household level (Vij, 2012). Segregation of waste and recycling practices are not merely technical matters but require profound behavioural and social changes (D’Amato et al., 2012; Fiorillo & Senatore, 2019; Miafodzyeva & Brandt, 2013). Though policies that address solid waste management have been in place for a long time, only recently have they started to focus on active citizen participation in waste management. In 2014, India launched one of the most extensive nationwide programmes—Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA)—to improve sanitation. One of the objectives of the programme is to develop community managed sanitation systems, focusing on scientific solid and liquid waste management systems. But studies have indicated that even after the launch of SBA, waste segregation at the household level is limited (Gupta et al., 2015; Joshi & Ahmed, 2016).

In our extensive review of the literature, we found limited efforts to study the role of psychosocial factors in household waste segregation in the Indian context. We found only one study by Halder and Singh (2018), examining this among college students. Other studies have explored the psychosocial factors in waste recycling (Licy et al., 2013; Minhas, 2017; Mukherji et al., 2016), but even these have primarily examined factors relating to knowledge and convenience. A systematic examination of psychosocial aspects is critical, given that the nationwide SBA programme is built on the premises of active citizen participation.

We conducted a household survey in Udupi District in the state of Karnataka, which is ranked closer to the national average in various national surveys in relation to sanitation and cleanliness. We surveyed 145 households based on cluster sampling. The survey questionnaire was based on the theory of planned behavioural change, which has been used in understanding psychosocial factors in waste segregation at the household level.

We find that more than knowledge and attitude, consequences to behaviour play a critical role in intention as well as actual behaviour towards household waste segregation. This is in contrast to the commonly held view among practitioners that limited awareness among members of the household is the primary reason for lack of household waste segregation (Singh et al., 2018). We find that knowledge and method of disposal do not affect the intention or actual segregation behaviour, whereas perceived behaviour control has a significant effect. Household waste segregation programmes have primarily focused on the infrastructure and awareness to improve waste segregation. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to recognize the consequences of household waste segregation behaviours among citizens.

Based on the findings, we contribute to the implications for redesigning the national programme to improve sanitation in India. Further, we contribute to the literature on the psychosocial factors in household waste segregation, which have not yet been examined in the Indian context. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of using a theoretical approach to address the behavioural issues in developing countries.

Theoretical Background

We use the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) as a theoretical framework to explore the effectiveness of the policy design in the case of SBA. Other behavioural change theories, like Norm Activation Model (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1978) and Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), have been used to explain recycling behaviour; however, TPB is considered more systematic in explaining behavioural change (Armitage & Conner, 2001) and has been used extensively in environment conscious behaviours (e.g. Davis et al., 2006; Omran et al., 2009). Therefore, we adopted the TPB in explaining household waste segregation. TPB assumes that people behave rationally, and that they take into consideration the implications of their actions (Ajzen, 1991). The individual’s intention to perform or not to perform the behaviour is a critical predeterminant of the practice. The intention to perform is, in turn, inﬂuenced by three factors (Ajzen, 1991; see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Ajzen (1991).

The first factor is the attitude of the individual towards performing the behaviour. This includes beliefs about the consequence of the behaviour and the corresponding positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (Francis et al., 2004). The second is the individual’s own estimate of the perception of the social pressure to perform or not perform the target behaviour, also known as ‘subjective norms’. The subjective norms include beliefs about how other people would like them to behave, as well as a positive and negative evaluation of each of these beliefs. Third, the intention to perform target behaviour is also influenced by the individual’s perception of their ability to perform. The perception about the ability to perform the target behaviour depends upon how much a person has control over the behaviour (control on situation factors) and how confident a person feels about being able to perform or not perform the behaviour (control on internal factors). Thus, the formation of behavioural intention is a result of a combination of three factors: attitude towards the behaviour, subjective norm and perception of behavioural control, as discussed earlier. A person’s intention to perform the behaviour depends upon the extent to which their attitude and subjective norms are favourable and how high is the level of perceived control. Finally, this intention turns out in actual behaviour if there is a sufficient degree of actual control over the behaviour, and if a suitable opportunity to practice behaviour arises.

