Food waste, disposal practices at the household level in urban Hyderabad

Introduction

Urban centers across the globe faced increasing challenges related to waste management, particularly in relation to household waste generation. In Hyderabad, India, the rapid urbanization and population growth led to heightened concerns over sustainability and environmental degradation. This research article examined the reuse strategies implemented at the household level in urban Hyderabad, focusing on practices that aimed to mitigate waste generation and promote resource conservation. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews, to gather insights from residents about their reuse behaviors and attitudes. It was found that many households demonstrated varying degrees of awareness regarding the environmental benefits of reusing materials, yet practical implementation was often hindered by a lack of infrastructure and support. Specifically, the research uncovered that while some residents actively practiced reuse-whether through up cycling, repurposing household items, or participating in local exchange initiatives-others remained unfamiliar with these strategies or perceived them as inconvenient. The disparity in reuse practices suggested that targeted interventions were necessary to enhance awareness and accessibility, ultimately fostering a culture of sustainability within the community. In light of these findings, this article aimed to contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding waste management in urban areas, emphasizing the importance of effective reuse strategies at the household level. By highlighting both challenges and successful initiatives, the research sought to offer valuable insights that could inform policymakers and community leaders striving towards more sustainable urban living environments. This research article explored food waste and disposal practices at the household level in urban Hyderabad. Through a mixed-methods approach, including surveys and interviews with residents, the study aimed to understand the patterns and underlying factors contributing to food waste generation. The findings revealed that a significant portion of food waste originated from cooking practices, purchasing habits, and mismanagement of food storage. Many households reported a lack of awareness regarding the environmental and economic impacts of food waste, which further exacerbated the issue. Disposal practices varied, with a reliance on dumping waste into landfills or providing it to livestock, while composting, though acknowledged as a www.extensionjournal.com viable option, was underutilized. The research highlighted the need for targeted awareness campaigns and improved waste management infrastructure to address food waste effectively. Overall, the study offered insights into the critical challenges and opportunities for reducing food waste at the household level in urban settings, contributing to broader sustainability goals.

Methodology Location of the study

The survey sample was drawn from five major zones of Hyderabad, Telangana State, considering the city's urban character and the presence of various residential structures inhabited by a diverse population. These areas were selected due to the significant generation of food waste observed in such urban residential settings.

Materials and Methods

A purposive random sampling method was employed to draw the sample from five distinct zones of Hyderabad city, namely the East, West, North, South, and Central zones. A total of 50 respondents were selected from each zone, resulting in an overall sample size of 250 individuals or households. The data were gathered to examine the waste disposal practices and challenges encountered by residents living in independent houses as well as those residing in gated communities. Overall, food waste mostly comes from habits and lack of awareness. Teaching people about proper storage, portion sizes, and how to use leftovers can help reduce waste. [13] . Municipal collection ranked second (70.80), aligning with findings by Sujauddin et al. (2008) [23] , while composting followed (68.60), supported by Bernstad & la Cour Jansen (2012) [6] . Burning (64.30) and feeding animals (60.90) were also common in areas with limited services (Zurbrugg et al., 2012) [30] . Burying waste (57.45) and segregation before disposal (53.60) were least used, reflecting low awareness and convenience (Dhokhikah et al., 2015) [8] . Overall, harmful methods still dominate. The study recommends improving public awareness, municipal services, and incentives for sustainable practices. www.extensionjournal.com Table 3 shows that households surprisingly ranked drainage dumping as the most effective method (Mean = 73.344), despite its harmful effects like flooding and disease (Guerrero et al., 2013) [10] . Open space dumping and lowlying area dumping followed, both environmentally unsafe. Sustainable methods like door-to-door collection and composting/recycling/reuse had high agreement rates (>83%) but were ranked lower, showing a gap between awareness and actual practice.

