IMPACT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS ON ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4933/13/13...149...

149

CHAPTER – V

IMPACT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS ON

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATIONIndia has a long tradition of preserving and worshipping

the various objects of nature like trees, animals, rivers, birds,

air, mountains, planets etc. The relationship between man and

environment has been recognized in Indian culture from the

ancient times. Worshipping nature in the form of deity and

recognizing and accepting the earth as mother reveals a kind of

conservation on ethics even in Guru Granth Sahib it is

mentioned that "Pawan Guru Pani Pita, Mata Dharat Mahat."

which denotes air as teacher, water as father and earth as

mother. This comes to us through the history, culture and

religion.

Life on this planet is pre-conditioned and dependent upon

the existence and sustenance of the natural environment.

Environmental sustainability is achievable mainly by protecting

the environment. Healthy and clean environment is the natural

pre requisite of life right from the time when a child comes to

the womb. Environment is the natural condition which exists

around human beings and support life.

Modern civilization and culture have been already

exercising its tremendous potential to alter our environment,

too frequently in adverse ways, on regional as well as even on

global scales. For the continued development and even survival

of civilization man must make every possible effort to

understand and the worth of better use his environment. The

physical environment and its interrelationship with life on earth

and perhaps on other planet is, of course, far to complex to

150

yield to man's complete control through technology. Despite the

marvelous accomplishments and promises of the recent

scientific revolution and of those to come, human being cannot

deny or more than superficially escape from his biological

lineage and its unbearable ties to the physical world (Platt,

1972).

Nature has gifted man with several blessings and clean

environment is one of them. Since the dawn of civilization man

has been interfering with the nature, hence our environment is

under consent threat. The primitive man gradually discovered

fire, invented tools and used them to fulfill his everlasting favor

of development which resulted in bringing about drastic

changes in the environment.

Early man was nomadic and after exhausting the

available resources, he shifted in groups to other places in

groups limited. Due to population, its impact on the

surrounding was less harmful. Then advent of agriculture and

equally rapid development of industrial sector led to the growth

of population which increased demand for food and basic

amenities. Particularly, the 19th and 20th centuries have

witnessed number of vital changes and growth in the process of

development. It ultimately affected the quality of environment

adversely process. In the name of development, forests

denudated, lakes and rivers have become loaded with

poisonous effluents and hazardous chemicals and air is

degraded with noxious and poisonous gases.

It has been proved beyond any doubt that pollution

especially by sulphur dioxide and suspended matter

particulates is responsible for numerous aspiratory diseases

such as bronchitis, constrictive ventilator disease and asthma

151

etc. Likewise the number of patients suffering from lung cancer

has risen due to the discharge of hydrocarbons from coal

combustion, Petro-chemicals and automobile exhausts.

Chemical in petrol such as lead, barium, manganese

discharged by motor vehicles adversely affect the health of

people. Further a huge amount of consumption of fuels like

wood, gas, coal and oil increase the amount of carbon dioxide

injection in the air. The nature cannot assimilate all through its

regenerative cycle. The excess of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere results into rise in the temperature of the earth. It

is worth mentioning here that most of the pollutants are

discharged beyond the assimilative capacity of the nature.

Environment quality has deteriorated due to uncontrolled

mechanization, overuse of natural resources deforestation

excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers in farms. Though

greener evolution has unshared era of food self sufficiency but

has resulted in excessive use of harmful pesticides, insecticides

and other chemicals on crops too. The danger of contamination

looms large on human life and food chain. This generally rises

from the extensive use of chemicals of various kinds for the

agriculture crops and plants production.

It is being realized by the humanity at this juncture, that

the life on this earth stands at the crossroads in choosing the

alternative out of environment and development. Moreover the

problem of environmental degradation has assumed alarming

proportion. It has engulfed the entire human race. Not even a

single nation remained unaffected. In the quest for rapid

industrial development over the centuries, the environmental

development over the same period, the environmental quality

has been given subordination to developmental goals. The

152

modern age of technology has brought with it tremendous but

immediate benefits and equally serious long term recovery costs

in return.

Life of dignity and well being for everyone is the chief goal

that has been set for the international community and the

national government to achieve. As far as the role of India, in

this global movement of environment protection is concerned,

the problem of environmental degradation is not as acute as in

fully industrialized developed countries. The developmental

process in India is indeed on a rapid march but it too is

producing adverse effects too.

In the present study a large section of the population is

either unaware or partially aware about different aspects of

environment and environmental degradation. This has been

discussed in the chapter 4th with the help of data collected for

the present study. Here an attempt has been made to explain

how different socio-cultural factors lead to the degradation of

the environment. The data have been analysed with the view to

find out how many respondents have ideas about the specific

effects of various pollutants and further to find out the

characteristics of those who have and of those who do not have

such knowledge. The major factors which are responsible for

environmental degradation, which are discussed in present

chapter are as follows:

(a) Migration from rural to urban

(b) Urbanization

(c) Poverty

(d) Population

(e) Religious rituals

(f) Modern life style

(g) Festivals and fairs

153

(A) MIGRATION FROM RURAL TO URBAN

Migration constitutes the very foundation of the process of

urbanization. It also recognized as the Chief mechanism by

which urban centers continue to grow and develop. One view is

that urbanization stops when migration to urban centers stops.

Yet urban centers grow partly due to natural growth (excess of

births over deaths) and partly by inter-town movement. Such a

migration less situation could be identified as urban continuum

in terms of redistribution of population which is a consequence

of the very process of development. It is being recognized at

present that this type of interpretation is rather simplistic, and

even demographic explanation of migration in terms of age, sex,

education, occupation syndrome does not bring out the

diversity and complexity underlying migration, particularly in

the developing countries (Bose 1970).

A young male adult who is educated is identified as a

typical migrant. Sex composition gets more balanced with the

migrant moving with his family, migration of educated females

to cities in search of employment is an indication of social

change. There is no suggestion of sequence here, and all the

characteristics of migration can coexist in a developing country.

Continuing migration over a long period from polyglot source

areas into a resource potential areas into a resource potential

areas like plantation area, transforms the migrant groups into

"miniature plural societies," as in Coorg and Nilgins in the

Eastern Ghat region of South India (Steen Folke 1968).

Here, it is worth mentioning that the migration scheme

has four migration zones: two migration-source-areas, and two

154

migration-receiving-areas; two less developed and two more

developed The four zones are: (1) distressed areas with small

villages with no infra-structure and limited natural resources

endowment, and hence less developed; (2) areas with resources

potential and with some development but with limited infra-

structure and with larger villages; (3) more developed, but with

low order infra-structure and small towns. Both large villages

as zone two and small towns as zone there have the potential to

become 'urban' centers under integrated planning; (4) highly

developed and resources rich areas with cities and higher order

infrastructure. This is the zone of maximum pull from all the

other three zones. And the distance factor has little or no

significance in migration. This is the zone of metropolitanization

where the immigrant cities have a strong industrial base or

diversified occupational base with a developed territory sector

(Bhaskar et al. 1980).

During the decade 1951-61, the net rural to urban

migration accounted for 40.6 percent of the decade's urban

growth. Thus migration played a major role in urban growth.

During 1951-61 decade, 11.62 million Persons moved from

rural to urban areas, and reverse movement during the decade

was of the order only 3 million persons, both males and

females. In this way the migration from the rural to urban

increased in every decade (Premi 1981).

The migration is due to many reasons like migrant stream

belonging to low income but highly skilled, who both out

migrate and in migrate. These are the artisan classes who due

to lack of demand for their products and skills are forced to

155

leave their traditional profession and become labourers. These

are not drawn into any specific development plans at micro

regional level, and they often get lost in the ocean of 'weaker

sections' (Manmohan Singh 1979).

In contrast to these seasonal migrants, the rural to urban

migrant streams are becoming highly desperate and polarized:

one large stream consisting of the illiterate poor in search of

livelihood, and another, consisting of the rich educated and

elitist, in search of better opportunities. Proximity to a city or a

highway acts as a pull factor. The poor are pushed out of the

village, while the rich are pulled into the city. One stream

consists of the younger generation whose parents belongs to

upper and middle income groups, majority belonging to land

owning and business classes, and hence rooted to villages, but

having with city links. One result of these links is the

realization of the need for education and the associated skills.

This leads to a tendency to spend on education a prelude to

greater migration (Connel, et al. 1976).

In this way migration also effects the environment

because when people migrate to cities they need every thing for

their livelihood to fulfill their needs, on the other hand there is

a pressure on natural resources. We always take from nature

but never gave it back. So in the present study the researcher

finds out that how migration from rural to urban degrades the

environment. The researcher asked the respondents to mention

that is there any impact of migration on environment and how

it degrades the environment. The views and responses of the

respondents have been shown in the following table:

156

Table 5.1

Distribution of respondents according to their views

regarding migration degrades the environment

Whether migration degrades the

environment

Frequency Percentage

Yes 200 69.68

No 87 30.32

Total 287 100.00

The table given above reveals that a vast majority of the

respondents, i.e., 69.68 percent mentioned migration as a

factor of environmental degradation. A very lesser proportion of

the respondents, i.e., 30.32 mentioned "no" regarding migration

as a factor of environmental degradation. Majority of the

respondents mentioned "yes" this may be due to the fact that

they had a lots of problems emerged in urban area like

problems of housing. Over crowding, pollution, slums etc. with

migration.