Application of Theory of Planned Behaviour in Waste Segregation and Recycling

Waste segregation is the first step in recycling and, hence, precedes it. When households segregate their waste into categories mentioned by the local waste collectors, it saves collectors the time, effort and risk involved in segregating mixed waste. It indicates pro-environmental behaviour on the part of the waste generators. Waste segregation and waste recycling divert waste from going to the landfill. Hence, a sound understanding of waste segregation is extremely critical.

Waste separation is a behaviour that requires considerable efforts by individuals as household waste must be sorted, prepared and stored. Consequently, the decision to separate waste is likely to be complex, and several factors need to be considered. According to TPB, individuals with positive attitudes who think that there is adequate normative support and perceive that they can easily engage in the activity should have strong intentions to perform the behaviour (Fielding et al., 2008). Meanwhile, the stronger these intentions are, the higher will be the likeliness for people to behave according to these intentions. Despite considerable support of TPB, several authors have suggested that additional variables like situational factors should be included within the model (Davis et al., 2006). This variable was used by assessing the extent to which respondent’s view situational factors, such as limited space, time and cooperation as barriers to performing food waste separation at home.

Several meta-analyses have been conducted about the factors affecting waste recycling behaviour, of which Miafodzyeva and Brandt’s (2013) is the most recent. Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013), in their meta-analysis of recycling behaviour among households, found that moral and personal norms were consistently crucial in explaining recycling behaviour. Individuals who feel a sense of personal responsibility lower the costs associated with household, while persons with a lack of motivation towards recycling have higher barriers towards recycling. Other variables such as a pro-environment attitude, information and knowledge specifically relating to recycling behaviours, recycling provision and social norms (SN), especially of family members, have found to be positively related with recycling behaviour. Though Miafodzyeva and Brandt (2013) in their meta-analysis do not specifically find support for perceived behaviour control, more recent studies have also found perceived behaviour control an important factor in recycling behaviour (Oztekin et al., 2017; Wan et al., 2017).

Studies in developing countries have emphasized the importance of psychosocial factors in determining recycling behaviours (Dhokhikah et al., 2015; Xiao et al., 2017), including within India (Licy et al., 2013; Minhas, 2017; Mukherji et al., 2016). However, the use of TPB in waste recycling has been limited. In the Indian context, only Halder and Singh (2018) have used TPB, but their study is limited to school youth in the age group of 10–24 years and not the household population, which is the target group of SBA. Our study is one of the very first attempts to assess the psychosocial factors influencing waste segregation at source in the Indian context using TPB.

Case Context

India is presently among the top 10 MSW-generating countries, given its large urban population and increasing adoption of high-consumption lifestyles (World Watch Institute, 2012). The current MSW generation is around 62 million tonnes annually and is expected to reach 436 million tonnes per year by 2050 (Planning Commission, 2014).

Over the years, the Government of India has introduced several policies at various levels to address the issue of waste management. Post-2000, in urban areas, ‘Solid Waste Management Rules’ were introduced. Specific rules were also introduced for E-waste and plastic waste in 2015 and 2016, respectively. These regulations are implemented and monitored by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change; however, their effectiveness has been questioned (Kumar et al., 2017). The most significant push to improve waste management came in the form of a nationwide campaign initiated by the prime minister in 2014—Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. In 2018–2019, the federal government allocated ₹153,430 million for the SBA programme, out of which almost half (₹73,650 million) were allocated for the management of solid waste. SBA includes a wide level of citizen participation and the involvement of stakeholders from all sectors of society: politics, business, media, government, academic institutions and non-profit agencies. Under the SBA guidelines, waste management in urban areas should focus on involvement of community members (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2017).

The management of solid waste through the collection, processing, transportation and disposal in India is the responsibility of urban local bodies (ULBs). However, because of financial and institutional reasons, most of the ULBs are unable to handle such a vast amount of waste. It is estimated that only around 10 per cent of the collected waste gets treated through collection efficiency, which is generally around 50–60 per cent (National Institute of Urban Affairs, 2013). The practice of segregation of waste is almost never done at its source by the households (Joshi & Ahmed, 2016). Segregation is carried out to a limited extent by people working as ‘rag pickers’, who only segregate valuable discarded items (Gutberlet et al., 2016).

