Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
92
CHAPTER – IV
AWARENESS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATIONThe purpose of development should not be to develop
things but to develop man. Becoming aware of "Oneself" is one
of the most indispensable things to do. If man wants to have
progress and balanced development and to succeed in having
self-control and even a limited self knowledge; to be able to
localize one's consciousness and move it about in the different
parts of one's being, in such a way as to distinguish between
one's consciousness and one's thought, feelings, impulses,
become aware of what the consciousness is in itself
(Sir Aurobindo 1994).
General awareness of the people about the importance of
protection of environment is necessary. It needs to try to
harmonise the developmental activities with environment
because development is also a very important aspect of life.
General awareness has increased due to many agencies such as
textbooks and teaching aids for environmental education in
schools, mass communication, media were recognized as
powerful and effective tools for increasing awareness about the
environment. NGO's should include environmental education in
their package of activities. Training programmes in
environmental management should be set up at the regional
and national levels by the regional organization. India today
presents a picture of impending ecological disaster and of
continuous environmental degradation. The people from many
spheres such as rural, urban, poverty stricken, illiterate and
even educated have lack of awareness about environment.
93
Men live harassed lives. It is a kind of half awareness of
the shortness of their lives they do not think of it , but they feel
it half-consciously. In the name of development, activities are
undertaken without taking care to protect the environment and
as such the biggest threat to life perhaps comes presently from
degradation of environment. Environmentalist and other
experts have been warning the world about the impending
dangers of these reckless activities which are severely affecting
the environment. Inspite of these warnings, environmental
degradation is taking place every where.
United Nations conference on human environment held in
Stockholm, 1972, It was resolved that to take appropriate
measures should be taken to of the natural resources on the
earth which inter alia included the preservation of quality of air
and also control of air pollution. Another conference on control
of environmental degradation was held at Rio in 1972 under the
auspices of the United Nations focused the world attention on
the uncontrollable situations, it also resolved for converted
multidimensional action plan. Rio Conference concerned about
the risk of life on earth due to Ozone depletion and ultra violet
radiation. Several laws and rules are existing. For Instance Air
(Preservation and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. but even
then large scale industrialization and automobilization is
responsible for the rise and growth of the problem of formidable
degradation. Big conferences related to the issues of
environment are of importance to those who are at the helm of
affairs but awareness to the grave situation of degradation is
hardly known to a common man. It is suggested that mass
awareness programmes should be brought into action. People's
94
awareness programme should be of the some useful level that
used batteries, motor oil, tyres are taken to special collection
centre and that medicines, varnish, paints are disposed off in
accordance with appropriate regulations. For this waste sorting
containers should be made available so that every individual
takes to an effort of sorting reusable and disposable materials
for recycling programme it should be more effective (Sahay
2000)
The new inventions, modernization of the world, scientific
discoveries and the speedy development of science and
technology, has added to the problem of environmental
degradation. We should become conscious of the need to
protect our environment and ensure a balanced utilisation of
other resources.
The degradation of human environment in multi
dimensional. The ecological crisis is at once the most local and
the most international concerns of all individuals. The long
conflict between man and nature has resulted in multitude of
both beneficent and harmful life style as well as an infinite
variety of environmental patterns. An individual has tried to
conquer the environment. To man, the overall environment has
been a challenge, something to alter and adjust even partly to
the inherent needs of nature. He could have lived in peace
without disturbing nature's delicate balance and equilibrium
(Chandrasekhar 1976).
Man's attempt for obtaining a livelihood has always been
affected by environmental opportunities and the stage of
civilization because they impose limitations upon his choice of
economic activities. At the early stage of civilization, human
needs and requirements were very simple and limited which
95
resulted in a limited scope of occupations. But with the
advancement of economic development and growth of
urbanization, his increasing needs multiplied the occupations
by complex combinations of various environmental factors and
man being the most active factor of environment. It is quiet able
to alter the same. In the determination of livelihood, an
important role is also played by man's social-cultural,
economic, cultural and personal environment (Sahabdeen
Maurya 1982).
The respondents were asked certain questions about their
awareness regarding environmental degradation in other words
what they mean by environmental degradation. There responses
were classified into three categories i.e. unaware, partially
aware and fully aware. The distribution of respondents
according to these categories in the Pertinacity is presented in
the table given below.
Table 4.1
Distribution of respondents according to their categories of
awareness regarding environmental degradation
Awareness categories Frequency Percentage
Unaware 31 10.8
Partially aware 158 55.05
Fully aware 98 34.15
Total 287 100.00
The table given above shows that a majority of the
respondents were partially aware around one third mentioned
that they were fully aware about environmental degradation
only 10.8 percent of the respondents were unaware. The
analysis with regard to awareness about environmental
96
degradation has been carried further. The Chi Square test was
applied. In order to find out the extent of awareness regarding
environmental degradation among different age groups these
two variables were correlated. The data in this regard is
presented in the following table.
Table 4.2
Distribution of respondents according to their age and
awareness about environmental degradation
Awareness categoriesAge
Unaware Partially
aware
Fully
aware
Total
20-40 years 16 (8.53) 100 (53.47) 71 (37.98) 187 (100.0)
41-60 years 9 (10.71) 50 (59.52) 25 (29.77) 84 (100.0)
61 years & above 6(37.50) 8 (50.00) 2 (12.50) 16 (100.0)
Total 31 (10.80) 158 (55.05) 98 (34.15) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 7.399, df= 4 P.1
The table given above depicts that out of 287 respondents
187 belonged to 20-40 years age group. Among them a little
more than half of the respondents mentioned that they were
partially aware followed by those who said that they were fully
aware, constitute 37.98 percent while only 8.55 percent of the
respondent mentioned that they were unaware about
environmental degradation. The table clearly indicates that as
the age increasing the awareness decreases. This may be due to
the fact that younger people may be familiar with media and
more stress is given in the educational institutions on
environmental issues. Many street plays are being played to
make the society aware nowadays. The Chi-square also shows
the significance association between these two variables.
97
Further to analysis the extent of awareness in regarding
to environmental degradation with regard to the occupation of
the respondent the data has been collected and correlated with
their views.
Table 4.3
Distribution of respondents according to the their
occupation and awareness about environmental degradation
Awareness categoriesOccupation
Unaware Partially
aware
Fully
aware
Total
Agriculture 12
(26.08)
20
(43.47)
14
(30.05)
46
(100.0)
Business class 2
(2.45)
50
(60.97)
30
(36.58)
82
(100.0)
Service Class ---- 69
(58.97)
48
(41.03)
117
(100.0)
Daily wages &
labours
11
(45.83)
11
(45.83)
2
(8.34)
24
(100.0)
Total 25 150 94 269
X2 = 73.73 df= 8, P> .01*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation.
This table clearly indicates that a large number of
respondents from all the given occupations mentioned that they
were partially aware about the environmental degradation.
While among those who mentioned that they were fully aware
were from service class followed by business and agricultural
occupations. A very few respondents from the occupational
category of daily wagers mentioned that they were fully aware.
This may be due to the fact that those respondents who were
98
daily wagers may be working in offices, banks and educational
institutions. While those who mentioned that they were
unaware were from daily wages, agriculture and business
occupations respectively. The chi-square value also shows a
very significant association between the two variables.
The analysis was carried further and the awareness about
environmental degradation is correlated with the income
categories of the respondents. The analysis is given in the
following table.
Table 4.4
Distribution of respondent according to their income and
awareness about environmental degradation
Awareness categoriesMonthly
income Unaware Partially
aware
Fully
aware
Total
Less than Rs.
10000
25
(34.72)
40
(55.55)
7
(9.72)
72
(100.0)
Rs. 10001-
20,000
2
(1.47)
78
(57.35)
56
(41.18)
136
(100.0)
Above Rs.
