Knowledge of household waste management among rural and urban households in Gwalior district, Madhya Pradesh: Correlates and constraints

Introduction

Household waste management is an important environmental and public-health concern because improper handling and disposal of domestic waste can adversely affect environmental quality, sanitation and community well-being. Effective household waste management involves appropriate practices such as source segregation, recycling, reuse, composting and proper disposal. Adequate household knowledge is important for understanding and applying recommended waste-management practices. In India, the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) has placed considerable emphasis on sanitation and waste management at household and community levels. Information, Education and Communication (IEC) activities and awareness programmes have been promoted to encourage improved waste-management behaviour. However, gaps remain in household-level understanding and implementation of scientific waste-management practices, particularly with respect to technically specific aspects of waste segregation and waste handling. Household knowledge may vary according to social and residential characteristics. Rural and Urban households can differ in terms of educational background, income, access to information and exposure to waste-management services. Therefore, assessing knowledge separately among Rural and Urban households can help identify groups and areas requiring further extension and awareness efforts. The thesis-derived findings indicate that respondents generally possessed a medium level of household wastemanagement knowledge, while Urban respondents had a greater proportion of high knowledge than Rural respondents. Item-wise assessment further indicated that respondents had relatively strong knowledge of some practical aspects, whereas gaps were observed in specific technical areas, including the first step of waste management at source, handling of organic/biodegradable waste and the concept of decluttering. Knowledge may also be associated with respondents' socioeconomic and informational characteristics. The correlation analysis showed that education had the strongest positive relationship with knowledge, followed by annual income and family size. In contrast, information-source exposure, social participation and communication-method exposure showed significant negative relationships with knowledge, whereas www.extensionjournal.com age and gender were not significantly related to knowledge. These findings suggest that mere frequency of information or communication exposure may not necessarily ensure technically accurate knowledge. Apart from knowledge-related issues, households may face practical constraints in adopting appropriate wastemanagement practices. The study identified irregular timing of waste-collection vehicles, lack of cooperation from neighbours and non-availability of waste-collection services among the major constraints. Rural respondents were particularly affected by service-and infrastructure-related constraints, whereas Urban respondents reported greater social and behavioural constraints. Against this background, the present study was undertaken to assess knowledge of household waste management among Rural and Urban households in Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh, examine its correlates, and identify the major constraints faced by households. The findings are intended to provide a basis for strengthening locality-specific extension, awareness and institutional interventions for improved household waste management.

Objectives

The study was undertaken with the following objectives: 1. To assess the knowledge level of Rural and Urban households regarding household waste-management practices. 2. To compare Rural and Urban households with respect to their knowledge level of household waste management. 3. To determine the relationship between selected profile variables and household waste-management knowledge. 4. To identify the major constraints faced by households in adopting proper waste-management practices. 5. To suggest appropriate extension and institutional measures for improving household waste management.

Materials and Methods

A descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The study was conducted in Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh, which was purposively selected.

Results and Discussion

Profile of the Respondents

A total of 160 household respondents, comprising 80 Rural and 80 Urban respondents, were included in the study. Their socio-personal and socio-economic characteristics were examined to understand the background of the respondents.

Knowledge Level of Respondents Regarding Household Waste Management

The knowledge level of respondents regarding household waste-management practices was assessed using a 45-point knowledge scale. Respondents were classified into low, medium and high knowledge categories based on their scores. The findings revealed that the majority of respondents (83.12%) possessed a medium level of knowledge, followed by 16.88 per cent with a high level of knowledge. None of the respondents belonged to the low-knowledge category.

A clear Rural-Urban difference was observed. Among Rural respondents, 95.00 per cent had medium knowledge and only 5.00 per cent had high knowledge. In comparison, 71.25 per cent of Urban respondents had medium knowledge and 28.75 per cent had high knowledge. The mean knowledge score was also higher among Urban respondents (29.51) than Rural respondents (27.75).

These findings indicate that although most respondents had a moderate level of knowledge, specific and technical aspects of household waste management require further attention, particularly among Rural households. The subsequent item-wise analysis provides a clearer picture of the specific knowledge gaps. The thesis reports, for example, that the lowest Rural correct-response rate was for the first step of waste management at source (21.25%), while the lowest Urban correct-response rate was for the use of organic/biodegradable waste (32.50%).