Karnataka was ranked 14th out of 28 states in terms of sanitation and cleanliness in a national-level survey in 2019 (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2019). This makes the case of Karnataka a more representative average state to carry out this study. Further, the district of Udupi was ranked 143 out of 434 districts in a government survey in 2017, in terms of sanitation and cleanliness (Navabharat Times, 2017). The Udupi municipality handles about 64 tonnes of waste daily (NDTV, 2017). Door-to-door collection of waste in all the 35 wards takes place every day. However, the segregation of waste at source has been implemented in eight wards only.

Methodology

Survey Area

The objective of the study was (a) to identify the impact of the facilities being provided by the local governing body in line with the ‘Swachh Bharath’ mission of India and (b) to understand the attitude and behaviour of the citizens towards segregation at source (c) to assess the actual practice of segregation of waste as suggested by the local municipal guidelines. The survey was conducted in the township of Manipal, one of the eight wards where the segregation of household waste has been implemented. The local governing body had distributed two buckets each to 500 households in this ward, along with pamphlets with instructions about segregation. The two buckets are for wet (organic waste) and dry non-recyclable waste (trash). All recyclables like paper, glass, cardboard, metal and plastic had to be kept separately in a plastic bag. The bins were either handed over to the collectors in person or were placed outside their homes (in their absence) for the collectors to collect. In these eight wards, wet waste was collected daily and dry waste was collected once a week.

Sampling

The Udupi district consists of 16 towns with a total population of about 1.1 million individuals with the Udupi city itself comprising 10 per cent of this population with about 38,000 households (Government of India, 2011). In the town of Manipal in Udupi district, the locality of Dasharath Nagar was selected based on cluster sampling. Dasharath Nagar is one of the largest localities in the city that hosts clusters of households across its stretch. In comparison to the other localities, Dasharath Nagar comprises households that are more homogenous in terms of the constitution of families and is more representative of the city. Being close to the municipal office, the implementation of the household waste segregation programme is much more effective as compared to other localities. Poor implementation of the programme could confound the findings; therefore, we selected the cluster where we were assured of proper implementation. The survey was conducted at the household level. All the 145 households (unit of the survey) in this locality were personally surveyed, and the questionnaire was administered.

Questionnaire Design

The survey instrument was developed, considering the local municipal guidelines on the waste segregation for various types of wastes. We not only investigated the attitude, perception and SN regarding household waste segregation as per TPB but also examined the practice of household waste segregation for various categories of waste, assessing the extent to which respondents practice waste segregation behaviour at the household level. Survey questions were designed based on the household waste segregation literature, previous applications of TPB (Ghani et al., 2013) and manuals on designing survey questionnaires based on TPB (Francis et al., 2004). Refer Figure 2 for the conceptual framework for the study.

Figure 2.

Source: Ajzen (1991).

The survey instrument consisted of five components: demographic variables, TPB constructs, awareness about the type of waste, knowledge of disposable method for each type of waste and behaviours related to segregation of waste. We defined the various constructs as follows:

Behaviour: Behaviour was defined as the segregation of different categories of waste items as per the Udupi Municipal Waste Segregation guidelines. Fifty types of common waste items were categorized into four groups: Organic, Trash, Recyclable and Hazardous (Appendix 1). The disposal methods were categorized based on the Municipal Corporation of Udupi Guidelines issued for waste segregation. These are B-burn, C-compost, S-sell to scrap merchant/give to waste collector and H-hand over separately to waste collector. Respondents had to indicate their choice of disposal method.

Knowledge: For awareness regarding the types of trash, respondents were asked to categorize items into four categories: Organic, Non-recyclable, Recyclable and Hazardous (Appendix 1). For knowledge about the method of disposal, the respondents were asked to report the disposal methods that need to be used.

Behaviour intention: Intention to perform behaviour is used as a proximal measure of behaviour. One question was used to measure the intention to perform the waste segregation at home.