Further the views of the respondents were correlated with

other socio-economic variables. But the Chi-square value too

reveals that the views of the respondents in this regard did not

have significant association with Age and occupation. However,

a clear trend is visible with regard to correlation with education

and income of the respondents. The data in this regards is

presented below in the following tables:

157

Table 5.2

Distribution of respondents according to their education

and their views regarding migration degrades the

environment

Whether the migration

degrades the environment

Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 25 (44.65) 31 (55.35) 56 (100)

Upto middle &

Secondary

18 (70.00) 12 (30.00) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary

& Graduate

55 (79.72) 14 (20.28) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

102 (77.27) 30 (22.73) 132 (100)

Total 200 (69.68) 87 (30.32) 287 (100)

X2 = 24.837, df=3, P > .0001

The table given above clearly shows that the respondents

from all the educational categories mentioned "yes" migration

as a factor of environmental degradation. Only 55.35 percent

from the educational category of uneducated and 30.00 percent

from upto middle and secondary mentioned "no" regarding

migration as a factor of environmental degradation. This may be

due to the fact that they never think about these things. The

Chi-square value also shows a significant association between

these two variables.

158

Further the views of the respondents correlated with

income of the respondents and the data in this regard is

presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3Distribution of respondents according to their income andthere views regarding migration degrades the environment

Whether the migration


Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 35 (48.61) 37 (51.38) 72 (100)

Rs. 10001 to 20000 105 (77.2) 31 (22.8) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20000 50 (80.64) 12 (19.36) 62 (100)

Not Applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.17) 17 (100)

Total 200 (69.68) 87 (30.32) 287 (100)

X2 = 23.254, df=3, P > .003

The trend is clear in the table given above that the views

of the respondents in "yes" is same in all the income categories

and vice-versa. They have a view that when people migrate to

cities from their native places like from villages there is a great

rush in cities. New colonies emerge without basic amenities.

The Chi-square value also shows a significant association

between these two variables.

Further the responses of the respondents that how

migration effects the environment is shown in the following

table:

159

Table 5.4Distribution of respondents according to their

responses that how migration from rural to urban degradesthe environment

Reasons Frequency Percentage

Cutting of Trees for houses. 81 28.22

Increase in slums 65 22.64

Urban population is increased 58 20.20

Some new unplanned colonies

developed without proper amenities

26 9.05

Increasing number of vehicles 28 9.75

No response. 29 10.14

Total 287 100.00

The table given above shows that 28.22 percent of the

respondents mentioned cutting of trees for houses as a reason

for environmental degradation. While 22.64 percent and 20.20

percent of respondents gave the response as more slums and

no proper sanitation. 9.05 percent and 9.75 percent mentioned

that with migration some unplanned colonies developed without

proper amenities and increased number of vehicles only 10.14

percent respondents had an indifferent view.

(B) URBANIZATION

There is a great deal of confusion in the use of terms

'urbanism' and 'urbanization' for an understanding and the

study of urbanization it is imperative to define such terms as

are used in literature in a loose manner. Urbanization is not

urbanism, as is commonly understood. Urbanism represents a

particular way or style of life, as contrasted with the rural,

agriculturally dominated communities, while urbanization

160

refers to the process whereby a traditionally rural bound

community, either the whole or a section, moves to adopt a

different pattern of living. In fact, the adaptation to the complex

traits or urban characteristics, as describe above, is 'urbanism'

(Beals, Ralph L. 1951).

According to Wirth, it is a way of life of urban places. He

defines urbanism as " that complex of traits which makes up

the characteristics mode of life in cities, and urbanization,

which denotes the development and extensions of these factors,

these are thus not exclusively found in settlements which are

cities in the physical and demographic sense, they do,

nevertheless, find their most pronounced expression in such

areas, especially in metropolitan cities (Wirth, Louis: 1930).

Growth of urban centers occupy significant place from

various angles, specially from India is a country economical and

cultural point of views of villages almost, at present almost 67

percent known for its rural cultures of its citizens live in the

rural areas. Urbanization is a process where by increasing

proportions of the population of a particular region or a country

live in urban areas. Urbanization has become a major

demographic issue in the 21st century not only in India but

also all over the world. There has always been great academic

interest in the Indian scholars in the process of growth and

development of Indian urbanization and a number of scholars

of different disciplines have analyzed India's urban experience,

particularly in the post independence period (Bose, 1978, NIVA

1988, Mohan, 1996). The level and kind of urbanization in

terms of the proportion of urban population of the total number

is quite low in India. However, the urban population in absolute

161

terms is high. Since the first regular census of India was

conducted in 1881, almost all census reports have commented

on the rate of urban growth. During the last three decades of

India, the link between urbanization and environment and the

treatment to the quality of human particular life have emerged

as a major issue (Mohan 1996).

Along with the several other social and economic benefits

of urbanization, there comes a plethora of environmental ills,

some of staggering proportion. Cities span less than three

percent of the land area of the world. But the intense

concentration of population, industry and energy use can lead

to severe local pollution and environmental degradation.

Furthermore, a city's ecological footprint extends far beyond its

urban boundaries of the forests, croplands, coal mines and

watersheds that sustain its inhabitants (UNEP 2008).

In the towns of the developing world where population

growth has out-placed the ability to provide vital infrastructure

and services, the worst environmental problems are

experienced quite close to home; with sever economic and social

impacts for urban residents. Inadequate household water

supplies, waste accumulation, and unsanitary conditions exact

an enormous toll on the world's one billion slum dwellers in

terms of unnecessary death and disease. Cities in developing

countries also experience the world's worst urban area

degradation as a result of rapid industrialization and increased

motorized transport worldwide, urban air degradation is

estimated to cause one million premature deaths each year and

162

cost two percent of GDP in developed countries and five percent

in developing countries (UNEP 2008).

In the present chapter respondents were asked to mention

their views regarding urbanization whether it is degrading the

environment or not. The data in this regard is presented in the

following tables.

Table 5.5

Distribution of the respondents according to their views

whether urbanization degrades the environment

Whether urbanization degrades the

environment


Yes 215 74.91

No 72 25.09

Total 287 100.00

The table given above depicts that majority of the

respondents, i.e., 74.19 percent mentioned that the increasing

urbanization degrades the environment. Only 25.09 percent

mentioned "no". Those respondents who mentioned "yes" this

may be due to the fact that they were aware about the

consequences of unplanned development of urbanization. And

those who stated "no' may not have this kind of vision.


other socio-economic variables like age, education, occupation

and income. And the data in this regard is presented in Table

5.6.

163

Table 5.6

Distribution of the respondents according to their age and

their views regarding whether the growth of urbanization


Whether the growth of

urbanization degrades the

environment

Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 145 ( 77.55) 42 (22.45) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 60 ( 71.43) 24 (28.57) 84 (100)

60 years & above 8 (50.00) 8 (50.00) 16 (100)

Total 215 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 6.025, df=2, P < .04

The table given above depicts that a vast majority of the

respondents from the age category of 20 to 40 years and 41 to

60 years mentioned growth of urbanization degrades the

environment. While on the other hand very lesser proportion

from all the age categories said "no' regarding growth of

urbanization degrades the environment. The table also shows

as the age increases their responses decreases in "yes" this may

be due to the fact that they were not much aware about how

growth of urbanization degrades the environment. The Chi-

square value also shows a significant association between these

two variables.


the education of the respondent and their views in this regard

are presented in Table 5.7:

164

Table 5.7

Distribution of the respondents according to their

education and their views regarding whether the growth of

urbanization degrades the environment



environment or not

Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 26 (46.42) 30 (53.58) 56 (100)

Upto middle &

Secondary

20(66.66) 10 (33.34) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary

& Graduate

49(71.02) 20 (28.98) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

120 ( 90.90) 12 (9.10) 132 (100)

Total 215 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 43.792, df=3, P > .001

The table given above clearly shows that an overwhelming

majority from the educational category of post graduates and

professionals mentioned that growth of urbanization degrades

the environment followed by higher secondary and graduate.

The trend is clear in the table that as the education level

increases their responses also increases in "yes" and vice-versa.



Again the views of the respondents were correlated with

their respective occupation. The data in this regard is presented

in the Table 5.8.

165

Table 5.8


occupation and their views regarding whether the growth of




environment

Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 30 (65.38) 16 (34.62) 46 (100)

Business Class 60(73.17) 22(26.83) 82 (100)

Service Class 105 (89.74) 12 (10.26) 117 (100)

Daily wages & Labour 10 (41.66) 4 (58.34) 24 (100)

Total 205 ( 71.42) 64(22.28) 287 (100)

X2 = 6.396, df=3, P > .09*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation.