Item-wise Knowledge of Household Waste-Management Practices:

The overall knowledge score provides the general level of knowledge, but the item-wise analysis helps identify specific areas of strength and knowledge gaps among Rural and Urban respondents. The thesis assessed knowledge through individual questions covering reuse, recycling, organic waste, 3R concepts, composting and source-level waste management. The item-wise findings revealed considerable variation in knowledge across different aspects of household waste management. Among Rural respondents, the highest correctresponse rate was recorded for "item not suitable for composting" (100.00%), followed by "waste suitable for composting" (85.00%). The lowest correct-response rate was observed for "first step of waste management at source" (21.25%), followed by the "full form of 3R strategy" (22.50%). Among Urban respondents, the highest correct-response rate was observed for "waste suitable for composting" (93.75%), followed by "item not suitable for composting" (95.00%) and composting process (90.00%). The lowest correct-response rate was for "use of organic/biodegradable waste" (32.50%), followed by recycling process (38.75%).

Overall, the highest proportion of respondents correctly identified the item not suitable for composting (97.50%), followed by waste suitable for composting (89.375%) and the composting process (81.875%). In contrast, the lowest overall correct-response rate was recorded for the concept of decluttering (45.625%), followed by reuse of recyclable materials (46.25%). These findings indicate that respondents were relatively well informed about composting and identification of certain waste materials, whereas knowledge was comparatively weaker for some conceptual and technical aspects, particularly source-level waste-management sequencing, decluttering, recycling and reuse-related concepts. The Rural-Urban differences were particularly pronounced for the 3R strategy, concept of reuse, green/blue-bin identification and the first step of waste management at source.

Relationship of Profile Variables with Knowledge

Level about Household Waste Management The relationship between selected profile variables and the knowledge level of respondents regarding household waste management was examined using Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient (r).

The analysis was carried out separately for Rural respondents (n=80), Urban respondents (n=80) and the overall sample (N=160). The findings revealed that education had the strongest positive and highly significant relationship with knowledge level among Rural respondents (r = 0.827**), Urban respondents (r = 0.724**) and the overall sample (r = 0.841**). This indicates that respondents with higher educational attainment tended to have higher knowledge regarding household waste management. Annual income also showed a positive and significant relationship with knowledge among Rural respondents (r = 0.350**), Urban respondents (r = 0.249*) and overall respondents (r = 0.441**). Family size was also positively and significantly associated with knowledge in Rural (r = 0.393**), Urban (r = 0.243*) and overall (r = 0.185*) respondents. Occupation showed a positive and significant relationship among Rural respondents (r = 0.228) and overall respondents (r = 0.245*)*, whereas it showed a negative and significant relationship among Urban respondents (r = -0.234). In contrast, information-source exposure showed a negative and significant relationship with knowledge among Rural (r = -0.383**), Urban (r = -0.268*) and overall respondents (r = -0.282**). Similarly, social participation was negatively and significantly associated with knowledge among Rural (r = -0.325**), Urban (r = -0.326**) and overall respondents (r = -0.308**). Communication-method exposure also showed a negative and significant relationship with knowledge among Rural (r = -0.390**), Urban (r = -0.267*) and overall respondents (r = -0.413**). Age did not show a significant relationship with knowledge in Rural (r = -0.089), Urban (r = -0.005) or overall respondents (r = -0.026). Gender was not significant in the overall sample (r = 0.006); its Rural correlation was recorded as NA, reflecting the absence of variation in gender among the Rural respondents. These findings indicate that education was the strongest positive correlate of household waste-management knowledge, while income and family size also showed positive associations. The negative correlations observed for information-source exposure, social participation and communication-method exposure should be interpreted as statistical associations rather than causal effects. The results suggest that greater exposure or participation alone does not necessarily correspond to higher knowledge and that the content and quality of information may also be important.