Attitude: Attitude refers to a person’s overall evaluation of the segregation of waste based on beliefs about the positive and negative consequences of not segregating the waste. In our survey instrument, we used four questions to measure the attitude towards waste segregation.

Subjective norm: A person’s estimate of the social pressure to segregate the waste at home. We used six questions to assess the subjective norms related to waste segregation at home.

Perceived behavioural control: A person’s estimate about the extent to which he feels able to segregate the waste at home, given the situational and internal factors. We used nine questions to assess the perceived behavioural control.

As recommended by Ajzen (1991), 7-point rating scales were used to measure the components of the TPB. The questions were scaled: 1 to indicate a positive view of waste segregation and 7 to indicate a negative view of waste segregation. Where necessary, the questions were reverse scored and then re-coded to maintain consistency. The questionnaire also contained questions relating to the facility provided by the local governing body.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data Collection

The survey instrument was pretested, and the final survey instrument was translated into the local language—Kannada. The data were collected during the period of August–September 2017. In case a family was not available, a repeat visit was made. Apart from the survey, discussions were held with the district-level authorities and field-level officers responsible for solid waste management in the district to better understand the process of household waste segregation.

1 Data preparation for analysis

The data were calculated to generate a mean score and were further analysed to determine factors that inﬂuence behavioural intention and actual behaviour towards waste separation at source. The three factors—SN, perceived behavioural control and attitude, based on the respective constructs—were estimated using the mean of the responses.

2 Estimating the mean score about the correct method of disposal

For assessing knowledge, questions on the practice of disposal of 48 common items were included. The knowledge for the correct method of disposal was categorized into three categories, based on the complexity of knowledge needed to do so. The basic knowledge category included 20 items like banana peels and newspapers and asked about how easy the correct method of disposal is to understand and remember. The medium category included 14 items like broken glass and glass bottles, for which a higher than basic level of knowledge is required to dispose of items correctly. The complete knowledge level included 14 items. If the respondent knew about the correct method of disposal of these items, the household could be categorized as having comprehensive knowledge about correct methods of disposal. The average knowledge level for each category was computed and dichotomized as high—1 (if the percentage of correct answers was more than 60%) and low—0, otherwise.

Estimating Mean Score About Waste Segregation Behaviours

Responses on the 10 common waste segregation behaviours were also categorized into three categories—poor, moderate and excellent—depending on the frequency with which correct waste segregation behaviours were performed (See Appendix 2).

Analysis Methods

We used logistic regression as it allows one to predict a discrete outcome, from a set of variables that may be continuous, discrete, dichotomous or a mix of any of these. In our case, as the dependent or response variable is dichotomous, we used binary logistic regression as a predictive analysis technique.

E (Y / X) = \log o d d s \frac{1 - π_{j}}{π_{j}} = b_{0} + b_{1} x_{1} + b_{2} x_{2} + b_{3} x_{3} \dots \dots + b_{k} x_{k}

\frac{1 - π_{j}}{π_{j}} = b_{0} + b_{S N} S N + b_{P B C} P B C + b_{A t t i t u d e} A t t i t u d e

\log_{i t} π_{j} = \log (\frac{π_{j}}{1 - π_{j}}) = X_{j}^{T} β

π_{j} = \frac{e^{X_{j}^{T} β}}{1 + e^{X_{j}^{T} β}}

We develop the regression models in two parts:

Intention as a dependent variable: we modelled intention as a function of SN, Attitude (ATT) and Perceived Behaviour Control (PBC). We used three models, first, using the mean scores of the independent variables. Here, we modelled intention to segregate waste at source as a binary logistic function of the three factors. Additionally, we also modelled intention by dichotomizing the intention variable scores into high and low at the first quartile point and third quartile point.

Behaviour related to actual waste segregation at home as a dependent variable: we modelled behaviour as a function of intention, levels of knowledge of items being disposed of and an average score of disposal methods.