The table given above reveals that a vast majority of the

respondents from the occupational categories of service

mentioned that the growth of urbanization is responsible for

environmental degradation followed by the occupational

categories of business & agriculture. The table also shows that

from the occupational category of daily wages/labourers, i.e.,

41.66 percent mentioned "yes" which means growth of

urbanization degrades the environment. While from the same

category 58.34 percent mentioned "no". Which means this does

not make any impact. This may be due to the fact that they did

not make any mental exercise in these lines and having lack of

knowledge. The Chi-square value also shows a significant

association between these variables.

166

The views of the respondents were also correlated with

their income and the data in this regard is present in the table

given below:

Table 5.9

Distribution of the respondents according to their income

and their views regarding whether the growth of




environment

Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 51 (70.83) 21 (29.17) 72 (100)

Rs. 10,001 to 20000 99(72.79) 37 (27.21) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20,000 55 (88.70) 7(11.30) 62 (100)

Not applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.18) 17 (100)

Total 215 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 9.584, df=3, P > .05

This table indicates that a very high percentage (88.70%)

of the respondents from the high income category were of the

opinion that environment is degraded by increasing

urbanization followed by middle and lower income groups.

While those who mentioned that it do not have any impact on

environment were more in percentage from not applicable. The

Chi-square value also shows the significant association between


Further the researcher also asked to mention that how

development of urbanization degrades the environment and the

responses, in this regard is shown in the table given below.

167

Table 5.10


responses regarding the how the growth of urbanization


Responses Frequency Percentage

Development of new industries in

urban centers

62 21.83

Small scale industry like dairies,

poultry farms, dying cloths etc.

52 18.11

Increasing no. of vehicles. 51 17.77

More automobile workshops 23 8.01

Development of slums 27 9.40

No response 72 25.08

Total 287 100.00

The table given above reveals that 21.83 percent of the

respondents were of the view that with the growth of

urbanization there are developments of new industries. 18.11

percent of the respondents had a view that there is a increase of

small scale industry like dairies, poultry, dying clothes etc.

17.77 percent of the respondents mentioned that with the

growth of urbanization there is a increasing number of vehicles

in urban areas and 9.4 percent and 8.01 percent of the

respondents mentioned that there is increase in slums and

more automobiles workshops are developed in urban centers.

(C) POVERTY

In economic sense, it is defined as a state where in an

individual cannot satisfy his minimum wants for healthy living

in a given social environment (Singh, R.R. 1980). Poverty in this

sense is both relative and absolute. Relative poverty shows that

168

some have more of goods and services at their command than

other. Absolute poverty is the insufficiency of basic necessities

for a healthy life.

Kurein considered poverty as a 'Socio-economic'

phenomenon whereby the resources available to a society are

used to satisfy the wants of the few, while the many do not have

even their basic needs met. It is according to him, essentially a

'Social phenomenon and only secondarily a material or physical

phenomenon (Kurein 1978).

Environmental degradation particularly during the past

few decades has comes to a prominent problem as well as one

of the most important current global issues (Desta 1999). There

is a general consensus that poverty is a major cause of

environmental degradation. Poverty is one of the greatest

threats to the environment. Jalal also argued that

environmental degradation is the consequence of population

growth and stagnant population are closely linked with the fast

spread of acute poverty in several Asian countries. The poor

families who have to meet short term needs damage the natural

capital by excessive cutting of trees for firewood and failure to

replace soil nutrients (Jalal 1993).

Poverty is a curse. So it also affects the environment

adversely. Indeed, there is close and direct relation to between

environment and poverty. More the poverty, more aggregated

will the environmental problems. Nearly half the rural

population of the developing world lives below the official

poverty line. Poverty does not only degrade human environment

but also leads to obstruction in the way of development. It can

be noticed in the form of ultimately lack of these amenities.

Inadequate shelter, the slum dwellers, lack of potable water and

sanitation facilities, result in environment degradation because

169

they do not find any other way but to use the available

alternative e.g. drains for toilet, live in a place which is already

polluted, use contaminated water, generate waste vitiating the

environment further. Moreover the rapidly growing urban areas

of the developing world become vulnerable to environment

crises. Growing pressure on land, removal of forest cover,

callous use of chemicals and fertilizers and soil erosion reduce

the agriculture potential of scarce land resources causing

further increase in poverty. The persistence of mass poverty

places severe pressure on natural resources and public services

and infrastructure.

At the very outset various establishment remain in need

of economic means to deal with issues of water, nutrition and

human settlement of the poor in the developing world. To check

poverty, the foremost measure to be adopted, is to check

population, because it is the increasing population that not

only breeds poverty, it is the mother of all it is related to

environment.

The respondents were asked to mention that is poverty a

factor of environmental degradation. The view of the

respondents in this regard is presented in the following tables:

Table 5.11


regarding whether poverty degrades the environment

Whether poverty degrade theenvironment


Yes 243 84.66

No 44 15.34

Total 287 100.00

170

The preceding table depicts that majority of the

respondents 84.66 percent mentioned poverty as a factor of

environmental degradation. A very lesser proportion of the

respondents mentioned "no". This may be due to the fact that

everyone knows if a person has no basic amenities he exploits

environment to fulfill his needs like open toilets, cutting trees

for fuel etc.


other socio-economic variables like age, education occupation

and income of the respondents. And the data in this regard is

presented in the following tables.

Table 5.12


their views regarding whether poverty degrades the

environment

Whether Poverty degrades the

environments

Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 172 ( 91.97) 15 (8.03) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 61 ( 72.61) 23 (27.39) 84 (100)

61 years & above 10 (62.5) 6 (37.5) 16 (100)

Total 243 (84.66) 44 (15.34) 287 (100)

X2 = 23.151, df=2, P > .0009

The table given above reveals that an overwhelming

majority of respondents form the age category of 20 to 40 years

mentioned poverty as a factor of environmental degradation.

72.61 from the age category of 41 to 60 years and 62.5 percent

from 61 years and above also mention "yes". On the other hand

37.5 percent form 61 years and above, 27.39 percent form 41 to

171

60 years and only 8.03 percent from the age category of 21 to

40 years. This shows that as the age increases their views

regarding poverty as a factor for environmental degradation

decrease. This may be due to the fact that aged people did not

think poverty as a factor of environmental degradation. The

Chi-square value also shows a significant association between


Further the data was correlated with the education

category of the respondent and the data is presented in the

following table given below.

Table 5.13


education and their views regarding whether poverty


Whether the poverty


Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 45 (80.35) 11 (19.65) 56 (100)

Up-to middle &

Secondary

18 (60.00) 12 (40.00) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary &

Graduate

59 (85.50) 10 (14.50) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

121 (91.66) 11 (8.34) 132 (100)

Total 243 (84.66) 44 (15.34) 287 (100)

X2 = 19.884, df=3, P > .0001

The table given above reveals that an overwhelming

majority of the respondents from the educational category of

Post Graduate and professionals mentioned poverty as a factor

172

of environmental degradation. The table also shows that from

all the educational categories respondents mentioned poverty

as a factor of environmental degradation in majority. This may

be due to the fact that everyone knows if a person is poor he

use natural resources to fulfill his needs, this degrades the

environment because he is not above to fulfill natures needs.



The data is also correlated with the occupation of the

respondents and their views regarding poverty as a factor of

environmental degradation. The data in this regard is presented

below in following table.

Table 5.14


education and their views regarding whether poverty


Whether poverty degrades

the environment

Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 40 (86.95) 6 (13.05) 46 (16.02)

Business Class 75 (91.46) 7 (8.54) 82

Service Class 104 (89.74) 13 (10.26) 117

Daily wages & Labour 14 (58.33) 10 (41.67) 24

Total 233 (81.18) 36 (12.52) 269 (100)


The table given above depicts that an overwhelming

majority of the respondents from the category of business

mentioned poverty as a factor of environmental degradation,

173

followed by service and Agriculture categories. On the other

hand very lesser proportion of the respondents said "no". From

the occupational category of daily wages /laborers i.e. 41.67

percent mentioned "no" they too were poor and they were of the

opinion that this made no difference (Es naal Kuj nahi Wigd

da). While those who mentioned 'yes" were have very strong

view regarding this. The Chi-square value also shows a

significant association between these two variables.


their income and the data in this regard is presented in the

following table.

Table 5.15


regarding whether poverty degrades the environment

Whether poverty degrades

environment

Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 55 (76.38) 17 (23.62) 72 (100)

Rs. 10001 to 20000 124 (91.17) 12 (8.83) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20000 52 (83.87) 10 (16.12) 62 (100)

Not applicable 12 (70.58) 5 (29.42) 17 (100)

Total 243 (84.66) 44 (15.34) 287 (100)

X2 = 10.867, df=3, P < .01

The table given above clearly shows that the respondents

from all the income categories considered poverty as a factor of

environmental degradation. The table also shows that a higher

proportion of those who mentioned that poverty do not make

any dent on the environment were from the income category of

less than Rs. 10000. There were 17 respondents who had no

174

income in majority stated that poverty is responsible for

environmental degradation. But among them even 29.42

percent were of the opinion that poverty is not responsible for

environmental degradation. This clearly shows that income of

an individual has impact on their thinking. The Chi-square

value also shows a significant association between these two

variables.