Constraints Faced by Households in Waste Management

The major constraints faced by respondents in household waste management were assessed using Garrett's Ranking Technique. The constraints were ranked separately for Rural, Urban and overall respondents according to their mean Garrett scores. www.extensionjournal.com The findings revealed that irregular timing of the wastecollection vehicle was the most serious constraint overall, with a mean Garrett score of 55.00, followed by lack of cooperation from neighbours (52.94) and non-availability of waste-collection vehicle/service (51.57). The least serious constraint overall was reported as non-availability of separate dustbins in the thesis discussion, although the thesis's narrative elsewhere refers to lack of knowledge about wet/dry segregation as least serious. This discrepancy requires resolution before submission. Among Rural respondents, irregular timing of the wastecollection vehicle was ranked first, with a mean score of 56.72, followed by non-availability of waste-collection vehicle/service (53.26) and inadequate infrastructure of the local body/municipality (52.08). Among Urban respondents, lack of cooperation from neighbours was the most serious constraint, with a mean score of 58.15, followed by irregular timing of the wastecollection vehicle (53.28) and lack of knowledge about waste-management practices (53.18). These findings indicate a distinct Rural-Urban pattern. Rural households were more affected by collection infrastructure and service-related constraints, whereas Urban households reported greater difficulty related to neighbour cooperation and behavioural factors. This suggests that interventions should address both service-delivery gaps and household/community-level cooperation.

Conclusion

The present study assessed household waste-management knowledge among Rural and Urban households in Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh, examined its relationship with selected profile variables, and identified the major constraints faced in household waste management. The findings showed that the majority of respondents (83.12%) had a medium level of knowledge, while 16.88 per cent had a high level and none had a low level of knowledge. Urban respondents demonstrated a comparatively higher mean knowledge score (29.51 ± 1.67) than Rural respondents (27.75 ± 2.17). The item-wise assessment indicated that respondents had relatively better knowledge regarding composting and identification of compostable/non-compostable waste, whereas gaps were observed in certain technical and conceptual aspects of waste management, including sourcelevel waste management, decluttering, recycling and reuserelated concepts. Among the selected profile variables, education showed the strongest positive and significant association with knowledge in Rural, Urban and overall respondents. Annual income and family size also showed positive associations, whereas information-source exposure, social participation and communication-method exposure showed significant negative associations with knowledge. These relationships represent statistical associations and should not be interpreted as causal effects. The major constraint identified overall was irregular timing of the waste-collection vehicle, followed by lack of cooperation from neighbours and non-availability of wastecollection vehicle/service. Rural respondents primarily reported collection and infrastructure-related constraints, whereas lack of cooperation from neighbours was the foremost constraint among Urban respondents. Overall, the findings indicate that improving household waste management in Gwalior requires strengthening technical knowledge, improving regularity and availability of wastecollection services, and promoting greater community cooperation, with particular attention to the specific needs of Rural and Urban households.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are suggested:

Strengthen knowledge-oriented extension activities:

Greater emphasis should be given to improving household knowledge of source segregation, recycling, reuse, composting and proper disposal, particularly among Rural households.

Focus on technical knowledge gaps: Awareness

programmes should specifically address areas where knowledge was comparatively low, such as the 3R strategy, decluttering, recycling processes, sourcelevel waste management and colour-coded waste segregation.

Improve waste-collection services: Local bodies

should ensure regular and predictable timing of waste-collection vehicles, as irregular collection was the highest-ranked overall constraint.

Strengthen Rural waste-management infrastructure:

Particular attention should be given to the availability and reliability of waste-collection services and localbody infrastructure in Rural areas.

Promote community cooperation in Urban areas:

Urban interventions should encourage neighbour-level cooperation and collective responsibility, as lack of cooperation from neighbours was the highest-ranked Urban constraint.