Analysis and Results

Respondents’ Demographic Information

Table 1 presents the background characteristics of the respondents. The average household size of the sample is 3.58, whereas the national urban household size is 4.9 (Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, 2019). In the Indian household, waste segregation is generally the responsibility of the adult female member of the household. In our sample, 37.5 per cent of the adult female members of the household were employed, while the average of the same at the national level for urban households is 28.5 per cent (Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, 2019). In our sample, 100 per cent of the adult female household members were literate, and more than half (58.6%) of them had attained college degrees. Thus, our sample has a much higher educational attainment compared to the national average. The national female literacy rates is 65.46 per cent according to Census 2011 (Government of India, 2011). The total yearly average income of the households is ₹4,27,000 as compared to ₹1,26,000 national average income for urban households (Business Today, 2019). A total of 87 per cent of households that responded affirmatively to practising segregation have at least two educated members in their families. A total of 95 per cent of the households that stated a preference to segregate waste at home have at least two educated members in their families.

Table 1.

Background Characteristics

Sample Detail	Descriptive
Family size	2 to 3 members (44%); 4 and more members (56%)
Highest education in the family	Postgraduates—35% of the households; graduates—52%, others—13%
Number of children	15% of the families had no children at home, 70% of the families reported one or two children—with about 33% of them below the age of 5) 14%—3 children (45% below the age of 5)
Earning members	97% of the households reported 1 or 2 earning members
Lady of the house working	37.5% of the household reported Yes
Annual income	53% of the households reported an annual income of ₹400,000 and more
Highest qualification of the lady of the house	14.5% of the families reported the lady of the house to be a postgraduate; 58.6% reported as graduates and 26.9% as others
Number of educated members in the family	96% of the households reported at least 3 educated members in the family

Source: The authors.

Reliability Analysis

Table 2 reports the reliability analysis of the questionnaire items, which revealed that all variables measured were reliable with reliability coefﬁcient values (a) above 0.7.

Table 2.

Factor Analysis and Factor Reliability

Factors	Questions
Attitude	1.	We think the government must penalize those who do not comply with the waste segregation methods
	2.	We do not have a stringent policy on waste segregation
	3.	Waste disposed of without segregation pollutes the environment
	4.	A large family leads to improper waste management
Subjective norm	1.	We see many people not practising segregation
	2.	We have noticed that the collectors mix the trash in their collection truck
	3.	We trust the waste collection system for the segregation that we do
	4.	Collectors are regular in collecting the garbage
	5.	We think the system is making genuine efforts to separate waste
	6.	Those who do not segregate waste are not penalized
Perceived behavioral control	1.	We think the segregation of waste at home is a time-consuming job
Perceived behavioral control	2.	We segregate in spite of less time
	3.	We have no space to maintain separate bins at home
	4.	If there is space, we separate the waste
	5.	The bins are too far away for us to dispose of the waste
	6.	We are fully aware of the methods of segregation

Source: The authors.

Regression Analysis

Intention as a Dependent Variable

In model 1, we used the absolute mean scores of all the variables (refer Table 3). A citizen is around 0.44 times more likely to prefer the segregation of waste at source due to a unit increase in score due to SN. Perceived behaviour control is most impacting, indicating that a citizen’s intention towards segregation of waste at source is 3.418, more likely due to a unit increase in the score of this factor. Citizens with the right attitude towards this discipline are 1.469 times more likely than one with a unit score lower.

Table 3.

Intention to Segregate Waste at Source

	Dependent Variable: Intention to Segregate Waste at Source
Exp®	1	2	3
Social norm	0.440***	6.056***	6.098***
Perceived behavioural control	3.418***	5.306***	3.423
Attitude	1.469***	1.574	19.99***
Cox and Snell R²	0.646	0.628	0.640
Nagelkerke R²	0.861	0.838	0.853
−2 Log likelihood	50.448	57.481	52.834
N	145	145	145

Source: The authors.

Notes: *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

In model 2, we dichotomized the independent variables as high and low based on the^t first quartile:

X: = 0 if value lower than its first quartile. X = 1 if value greater than or equal to its first quartile.

Two of the three independent variables (SN and PBC) are statistically significant. Citizens with a unit increase in the SN score are 6.06 times more inclined to practise segregation at source; similarly, a unit increase in the PBC score indicates 5.306 higher chances of the household practising segregation at source.