Further the respondents were asked to mentioned that

how poverty degrades the environment and their responses in

this regard is presented below in the following table.

Table 5.16


responses that how poverty degrades the environment


Lack of basic amenities 60 20.90

Poor people least bothered about

environment

85 29.61

They degrade environment while

using clay hearths

34 11.84

They use to throw garbage on streets 15 5.22

They are not aware about

environment problems

49 17.09

Who said no poverty as factor of

environmental degradation

44 15.34

Total 287 100.00

The table given above shows there were 287 respondents

in total. They had different opinions that how poverty degrades

the environment. Among them 29.61 percent gave the reason

175

that poor people are least bothered about environment, followed

by 20.90 percent who said that the poor have lack of basic

amenities like wash rooms, toilets, proper kitchens etc. 17.09

percent among those said that people of this category are not

aware about environmental problems. There were 15.34 percent

respondents who were of the view that poverty does not degrade

the environment. 11.84 percent of the respondents were of the

view that the poor use clay hearths (Kacha Chulha) using wood,

cow dung which emits carbon-dioxide or smoke which is a big

factor of environmental degrades. Only 5.22 percent stated that

the people living under poverty used to throw garbage in the

open. In this way the poverty becomes a big challenge for the

environment degradation.

(D) POPULATION

Population is indeed an important source of growth and

development, but the same time it becomes a major source of

environmental degradation when it exceeds the threshold limits

of the support systems. Unless the relationship between the

multiplying population and the life support system can be

stabilized, development programmes, however, innovative are

not likely to yield desired results. Population impacts on the

environment primal through the use of natural resources and

production of wastes and is associated with environmental

stresses like loss of biodiversity, air and water degradation and

increased pressure on arable land.

Ecological balance is associated with population growth or

increase because population growth requires facilities which

host plastic vector interaction. Population growth is an

important aspect that determines the production, distribution

and utilization of the natural resources of an area. It is one of

176

the key factors responsible for the environmental degradation.

There is an inmost relationship between individual and

environment.

In this context the respondent were asked to state if

increase of population is a factor of environmental degradation

or not. The data in this regard is cited below in the form of

tables.

Table 5.17


whether growth of population degrades the environment

Whether the growth of population



Yes 215 74.91

No 72 25.09

Total 287 100.00

The table given above show that 74.91 percent of the

respondents mentioned population as factor of environmental

degradation. While only 25.09 percent of the respondents

mentioned "no", means population did not degrade the

environment. This may be due to the fact that every person

knows that if their will be more growth of population it will need

more space for residence, more food grains, more hospitals,

more colleges, universities and more vehicle etc. which we know

that effect the environment adversely.

Further the views of the respondents correlated with other

socio-economic variables like age, education, occupation and

income of the respondents. The data in this regard is presented

in Table 5.18.

177

Table 5.18

Distribution of the respondent according to their age and

their views regarding growth of population degrades the

environment


population degrades the

environment

Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 147 (78.61) 40 (21.39) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 60 (71.42) 24 (28.58) 84 (100)

61 years & above 8 (50.00) 8(50.00 ) 16 (100)

Total 251 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 30.113, df=2, P > .001

The above table reveals that 78.61 percent of the

respondents from the age category of 20 to 40 years and 71. 42

percent from 41-60 years mentioned population as a factor of

environmental degradation while those who have higher

percentage of those who mentioned that population does not

effect the environment is from the age category of 61 years and

above. This table clearly indicates the trend that as the age of

the respondents increases their responses in "yes" decrease.

And as their age decreases their responses in "no" category

decreases. The Chi-square value also shows a significant

association between these two variables.

Further the views of the respondents correlated with the

education category of the respondents and the data in this

regard is presented in following pages.

178

Table 5.19

Distribution of the respondent according to their education

and their views regarding growth of population degrades

the environment



environment

Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 30 (53.57) 26 (46.43) 56 (100)

Upto middle & Secondary 20 (66.66) 10 (33.34) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary &

Graduate

50 (72.46) 19 (27.54) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

115 (87.12) 17 (12.88) 132 (100)

Total 215 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 25.346, df=3, P > .0001

The table given above reveals that a vast majority i.e.

87.12 percent of the respondent from the educational category

of post graduate and professionals mentioned that growth of

the population degrades the environment followed by the

educational category of higher secondary and graduates and

upto middle and secondary and uneducated respectively. The

trend is clear in the table that as the education of the

respondent' increases their views also increases in "yes" and

vice-versa. This may be due to the fact an educated person

know about all the parameters of environmental degradation it

means education has the great impact on the individual's life

and its behaviours towards natural environment. The Chi-

179

square value also shows the significant association between



the occupation of the respondents and the data in this regard is

presented below:

Table 5.20

Distribution of the respondent according to their

occupation and their views regarding growth of population




environment

Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 33 (71.73) 13 (28.27) 46 (100)

Business Class 59 (71.95) 23 (28.05) 82 (100)

Service Class 101 (86.32) 16 (13.68) 117 (100)

Daily wages &

Labour

10 (41.66) 14 (58.34) 24 (100)

Total 203 (75.46) 66 (24.54) 287 (100)


The table given above depicts that the data from service,

business and agricultural occupation represent that majority of

the respondent mentioned "yes" which means population

growth effects the environment negatively. The table also shows

that only 41.66% of the respondent from the occupational

category of and labourers mentioned 'yes'. On the other side a

majority of the respondents from the occupational category of

labourers were of the view that the growth of population is not a

180

factor for environmental degradation. This may be due to the

fact of their lack of knowledge regarding environmental issues.

The Chi-Square values also show a significant association


The views of the respondents were again correlated with

the income of the respondent and the data in this regard is

presented in the following table.

Table 5.21

Distribution of the respondent according to their income

and their views regarding growth of population degrades

the environment


population degrade the

environment

Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 44 (61.11) 28 (38.89) 72 (100)

Rs. 10001 to 20000 110 (80.88) 26 (19.12) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20000 53 (85.48) 9 (14.52) 62 (100)

Not applicable 8 (47.05) 9 (52.95) 17 (100)

Total 215 (74.91) 72 (25.09) 287 (100)

X2 = 20.581, df=3, P > .0001

The table given above shows that majority of the

respondents from all the income categories considered the fact

that increasing population degrades the environment. Their

proportion in this regard increases with the increase in income.

While those mentioned that it does not effect were from the low

income category. A higher proportion from those who said that

they had no income i.e. 52.95 percent were also of the same

view. This is the well known fact that these days every

181

individual knows the consequences of the increasing

population. The respondents from "Not applicable category

means no income" and the low income may not aware about the

population problems. The Chi-square value also shows a


Further the respondents were asked to mention that how

growth of population degrades the environment and their

responses are as follows:

Table 5.22


responses regarding how the growth of population degrades

the environment


Large population disturbs the

balance of earth

62 21.60

More exploitation of natural

resources

59 20.75

More changes to make our

surrounding dirty

23 8.01

More poverty & more slums 61 21.24

Sanitation problems 10 3.40

Lack of space for house, more

cultivation deforestation.

72 25.0

Total 287 100.00

The table given above reveals that 21.60 percent of the

respondents mentioned that with the increasing population

which disturbs the balance of earth. 21.24 percent mentioned

that more changes to make our surrounding dirty. 2075

182

percent mentioned that there are more exploitation of natural

resources. Some of them mentioned that there is more poverty,

sanitation problems are there with increasing population.

(E) RELIGIOUS RITUALS

According to Jonathan Z. Smith ritual is "a means of

performing the way things ought to be in conscious tension to

the way things are" (Jonathan 1982). Emile Durkheim

suggested ritual has important consequences for both the

individual and the group. It is primarily through ritual that

group member some to identify with the group and its goal. At

the same time, rituals allows groups to remember their shared

traditions and to revitalize their collective consciousness

(Durkheim 1976).

Rituals are major components of all religions, and they

are the primary "building blocks" of religious institutions.

Rituals are more or less fixed sequence of behaviour that

assume special importance when performed within a religious

context (Morinis 1992).

India is popularly known as a country of religious rituals,

festivals & fairs. Undoubtedly, here every aspect of life is

governed by religion and its rights and rituals. Since time

immemorial Indians have been living on the mercy of the

nature. The elements of the nature have become part of the

religion in this country.

But with the development and modern lifestyle of people

they don’t bother about the environment. They consciously and

unconsciously degrade the environment at the name of religion.

For instance, they perform certain kind of duties which they

183

said it is related to their religion, like the Jagrata, Kirtan, etc.