20001
---- 30
(48.38)
32
(51.61)
62
(100.0)
Not applicable 4
(23.52)
10
(58.84)
3
(17.64)
17
(100.0)
Total 31
(10.80)
158
(55.05)
98
(34.14)
287
(100.0)
X2 = 80.43, df= 5, P> .001
The table given above shows that the respondents of
middle income group which constitute 57.35 percent mentioned
that they were partially aware and 41.18 percent mentioned
99
that they were fully aware followed by lower income group who
present same trend while the situation is difference in case of
high income group where a little more than half i.e. 51.61
percent mentioned that they were fully aware while remaining
48.38 percent mentioned that they were partially aware. There
was not even a single respondent from this category who
mentioned that they were unaware about the environmental
degradation. While in categories of low income and not
applicable more respondents mentioned that they were
unaware. The Chi-square value also shows significant
association between these two variables.
II. AWARENESS REGARDING SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT
POLLUTANTS
It is another characteristic directly related to the present
study. Pollutant means the mere presence of pollutant in the
atmosphere is liable to inhale pollution. A water pollutant
would cause water degradation and similarly an air pollutant
would cause air degradation. Hence, environment degradation
means the presence of environment pollutant in the
environment. Thus anything whether solid or liquid substance
or in any other form which may adversely effect of quality of
environment is known as pollutant.
The pollutants are usually generated by the addition of
waste products of human activities to the environment. When
the waste products are not assimilated, decomposed or
otherwise removed by the natural, biological or physical process
of the biosphere, adverse effects may result as the pollutants
which accumulate or get converted into more toxic substance
(Archna 2004).
100
Pollutant is a physical or biotic component which
adversely alters the environment by altering growth rate of
species, interferes with the food chain, health, comfort,
amenities or property value of human beings and also all other
erecters who beneath (Archna 2004).
Pollutant is harmful solid, liquid or gaseous substance
present in such concentration in the environment which tends
to be injurious for the whole living biota (Archna 2004). Thus
pollutants are resides of things we make, use and throw away.
These are the bye-products of man's actions. They are
resultants of the technological society with high standards of
living. Degradation and pollutant increases with the growth of
population, which results into smaller available space as well as
into an increase in demands as per individual.
Kinds of Pollutants
The pollutants can be divided under following categories:
(a) Solids wastes: Garbage, rubbish, ashes, dead animals,
demolition wastes, mining wastes, crop residues etc.
(b) Liquid wastes: Sewage (human wastes e.g., faucal
matters, urines etc.) kitchen wastes.
(c) Gaseous wastes: Smog gases, Soot, smoke, tar, grit,
dust etc.
(d) Agrochemical wastes: Insecticides, pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizer, DDT, BHC, etc.
To find out the awareness of the respondents to were
asked questions regarding specific pollutants. Their responses
are cited below in the form of tables.
(A) UNHYGIENIC HABITS
A habit is an activity that is acquired, done frequently,
done automatically and difficult to leave. Most people think of
101
behaviours when they think of habits, but thoughts can also
become habits. Sometimes our habitual thinking can keep
habitual behaviours going and make them hard to change.
Habits can be good or bad. Good habits help us get through our
daily lives, like when we drive we use a number of habits.
Behaviours that are acquired and done automatically like
stopping at red lights, slowing down when going through traffic
area, buckling seat belts etc. These are all good habits. Off
course, we can develop some pretty bad habits, that can be
harmful to us as well as to others also like jumping red lights,
smoking, splitting, squeezing nose on roads throwing garbage
on roads or outside the house inspite of, to keep in dustbin and
cover it etc.
It is a well known fact that there is a close interrelation
between hygiene and health. The unhygienic habits adversely
affect human health due to degrading the environment. The
respondents were, therefore, asked to mention whether they
regard the unhygienic habits as a factor of degradation or not.
The views of the respondents have been correlated with some
socio-economic variables and results are presented in the
following tables.
Table 4.5
Distribution of respondent according to their views
regarding unhygienic habits as pollutant
Whether unhygienic habits are
pollutant
Frequency Percentage
Yes 250 87.11
No 37 12.89
Total 287 100.00
102
The Table 4.5 reveals that a very large proportion of the
respondents (87.11%) percent mentioned that unhygienic habit
become the root cause of environmental degradation. This kind
of unhygienic habit looks minor but makes the big dent on the
entire environment. Very few respondents (12.89%) stated that
such things did not effect the environment as much.
The views of the respondent have been correlated with
some other social variable such as age, education occupation
and income, the significant results on the basis of their version
are present in the form of tables given below.
Table 4.6
Distribution of respondent according to their age categories
and their views regarding unhygienic habits as pollutant
Whether unhygienic
habits are pollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20-40 years 168 (89.84) 19 (10.16) 187 (165.15)
41 to 60 years 70 (83.34 ) 14 (16.66) 84
61 years & above 12 (75.00) 4 (25.00) 16 (5.6)
Total 250 (87.10) 37 (12.89) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 4.397, df= 2 P< .1
The above table depicts that a very large proportion of
respondents from all the age categories mentioned unhygienic
habits as pollutant. While a large percentage among those who
mentioned it in negative were from the age category of 61 years
and above followed by the age category of 41 years to 60 years
and 20 years to 40 years respectively. The chi-square value
103
shows a very significant association between these two
variables.
The education is another independent variable which
correlated with their views regarding unhygienic habits as
pollutants and the data in this regard is shown in the following
table.
Table 4.7
Distribution of respondent according to their age categories
and their views regarding unhygienic habits as pollutants
Whether Unhygienic habits are
pollutants
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 40 (71.42) 16 (28.57) 56 (19.51)
Upto middle &
secondary
23 (76.66) 7 (23.33) 30 (10.4)
Graduate & higher
secondary
55 (79.71) 14 (20.28 ) 69 (24.04)
Post Graduate &
professionals
132 (100.00) ------ 132 (45.91)
Total 250 (87.10) 37 (12.89) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 38.071, df= 3, P> .3<-8
The table given above reveals that a very large proportion
of the respondents from all the educational categories believed
unhygienic habits as pollutants. A higher number of those
respondents who stated that unhygienic habits were not
pollutants were from the uneducated category their percentage
in this belief was decreasing as the educational level increasing.
The trend in this table indicates that as the level of education
104
increase their belief about unhygienic habits as environmental
pollutant increases and as well as educational level decreases
the trend of their belief that unhygienic habits were not
pollutant was decreases. The chi-square value also shows a
significant association between these two variables.
The occupation of the respondents has also been
correlated with their views regarding unhygienic habits as
pollutants and their responses are shown in the following table:
Table 4.8
Distribution of respondent according to their occupation
and their views regarding unhygienic habits
Whether Unhygienic habits
are pollutants
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Agriculture 30 (65.22) 16 (34.78) 46 (16.02)
Business class 77 (93.91) 5 (6.09) 82 (28.51)
Service Class 117 (100.00) ----- 117 (40.76)
Daily wages &
labours
16 (66.66) 8 (33.34) 24 (8.36)
Total 250 (81.10) 37 (12.89) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 56.245, df=3, P .004*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation.
The major occupation of the respondents as agriculture,
business, service daily wages laborers. Among the service class
hundred percent respondents were of the view that unhygienic
habit pollute the environment while almost same trend was
found in business class. The respondent of the other
occupation also shown a higher percentage regarding this, but
their percentage was comparatively low. There were 44.45
105
percent respondents those were engaged in household chores
mentioned that unhygienic habits do not pollutes environment
as such.
Income of the respondents has also been correlated with
their views regarding unhygienic habits as pollutants and the
data is presented in the following table.
Table 4.9
Distribution of respondent according to their Income and
their views regarding unhygienic habits as pollutants
Whether unhygienic habits
are pollutants or not
Monthly income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs. 10000 65 (90.27) 7 (9.72) 72 (25.08)
Rs. 10001 to 20000 113 (83.08) 23 (16.92) 136 (41.3)
Above Rs. 20000 62 (100.00) ---- 62 (21.6)
Not applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.18) 17 (5.92)
Total 250 (87.10) 37 (12.89) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 23.888, df=3, P> .0002
The table given above reveals that as the income levels of
the respondents increased the proportion those who claimed
the unhygienic habits as pollutant was also increased. The
situation was reverse in the case of those respondents who
regarded the unhygienic habits are not pollutants were from the
lower income groups. The respondents from the higher income
groups may be more aware about the hygienic or unhygienic
pollutants. And the respondent from the lower income groups
may not be aware about such unhygienic habits. The Chi-
square value also shows a significant association between these
two variables.