In model 3, we dichotomized the independent variables as high and low based on the third quartile, thus raising the standards.

X: = 0 if value lower than its third quartile. X = 1 if value greater than or equal to its third quartile.

Having raised the standards of the score, PBC failed to be a significant factor. Alternatively, SN and Attitude are statistically significant. Citizens with a unit increase in the SN score are 6.09 times more inclined to practice segregation at source.

Behaviour as a Dependent Variable

We model behaviour as a function of intention, knowledge of items being disposed and average score of disposal methods (refer Table 4). Intention was found to be significant whereas knowledge and waste disposal methods were not significant. Citizens with a unit increase in the intention were 294 times more inclined to practise segregation at source.

Table 4.

Waste Segregation Behaviour

	Dependent Variables: Waste Segregation Behaviour
	Exp®
Intention to segregate waste about correct waste disposal method	294.64***
Basic level of knowledge about the correct waste disposal method	0.480
Moderate level of knowledge about the correct waste disposal method	1.399
Full knowledge about the correct waste disposal method	0.687
Disposal Method	0.746 (0.183)
Cox and Snell R²	0.559
Nagelkerke R²	0.745
−2 Log likelihood	82.259
N	145

Source: The authors.

Notes: *p < 0:10, **p < 0:05, ***p < 0:01.

Discussion

Drawing from Ajzen’s theory (1991), this study used binary regression models to analyse the effects of SN, attitude and perceived behaviour control on intention in the context of segregating waste at source by households. Perceived behaviour control, SN and attitude were found to be positively related to the intention to segregate waste at source. These findings are consistent with the local socio-economic context; Udupi has a history of environmental activism; therefore, we expected SN to have already achieved a threshold level. The findings were expected to be different for settings in which environmental consciousness is lower.

Further, we have also tested the effect of levels of knowledge and waste disposal methods on the actual behaviour of waste segregation. The results suggest that levels of knowledge and disposal method did not significantly impact behaviour. In our sample, we found that the awareness levels of disposal methods among the respondents were observed to be above 60 per cent . This higher-level awareness can be attributed to the high literacy rate and high environmental consciousness in the city, as compared to national urban averages. In the study jurisdiction, self-help groups are engaged in the collection of waste, based on which it could be argued that awareness about the need for proper waste disposal is expected to be high.

Under various waste disposal programmes initiated by the government, including SBA, several measures have been taken by the Indian government towards cleaner towns and cities. However, these efforts have been mainly directed towards the creation of new infrastructure such as toilets or awareness generation about cleanliness. In the case of household waste segregation, these efforts include providing households with separate bins for different types of waste, separate vehicles, collecting waste separately and meeting the land requirements for segregating and disposing of waste. The awareness generation programmes have primarily focused on increasing awareness about the importance of cleanliness efforts with limited attention paid to the psychosocial factors that influence the adoption of behaviour by the target population. Our findings suggest the importance of perceived behavioural control. But at present, there are no pecuniary or non-pecuniary consequences for non-compliance in household waste segregation. Our findings are similar to findings in other country contexts and emphasize the need for positive public opinion/demonstration, active participation by citizens and regular interventions by local governments for effective segregation of waste at the household level (Dhokhikah & Trihadiningrum, 2012). This suggests designing policy based on the analysis of drivers for behaviour.

Policy Implications and Conclusion

The findings are critical for reforming existing programmes on household segregation of solid waste. The findings suggest that present programmes need to move beyond creating education and awareness, especially in jurisdictions where awareness levels have already reached a threshold level. Waste collectors should be empowered to dole out penalties to households that do not segregate at the source. However, in the present policy design, extensive focus has been given to infrastructure and awareness. Imposing and collecting financial penalties, on the other hand, requires policy capacity to design appropriate financial penalties and operational ability to implement a penalty system. In many municipalities, the collection of solid waste has been contracted out to private contractors or done through self-help groups. Engaging private contractors to collect fines may open up new opportunities for corruption and rent-seeking among the already widespread corruption in local public services.