Results and Discussion 1. Reasons for food wastage

Type of waste disposal methods followed

Using dustbins ranked fourth, reflecting moderate compliance (ADB, 2014) [4] . Overall, harmful practices remain popular, highlighting the need for better education and waste infrastructure. [10] . Sustainable options such as composting, recycling, and reusing scored lower (Mean ≈ 60.9), showing a gap between awareness and practice-likely due to limited infrastructure (Zurbrugg et al., 2012) [31] .

Dustbin use and door-to-door collection were moderately ranked, reflecting weak engagement with formal systems (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012) [11] . The findings highlight that convenience and social norms often override environmental concerns, stressing the need for education, infrastructure, and policy enforcement (Ajzen, 1991) [2] . [27] and Tadesse (2006) [24] . Weak policy enforcement ranked lowest (Mean = 69.12), indicating poor regulation despite existing laws (Scheinberg et al., 2010) [20] . Overall, challenges span economic, infrastructural, behavioral, and policy areas-calling for coordinated financial, educational, and governance-based interventions. www.extensionjournal.com [30,27] . Sustainable options-selling, reusing, donating-though backed by over 98% of respondents, had lower mean scores (64.21-64.05), indicating poor adoption (Medina, 2008) [14] . The narrow range of scores shows mixed practices, as noted by Fiorillo et al. (2021) [9] . In summary, unsustainable disposal dominates due to service gaps, requiring improved education, infrastructure, and support for informal recovery systems. [1] . Bad odor followed (Mean = 60.14), linked to decomposing waste, as noted by Moqsud et al. (2011) [16] . Soil and water contamination, and littering (Mean = 60.11) were also prevalent concerns, supporting findings by Aljaradin & Persson (2012) [3] on leachate pollution. Though air pollution had the highest agreement (99.6%), it ranked last (Mean = 60.03), indicating it may be less immediately perceived, despite health risks from waste burning (Chattopadhyay et al., 2009) [7] . In summary, respondents showed strong awareness of the environmental impacts of improper disposal, emphasizing the need for sustainable and regulated waste practices. [28] . Dumping in water bodies and open burning shared the second rank (Mean = 57.32; 98% agreement). These practices cause environmental and health risks, including aquatic pollution (Syafrudin) and toxic air emissions (Wang et al., 2016) [25] .

Dumping on roads and land ranked fourth (Mean = 57.064), though acknowledged by 99.6% of respondents. Despite its visibility, it may be seen as less harmful, though it degrades urban sanitation (Guerrero et al., 2013) [10] . The findings highlight the urgent need for infrastructure, education, and enforcement to curb improper disposal behaviors. www.extensionjournal.com [29] . Tumbler/vessel composting (Mean = 44.116; 99.6%) was also common, favored in urban areas for its efficiency and odor control (Bernal et al., 2009) [5] . Overall, strong engagement across methods reflects rising environmental awareness and support for composting initiatives.

Conclusion

The study found that household food waste generation in urban Hyderabad was mainly driven by behavioral patterns and a lack of awareness regarding food portioning, storage, and leftover use. While many households used formal waste services, harmful practices like open dumping and burning were still common. Waste disposal in nearby dustbins showed moderate compliance with sanitation norms, but overall sustainable practices were hindered by poor infrastructure, economic barriers, and weak policy enforcement. Although some households adopted composting or reuse, these efforts were often overshadowed by unsustainable methods. Notably, vermicomposting emerged as a preferred method, signaling a shift toward eco-conscious practices, likely influenced by rising environmental awareness and municipal efforts. The findings highlighted the need for targeted education, better infrastructure, and integrated waste systems to promote sustainable household waste management.