106
(B) NOISE POLLUTANTS
With the advancement of technology there has been a
significant increase in the noise pollution. Moreover in the
social and religious functions like festivals, fairs and at the time
of marriages the use of loud speakers also leads to noise
pollution.
As Hodges stated that "Noises that affect a community
include construction noises (especially in large cities in which
some construction or repairing is usually going on),
transportation noises from cars, trucks, motorcycles and
airplanes, and noise from power lawn movers, power saw, and
noisy appliances.
According the Encyclopedia Britannica, "It is a form of
environmental degradation and has implications for health that
may be as serious as air or water pollution. It can change mans
physiological state by spreading up pulse and respiratory rates,
and it can impair hearing either permanently or temporarily,
millions of industrial workers are threatened with hearing
damage.
Noise is an unwanted or undesired and unpleasant
sound. It is also termed as misplaced sound. It is of very high
intensity. It produces bad effect on health. The most commonly
produced effect on health is the loss of hearing capacity and
fatigue. There are changes in psychological and physiological
situations including annoyance and sleep interruptions. The
main sources of noise pollution are the vehicles, factories,
loudspeakers and domestic appliances like radio, television,
music system, mixers and grinders etc.
Noise is a form of sound comprising mechanical energy by
cyclic series of compression and rare factions of the molecules
107
of the material through which it passes. In a pure tone, the
wave patter of the alternating positive and negative sound
pressure is an ideal sinusoidal formed with fixed wave length,
frequency and amplitude. Sound passes through all the
mediums like gas, water, liquid, solids and air. So, the
respondent were asked to mention whether the noise degrade
the environment or not. Their information is presented in the
following table:
Table 4.10
Distribution of respondent according to their views
regarding noise pollution
Whether the noise degrades the
environment
Frequency Percentage
Yes 259 90.24
No 28 9.76
Total 287 100.00
The table given above shows that vast majority of the
respondents mentioned noise as pollutant because they feel
that unwanted noise irritate people. Even they mentioned that
early in the morning loudspeakers from Gurudwaras and
temples create disturbance. People living near the railway
tracks, schools, bus stands, banquet hall, and factories also
mentioned that noise created by the above said sources made
their lives pitiable. A very less proportion of respondent, i.e.,
9.76 percent that it makes no difference. This may be due to
fact that they may be living far away from the above mentioned
noise generating sources.
108
The awareness about noise pollution has been correlated
with other socio-economic variables and the analysis is
presented below.
Table 4.11
Distribution of the respondent according to their age and
their views regarding noise pollution
Whether noise degrades
the environment
Age groups
Yes No
Total
20 to 40 years 162 (86.64) 25 (13.36) 187
41 to 60 years 81 (96.42) 3 (3.58) 84
61 years & above 16 (100.00) ---- 16
Total 259 (90.24) 28 (9.75) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 8.152, df=2, P < .01
The table reveals that a vast majority of the respondents
from all age categories states that noise is a big cause of noise
pollution. The table clearly indicates that as the age increases
the percentage who believes that noise is a major source of
noise also increases. On the other hand who thought that noise
is not polluting the environment were youngsters. One of the
young respondents had a bullet motorcycle who had removed
its silencer. A slogan written on the number plate "MAKE
SOME NOISE" which indicates the passion of youth about the
loud noise of the bullet. He again stated that majority of the
young people like bullet due to its great noise. They prefer to
listen music on high pitch and they do not bother about this
kind of environmental degradation. The above table too shows
109
that in the age group of above 61 years of age consider noise as
pollutant because they are not able at this ripe age to listen and
bears loud voice. The Chi-square values also show the
significant association between these two variables.
For further analysis the researcher took education to
check the awareness about noise as a pollutant or not and
correlated education with the views.
Table 4.12
Distribution of the respondents according their education
and their views regarding noise pollution
Whether noise degrades
the environment
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 45 (97.82) 11 (23.91) 56
Upto to middle &
secondary
22 (73.33) 8 (26.66) 30
higher secondary &
Graduate
60 (86.95) 9 (13.04) 69
Post Graduate &
professionals
132 (100.00) ---- 132
Total 259 (90.24) 28 (9.75) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 31.079, df=3, P.2
This table reveals that all the respondents i.e. who were
highly educated were of the opinion that noise pollutes the
environment. Even the respondents from lower educational
level also mentioned the same. This may be due to the fact the
loud noise irritates every one irrespective of his education. A
higher number of those who said "no" to noise pollution were
110
from lower educational groups. The Chi-square value also
shows a significant association between these two variables.
The occupation categories of the respondents have also
been correlated with the views of the respondents regarding
noise as a pollutant and the data in this regard is presented in
the following table. Household cannot be regarded as an
occupation so the respondent who mentioned that they were
doing household will be excluded from the occupation category.
Their number was 18. Therefore the analysis of the remaining
respondents i.e. 269 will be done accordingly.
Table 4.13
Distribution of the respondents according their occupation
and their views regarding noise pollution
Whether noise degrades the
environment
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Service 117 (100) --- 117
Business 72 (87.81) 10 (12.19) 82
Agriculture 40 (86.95) 6 (13.5) 46
Daily wages/
Labourer
20 ( 83.34) 4 (16.66) 24
Total 249 2108 269 (100.0)
X2 = 17.172, df =3, P.0006*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation
Table given above clearly depicts that respondents form
service class mentioned that noise pollutes the environment
followed by business, agriculture, daily wagers/labourers
respectively. A majority among those who said that noise is not
a pollutant were from daily wagers or labourers, agriculture and
111
business occupations. The chi-square value also shows
significant association between the two variables.
The income categories of the respondents have also been
correlated with their views regarding noise pollution and the
data is presented in the following table.
Table 4.14
Distribution of the respondents according their income and
views regarding noise pollution
Whether noise degrades
environment or not
Monthly income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs. 10000 55 (76.38) 17 (23.6) 72
Rs. 710001 to 20,000 130 (95.58) 6 (4.41) 136
Above Rs. 20,000 62 (100.00) ---- 62
Not applicable 12 (70.58) 5 (29.41) 17
Total 259 (90.24) 28 (9.75) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 34.273, df=3, P .7e-7
The table given above show that the proportion of the
respondents who considered noise as a pollutant keeps on
increasing with an increase in their income. The Chi-squire
value also shows a significant association between the two
variables.
(C) DUST POLLUTANT
According to Pal, "Dust storms are a much too familiar
recurring feature on the plains at northern India where, in the
hot summer months, particles of desiccated soil are carried
high up in the air by winds and over considerable distances.
112
Some at the best known examples of damage to land are found
in the northeaster hill states (Paul 1984).
In the region of North India dust has remained a major
problem since time in memorial. Because when harvesting
period starts the dust is takes the shape of clouds in the sky.
This result in as the serious breathing problems. It also creates
health problems like, eye-infection, problems related to throat
problems, etc. The respondents were asked to mention whether
they considered it as a pollutant or not. The views of the
respondents in this regard have been given in the following
table.
Table 4.15
Distribution of the respondents according their views
regarding dust pollution
Whether dust pollutes
environment or not
Frequency Percentage
Yes 259 90.24
No 28 9.76
Total 287 100.00
Further the views of the respondent in this respect have
been correlated with the education. The Chi-square value
reveals that the views of the respondent in this regard did not
regard have significance association with other social economic
variables. However the clear trend is visible with regard to
correlation with the literate categories of the respondents. Here
for the purpose of analysis three broad categories of education
were formed and the categories of uneducated and upto middle
113
& secondary were clubbed. The data in this regard is given in
Table 4.17.
