The survey was aimed to learn the residents’ opinion about their solid domestic waste (SDW) disposal practices. 494 respondents participated in the survey, including 306 Tulchyn residents, plus 188 residents of Tulchyn raion settlements (Suvorovske, Nestervarka, Mazurivka). The survey was held among the residents, who had access to the centralized solid domestic removal service.

Research objectives

1. Define, how residents of the city of Tulchyn and rural settlements of Tulchyn raion dispose of certain types of solid domestic waste (food waste, “green waste”, plastic, glass, paper, construction, and hazardous waste etc).

2. Evaluate the level of satisfaction with the service, and define the main drawbacks of SDW collection and removal organization.

3. Check the level of public awareness of the procedure of SDW collection and removal.

4. Find out, what expenses are to be included into the tariff charged for SDW collection and removal.

5. Evaluate the level of sanitation in settlements, covered by the survey.

6. Verify if residents submit recyclables to collection points.

7. Verify if residents are aware of the problems of growing waste volumes and emergence of unauthorized refuse dumps.

8. Check, what solutions residents suggest when it comes to SDW utilization and potential ways of SDW volume reduction.

9. Analyze and compare collected data with the data of 2011 survey, conducted in Tulchyn raion.

The distribution of respondents is as follows:

1. by gender – 60.9% of respondents – female, 39.1% of respondents - male;

2. by age – 20-35 years – 13.8%, 35-50 years – 14.8%, 50-60 years – 32.5%, above 60 – 18.9%; 

3. by education level – incomplete secondary – 2.2%, secondary – 48.3%, specialized secondary – 22.1%, incomplete higher – 1.4%, higher –  25.8%;

4. by place of residence – apartments – 38.7%, personal household – 61.3%.

RESEARCH OUTCOMES

1. Key methods of disposal of certain solid domestic waste types.

1.1. All solid domestic waste types are produced within households of residents, no matter where they live: in the city or in rural areas.

1.2. Generally, within the set, food waste is thrown into containers (collected by dump truck) by half of the respondents (49.9%). Almost the same number of residents (49.7%) utilize food waste on their own (burn, bury, process). 

1.3. 86.6% of rural residents process food waste on their own, using it in households. Among the residents of the city of Tulchyn, food waste is utilized (buried or processed) by only 27.5%, while 72.1% of respondents throw the waste into containers.

1.4. Green waste is, mostly, utilized by the respondents themselves (68.8%), while almost every third respondent (30.6%) throws the waste into containers. In rural settlements of Tulchyn raion the waste is utilized by residents themselves (burned, buried, processed) – 88.7%, while among the residents of the city of Tulchyn, only half of respondents utilize the waste themselves (51.3%).

1.5. Of those, who have animal waste, 67.6% process it themselves. Every third respondent (30.1%) throws this type of waste into containers. In rural settlements of Tulchyn raion animal waste is utilized by the residents (burned, buried, processed): 88.0% of them use this waste in their households, while in the city of Tulchyn the respective percentage amounts to 45.9%.

1.6. Plastic and glass (waste, which can be used in further production process) is thrown into containers by a considerable part of respondents (plastic – 85.7%, glass – 96.4%). Half of respondents (56.0%) throw paper into containers as well. 69.7% of rural and 23.33% of urban residents utilize (burn, bury, process) paper with their own efforts.

1.7. 85.4% of residents throw construction (reparation) waste into containers, while 7.2% of respondents utilize the waste (burn, bury, process) themselves, and 2.7% bring their waste to refuse dumps.

1.8. Hazardous waste (batteries, solvents, chemicals, paints) are also thrown into containers by a considerable number of respondents (91.7%), while only 4.5% utilize the waste themselves (burn, bury, process).

1.9. 77.1% admit that produced waste (paper, glass, plastic, food waste), which is to be taken out, is often thrown into the same trash can. Only 8.4% of residents collect their waste separately, 11.3% – partly separately.

2. Regularity of waste removal, grounds cleaning, and drawbacks of the present SDW disposal system.

2.1. 87.9% of respondents indicated, that respective services, responsible for waste disposal, removed the waste in time from the special grounds. 11.3% of respondents indicated that the waste was not collected in time, 0.8% were unsure what to answer. High level of regular waste removal was mentioned by both urban residents of Tulchyn, and rural residents of nearby settlements (88.6% and 86.7% respectively).

2.2. In comparison to 2011 survey results, waste removal became more regular. For instance, in 2011 percentage of respondents, who stated that the waste was removed in time, amounted to only 44.3%, that was two times less than in the current year.

2.3. According to 69.7% of respondents, once the waste is removed, respective services clean the waste collection grounds. 28.8% of residents reported the lack of waste collection grounds cleaning after waste removal. Data on grounds cleaning varies across different respondents’ places of residence. For instance, among Tulchyn residents 57.9% of respondents reported that the grounds were cleaned after waste removal, while in rural settlements the respective percentage amounted to 88.8%.

2.4. In comparison to 2011 survey data, the grounds are cleaned more frequently. In 2011 the number of respondents, who reported that the grounds were cleaned after waste removal, constituted only 31.3%, i.e. two times less than the respective indicator of the current year.

2.5. The key shortcomings of the present system of solid domestic waste collection and removal are: high tariff (35.8%), insufficient number of containers (28.1%), and dirt near containers (18.9%).

2.6. According to 1.6% of rural residents, it is dirty near containers, while the respective percentage of Tulchyn city residents is 28.2%. 12.7% of the raion residents are stressed by frequent delays of waste removal, while the respective indicator among respondents from the city of Tulchyn is 8.5%.