According to them it is religious ritual but unconsciously the

loud noises from Jagrata actually creates loud noise, which

degrades the environment. Likewise people go for langar or

banadara which creates a garbage problem like in langar the

utensils are replaced these days by disposable material but

actually they are not dispose off because these are made of

plastic which is not bio-degradable. After the langar or bandara

no one cares about the garbage which creates from langar.

Another ritual is immersion of idols in water in the festival

season like in Navaratras. The idols of deities are made of some

of dayor plast of Paris which is painted by toxic colours which

is very harmful for water and also degrades the environment.

One more thing may be to highlighted that now these days

there is trend of worshipping or showing respect to Sooth

Sayers. People, mostly the ladies go to them for their family or

other personal problems for some solution. To solve their

problems the sooth sayers usually ask them for immersion of a

coconuts or other things like some kind of idols of elephant,

horse etc. some times it is also a toxic material which degrades

the environment. These all practices take place or things

happen in the name of religious rites and rituals. All these

rituals are responsible for environmental degradation in one

way or the other.

The respondents were asked to mention that is the

religious rituals degrade the environment or not. Their views in

this regard are presented below in the following tables.

184

Table 5.23


whether religious rituals degrades the environment

Whether religious rituals degrades

the environment


Yes 167 58.18

No 120 41.82

Total 287 100.00

The table given above shows that a higher percentage i.e.

58.18 percent of the total mentioned that the religious rituals

degrades the environment. While on the other hand 41.82

percent of the respondents mention that religious rituals does

not pollute the water by the immersion of idols of the Devi

Devtas. They have a view that with it water becomes pure.

Those respondents who said that water becomes polluted with

these activities may have logical thinking behind their such

consideration.



and income. The data in this regard is presented in the

following tables.

185

Table 5.24


their views whether religious rituals degrades the

environment

Whether the religious rituals


Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 20 (62.56) 70 (37.44) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 43 (51.19) 41 (48.81) 84 (100)

61 years & above 7 (43.75) 9 (56.25) 16 (100)

Total 167 (58.18) 120 (41.82) 287 (100)

X2 = 4.535, df =2, P < .1

The above table depicts that 62.56 percent of the

respondent from the age category of 20 to 40 years mentioned

religious ritual degrades the environment followed by the age

category of 41 to 60 years respectively. While majority of the

respondent i.e. 56.25 percent from the age category of 61 years

and above stated that religious rituals do not make any effect

on environmental degradation. This shows that younger

generation thinks logically while the older generation still pay

more attention to religion so they think religiously. The Chi-

square value also shows the significant association between

these two.

The views of the respondents also were correlated with the

education of the respondent and the data in this regard is


186

Table 5.25


education and their views regarding whether religious

rituals degrades the environment

Whether the religious

rituals degrades the

environment

Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 20 (31.71) 36 (64.29) 56 (100)

Upto middle &

Secondary

15 (50.00) 15 (50.00) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary &

Graduate

44 (63.76) 25 (36.24) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

88 (66.66) 44 (33.34) 132 (100)

Total 167 (58.18) 120 (41.82) 287 (100)

X2 = 17.235, df=3, P < .0006

The above table clearly indicates that as the education of

the respondents increase their views also increase in "yes" and

as the educational level decreases their views increases in "no" .

This may be due to fact that an educated person pay more

attention towards environmental problems while on the other

side uneducated or less educated people may not take this kind

of issues seriously. People do not bother about environment

their only thinking is to perform the rituals to full fill their

wishes. The Chi-square value also shows a significant


187

Again the views of the respondent were correlated with the

occupation of the respondents and the data in this regard is

presented below

Table 5.26


occupation and their views regarding whether religious

rituals degrades the environment

Whether religious rituals


Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 24 (52.17) 22 (47.83) 46 (100)

Business Class 45 (54.87) 37 (45.13) 82 (100)

Service Class 80 (68.37) 37 (31.63) 117 (100)

Labour 8 (33.33) 16 (66.67) 24 (100)

Total 157 112 287 (100)

X2 = 12.15, df=3, P < .006*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation.


respondents from service, 54.87 percent from Business, 52.17

percent from Agriculture and only 33.33 percent from laboures

respectively supported this views that religious rituals degrades

the environment. On the other side 66.67 percent from

labourers, 47.83 percent from agriculture, 45.13 percent from

business and only 31.63 percent from agriculture, 45.13

percent from business and only 31.63 percent from service

mentioned "no". A very clear trend is there that a vast majority

of there respondents i.e. 68.37 percent from service class

mentioned that religious rituals degrades the environment while

on the other side vast majority of the respondents from daily

188

wages/ labour means low profile occupations said that this do

not degrade the environment. Which again shows the

respondents from low profile occupation has strong belief in

nature or religious activities. The Chi-square value also shows

that a significant association between these two variables.

The views of the respondents were correlated with the

income of the respondent and the data in this regard is

presented below.

Table 5.27


and their views regarding whether religious rituals degrades

the environment

Whether the religious rituals


Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 37 (51.38) 35 (48.62) 72 (100)

Rs. 10001 to 20000 82 (60.29) 54 (39.71) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20,000 41 (61.12) 21 (33.88) 62 (100)

Not applicable 7 (41.17) 10 (58.83) 17 (100)

Total 167 (58.18) 120 (41.82) 287 (100)

X2 = 5.245, df=3, P < .1

The table given above reveals that the respondents from

all the income categories mentioned that religious rituals

degrade the environment. On the other side 58.83 percent from

the income category of not applicable 48.62 percent from less

than Rs. 10,000 , 39.71 percent from Rs. 10001 to

Rs, 20000 and only 33.88 percent from above Rs. 20000

mentioned that religious rituals does not degrades the

189

environment. This shows that as the income level of the

respondent increase their views also increase in "yes" and as

the income level decrease their views increase in "no". This may

be due to the fact that higher income groups of respondents

were much aware and think logically. But lower level income

group respondents have much faith in rituals. The Chi-square


variables.

(F) MODERN LIFE STYLE

When we talk about modern life style first of all one sees

an intense attraction among the youths throughout the world,

for the so called pop music whether it be rock, heavy speakers

or other forms and the wearing of such typically modern

dresses, which reflect the ideas of freedom from constraint and

of mobility and of the individual declaration of independent

from social norms. There is also the craze of fast cars and other

big vehicles which creates thrill. There are sources of

entertainment which involves speed and daring acts which one

can see in western made movies. Most of the Youth are

traveling fast without knowing where to go. This fascination

with the everyday modern life style is shown on television and

other forms of mass media transmitting the cultural values of

the modern or so called post modern world.

The other significant impact of modern lifestyle is the

emergence of fast food restaurants. Fast food is common to all

of us. Now most of us in a hectic life, as a result fast food

become a part of our life, it can be faster to pick up some food

rather than make it yourself. It is easy and faster than we cook

190

it our self at home which we must prepared many ingredients

for cook one meal. Yet, fast food will bring effect to your health

and environment, because if the need of fast food is increasing,

to fulfill the needs more restaurants has been to open for this

they need land and for it cutting of trees is also increased and

the great rush is also increased which degrade the

environment.

An attempt has been made to discuss and highlights the

Bottled and Sachet vended water which is considered a food

product and conveniently used in traveling, hotels and

restaurants. The introduction of bottled and sachet vended

water to consumers is to provide safe, hygienic and affordable

instant drinking water to the public. Although this is a novel ad

fruitful idea, but current trends appear to suggest that bottle or

sachet drinking water could be a route of transmission of

enteric pathogens. The water is thought to be safe for drinking

but available reports indicated that it may not entirely fire of

infectious microorganisms (Reddy 2000, Baba et al. 2008,

Onifade and Clori 2008). The presence of microorganisms in

bottle and sachet water depends on the source and how the

water is treated (Mewari et at. 2005, Okagbue et al. 2002). Most

bottled water apparently is of good quality, but a few may be

contaminated. One should not assure bottled water to be purer

or safer than most tap water hence establish the public's right

to know for bottle and sachet water as now required for tap

water. Bottle and sachet vended water is required to be tested

on weekly basis, and the microbiological standards are the

191

same as for public water supplies (Lal and Kaur 2006, Bharath

et al. 2003, Obiri-Danso et al. 2003).

Another aspect which is also taken in consideration is use

of plastic in our everyday life. Plastic, the most versatile and

wonder material, is the product of spectacular development in

the area of polymer science and technology. The penetration

and acceptance of plastic into the social fabric is so high that it

is now difficult to conceive a world without plastics. It is hard to

trace out any area where plastic is not used. Which ranges from

variety of carry bags to day to day home utensils and

appliances. Needless to say that plastics have reached such a

stage that human survival cannot be ensured without their use.

So our modern life style and daily requirements degrades our

environment and our health at very fast rate.

There are many other things to highlight in modern

lifestyle like in these days people are more dependent on

machines they feel shy in doing manual work. It means more

machines more pollution. Many people in the society want

shows off by showing big cars, expensive mobile phones,

laptops, air conditioners etc. They use these things in excess

without bothering about environment, like in summer they

used air conditioners in excess for their luxurious life. The heat

which is produced by air conditioners, mobile phones, laptops

generate very harmful radiation which needs to environmental

degradation but nobody cares about it.