References

1. Aktas E, Sahin H, Topaloglu Z, Candan B, Ozdogan OA. Consumer behavioral approach to food waste: Evidence from Turkey. Waste Manag. 2018;77:207-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.04.038
2. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211.
3. Aljaradin M, Persson K. Environmental impact of municipal solid waste landfills in semi-arid climates - Case study: Jordan. Open Waste Manag J. 2012;5(1):28-39. https://doi.org/10.2174/1876400201205010028
4. Asian Development Bank (ADB). Solid waste management in Nepal: Current status and policy recommendations. 2014. https://www.adb.org/publications/solid-wastemanagement-nepal
5. Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Moral R. Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment: A review. Bioresour Technol. 2009;100(22):5444-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027
6. Bernstad A, la Cour Jansen J. Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems -Current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag. 2012;32(12):2439-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.07.023
7. Chattopadhyay S, Dutta A, Ray S. Municipal solid waste management in Kolkata, India: A review. Waste Manag. 2009;29(1):470-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.01.023
8. Dhokhikah Y, Trihadiningrum Y, Sunaryo S. Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;102:153-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.06.013
9. Fiorillo D, Pontarollo N, Sabatini F. Hybrid waste disposal behavior and the role of information in environmental policy. Ecol Econ. 2021;180:106868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106868
10. Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013;33(1):220-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008
11. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. World Bank Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers. 2012.
12. Kumar S, Smith SR, Fowler G, Velis C, Kumar SJ. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R Soc Open Sci. 2017;4(3):160764. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160764
13. Kumar KN, Viswanathan KM, Natarajan S. Assessment of solid waste disposal practices in India: A case study of Tamil Nadu. Int J Environ Sci. 2016;6(2):145-53.
14. Medina M. The Informal Recycling Sector in Developing Countries: Organizing Waste Pickers to Enhance Their Impact. World Bank; 2008.
15. Moqsud MA, Rahman MA, Mahmud K. Possibility of sustainable waste management through concrete production: A case study in Bangladesh. Int J Environ Sci Dev. 2011;2(3):220-4. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJESD.2011.V2.122
16. Moqsud MA, Rahman MA, Mahmud K. Solid Waste Management Practice in a City of Bangladesh. Int J Environ Sci. 2011;1(5):911-20.
17. Mwanthi MA, Nyabola LO. Solid waste management in Nairobi city: Problems and prospects. Public Health Res. 2015;5(1):1-5. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.phr.20150501.01
18. Narayana T. Municipal solid waste management in India: From waste disposal to recovery of resources? Waste Manag. 2009;29(3):1163-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.038
19. Principato L, Pratesi CA, Secondi L. Towards zero www.extensionjournal.com waste: An exploratory study on restaurant managers. Int J Hosp Manag. 2015;49:47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.005
20. Scheinberg A, Simpson MH, Gupt Y, Anschütz J. Economic Aspects of the Informal Sector in Solid Waste. GIZ and WASTE, Netherlands; 2010.
21. Stancu V, Haugaard P, Lähteenmäki L. Determinants of consumer food waste behaviour: Two routes to food waste. Appetite. 2016;96:7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.025
22. Stefan V, van Herpen E, Tudoran AA, Lähteenmäki L. Avoiding food waste by Romanian consumers: The importance of planning and shopping routines. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):375-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.001
23. Sujauddin M, Huda SMS, Hoque ATMR. Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Waste Manag. 2008;28(9):1688-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.013
24. Tadesse T. Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal decision: The case of Addis Ababa. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2006;50(4):302-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.006
25. Wang W, Ge J, Yu X. Bioavailability and toxicity of microplastics to fish species: A review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019;190:110061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.110061
26. Williams H, Wikström F, Otterbring T, Löfgren M, Gustafsson A. Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packaging. J Clean Prod. 2012;24:141-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044
27. Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis CA, Alabaster G. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(3):237-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12437569
28. Wilson DC, Velis C, Cheeseman C. Role of informal sector recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat Int. 2006;30(4):797-808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.09.005
29. Yadav KD, Garg VK. Composting of municipal solid waste using aerobic and anaerobic digestion methods. Waste Manag. 2011;31(10):2365-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.003
30. Zurbrugg C, Gfrerer M, Ashadi H, Brenner W, Kuehr R. Determinants of sustainability in solid waste management -The Gianyar Waste Recovery Project in Indonesia. Waste Manag. 2012a;32(11):2126-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.014