Reusing strategies at the household level in Urban Hyderabad

Introduction

The rapid urbanization and population growth in Indian cities have significantly intensified the problem of household waste generation and disposal. Hyderabad, a metropolitan city, mirrors these trends, facing escalating challenges in managing domestic waste sustainably. The effectiveness of urban waste management depends not only on municipal services but also on the awareness, attitudes, and behaviors of individual households regarding food waste reduction, waste segregation, and environmentally sound disposal practices. This study aimed to analyze comprehensive household waste management patterns across various dimensions. Key aspects included the distribution of reasons for food wastage in the home, the types of disposal methods followed, and household contributions to protecting health and the environment through appropriate waste disposal. Further, it investigated priority rankings assigned to different disposal methods, common problems experienced during household disposal, and methods used to dispose of inorganic waste. Environmental consequences of improper waste disposal were also explored, emphasizing issues such as blocked drainage systems, water contamination, and vector-borne diseases. In addition, the study examined common waste dumping practices in public areas, methods of composting adopted in Hyderabad, and items commonly reused or recycled in homes, along with the motivations and benefits behind these practices. A detailed investigation of the types of containers used to store household waste and observations around public waste bins and dumping sites revealed critical shortcomings in infrastructure and public hygiene. Despite some households engaging in environmentally friendly practices like composting and reusing items, these were often limited by lack of awareness, inadequate facilities, and inconsistent implementation. www.extensionjournal.com By identifying the factors influencing household-level waste practices and their environmental implications, this study aimed to provide actionable insights to support sustainable urban waste management initiatives in Hyderabad and similar urban settings.

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 technique had been utilized to select participants from five major zones of Hyderabad city-East, West, North, South, and Central. From each zone, 50 respondents had been identified, culminating in a total sample size of 250 households. The study gathered data on several parameters, including household-level biodegradable waste generation, methods of waste reuse and associated by-products, motivations behind reuse practices, types of containers employed for waste disposal, and the kinds of waste materials typically found in and around public bins or informal dumping areas. Participants included individuals residing in both standalone houses and gated residential complexes. 1 analyzed how households in Hyderabad reused domestic waste and the forms those reuses took. Responses were categorized as "Yes" or "No," and summarized through frequency, percentage, mean scores, and rankings. Old clothes were the most reused item, with 66.4% of respondents confirming their reuse, achieving a mean score of 80.72 (Rank XVII). This aligned with Bianchi and Birtwistle (2012) [5] , who noted frequent reuse of garments through donation, repurposing, or alteration. Newspapers followed, reused by 56% of households, with a mean score of 81.44 (Rank XVI). As Gupta et al. (2015) [8] observed, printed paper in Indian homes was often reused for practical purposes like wrapping or cleaning. In contrast, most other items-such as DVDs, deodorant bottles, packaging materials, and jars-had very low reuse rates (0.4%-1.2%), resulting in high mean scores (86.96-87) and lower ranks. This suggested limited awareness or infrastructure for reuse. Surprisingly, only 1.2% reused plastic bottles, despite their known versatility. This may reflect concerns about micro plastics, as noted by Wang et al. (2019) [15] . Items like broken kitchenware and unused deodorant bottles were entirely discarded, showing no reuse at all. Mohan and Muthusamy (2020) [12] indicated such materials could be creatively repurposed if awareness and tools were available.

The study also found limited knowledge of potential reuse applications. For instance, reusable materials like aluminum foil were often discarded, possibly due to hygiene concerns or lack of time-barriers also reported by Aparcana (2017) [2] . Overall, while traditional items like clothes and newspapers were reused more often, most household waste in Hyderabad was not repurposed. This highlighted a need for increased public education and support for sustainable, circular reuse practices. [3] . Income generation, reducing waste volume, and limiting waste mobility followed closely (mean score: 64.10), reflecting the practical and financial incentives identified in prior research (Medina, 2000; Aparcana, 2017) [11,2] . Environmental concerns-like pollution prevention and aesthetics-ranked slightly lower (mean score: 64.05), suggesting they were valued but seen as less immediate priorities, consistent with findings by Moqsud et al. (2011) [13] . Notably, 99.6% of respondents valued environmental aesthetics, aligning with Sembiring and Nitivattananon (2010), who emphasized the social importance of cleanliness in urban communities. Overall, the data revealed both practical and deeper social motivations for reuse, with "Other" factors pointing to cultural or personal influences that merit further study. [16] .