The respondents were asked to mention that whether our

modern life style degrades the environment or not and their

response in this regard is presented in the following table.

192

Table 5.28

Distribution of the respondent according to their views

whether modern life style degrades the environment

Views whether modern life style



Yes 202 70.38

No 85 29.62

Total 287 100.00

The above table indicates that 70.38 percent of the

respondents mentioned that modern life style degrades

environment. On the other hand 29.62 percent mentioned

modern life style does not degrade environment. Those

respondents who mentioned yes certain reasons such as, in

modern life style more people want to be modern; this some way

leads to environmental degradation. While those respondents

who mention no may be due to the fact they own wants to

become more modern so they ignore these things and said no or

it also may be they were not much aware about how

advancement of new things which are called modern things like

mobiles phones degrades the environment.


other socio-economic variables and the data in this regard is

presented in the following tables.

193

Table 5.29


their views whether modern life style degrades the

environment

Whether modern life style


Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 125 (66.84) 62 (33.16) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 65 (77.38) 19 (22.61) 84 (100)

61 years & above 12 (75.00) 4 (25.00) 16 (100)

Total 202 (70.38) 85 (29.62) 287 (100)

X2 = 3.26, df=2, P < .1

The above table reveals that majority of the respondents

from the age category of 41 to 60 years i.e. 77.38 percent

mentioned that modern life style degrades the environment

followed by the age category 61 years and above. On the other

side 33.16 percent of the respondents from the age category of

20 to 40 years mentioned that modern life style doest not effect

the environment Those respondents who mentioned "yes" were

of the view that they were from middle and old age category

were of the view that they did not like the modern life style

that’s why they mentioned that it degrades environment. A

higher number of those who were of the view that it does not

effect were from the age category of 20 to 40 years this may be

due to the fact the younger people preferred modern life style,

so they don't bothered about environmental degradation. So

they do not put attention to these things. The Chi-square also

shows a significant association between these two variables.

194

The education of the respondents has also been correlated

with their views regarding modern life style degrades the

environment or not and their response is shown in the table

given below.

Table 5.30

Distribution of the respondent according to their education

and their views whether modern life style degrades the

environment

Whether modern life

style degrades the

environment

Education

Yes No

Total

Uneducated 25 (44.06) 31 (55.04) 56 (100)

Upto middle &

Secondary 55

20 (66.66) 10 (33.34) 30 (100)

Higher Secondary &

Graduate

50 (72.46) 19 (27.54) 69 (100)

Post Graduate &

Professionals

107(81.00) 25(19.00) 132 (100)

Total 202 (70.38) 85 (29.62) 287 (100)

X2 = 4.744, df=3, P < .001

The above table clearly shows that a vast majority of the

respondent who were post graduates and professionals i.e. 81

percent mentioned that modern life style degrades the

environment followed by higher secondary and graduate. While

55.4 percent of the respondents who were uneducated mention

that modern life style does not degrades environment. The table

shows a contrast that the highly educated respondents

mentioned in majority that modern life style degrades the

195

environment. On the other hand uneducated respondents in

majority mentioned that modern life style does not effect the

environment. This shows that education has great impact on

the thinking of people regarding environment. The Chi-square


variables.

The occupation of the respondents has also been

correlated with their views regarding modern life style degrades

the environment or not and their responses are shown in the

following table given below.

Table 5.31


occupation and their views whether modern life style




Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 19 (45.03) 27 (58.7) 46 (100)

Business Class 68 (82.92) 14 (17.08) 82 (100)

Service Class 97 (82.9) 20 (17.01) 117 (100)

Daily wages & Labour 8 (33.34) 16 (66.66) 24 (100)

Total 192 (70.38) 77 (29.62) 269 (100)


The table given above shows that an overwhelming

majority of the respondents from two occupational categories of

service business i.e. 82.9 percent stated that modern life style

degrades the environment. While majority i.e. 66.66 percent of

the respondent from daily wagers/labourers followed by

196

agricultural occupation i.e. 58.7 percent mentioned that it does

not degrades the environment. This may be due to the fact that

they themselves living a simple life and may not have

knowledge of the consequences of using air conditioners,

laptops, automobiles, mobiles , loud music etc. The Chi-square

value also shows a significant association between the two.

Income of the respondent has also been correlated with

their views regarding modern life style degrades the

environment or not and the data is presented in the following

table.

Table 5.32


and their views whether modern life style degrades the

environment



Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than Rs. 10000 37 (57.04) 35 (48.06) 72 (100)

Rs. 10001 to 20000 100 (73.06) 36 (26.04) 136 (100)

Above Rs. 20000 55 (88.71) 7 (11.29) 62 (100)

Not applicable 10 (58.82) 7 (41.18) 17 (100)

Total 230 57 287 (100)

X2 = 24.187, df=3, P > .002

This table reveals that a very large majority of the

respondents i.e. 82.71 percent income was above Rs. 20,000

per month were of the view that modern living is responsible for

environmental degradation followed by the income categories of

Rs. 10000/- to Rs. 20000 and less than Rs. 10000. Even those

respondents who did not have any income also were of the

197

same view point. While a higher percentage of those who stated

that modern living style did not spoil environment were from

the low income group i.e. of less that Rs. 10000 per month.

This indicates that income has the influence on the living style

of the people and their thinking about the environment. The

chi-square value shows a direct association between these two

variables.

Further the respondents were asked to mention that how

modern life style degrades environment. Their responses in this

regard are presented in Table 5.33.

Tale 5.33

Distribution of the respondent according to their responses

about modern life style degrades the environment


We don't want to work with hands,

depends on machines which

creates pollution

65 22.64

More factories and new showrooms

for modern style of clothes

52 18.11

Mobile phones use in excess 20 6.96

Modern people depend on

petroleum products which creates

maximum degradation

56 19.54

For our luxurious life we use more

A.C. and other appliances

23 8.01

We use disposable material which

is not actually non degradable

14 4.87

Who said no modern life style is not

degrading environment

57 19.87

Total 287 100.00

198

The table given above indicates that 22.64 percent of the

respondents mentioned that people do not want to do manual

work they depend on machines which creates pollution, 19.54

percent mentioned that people depend on petroleum products,

18.11 mentioned that modern people give stress on more

clothes which needs new showrooms and with which

deforestation is increase. 8.01 percent and 6.96 percent of the

respondents mentioned that people use more mobiles and use

luxurious things like AC and other electrical appliances which

create pollution. And 4.87 percent mentioned that people use

disposal material which is not actually bio-degradable.

(G) FESTIVALS

The state Punjab is known for festivals. In this state every

month has a festival. It starts form January and ends with

December. The very first festival in Punjab is Lohri which comes

on the last day at Poh (December, January) extremely popular

festival. A few days before it arrives, youngsters get together in

a group and go round their localities singing songs connected

with Lohri and collecting fuel and money for the bonfire. This is

a special day for making offering to fire. The next day after

Lohri comes Maghi, also called Makar Yonkranti (entry of the

sun in the sign of Capricorn). It is very popular with the

Punjabi's in this day the people go out for a holy dip.

After that the most colorful and hilarious of all the

festivals, which are celebrated in Punjab is Holy and Hola

Mohalla. Each year, spring is ushered in by the people with the

celebration of a vigorous and colorful festival at Anandpur

Sahib and other sides at Punjab. The other famous festivals of

Punjab are Gurupurabs. The festivals held in honor of Sikh

Gurus are called Gurupurabs. They are well spread over the

199

year like birth anniversary of Guru Nanak, Birth anniversary of

Guru Gobind, Martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev etc.

Baisakhi is one of the most popular festivals of the

Punjab, with fairs held at various places. Baisakhi, the first day

of the month of Baisakhi (April/May) is New Year's Day, going

by the Saka Calendar. Essentially it is a North Indian harvest

festival, for it is a day when the reaping of the rabi (winter crop)

beings. The jubilation at a bountiful harvest becomes the

reason for celebration.

After the Baisakhi there is a festival of Teyan, a festival of

the rainy season, is celebrated on the 3rd of the bright fortnight

of Sawan (July-August). During this period of sky generally

remains overcast and the weather shifts between sultriness and

rainfall.

After these festivals there are some festivals which are

celebrated in a big way like Dussehra, Navratras, Diwali, etc.

Now after discussing all the festivals, the main focus of

the present study is that how all these festivals degrade the

environment. In the earlier times all these festivals were

celebrated in very simpler way but now these days every body

celebrated these festivals by modern ways like a ten day

celebration of the warrior goddess Durga, thousands of pandals

or temporary temple structure set up all over the city to

worship the deity, live music and people from all over

converging on to the city to participate in the festivities, causing

traffic mayhem. The highlight of the festivals occurs when

elaborately decorated figures of the goddess, carried by huge

processions, are immersed ceremoniously in the river, which

degrades the rivers and lakes.