Table 4.16
Distribution of the respondents according their education
and views regarding dust pollution
Whether dust degrades
the environment
Educational level
Yes No
Total
Low education 67 (77.9) 19 (22.1) 86
Medium education 60 (73.33) 9 (26.66) 69
High education 132 (100) ---- 132
Total 259 28 287 (100.0)
X2 = 29.984, df=2, P .1e-7
This table clearly shows that the view of the respondents
who consider dust as a major pollutant increased with the
increasing educational level of the respondents. Those who do
not consider it were in majority from lower educational level
and followed by middle educational level. The Chi-square value
also shows a significant association between these two
variables.
(D) INSECTICIDES AND PESTICIDES AS POLLUTANTS
According to Praful Bidwai, "Large tracts of Agricultural
land in different parts of India are on the brink of the
"Pesticides tread mill" and many districts are already in its grip.
The pesticides tread mill is, ecologically, the most dreaded and
economically, the most injurious, phenomenon produced by the
indiscriminate use of toxic agro-chemicals. In Gujarat, Cotton
farmers sprayed their crops five to eight times ten year ago.
114
Today they sprayed fields 20 to 30 times offener with ore
poisonous, ecologically more irrational and more expensive
pesticides.
Pesticides are inherently toxic not only to the pests
against which they are used, but also to other organisms.
Damage to no-target organisms, perturbation of structure and
function of the ecosystem, and general environmental
contamination by pesticides have been the common
consequences of pesticides use.
Insecticides and pesticides are considered as a major
source of degradation not only for plants but also for human
beings. The respondents were asked whether they considered
insecticides and pesticides to be pollutant. The views of the
respondents in this regard are presented in the following tables:
Table 4.17
Distribution of the respondents according their views
whether insecticides and pesticides pollutants
Whether insecticides and
pesticides pollutants
Frequency Percentage
Yes 220 76.65
No 67 23.65
Total 287 100.00
The table given above clearly indicates that 76.65 percent
of the respondents mentioned insecticides and pesticides as
pollutants and 23.65 mentioned their view in ‘no’. This may be
due to the fact that they may not be much aware about these
things.
115
Further the views of the respondents correlated with other
socio-economic variables which are presented in the following
tables:
Table 4.18
Distribution of respondents according to their age,
categories and their views regarding insecticides and
pesticides as pollutants
Whether Insecticides as a
pollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20-40 years 152 (81.28 ) 35 (18.71) 187
41-60 years 60 (71.42) 24 (28.57) 84
61 & above 8 (50.00) 8 (50.00) 16
Total 220 (76.65) 67 (23.35) 287 (100.0)
X2 =9.87, df=2, P<.007
The table given above reveals that majority of the
respondents from the age categories of 20 to 40 years and 41 to
60 years mentioned insecticides and pesticides as pollutant.
This may be due to the fact that younger generation is much
aware about the negative effects of these kinds of pollutants. An
equal proportion of from the age category of 61 years & above
admitted that they were not aware about these types of
pollutants. The Chi-square value also shows a very close
relationship between there two variables.
The views of respondents in this regard have also been
correlated with their education and the data in this regard is
presented in the Table 4.19.
116
Table 4.19
Distribution of respondents according their education and
their views regarding insecticides and pesticides as
pollutant
Whether Insecticides as
Pesticides Pollutants
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 25 (44.64) 31 (55.35) 56
Upto middle &
secondary
15 (50.00) 15 (50.00) 30
Graduate & higher
secondary
55 (79.71) 14 (20.28) 69
Post Graduate &
professionals
125 (94.69) 7 (5.30) 132
Total 20 (76.65) 67 (23.34) 287 (100.0)
X2 =68.351, df=3, P > .0003
The table given above shows that an overwhelming
majority of post graduates & professionals state 'yes' means
insecticides and pesticides pollutes the environment followed by
the educational category of higher secondary and graduates
who were of the same opinion. While the situation was reverse
in case of lower educational categories. This shows that human
being in this sense. Because the table shows the direction that
as the educational level increasing the views of the respondents
regarding these pollutants increases and vice-versa. The Chi-
square also shows a very close relationship between these two
variables.
The views of the respondents regarding insecticides and
pesticides as pollutants have also been correlated with the
117
occupation category of these respondents and the data is
represented in the following table.
Table 4.20
Distribution of respondents according their occupation and
their views regarding insecticides and pesticides as
pollutant
Whether insecticide &
pesticides were pollutant
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Agriculture 35 (76.08) 11 (23.91) 46
Business 62 (75.60) 20 (24.39) 82
Service class 95 (81.19) 22 (18.80) 117
Daily wages &
labour
18 (75.00) 6 (25.00) 24
Total 210 (76.65) 59 (23.34) 269 (100.0)
X2 = 1.196, df=3, P < .7*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation
Though majority of the respondents from all the
occupations mentioned that insecticides & pesticides pollutes
the environment. But among those who responded in negative
were from daily wages, business, agriculture and service
respectively. The chi-square value also shows a significant
association between the two variables.
The views of the respondents regarding insecticides and
pesticides as pollutant have also been correlated with income
category of the respondents and the data is presented in Table
4.21.
118
Table 4.21
Distribution of respondents according their income and
their views regarding insecticides and pesticides as
pollutant
Whether insecticide &
pesticides were pollutant
Monthly Income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs.10000
45 (62.5) 27 (37.5) 72
Rs. 10001 to20,000
111 (81.61) 25 (18.38) 136
Above Rs. 20,000 52 (83.87) 10 (16.12) 62
No income 12 (70.58) 5 (29.41) 17
Total 220 (76.65) 67 (23.34) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 12.087, df=3, P < .007
The table given above reveals that the data of two income
categories i.e. above Rs. 20000 and Rs. 10001 & 20000 show
that vast majority of respondents mentioned insecticides and
pesticides as pollutants. And from the income category of less
than Rs. 10000 37.5 percent respondents mentioned
insecticides and pesticides not as a pollutant. The trend is very
clear from the table which indicates that as the income
increases their views regarding insecticides and pesticides also
increases and vice-versa. The Chi-Square value also show the
significant association between there two variables.
(E) PERFUMES AS POLLUTANT
In general, the word "Perfume" is perceived to mean odour
that is appealing, on the other hand, the word "Perfume" is
derived from the Latin phrase "Per Fumum", which means
119
"through smoke". And as the meaning of the word suggests, it
creates a smoke volatile Organic Chemicals VOCs in the air,
resulting in both indoor and outdoor pollution. Once in the air,
VOCs can mix with other pollutants and may form substances
that all even more irritating or more toxic than the original
substance. Some of the chemicals used in fragrances may react
with oxygen in air to form peroxides, which may generate
harmful free radicals.
A perfume is an alcoholic solution of aromatic
compounds, that is, blends of fragrant materials. The fragrant
material may be of plant, animal or synthetic origin. These
materials, extracted from plants are called essential oils and
generally have a characteristic pleasant smell.
Essential oils are extracted from different parts of plants
such as followers (rose, jasmine), seeds (cardamom), wood
(sandal wood), bark (cinnamon) and peels (orange). Most high
quality perfumes owe their distinct fragrance to these essential
oils. Essentials oils are isolated from plants by steam
distillation, solvent extraction, expression (raw material is
compressed to extract oil) and effleurage (absorption or
aromatic material to wax). These essential oils contain several
groups of compounds such as terpenes, aldehydes, ketones,
alcohol, ethics, etc. citral and menthol which carry the scent of
lemons and oranges and mint respectively all well known
terpenes.
In today's world, as most of us live in flats and work in
closed offices where ventilation is poor, use of air conditioners
has further ensured that stale air remains inside. Use of a large
120
number of scented products may lead to a higher degree of
indoor air pollution. The poor air quality further contributes to
several health problems including headache, dizziness, fatigue
and forgetfulness, sneezing, etc.