References

1. Akbari M, et al. Investigation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of women in solid waste recycling in Kashan. Toloo-e-Behdasht. 2022;21(3):1-11.
2. Amin W, Naqshbandi MM. Effective awareness generation methods for rural sanitation campaign: a study from a village in Haryana. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology. 2013;5(3):78-83.
3. Babaei AA, et al. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015;102:94100.
4. Bansal M, Mishra A, Gautam P, Changulani R, Srivastava D, Gour NS. Knowledge and awareness regarding biomedical waste management among employees of a tertiary care hospital. Indian Journal of Community Health. 2013;25(1):86-88.
5. Deb P. A study to assess the knowledge and attitude regarding household waste management among housewives in selected urban slum area, Agartala, Tripura West in a view to develop pamphlet. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2021;12(9):39.
6. Dogra A, Garg RK. To evaluate the effectiveness of an informational booklet on knowledge regarding domestic waste management among the households: a quasiexperimental study. Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2025;29(4):320-323.
7. Ginwal P, Sharma P. Effectiveness of personal versus online extension methods in disseminating knowledge on household waste management. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2022;58(2):120-123.
8. Jibatswa T, Joshua WK, Azodo AP, Owoeye FT. Assessing household solid waste management and disposal practices in Biu Local Government, Nigeria. Journal of International Environmental Application & Science. 2022;17(1):1-9.
9. Kaithery NN, Karunakaran U. Study on attitude of household waste management in a rural area of Northern Kerala. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health. 2019;6(5):2095-2102.
10. Kalyanasundaram M, et al. Effects of improved information and volunteer support on segregation of solid waste at the household level in urban settings in Madhya Pradesh, India (I-MISS): protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:694.
11. Kirar M, Dohley R, Paradkar S, Kanojiya N, Dehariya K. Comparative analysis of socio-economic and psychological characteristics of farmers under Farmer FIRST Programme in Morena District, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2026;32(4):841-847. doi:10.9734/jsrr/2026/v32i44141.
12. Kirar M, Dohley R, Kanojiya N, Paradkar S, Verma DK. Constraints faced by farmers adopting integrated farming systems under the Farmer FIRST Programme: insights from Morena District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2026;32(4):650-658. doi:10.9734/jsrr/2026/v32i44125.
13. Kirar M, Gupta S, Namdeo S, Maran K. Livelihood security of farmers practicing integrated farming system under the Farmer FIRST Programme in Morena district, Madhya Pradesh. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2026;9(Special Issue 1):112-115. doi:10.33545/26180723.2026.v9.i1Sb.2917.
14. Kirar M, Gupta S, Patel M, Bochalya SS, Maran K. Relationship between socio-economic attributes and livelihood security of integrated farming system farmers under the Farmer FIRST Programme in Morena District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2026;32(2):441-451. doi:10.9734/jsrr/2026/v32i23994.
15. Lakshmi VV, Ramala GR, Vistharakula UR. Knowledge, attitude, practice and socio-economic factors influence household waste management practices. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;SP10(5):545-550.
16. Maqbool S, et al. Impact of structured teaching programme on rural housewives regarding knowledge of household waste management. International Journal of Scientific Research. 2023;12(2):24-28.
17. Mir IS, et al. Implementation analysis of solid waste management in Ludhiana city of Punjab. Environmental Challenges. 2021;2:100023.
18. Okeke AO, Mohammed U, Garba S. Evaluation of communication interventions for improved waste management system in Nigeria. International Journal of Sub-Saharan African Research. 2024;2(1):81-95.
19. Puri S. The role of information, education and communication (IEC) in sustainable solid waste management. Open Access International Journal of Science & Engineering. 2017;2(9):102-106.
20. Rahayu S, Evanita S. Environmental communication strategy for sustainable waste management through community empowerment. Journal of Business Studies and Management Review. 2024;7(2):125-130.
21. Rani VU, Vijaya Lakshmi V, RatnaKumari D, Geetha Reddy R, Meena A. Households' waste disposal practices and its impact on health. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2022;12(12):252260.
22. Sarker A, Baul TK, Nath TK, Karmakar S. Household solid waste management in a recently established municipality of Bangladesh: prevailing practices, residents' perceptions, attitude and awareness. World Development Sustainability. 2024;4:100120.
23. Seeta Devi, Nemati R, Natah P, Rajan R, Rane S. Effectiveness of information booklet on knowledge, practices and willingness regarding recycling of solid household waste management among residents. MedicoLegal Update. 2020;20(1):130-134.
24. Widiyanto AF, Suratman S, Alifah N, Murniati T, Pratiwi OC. Knowledge and practice in household waste management. Kesmas: National Public Health Journal. 2019;13(3):112-116.