200

Another factor of festivals which degrades the

environment is bursting of crackers on Diwali, Dusherra, at

New Year etc. Like Diwali is known as the 'festival of lights'

Diyas (clay lamps) are lit to chase away the darkness of

ignorance and welcome the bright light of enlightenment.

However, in our zest to overboard carelessness during the

festivals celebration can have a detrimental our safety.

Firecrackers are traditionally perceived as being the highlight of

festival celebrations. Most people believe that greater the

fireworks, better the celebrations. However, very few people stop

to think just how harmful these crackers are for the

environment. These toxic substances are not just harmful to

human beings, but to all living creatures they tend to remain in

the atmosphere for extended periods. So their harmful effects

are experienced long after festivals celebrations are ended. The

noise produced by crackers is extremely hazardous to health.

Sudden noise can cause temporary hearing loss crackers burst

indiscriminately cause disturbances in sleep. This can be

especially upsetting to people who require undisturbed rest like

babies and elderly people.

Besides the immersion of idols, firecrackers, today we face

noise degradation by using loud speakers in festivals season.

The frequent playing of loud speakers even in odd hours,

ceaseless loud sound of radios and televisions deafen us in day

time. When there is near a time of festivals the time of festivals

the shopkeepers display devotional video-audios on T.V. sets,

and also run ca cassettes and CDs on audio-sets to attract the

visitors to boost their sales. In this way they unconsciously

degrade the environment by creating noise.

201

In order to find out the views of the respondents regarding

the festival season degrades the environment or not. Their

views were correlated with other socio-economics variables and

Chi-square value also shows the significant association. The

data in this regard is presented in the following tables.

Table 5.34

Distribution of the respondent according to their views

regarding whether festivals degrades the environment

Whether the festivals degrades the

environment


Yes 180 62.71

No 107 37.69

Total 287 100.00


respondents mentioned that festivals degrade the environment.

On the other side 37.69 percent of the respondents mentioned

that festivals does not degrade. Those respondent who celebrate

said "yes" were of the opinion that the activities of the people to

celebrate the festivals, leads to environmental degradation.

While those who said "no" were of the view that festivals do not

come everyday (teohar roj roj nahi aunde, te saal wich je kuj aa

ve jaan taan koi ena farak nahi painda).

The views of the respondents were further correlated with


and income of the respondents. The data in this regard is

presented in the following table.

202

Table 5.35


their views whether festivals degrades the environment

Whether the festival season


Age

Yes No

Total

20 to 40 years 99 ( 52.94) 88 (47.06) 187 (100)

41 to 60 years 65 (77.38) 19 (22.62) 84 (100)

61 years & above 16 (100.00) --- 16 (100)

Total 180 (62.71) 107 (37.69) 287 (100)

X2 = 24.879 df=2, P < .001

The above table depicts that 100.00 percent of the

respondents from the age category of 61 years and above

followed by 77.38 percent from the age category of 41 to 60

years, and 52.94 percent from the age category of 20 to 40

years respectively mentioned that festivals degrades the

environment at large level. On the other side 47.06 percent of

the respondents from the age category of 20 to 40 years and

only 22.62 percent from the age category of 41 to 60 years

mentioned that festivals not effect the environment. This shows

that middle age and old age people had a view that festivals

season the rare lot of problems like smoke, noise, water

pollution etc. But on the other hand youngsters have a view

that festivals are to celebrate and to enjoy. This table clearly

indicates the aged respondents were of the view that festivals

are responsible for environmental degradation. While younger

respondents stated that it does not matter. The Chi-square


variables.

203

Again the views of the respondents were correlated with

the education of the respondents and the data in this regard is


Table 5.36

Distribution of respondents according to their education

and their views whether festivals degrades the environment

Whether the festivals season


Education

Yes No

Total

Low Education 38 (44.19) 48 (55.81) 86 (100)

Medium Education 50 (72.46) 19 (27.54) 69 (100)

Higher Education 92 (69.69) 40 (30.31) 132 (100)

Total 180 107 287 (100)

X2 = 18.184 df=2, P > .0001

For the purpose of better analysis the first two

educational categories have been clubbed and three broad

categories have been made like low education and higher

education.

The table given about shows that an overwhelming

majority of the respondents from medium and higher education

72.46 percent and 69.69 percent respectively stated that

festivals degrade the environment. While a higher proportion

i.e. 55.81 percent of the respondents from the low educational

category mentioned that it does not make any difference. This

shows that education has a great influence on the thinking of

the people. The educated respondents did not believe that much

in celebration in that way. While uneducated or less educated

have their concern only to celebrate. They said that "Eh taan

204

khushian de mauke hunde ne, Es naal vatavarn te koe Farak

nahi painda."

The views of the respondents also correlated with the

occupation of the respondents and the data in this respect is

given below.

Table 5.37

Distribution of respondents according to their occupation

and their views whether festivals degrades the environment

Whether the festivals


Occupation

Yes No

Total

Agriculture 25 (54.34) 21 (45.66) 46 (100)

Business Class 45 (54.87) 37 (45.13) 82 (100)

Service Class 90 (76.92) 27 (23.08) 117 (100)

Daily wages &

Labour

10 (41.66) 14 (58.34) 24 (100)

Total 170 (63.19) 99 (36.81) 269 (100)

X2 = 18.25 df=3, P > .0003*household category was excluded from the table because household is notconsidered as occupation.

The table given above indicates that a vast majority of the

respondents i.e. 76.92 percent from the occupational category

of service mentioned that festivals degrade the environment.

The table also shows that 58.34 percent of the respondents who

were engaged in labour mentioned that festivals do not degrade

the environment. This may be due to the fact hat they did not

have deep vision about how environment is degraded in the

festivals seasons and they also said that they did not take any

tensions about these things. The Chi-square value also shows a


205


the income and the data is present the following table.

Table 5.38

Distribution of respondents according to their income and

their views whether festivals degrades the environment

Whether the festivals


Monthly income

Yes No

Total

Less than 7000 27 (37.5) 45 (62.5) 72 (100)

7100 to 20000 95 (69.85) 41 (30.15) 136 (100)

21,000 & above 48 (77.41) 14 (22.58) 62 (100)

No Income 10 (58.82) 7 (41.18) 17 (100)

Total 180 107 287 (100)

X2 = 28.384, df=3, P > .0003

The table given above clearly shows that a majority of the

respondents i.e. 77.41% from the income category of above Rs.

20,000 mentioned that the festivals degrades the environment

followed by the income category of Rs. 10001 to Rs. 20000 were

having same views. On the other side the respondents from the

income category of less then Rs. 10000 mentioned that the

festivals do not degrades the environment. This shows that

respondents from higher and middle income groups said "yes".

While the respondents from the lower income groups stated

"no". This shows how the income plays a role in the thinking of

an individual. The Chi-square value also shows a significant


Further the respondents were asked to mention their

views that how festival season degrades the environment and

206

their responses in this regard in given below in the following

table.

Table 5.39

Distribution of respondents according to their responses

that how festivals degrades the environment


Great rush of vehicles 55 19.16

Air pollution from fire crackers 97 33.79

Loud Music 62 21.60

Soil is degraded due to chemical

Holi colours

45 15.67

Who said no festival season


28 9.78

Total 287 100.00

The table given above indicates that 33.79 percent of

respondents mentioned that in festivals people use fire crackers

which produce pollution, 21.60 percent of the respondents

mentioned that in festival seasons people use to play loud

music and 19.16 percent and 15.67 percent mentioned that

there is great rush of vehicles in markets and soil is degraded

by using chemical colours like in the festival of Holi degrades

the environment.

207

References

Baba, A.F.S., Erees, V., Hicsobniz, S. Cam and H.G. Ozbilek

(2008) “An Assessment of the Quality of Various Bottled

Mineral Water Marketed in Turkey”, Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment, 139, pp.277-285.

Bharath, J.M., Mosodeen, S. Motilala, S., Sandy, S. Sharma, T.

Tessaro, K. Thomas, M. Umamaheswaran, D. Simeon and

A.A. Adesiyun (2003) “Microbial Quality of National and

Imported Brands of Bottled Water in Trinidad”,

International Journal of Ford Microbiology, 81(1), p.62.

Bhaskar Rao, B. (1977) “Integrated Development of Urban

Regions”, Proceeding of the Coasted Seminar, Madras,

pp.176-198.

Bose A. (1978) India's Urbansiation: 1901-2001, New Delhi: Tata

McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.

Bose, Asish (1970) Urbanization in India, New Delhi: Academic

Books.

Conne, J. et al. (1976) Migration from Rural Areas: The Evidence

from Village Studies, Madras: Oxford University Press.

Desta, A. (1999) Environmentally Sustainable Economic

Development, Praeger Publisher.

Folke, Steen (1968) “Evaluation of Plantations, Migration and

Population Growth in Nilgiris and Coorg”, Collected

Papers Denmark, N.K. Jacobsan and R.H. Jensen (eds.)