To freshen up this stale air, fresheners are often used,
which are again scented. The chemicals in these scented
fresheners may not really be freshening the air. In fact, they
may be actually degrading the air. At times, the effect of these
chemicals is so slow that it is difficult to visualize the hazards
at an earlier stage. Various synthetic Musks used in perfumes,
cosmetics and hair spray have been defected in air samples.
Musks do not easily degrade and tend to bioaccumulate. Musk
has been defected in air samples. Musks have been defected in
river water, human lipids breast milk and fish.
To know the views of the respondents regarding Perfumes
as pollutants presented in the following table.
Table 4.22
Distribution of respondents according their views regarding
perfumes as pollutants
Whether perfumes as a pollutant Frequency Percentage
Yes 166 57.84
No 121 42.16
Total 287 100.00
The table given above shows that 57.83 percent of the
respondents mentioned that perfumes contribute in the
degradation of the environment. While 42.17 percent mentioned
that they don’t. This may be due to the fact that some people
have allergy from these kinds of products. Hence even the
people know their consequences even then they use the
121
perfumes. And those who mentioned the perfumes as not the
pollutant of the air may be ignorant about this.
Further the views of the respondents regarding perfumes
as pollutants were correlated with variables like age, education
and income in this regard is presented in the following tables:
Table 4.23
Distribution of respondents according to their age and their
views regarding perfumes as pollutant
Whether perfumes are
pollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20 to 40 year 100 (53.47) 87 (43.31) 187
41 to 60 year 50 (59.52) 34 (40.47) 84
61 years & above 16 (100.00) ----- 16
Total 166 (57.83) 121 (42.16) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 13.221, df = 2, P >.001
The table given above reveals that perfumes, scents,
sprays and deodorants etc. pollutes the environment. They were
of the opinion that these perfumes cause many type of allergies.
This is evident from the table that those who mentioned that
perfumes do not cause environmental pollutions were from the
age category of 20 to 40 years. This may be due to the fact that
these types of several sprays, perfumes and deodorants occupy
an important place in their daily life. Because it leaves grater
impact in their personality and conduct. The chi square value
also shows a significant association between the two variables.
The views of the respondents regarding perfumes as
pollutants were also correlated with the education of the
122
respondent. The data in this regard is present in the following
table:
Table 4.24
Distribution of respondents according to their education
and their views regarding perfumes as pollutants
Whether perfumes
pollutant
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 22 (39.28) 34 (60.71) 56
Upto to middle &
secondary
10 (33.33) 20 (66.66) 30
Graduate & higher
secondary
45 (65.21) 24 (34.78) 69
Post Graduate &
professionals
89 (67.42) 43 (32.57) 132
Total 166 (57.84) 121 (42.16) 284 (100.0)
X2 = 21.807, df = 3, P .0007
The table given above depicts that a majority of the
respondents who were highly educated considered perfumes as
environmental pollutant. In the case of uneducated and less
educated a majority mentioned that perfumes were not
pollutants. This may be due to the fact that they may not aware
or they may not use perfumes in their routine life. The Chi-
square value also shows a significant association between these
two variables.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
the income of the respondents. The data in this regard is
presented in Table 4.25.
123
Table 4.25
Distribution of respondents according to their income and
their views regarding perfumes as pollutants
Whether perfumes are
pollutant
Monthly income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs. 10000 16 (22.22) 56 (77.77) 72
Rs. 10001 to 20000 100 (73.52) 36 (26.47) 136
Above Rs. 20000 50 (80.64) 12 (19.35) 62
Not applicable ---- 17 (100.00) 17
Total 166 (57.84) 121 (42.16) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 87.731, df = 3, P <.001
The table given above shows that a large majority of the
respondents fall in the category of Rs. 10001 to Rs. 20000 and
above Rs. 20000 considered perfumes as pollutants. While
more than three fourth, i.e., 77.77 percent of the respondents
whose income was less than Rs. 10000 per month may not
think so minutely towards these things. The Chi-square value
also shows a significant association between these two
variables.
(F) ELECTRONIC–WASTAGE AS POLLUTANTS
Due to the extreme rate of obsolescence, e-wastes
constitute a much higher volume of wastes in comparison to
other consumer goods. Now, consumers are taking their broken
electronic items rarely for repair, because replacement is now
often easier and cheaper than the cost of repair. The lifespan of
a computer become obsolete for every new one that was
available in the market.
124
Since India is a developing country, it is generating only
meager quantity of at e-wastes, but India is getting much more
e-wastes from other developed countries under the name of
donation or recycle. Like most of the trade e-wastes exports to
the developing countries are motivated by brute global
economy. Since the labour wages are very low, and regulations
related to occupations are related to occupation lax, it gives
easy trans-boundary. Since the e-wastes are built up with
hazardous compounds such as lead, mercury etc. the developed
countries do not want to hurt their own citizens. As a
consequence they have started exporting to developing
countries such as India, Pakistan or China.
In India 1.38 million personal computers will become
obsolete from the business sectors and individual household.
Manufactures and assembles in a single calendar year
producing around 1050 tones of electronic scraps in the
country. The minimum number of computer produced by
average scale scrap deals is 20 to 25 per month.
An estimated 50 to 80% of e-wastes collected in the
United States for recycling are exported to the third world
countries like India, China or Pakistan. In one month, there is
reported case of import of 30 metric tones of e-wastes at
Ahmedabad post.
Actually, many kinds of metals, heavy metals, metallic
ions and plastics our used in the making of electronic and
electrical appliances for different purpose. It not only contains
not only hazardous compounds, but also some precious
compounds like gold, titanium, platinum etc. These precious
compounds can be recovered in a safer manner but the
technology costs more. In India, two methods of recycling
125
processes are commonly carried out to recover the previous
metals. The remaining wastes are dumped in a pit and covered
with soil (ranfilling). The incineration process degrades the air,
whereas the land filling degrades the soil as well as ground
water.
About 22% of the annual world consumption of mercury
is used in electrical and electronic equipment namely
thermostat, switches, lamps mobile phones, batteries etc. Since
it has no recycling efficiency, a large part of it reaches the water
bodies by land filling process. Mercury causes damage to
various organs including the brain and kidneys, as well as the
foetus. When inorganic mercury spreads out in water it gets
converted to methylated mercury at the bottom of water bodies
under anarubic conditions. The phytoplanktions easily absorbs
the resulting methylated mercury. Which further enters into
body of fishes through food chain. By the process of
biomagnifications, the mercury level in the fishes' body,
increase to a grater extent than the actually absorbed by
phytoplankton. When such fishes are eaten up by human,
causes a notorious disease called minamata.
Basically in all types of waste management techniques,
4R's are recommended to tackle the waste these 4R's, such as
reduce e-wastes generation can be minimises to some extent,
by which human can be survived without much electronic
wastes and in safer environment.
In the present chapter the analysis of the views of
respondents regarding e-wastage degrade the environment or
not. The data is this regard in presented below in Table 4.26.
126
Table 4.26
Distribution of respondents according to their views
regarding e-wastage as a pollutant
Whether e-wastes as pollutant Frequency Percentage
Yes 183 63.76
No 104 36.24
Total 287 100.00
The above table reveals that 63.76 percent of the
respondents mentioned that e-waste contributes in the
degradation of the environment. While 36.24 percent mentioned
that they do not think so. People known their bad effects even
then they use the electronic products, because these things
have become so essential in daily routine.
Further the views of the respondents correlated with other
independent variable like age, education, occupation and
income. The data in this regard is presented in the following
tables:
Table 4.27
Distribution of respondents according to their age and their
views regarding e-wastage as a pollutant
E-wastage whether aspollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20-40 years 113 (60.42) 74 (39.57) 187
41-60 years 61 (72.61) 23 (27.38) 84
61 years & above 9 (56.25) 7 (43.75) 16
Total 183 (63.76) 104 (36.23) 287 (100.0)
X2 =4.142, df=2, P< .001
127
The preceding table reveals that the respondents from all
the age categories mentioned in majority e-wastage as a
pollutant. They stated that e-waste was not biodegradable so it
is harmful for environment. Respondents, who stated that e-
wastage is not a pollutant, were of the opinion that these
products become part of life and some of them were not much
aware. Respondent from the age category of 61 and above
stated the same. The Chi-square value also whose significant
association between these two variables.