Next was "Minimizing Waste Mobility" (mean score: 63.9), suggesting spatial control and convenience influenced reuse, echoing Guerrero et al. (2013) [7] . "Environmental Pollution Prevention" ranked third (63.8), showing awareness but slightly lower urgency, as Ogwueleka (2009) [14] noted in similar contexts. "Income Generation" followed (63. [17] . Finally, "Hobby-Based Reuse" ranked lowest (63.4), indicating limited engagement in creative reuse, as Tonglet et al.

The findings revealed that households prioritized immediate, practical concerns over environmental or economic motivations, suggesting that effective reuse strategies should address daily household challenges as well as long-term sustainability. [6] and Bernstad & la Cour Jansen (2012) [4] , who noted the key role of green and brown waste in home composting. Despite small differences in scoring, all waste types were widely acknowledged as biodegradable. These results reflected high environmental awareness and pointed to the potential for expanding household-level composting and waste reduction efforts. www.extensionjournal.com [17] . Old buckets followed (mean score: 76.59), showing that many households repurposed items to manage waste affordablya trend supported by Guerrero et al. (2013) [7] . [9] . Other containers were rarely used and ranked jointly with carton boxes at fifth place. The results showed a strong household preference for reusable, practical containers, influenced by cost, availability, and environmental concerns. These behaviors suggest the importance of promoting sustainable waste disposal solutions tailored to local practices. [10,1] . Following closely, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rats, stray animals, waste spillage, and stagnant water all had mean scores of 58.032. Almost all respondents (99.6%) frequently noticed these hazards. Vector infestations reflected poor sanitary conditions (Bhunia et al., 2012), while the presence of rodents and animals pointed to unsecured and food-rich waste areas. Dumping outside bins was attributed to poor infrastructure and collection lapses, reinforcing findings by Zurbrugg et al. (2012) [17] . Stagnant water, another key issue, raised concerns about mosquito breeding and waterborne diseases. The analysis reflected serious public health and sanitation failures around waste collection points. Effective waste handling would require better infrastructure, pest control, and community involvement.

Conclusion

The study revealed that biodegradable waste was commonly produced by households in urban Hyderabad. Reuse methods like composting, feeding animals, and informal recycling were practiced, influenced by factors such as ease of use, environmental concern, and economic benefit (Guerrero et al., 2013; Zurbrugg et al., 2012) [7,17] . However, reuse was not systematic, hindered by inconsistent container usage and the absence of standard practices. The presence of reusable waste near public bins reflected infrastructure gaps and limited public awareness (Hopewell et al., 2009) [9] . Though many households showed willingness to reuse, broader, structured practices remained underdeveloped. The findings emphasized the importance of education, improved waste segregation, and community-based support to strengthen household reuse efforts (Al-Khatib et al., 2015) [1] .

References

1. Al-Khatib IA, Arafat HA, Basheer T, et al. Trends and problems of solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2015;35:147-54.
2. Aparcana S. Approaches to formalization of the www.extensionjournal.com informal waste sector into municipal solid waste management systems in low-and middle-income countries: Review of barriers and success factors. Waste Manag. 2017;61:593-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.028
3. Barr S, Gilg A, Ford N. Environment and behavior. Environ Behav. 2005;37(4):435-63.
4. 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
5. Birtwistle G, Moore CM. Fashion clothing-Where does it all end up? Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2007;35(3):210-16. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550710735068
6. Frederickson J, Howell G, Hobson A. Composting green waste: Performance and leachate quality in passively aerated compost bins. Waste Manag. 2009;29(2):600-07. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.06.005
7. 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
8. Gupta N, Yadav KK, Kumar V. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J Environ Sci. 2015;37:206-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.01.034
9. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E. Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364(1526):2115-21. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311
10. Kumar A, Sangwan P. Comparative analysis of municipal solid waste management in selected cities of a state in India: A case study. Int J Eng Res Appl. 2014;4(3):540-46.
11. Medina M. The Informal Recycling Sector in Developing Countries: Organizing Waste Pickers to Enhance Their Impact. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2008.
12. Mohan S, Muthusamy A. Eco-friendly reuse of ceramic and glass waste in concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2020;253:119293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119293
13. 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):220-24. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJESD.2011.V2.122
14. Ogwueleka TC. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2009;6(3):173-80.
15. 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
16. 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
17. 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. 2012;32(11):2126-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.014