2.7. In 2011 percentage of respondents dissatisfied with the high tariff amounted to 5.8%, while in 2015 this percentage became almost seven times larger – 35.8%.

2.8. In comparison to 2011, we are witnessing a decrease in the number of residents, dissatisfied with: long distance to containers – from 18.3% to 1,9%, regular delays with waste removal – from 31.7% to 10.0%, inconvenient schedule of waste removal – from 21.9% to 11.1%, dirty container grounds – from 46.4% to 18.9%, insufficient number of containers – from 35.7% to 28.1%.

3. Payment for waste removal service usage; tariff formation.

3.1. 98.6% of respondents pay for waste removal service, while 1.4% of respondents don’t.

3.2. In rural settlements the number of respondents, who are not paying for utilization service, amounts to 3.2%, while in the city of Tulchyn the indicator amounts to 0.3%. According to respondents, the major reasons for not paying for the service included high tariff and low quality of SDW removal.

3.3. According to respondents, the key components of the tariff charged for waste collection and removal, should be: salary of the personnel (56.0%) and fuel costs (53.2%).

3.4. These two components of the tariff (salary of the personnel and fuel costs) had almost the same weights according to 2011 and 2015 surveys.

3.5. We can witness changes in such tariff components as communal enterprise development expenses and collection of waste on the special ground. If in 2011 57.3% of respondents indicated that the tariff had to include communal enterprise development expenses, in 2015 this percentage was two times lower (25.9%).

3.6. Percentage of respondents, feeling that the tariff should include such component as collection of waste on the special ground decreased five times and a half in comparison to the previous survey’s result (from 45.3% in 2011 to 7.9% in 2015).

4. Evaluation of satisfaction by informing of public about waste collection and removal service organization. Submission of recyclables to collection points

 4.1. Respondents provided positive estimates (86.7%) of the level of informing on the procedure of waste collection and removal; particularly 47.6% of respondents were completely satisfied, 39.1% of respondents were rather satisfied.

4.2. Negative attitudes were displayed by every seventh respondent (15.3%): 10.4% respondents were rather unsatisfied, while 4.9% were completely unsatisfied. No significant variances were witnessed across different places of residence.

4.3. Dominating majority of respondents submit their recyclables to collection points (89.6%). No significant variations are witnessed across different settlements.

 5. Evaluation of cleanness in the settlement; attitude towards the problem of refuse dumps, and suggested activities on waste volume reduction.

 5.1. According to research results, the average estimate of cleanness level in the city of Tulchyn (in a five-grade scale) amounts to 3.09. Estimated cleanness level of the settlements of Tulchyn raion amounts to 3.32 points (village of Suvorovske – 3.48 points, village of Mazurivka – 3.32 points, village of Nestervarka – 3.11 points).

5.2. General estimate of cleanness in all the settlements of Tulchyn target region amounts to 3.17 points (3.39 in 2011). These indicators are above the average level.

5.3. 55.7% of respondents (from the whole set) noted, that spontaneous (unauthorized) refuse dumps did exist in their settlements. Almost every third respondent (30.9%) noted that there were no unauthorized refuse dumps in their settlements, while 13.4% were unsure about the answer.

5.4. 49.5% of interviewed Tulchyn raion residents and 59.6% of respondents from the city of Tulchyn confirmed the existence of spontaneous refuse dumps in their own settlements.

5.5. Dominating majority of the respondents (72.5%) consider, that, in the first place, natural refuse dumps polluted the ground. More than half of the interviewees (56.3%) noted, that dumps polluted the air as a result of burning. 29.2% of respondents indicated that spontaneous refuse dumps could poison human organism and contribute to spreading of infections (26.1%). Insignificant quantity of respondents (0.8%) thinks that refuse dumps do not have any environmental impact.

5.6. Most respondents (88.6%) consider low public cultural level to be the major cause for emergence of refuse dumps in the streets. 38.4% of respondents indicated that emergence of dumps in the streets was induced by the lack of respective fines. Every tenth (9.1%) respondent sees the cause for waste in the streets in insufficient provision of settlements by infrastructural objects for waste collection and utilization. Only 4.1% named low quality of operation of organizations, which remove the waste.

5.7. Every fourth respondent (27.0%) thinks that there is no way to reduce waste production volumes. 18.4% of respondents noted that the most efficient method would be to prohibit production and usage of thin polythene packages. Introduction of an additional packaging tax is considered an effective measure by 15.5% of respondents. Implementation of organic packaging, which is utilized in a quick and environmentally safe way, is considered a necessary measure for reduction of waste production volumes by 13.5% of respondents.

6. Evaluation of organization of waste collection and removal. Criticisms and suggestions on improvement of the service quality

6.1. According to research results, the average estimate of quality of waste collection and removal (all array of responses analyzed) amounts to 4.00 points, that is above average level.

6.2. The average estimate among Tulchyn city residents amounts to 3.94 points; among residents of rural settlements – 4.09 points.

6.3. 73.1% of respondents provided a high estimate of quality of waste collection and removal organization in Tulchyn target region (4 and 5 points). The estimate of 3 points was provided by 23.3% of respondents, while negative estimates (1-2 points) were present in the responses of 3.6% of the interviewees.

6.4. In accordance to standards, approved by the Ministry of regional development, construction, and housing and communal services, waste collection and removal service in Tulchyn target region is provided at a high level, with the exception of certain drawbacks which can be eliminated.

Complete version of survey results can be downloaded here