The views regarding the e-wastage were also correlated
with the education of the respondent because education is very
significant variable. The data in this regard is presented in the
following table:
Table 4.28
Distribution of respondents according to their education
and their views regarding e-wastage as a pollutant
E-wastage whether as
pollutant
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 25 (44.64) 34 (55.35) 56
Upto middle &
Secondary
18 (60.00) 12 (40.00) 30
higher Secondary &
graduate
39 (56.52) 30 (43.47) 69
Post graduate &
Professionals
101 (76.51) 31 (23.48) 132
Total 183 (63.76) 104 (36.23) 287 (100.0)
X2 =19.9, df=3, P> .001
128
The Table 4.28 reveals that a large majority of the
respondents from post graduates and professional educational
category stated e-wastage as the pollutant. On the other hand
55.35 percent stated no. The table clearly indicates that as the
literacy level increases the awareness of the respondents too
increases and as the literacy rate decreases their view regarding
e-wastage also decreases The Chi-square value also shows a
close relationship between these two variables.
Further the views regarding e-wastage were also
correlated with occupation of the respondents and the data in
this regard is presented in the following table:
Table 4.29
Distribution of respondents according to their occupation
and their views regarding e-wastage as a pollutant
e-wastage whether as
pollutants
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Agriculture 35 (76.08) 11 (23.91) 46
Business class 50 (60.97) 32 (39.02) 82
Service Class 86 (73.50) 31 (26.49) 117
Daily wages &
labours
5 (20.83) 19 (79.16) 24
Total 183 (63.76) 104 (36.23) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 32.067, df=4, P > .001*household category was excluded from the table because householdis not considered as occupation
The table given above clearly shows that majority of the
respondents from Agriculture, Business and service class
129
mentioned e-wastage as a pollutant because they were aware
about the bad consequences of these things. On the other hand
an overwhelming majority i.e. 79.16 percent from daily
wagers/labours, occupational category state "No". Those who
said "Yes" may be due to the fact that they knew the
consequences of these. While who said "No" may not be using
majority of these appliances and not aware about the
consequences of these. The Chi-square value also shows a
significant association between the two variables.
The views of the respondents were lastly correlated with
their income and the data in this regard in presented in the
following table:
Table 4.30
Distribution of respondents according to their income and
their views regarding e-wastage as a pollutant
e-wastage whether as
pollutants
Monthly income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs. 10000 40 (55.55) 32 (44.45) 72
Rs. 10001- 20000 100 (76.52) 36 (26.48) 136
Above Rs. 20000 35 (56.45) 27 (43.55) 62
Not applicable 8 (47.05) 9 (52.95) 17
Total 183 (63.76) 104 (36.24) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 11.201, df, P. < 001
The Table given above reveals that the income category of
Rs. 10001 to 20000 and Rs. 20000 & above mentioned e-waste
as a pollutant. On the other hand from the same income
categories 26.48 percent and 43.55 percent mentioned "No"
130
regarding e-waste as pollutant. This clearly shows that people
were aware about the bad consequences of these products but
these products are a necessity in the modern life. So they said
"no" and don't bother about environment. The Chi-square value
also shows a significant association between these two
variables.
(G) POLYTHENES AS A POLLUTANT
These non-biodegradable 'conveniences' constitute a
serious environmental and health hazard. Apart from being an
eyesore, they choke drains and sewerage systems. Upon
entering rivers and the sea, they leave an adverse impact on
aquatic life. If buried underground, they never decompose.
When burnt, they produce organic as well as toxic pollutants.
Nevertheless, the problem of shutting down units that
manufacture the material and ensuring that people refuels to
use them has proved too great for the authorities even the bags
full of waste and rubbish continue to be widely scattered in the
public places.
What is needed apolitical will there is no dearth of laws to
control the unauthorized manufactures as well as use of
polythene bags. However these laws are not being implemented
and enforced with required sufficient strictness. No doubt,
issue has even been a number of times in the National
Assembly but in future and the outcome of these efforts could
not direct the law-makers attention to solve this issue.
It is time to formulate a policy at the feudal level to
control this menace, and it is indeed proper time to look into
the environment minister's proposal to encourage oxo-
131
bidegradable bags by reducing the duty on the import of the
oxo-biodegradable additive used in their manufacture. But
these efforts on the governmental level will have minimal
impact, unless citizens do play their part by refusing to use
polythene bags. Society needs to make an effort towards
eradicating this menace, for in doing so it shall be investing in
an environmentally clean future.
It is generally believed and calculated that the families
and business enterprise are refraining from using polythene
bags. It may be convenient to sue polythene bags to instead of
paper/jute bags but it is nearly impossible to get rid of them. If
we see around our houses, offices, it can be noticed that factory
for used polythene bags being dumped on the roadside. Stray
Animals swallow these bags to get if any remaining edibles be
possible but polythene bags reaching their digestive system cost
then their life. Here it is worth mentioning that these polythene
bags cause blockage in drainage system which is hard to cure.
When the drainage system will be blocked it will cause stinking
smell, and give size to mosquitoes and other type of insects
which are harmful to human life.
To make this issue clear the respondent were asked to
mention their opinion regarding the use of polythene if it leads
to pollution. The views of the respondents in this regards are
presented in Table 4.31.
132
Table 4.31
Distribution of respondents according to their views
regarding polythene as a pollutant
Whether polythene a pollutant Frequency Percentage
Yes 216 75.26
No 71 24.74
Total 287 100.00
The table given above shows that a majority of the
respondents, i.e., 75.26 percent mentioned polythene as a
pollutant and only 24.74 percent mentioned that polythene is
not a pollutant. This table clearly indicates that a vast majority
of the respondents were aware about the negative qualities of
polythene while the remaining did not.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
other socio economic variables such as age, education,
occupation and income. The data in this regard is presented in
the following tables:
Table 4.32
Distribution of respondents according to their age and their
views regarding Polythene as a pollutant
Whether polythene as
pollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20 to 40 years 146 (78.07) 41 (21.93) 187
41 to 60 years 60 (71.42) 24 (28.57) 84
61 years & above 10 (62.5) 6 (37.5) 16
Total 216 (75.26) 71 (24.74) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 2.857, df=2, P < .001
133
This Table 4.32 reveals that a higher proportion of the
respondents from the age category of 20-40 years followed by
the age categories of 41 to 60 years and age category of 61
years and above respectively consider polythene as the
environmental pollutant. While the table also clearly shows that
the number of respondents who considered polythene as not a
pollutant was also higher from the age category of 20 to 40
years. This may be due to the fact even they know the bad
effects of using polythene but they use poly bags to carry rather
than jute bags or anything else. The Chi-square value also
shows a significant association between these two variables.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
the education of the respondents and the data in this regard is
presented below.
Table 4.33
Distribution of respondents according to their education
and their views regarding polythene as a pollutant
Whether a polythene as
pollutants
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 21 (37.5) 5 (62.5) 56
Upto to middle &
secondary
18 (60.00) 12 (40.00) 30
Higher Secondary &
Graduate
55 (79.71) 14 (20.2) 69
Post Graduate &
Professionals
122 (92.4) 10 (7.5) 132
Total 216 (75.26) 71 (24.74) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 68.258, df= 3, P > .001
134
The Table 4.33 depict that an overwhelming majority of
the respondents from the educational category of post graduate
& professionals stated that polythene pollutes the environment.
On the other hand a majority of the respondents who were
uneducated stated no. This may be due to lack of information
regarding environment and polythene. The trend is very clear
from the table that as the level of education increases the
awareness regarding environmental issues also increases and
vice-versa. The Chi-square value also shows a significant
association between these two variables.