Further, collusion between households and contractors may also defeat the purpose. The imposition of penalties is further complicated by the involvement of self-help groups in waste collection. Given the variation in the corruption and ethical practices across jurisdictions, designing a policy that attaches consequences to non-compliant behaviour requires a deeper analysis of the capacity of both the private and public sector. As part of the federal policy, this could be devolved to local governments under the SBA programme. Therefore, a better approach would probably be to impose non-financial penalties for non-compliant behaviours by the households. The experience of countries with a high effectiveness of waste segregation at household level, like Japan (Shinkuma & Managi, 2012), may suggest some policy options that could be implemented by the local municipalities. Non-financial penalties can take several forms, such as the refusal to collect waste from households that do not comply with the desired segregation behaviour. Another option could be the policy of shaming, whereby a list of non-compliant households may be put at the community notice boards or residential society/apartment notice board. These are much easier to implement and may have a reinforcing effect on improving SN about waste segregation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

Appendix 2.

Categorization of Practices

Sl. No		Never	Occasionally	Frequently	Mostly	Always
1	We use the bin for organic waste	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent
2	We use the bin for trash	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent
3	We use the organic waste in our garden	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent
4	We remember to place the buckets outside for collection	Poor	Poor	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent
5	We dispose of different wastes differently	Poor	Poor	Poor	Excellent	Excellent
6	We put dry and wet wastes together while disposing	Excellent	Excellent	Moderate	Poor	Poor
7	We burn all wastes	Excellent	Moderate	Poor	Poor	Poor
8	We burn vegetable and fruit waste	Excellent	Moderate	Poor	Poor	Poor
9	We burn plastic	Excellent	Moderate	Poor	Poor	Poor
10	We recycle plastic for fuel and other purposes	Poor	Moderate	Excellent	Excellent	Excellent

Source: The authors.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen

, & Fishbein

(1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Armitage

C. J.

, & Conner

(2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

Business Today (2019). India’s per-capita income rises 10% to Rs 10,534 a month in FY19. https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/india-per-capita-income-rises-10-to-rs-10534-a-month-in-fy19/story/352805.html

D’Amato

, Managi

, & Mazzanti

(2012). Economics of waste management and disposal: Decoupling, policy enforcement and spatial factors. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 14, 323–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-012-0050-6

Das

, & Bhattacharyya

B. K.

(2014). Estimation of municipal solid waste generation and future trends in greater Metropolitan regions of Kolkata, India. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation, 1, 31–38.

Davis

, Philips

P. S.

, Read

A. D.

, & Iida

(2006). Demonstrating the need for the development of internal research capacity: Understanding recycling participation using the theory of planned behaviour in West Oxfordshire, UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 46, 115–127.

Dhokhikah

, & Trihadiningrum

(2012). Solid waste management in Asian developing countries: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 2, 329–335.

Dhokhikah

, Trihadiningrum

, & Sunaryo

(2015). Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 153–162.

10.

Fielding

K. S.

, McDonald

, & Louis

W. R.

(2008). Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 318–326.

11.

Fiorillo

, & Senatore

(2019). Pro-social behaviours, waste concern and recycling behaviour in Italy at the end of the 1990s. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-019-00251-9

12.

Francis

, Eccles

M. P.

, Johnston

, Walker

A. E.

, Grimshaw

J. M.

, Foy

, Kaner

E. F. S.

, Smith

, & Bonetti

(2004). Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour: A manual for health services researchers. Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. home/lib/content/Community%20Engagement%20Guidelines.pdf

13.

Ghani

W. A.

, Rusli

I. F.

, Radiah

, & Idris

(2013). An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Management, 33, 1276–1281.

14.

Government of India (2011). Census of India-2011. https://www.census2011.co.in/data/subdistrict/5523-udupi-udupi-karnataka.html

15.

Gupta

, Yadav

K. K.

, & Kumar

(2015). A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 37, 206–217.

16.

Gutberlet

, Kain

, Nyakinya

, Oloko

, Zapata

, & Campos

M. J. Z.

(2016). Bridging weak links of solid waste management in informal settlements. Journal of Environment and Development, 26, 106–131.

17.