The views of the respondents were also correlated with
their income and the data in regard is presented in the
following table:
Table 4.34
Distribution of respondents according to their income and
their views regarding polythene as a pollutant
Whether polythene as
pollutants
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Agriculture 35 (76.08) 11 (23.92) 46
Business class 65 (79 .26) 17 (20.74) 82
Doctors 91 (77.77) 26 (22.23) 117
Daily wages & labours 15 (62.5) 9 (37.5) 24
Total 216 (75.26) 71 (24.74) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 6.975, df=4, P < .001*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation
The table above clearly shows that the respondents from
all the occupation categories mentioned polythene as pollutants
135
in majority. The situation is reverses the respondents form all
the occupation also mentioned polythene as no pollutant. This
shows that people are aware about the usage of polythene is
bad even they use polythene. This may be due to the fact that
polythene has become a part of their modern life. They feel
hesitate to carry another type of bag like jute bag or paper bag
etc. The Chi-square value also shows the significant association
between these two variables.
Further the views respondents were correlated with their
income and the analysis is presented in the following table:
Table 4.35
Distribution of respondents according to their income and
their views regarding polythene as a pollutant
Income Whether a polythene as
pollutants
Total
Yes No
Less than Rs. 10000 401 (5694) 31 (43.06) 72
Rs. 10001- 20000 109 (80.14) 27 (19.86) 136
Above Rs. 20000 56 (90.32) 6 (9.67) 62
Not applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.17) 17
Total 216 (75.26) 71 (24.73) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 11.224, df=3, P < .001
The table given above reveals that the overwhelming
majority of the respondents from all the income categories
considered polythene as a pollutant and very lesser proportion
of respondents said "no". The proportion of those who said
polythene as not a pollutant was higher in the low and medium
level of income. The table also shows that as the income level
136
increases and their responses in "yes" also increase. The chi-
square value also shows a significant association between these
two variables.
(H) HOSPITAL WASTAGE AS A POLLUTANT
Hospital is a place for cure of almighty, and a place to
serve the patient. Since time in immemorial, the hospitals are
known for the treatment of sick persons. But large number of
people are unaware about the adverse effects of the garbage
and filth generated by them on human bodies and environment
as well. However it is a well established fact that there are
several devices and harmful effects on the environment
including human beings. Which are caused by the "Hospital
Waste" generated during the treatment of patients. Hospital
waste is a potential health hazard to the health care works.
Public flora and fauna of the area around the hospital acquired
infection, transfusion transmitted diseases, rising incidence of
Hepatitis B, and HIV. Increasing land and water pollution lead
to increasing possibility of catching many diseases. Air
pollution due to emission of hazardous gases by incinerator
such as Furan, Hydrochloric acid etc. have compelled the
authority and Government think seriously about hospital waste
and also other related issues which can make the environment
hygienic.
Generally all hospitals are required to have an incinerator
to burn the waste generated in them. The hospital waste
contains: cotton dressing and bandage with blood and puss
containing pathogens like bacteria/fungi and virus; used
needles; used syringes/ bottles/plastic bags etc. Mostly glass or
137
plastic; and operation theater waste like tissues/blood/fresh
etc. To know the awareness regarding hospital waste the
respondents were asked to mention whether as hospital waste
as pollutant or not.
The views regarding hospital waste is show in this present
chapter. The data in this regard is presented in the following
table:
Table 4.36
Distribution of respondents according to their views
regarding hospital wastage as a pollutant
Whether hospital wastage is a
pollutant
Frequency Percentage
Yes 231 80.48
No 56 18.52
Total 287 100.00
The table given above clearly shows that an overwhelming
majority of the respondents were of the opinion that hospital
wastage as a pollutant. Only 19.52 percent of the respondents
mention "no" for hospital wastage as pollutant. This may be due
to the fact that some people do not put pressure on their minds
to think on these lines. That’s why they reacted in negative.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
other socio-economic variables like age, education, occupation
& income of the respondents. And the data in this regard is
presented in the Table 4.37.
138
Table 4.37
Distribution of respondents according to their age and their
views regarding hospital wastage as a pollutant
Whether hospital wastage as
pollutant
Age
Yes No
Total
20-40 years 152 (81.28) 35 (18.72) 187
41-60 years 69 (82.14) 15 (17.85) 84
61 years & above 10 (62.5) 6 (37.5) 16
Total 231 (80.48) 56 (19.52) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 3.518, df=2, P< .001
The table given above depicts that majority of the
respondents from all the age categories mentioned hospital
wastage as a pollutant. While very lesser proportion of the
respondents from all the age categories said "no" for hospital
wastage as a pollutant. A higher percentage of those
respondents who mentioned hospital waste as not a pollutant
was from the age category of 61 years & above. The chi-square
value shows a significant association between these two
variables.
The views of the respondents regarding hospital wastage
as pollutant were correlated with education category of the
respondents and the data is presented in the following tables:
139
Table 4.38
Distribution of respondents according to their education
and their views regarding hospital wastage as a pollutant
Whether hospital wastage
as pollutant
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 45 (80.35) 11 (19.65) 56
Upto to middle &
secondary
23 (76.66) 7 (23.33) 30
Higher Secondary &
Graduate
54 (78.26) 15 (21.73) 69
Post Graduate &
professionals
109 (82.57) 23 (17.42) 132
Total 231 (80.48) 56 (19.51) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 0.864, df=3, P < .001
An overwhelming majority of the respondents 94.69%
from the educational category of post graduate and
professionals mentioned hospital wastage s pollutant of
environment followed by the educational categories of higher
secondary and graduates, i.e., 78.26 percent, up to middle and
secondary, i.e., 76.66 percent and uneducated 51.78 percent
respectively. On the other hand 48.22 percent from the category
of uneducated and 23.33 percent from the upto middle &
secondary mentioned "no" regarding hospital wastage as a
pollutant. This clearly shows that as the education level
increases their thinking also increases and vice-versa. The chi-
square value also shows a significant association between there
two variable.
140
The occupation category of the respondents also
correlated with their views regarding hospital waste as pollutant
and the data in this regard is presented in the following table:
Table 4.39
Distribution of respondents according to their occupation
and their views regarding hospital wastage as a pollutant
Whether hospital
wastage as a pollutant
Occupation
Yes No
Total
Agriculture 40 (86.95) 6 (13.04) 46
Business class 75 (91.46) 7 (8.53) 82
Doctors 91 (77.97) 25 (21.93) 117
Daily wages & labours 14 (58.34) 10 (41.66) 24
Total 231 (80.48) 56 (19.51) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 25.45, df=4, P > .001*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation
The table given above clearly shows that an overwhelming
majority from business and service and agricultural occupation
and 86.32 percent and 67.39 percent respectively mentioned
"yes" regarding hospital wastage as pollutant. Though,
respondents from all occupational categories in majority
mentioned "yes" for the hospital wastage as environmental
pollutant. But among those who mentioned "No" their
percentage was higher in the occupations of labourers and
agricultural respectively. This may be due to the fact they did
not have any concern with these things and that why they were
not aware about the consequences of hospital wastage. The
141
Chi-square value also shows a significant association between
these two variables.
The income category of the respondents was also
correlated with the views of the respondent regrinding hospital
wastage as a pollutant.
Table 4.40
Distribution of respondents according to their income and
their views regarding hospital wastage as a pollutant
Whether hospitals
wastage pollutants
TotalMonthly income
Yes No Total
Less than Rs. 10000 60 (83.33) 12 (16.66) 72
Rs. 10001- 20000 107 (78.67) 29 (21.32) 136
Above Rs. 20000 49 (79.03) 13 (4.52) 62
Not applicable 15 (88.23) 2 (11.76) 17
Total 231 (80.48) 56 (19.51) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 1.263, df=3, P < .001
The table given above shows that a vast majority of the
respondents from all the income categories mentioned hospital
wastage as a pollutant. A very lesser proportion from all the
income categories mentioned "no" regarding hospital wastage as
pollutant. The table also shows that income also has a great
effect on the thinking of the people. As level of income increases
their views regarding the environmental issues also increases.
They know the effects of these pollutants in the positive sense.
The Chi-square value also shows the significant association
between these two variables.
142
(I) DEFORESTATION AS POLLUTANT
Trees are one of the most important aspects of the planet
we live in. Trees are vitally important to the environment, and
for all the living beings. They are important of the climate of the
earth, they act as filters of carbon dioxide, they are habitats
and shelters to millions of species, and they are also important
their aesthetic appeal. However, the trees or our planet are
being depleted at a very fast rate. According to some estimates,
more than 50 percent of the trees cover has disappeared due to
human activity.
Although humans have been practicing deforestation
since ages, it was in the mid-1800s that forest began to be
destroyed at an unprecedented rate. As a matter of fact,
throughout the earlier part of the medieval age. One of the most
worrying factors today is the massive destruction of the
rainforests of the world, which is affecting the biodiversity
adversely, as well as being one of the major contributory factors
of the Holocene mass extinction that ongoing.
The most important direct causes of deforestation
included logging, the conversion of forested lands for
agriculture and cattle-raising, urbanization, mining and oil
exploitation, acid rain and fire. However, there ha been a
tendency of highlighting small-scale migratory farmers or
"poverty" as the major causes of forest loss. Such farmers tend
to settle along roads through the forest, to clear a patch of land
and to use it for growing subsistence or cash crops. In tropical
forests, such practices tend to lead to rapid soil degradation as
most soil are too poor to sustain agriculture. Consequently the
143
farmer is forced to clear another patch of forest after a few
years. The degraded agricultural land is often used for a few
years more cattle raising. This is a death sentence for the solid,
as cattle remove the last scarce traces of futility. The result is
an entirely degraded piece of land which will be unable to
recover its original biomass for many years. It is a major
mistake to think that such unsustainable agricultural practices
only take place in tropical countries.
According to Rao and Gupta, "Development of forest
resources has been treated an integral part of the planned
programme for optimum land utilization since the first plan.
Forests have important protective and productive functions.
They produce raw materials for industries, defence,
communicating other public purposes and domestic use,
contribute to the country's export and create a large volume of
employment. They promotes materials like fuel-wood small
timber, fodder, graxing etc. of direct use to the agriculturists. (19)
The significance of forest is not restricted to timber use.
They are an important geographical and ecological factor. They
protect the soil and water resources better than the most
excellent artificial measures. Forests prevent soil erosion, retain
surface waters, making them clean and still, and contribute to
an increase in ground waters. In this respect, watershed forests
are a kind of reservoir for useful moisture. Just the fact that
forests regulate the flow of rivers, prevent their pollution and
their being clogged by silt, prevent floods or reduce them in
size, make them extremely valuable.
144
The number of trees in an area is closely related to the
quality of environment. It has been realized that the ecological
balances can be maintain dif there are sufficient number of
trees in an area. The respondents of the present study were
asked to mention the number of trees which they had in their
field or near their houses. Their responses in this regard are
shown in the following table:
Table 4.41
Distribution of respondents according to their views
regarding deforestation degrades the environments
Whether deforestation degrades
the environment
Frequency Percentage
Yes 240 83.62
No 47 16.38
Total 287 100.00
The table given above shows that a vast majority of the
respondents mentioned that deforestation is not good for
environment while those respondents who said 'no' were not
bother about the deforestation and its effects on environment.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
other socio-economic variables. But the Chi-square value too
reveal that the views of the respondents in this regard did not
have significant trend is visible with regard did not have
significant trend is visible with regard to correlation with the
education and income of the respondents. The data in this
regard is presented in the tables given on next pages.
145
Table 4.42
Distribution of respondents according to their education
and their views regarding polythene as a pollutant
Whether a deforestation
degraded the environment
Education
Yes No
Total
Uneducated 30 (53.57) 26 (46.43) 56
Upto to middle &
secondary
23 (76.66) 7 (23.34) 30
Higher Secondary
& Graduate
55 (79.71) 14 (20.29) 69
Post Graduate &
Professionals
132 (100.00) ----- 132
Total 240 (83.62) 47 (16.38) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 64.613, df=3, P > .001
The table given above depicts that a vast majority of the
respondents from all the education categories mentioned
deforestation is not good for environment. On the other hand
46.43 percent from the educational category of uneducated
motioned "no". They had an opinion that these things does not
matter in environment. This may be due to the fact that they
did not know the consequences of deforestation. The Chi-
square value also shows a significant association between these
two variables.
Further the views of the respondents were correlated with
their income and the date in this regard is presented in Table
4.43.
146
Table 4.43
Distribution of the respondents according to their income
and their views regarding deforestation
Whether a deforestation
degrades the
environment
Monthly income
Yes No
Total
Less than Rs. 10000 48 (66.66) 24 (33.34) 72
Rs. 10001 to 20000 120 (88.23) 16 (11.17) 136
Above Rs. 20000 62 (100) ----- 62
Not applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.18) 17
Total 240 (83.62) 47 (16.38) 287 (100.0)
X2 = 37.006, df=3, P > .001
The table given above reveals that the data of two income
categories, i.e., above Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 10,001 to 20,000
shows that vast majority of respondents mentioned "yes"
regarding deforestation. The trend is very clear from the table
which indicates that as the income increase their views
regarding deforestation also increases and vie-versa. The Chi-
square value also shows a significant association between the
two variables.
147
References
Archana Mishra (2004) Environmental Studies, Systems and
Solution, New Delhi: Selective and Scientific Books, p.154.
Ashish, Madhav (1982) “In the Area of Environment”, Thaper,
Raj (ed.), Seminar 269, Annual, January, p.72.
Astanin, L.P. and Blagos Klonov, K.N. (1978) Conservation of
Nature, Moscow: Progress Publishers, p.94.
Bidwai, Praful (1982) “Hazards from Pesticides-II (Indian on
Brink of Pesticides Treadmill)”, The Times of India, New
Delhi, December 16, pp.1-7.
Ceresimov, I.P. (1975) Man, Society and Environment, Moscow:
Progress Publishers, p.327.
Chandrasekhar, S. (1976) “Population, Poverty and Population”,
Mohatadi, M.F. (ed.), International Conference on Man and
His Environment: Proceedings, Vol. III, New York:
Pergamon Press, p.59.
Chauhan, Eklavya (1977) “The Environmental Dilemma”, in
Bandhu, Desh and Chauhan, Eklavya (eds.), Current
Trends in Indian Environmental, New Delhi: Today and
Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, p.14.
Hodges, Laurent (1977) Environmental Pollution, New York: Holt,
Rinehard & Winston, p.244.
Newbould, Palmer (1974) “The Global Eco-System”, Vann,
Anthony and Rogers, Paul (eds.), Symposium of Human
Ecology and World Development: Proceedings,
Huddersfield, pp.58-59.
Pall, B.P. (1982) Environmental Conservation and Development,
Dehradun: Natraj Publishers, p.37.
Rao, T.N. and Gupta, B.R. (1982) “Environment: The Key”,
National Herald, September 17, p.7.
148
Sahab Deen Maurya and Gayatri Devi (eds.), Socio-Cultural
Determinants of Urban Occupation in Eastern Uttar
Pradesh, Allahabad.
Sahay, Umapat, Dan, M.T., Sahay, Sarojini, Sah, H.C.P. and
Jha, Anita (2000) Impact of Environmental Degradation
versus Human Population. Nat. Sent. Impact. Environ.
Degradation on Human Population, R.S.P. College, Jharia
(Dhnbad).
Shuchi Sharma and Archana Gupta (eds., 2006), Environment
and People, September, pp.10-14.
Sir Aurobindo and The Mother, Living Within, 1994, p.124.
Sivarama Krishana, K.C. (1993) Managing Urban Environment in
India: Towards and Agenda for Action (3 Volumes),
Calcutta: The Times Research Foundation.
State of Environment (2004) Chandigarh: Punjab State Council
for Science and Technology.
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 14, Chicago: William
Benton Publishers Inc. (1943-1973), p.755.