Halder

, & Singh

(2018). Predictors of recycling intentions among the youth: A developing country perspective. Recycling, 3(38), 1–16.

18.

Joshi

, & Ahmed

(2016). Status and challenges of municipal solid waste management in India: A review. Cogent Environmental Science, 2, 1–18.

19.

Kumar

, Smith

S. R.

, Fowler

, Velis

, Kumar

S. J.

, Arya

, Rena, Kumar

, & Cheeseman

(2017). Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160764.

20.

Licy

C. D.

, Raghavan

, Saritha

, Anies

T. K.

, & Josphina

C. T.

(2013). Awareness, attitude and practice of school students towards household waste management. Journal of Environment, 2, 147–150.

21.

Miafodzyeva

, & Brandt

(2013). Recycling behaviour among householders: Synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 4, 221–235.

22.

Minhas

(2017). Solid waste management—Community perception, attitude and participation. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 7, 121–130.

23.

Ministry of Housing and Urban, Affairs (Government of India) (2017). Guidelines for community engagement under Swachh Bharat Mission Urban. http://www.swachhbharaturban.in/sbm/

24.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2019). Swach Sarvekshan 2019. http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/writereaddata/SS2019%20Final%20Report.pdf?id=zkee5zs8nv0na031

25.

Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Government of India (2019). India in figures 2018. http://mospi.nic.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/India_in_figures-2018_rev.pdf

26.

Mukherji

, Sekiyama

, Mino

, & Chaturvedi

(2016). Resident knowledge and willingness to engage in waste management in Delhi, India. Sustainability, 8, 1065.

27.

National Institute of Urban Affairs (2013). National workshop on sustainable solid waste management in India. Workshop Proceedings, organized by Ministry of Urban Development, GoI, Ministry of Environment & Forest, GoI and National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, 18 January 2015.

28.

Navabharat Times (2017, May 4). Swachh Bharat rankings Indore and Bhopal are in top two cities in the list. https://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/india/swachh-bharat-rankings-indore-and-bhopal-are-in-top-two-cities-in-the-list/articleshow/58510097.cms

29.

NDTV (2017, September 6). Adopting waste segregation as a mantra, Udupi gears up, allots days for dry and wet garbage. https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/adopting-waste-segregation-mantra-udupi-gears-allots-days-dry-wet-garbage-7978/

30.

Omran

, Mahmood

, Aziz

H. A.

, & Robinson

G. M.

(2009). Investigating households attitude toward recycling of solid waste in Malaysia: A case study. International Journal of Environmental Research, 3, 275–288.

31.

Oztekin

, Teksöz

, Pamuk

, Sahin

, & Kilic

D. S.

(2017). Gender perspective on the factors predicting recycling behavior: Implications from the theory of planned behavior. Waste Management, 62, 290–302.

32.

Planning Commission (Government of India) (2014). Report of the task force on waste to energy (Vol. I: In the Context of Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management). http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_wte1205.pdf

33.

Singh

S. Swathi

, & Agrawal

(2018). Is Swachh Bharat mission ensuring waste segregation systems? https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/is-swachh-bharat-mission-ensuring-waste-segregation-systems--61885

34.

Shinkuma

, & Managi

(2012). Effectiveness of policy against illegal disposal of waste. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 14, 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-011-0024-0

35.

Van Liere

K. D.

, & Dunlap

R. E.

(1978). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz’s norm-activation model to yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 174–188.

36.

Vergara

S. E.

, & Tchobanoglous

(2012). Municipal solid waste and the environment: A global perspective. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 277–309.

37.

Vij

(2012). Urbanization and solid waste management in India: Present practices and future challenges. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 437–447.

38.

Wan

, Shen

G. Q.

, & Choi

(2017). Experiential and instrumental attitudes: Interaction effect of attitude and subjective norm on recycling intention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 69–79.

39.

World Watch Institute (2012). Global municipal solid waste continues to grow. http://www.worldwatch.org/global-municipal-solid-waste-continues-grow

40.

Xiao

, Zhang

, Zhu

, & Lin

(2017). Promoting public participation in household waste management: A survey based method and case study in Xiamen city, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 313–322.