21st Inter-National Geographical Congress, New Delhi.

Jalal, K. (1992) “Environmental Degradation and Economic

Openness in LDCs: The Poverty Linkage”, Am. J. Agr.

Econ., pp.1183-1243.

Kurien, C.T. (1978) Poverty, Planning and Social Transformation,

New Delhi: Allied Publishers.

208

Lal, M. and H. Kaur (2006) “A Microbiological Study of Bottled

Mineral Water Marketed in Ludhiana”, Indian Journal of

Public Health, 50(1), pp.31-32.

Manmohan Singh, H.K. (1979) “Population Pressure and

Labour Availability in Agriculture and Selected Activities”,

Economic and Political Weekly, 14, 11 March.

Mewari, L.O., S. Lwuanyanwu, C.I. Ojelabi, O. Uzochukwer and

W.W. Effiok (2005) “Bacteriology of Sachet Water Sold in

Lagos, Nigeria”, East African Medical Journal, 82(5),

pp.235-240.

Mohan R. (1996) Urbanisation in India: Patterns and Emerging

Policy Issues in the Urban Transformation of the Developing

World. Josef Gurgler (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) (1988) Report of the

National Commission on Urbanization, Vol. 2.

Obiri-Danso, K., A. Okare-Hanson and K. Jones (2003) “The

Microbiological Quality of Water Sold of the Streets in

Kumari, Ghana”, Letters in Applied Microbiology, 37(4),

pp.334-339.

Okagbue, R.N. N.R. Dlamini, M. Siwela and F. Mfofer (2002)

“Microbiological Quality of Water Processed and Bottled in

Zimbabwe”, African Journal of Health Science, 9(1-2),

pp.99-103.

Premi, M.K. (1981) “Role of Migration in the Urbanization

Process in Third World Countries: A Case Study of India”,

Social Action, Vol. 31, July-September.

Reddy, P. (2000) “Microbiological Analysis of Bottled Water”,

Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, 18(2), pp.72-76.

Singh (1980) Poverty and Social Change, New Delhi: Orient

Longman Ltd.

209

CHAPTER – VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Every century has its challenges before India but the

twenty first century will have more serious challenges than

earlier in the form to protect environment and sustain life on

this earth. Environment has come to occupy an important

position in the agenda of Governments of all nations at the

globe. The present study has been planned to assess the socio-

cultural factors related to environmental degradation in Patiala

city of Punjab, keeping in view the following objectives of the

study:

1. To examine the influence of social factors like caste, class,

education, family size and occupation on environmental

degradation.

2. To examine the impact of an unexpected number of

outsiders i.e. migrants, on existing resources like disposal

of waste, water supply, electricity and sanitary conditions.

3. To examine the extent of environmental problems which

are created by industrialization and urbanization.

4. To evaluate the extent of awareness about environmental

degradation among people.

5. To find out how poverty is responsible for environmental

degradation.

6. To investigate the role of various organizations such as

hospitals, cottage industries, dairies, etc. towards

environmental degradation.

7. To know the cultural factors like style of living, festivals,

ceremonies etc, affecting the environment adversely.

210

The Hypotheses

The following hypotheses have been put to test in the

present study:

1. The type and extent of environmental degradation is

likely to differ according to culture, behavior, education,

economic status, caste, occupation, etc.

2. The migration of population from rural to urban areas

put a burden on the existing infrastructural resources

leading to environmental degradation.

3. Increasing industrialization and urbanization leads to

various types of pollution like dust, smoke, noise,

chemicals and waste exposal.

4. The awareness about environmental degradation is

likely to be influenced by social factors like age,

occupation education, economic status and caste.

5. The environmental degradation is likely to be influenced

by the cultural factors.

6. Different organizations like hospital, industrial units,

dairies, etc. contribute to environmental degradation

and decline.

7. Poverty has a leading impact on environmental

degradation.

8. Increasing population contributes much in degrading

the environment.

The introductory chapter deals with the statement of the

research problem. Methodology and significance of the study.

The Second chapter deals with the review of literature.

Various studies have been reviewed with respect to the different

aspects of environment and its degradation which have been

included in the present study. The conclusions arrived at by

211

these studies have been compared with the findings of the

present study. The analysis of data of the present study has

revealed that the findings are in conformity with those of the

earlier studies.

The third chapter deals with the socio-economic

characteristics of the respondents which are as follows:-

It was found that maximum number of respondents at the

time of data collection were quite young they fall in the age

category of 20 to 40 years. Only one third of the total

respondents fall in the age category of 41 to 60 years and very

few respondents i.e. one twentieth part of the total were above

61 years in age. A vast majority of the respondents were males

(179) followed by the females (108). Majority of the respondents

were from commercial caste (Arora, Bania, Sodhi etc.) followed

by agricultural caste (Jats, Kamboj etc.) and priestly caste

(Brahmins). A number was very low in the category of schedule

(Harizans, Ramdasia, Majhabi etc.) and backward caste

(Tarkhan, Lohar, Sunar, Chimbe etc.).

The data reveal that majority of the respondents were

Sikhs followed by Hindus. It was observed that the highly

educated constituted the major proportion of the sample. Yet

the proportion of other educational categories differed by very

less margin. It was found that majority of them were engaged in

the occupations of service, business and agriculture

respectively. The analysis revealed that majority of the

respondents had medium income at the time of data collection.

The proportion of the high income and low income differed by a

low margin. One fourth of the total respondents have low

income.

212

In present study majority of the respondents were

married, one fourth of the respondents were unmarried and

very lesser proportion of the respondents were widows/

widowers. It was found that majority of the respondents were

living in nuclear family. Near about one third were living in

quasi-joint families and only 17.07 percent were living in joint

families. This shows the extent that how the joint family is

breaking in the urban areas. The analysis with regard to

educational score of family revealed that an overwhelming

majority of the families were placed in high educational score

category, which shows the educational status of the family.

The analysis revealed that majority of the respondents

were living in Pucca houses. Very few respondents were living

in semi-pucca or Kacha houses. The analysis revealed that

majority of the respondents had separate kitchen and they use

Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) in the kitchen. The respondents

who mentioned that they did not have separate kitchen they

were using cow dung cakes, wood or kerosene oil. Majority of

the respondents mentioned that they keep the garbage in one

corner of their house in dustbin but did not cover it. Some of

them mentioned hesitatingly that they throw the garbage in the

remote area near their house. It shows that they were aware

about these pollutants but did not care about it. They want to

clean their own house only but not their surroundings.

Majority of the respondents mentioned that they had

proper sanitation facilities. Who did not have proper sanitation

facilities they mentioned that they face of lot of problems. It was

observed that those people who did not have proper sanitation

they contribute a lot in environmental degradation. Like they

use pits for excreta disposal, they made small drains near their

213

house to dispose the liquid waste like waste from kitchen,

washing, bathing etc.

The fourth chapter highlights the extent of awareness

about environmental degradation and specific pollutants such

as unhygienic habits, noise pollutant, dust, insecticide and

pesticide, perfumes, e-waste, polythene, hospital waste was

analyzed.

It was found that majority of the respondents were

partially aware about environmental degradation only one-third

were fully aware. The analysis revealed that majority of the

young respondents were partially aware as compare to other

ones. The analysis with regard to their occupation revealed that

majority of the respondents from all the occupational categories

were partially aware about the environmental degradation. Who

were fully aware were from the occupational category of service.

The data revealed that the majority of the respondents who

were fully aware were from higher income groups. This shows

that income has positive association with the thinking of an

individual. The chi-square value also shows a significant

association. This clearly corroborates the hypotheses that type

and extent of environmental degradation is likely to differ

according to culture, behaviour, education, economic status,

caste, occupation, etc.

The analysis revealed that an overwhelming majority of

the respondents were of the view that unhygienic habits like

smoking, splitting, throwing garbage in the open etc. From the

age point of view majority of the young and highly educated

respondents had the same considerations. While middle aged

and the aged respondents had the opposite views. The analysis

of the occupational aspect of the respondents revealed that an

214

overwhelming majority of the respondents form the service

occupation considered unhygienic habits as the pollutants.

While those who did not considered unhygienic habits as

pollutants were from agriculture and labour class.

Majority of the aged and middle aged respondents

consider noise as pollutant while the younger respondents had

mixed response because the younger generation like loud noise

like bikes without silencers, honking pressure horns, loud

music in their cars and DJs etc. The Majority of the respondent

from higher educational category mentioned noise as pollutant

while who did not consider noise as pollutant were from lower

educational category in majority. With regard to occupation and

income categories the same trend was found.

The analysis with regard to dust as pollutant revealed

that a large majority of the respondents consider dust as

pollutant. A very little proportion of respondent did not concern

about these things. With regard to the education the analysis

depicted that hundred percent of the respondents from the

higher educational category followed by medium educational

category considered dust as a pollutant.

The majority of the respondents considered insecticides

and pesticides as pollutants. Majority of the respondents from

20 to 40 years and 41 to 60 years considered insecticides and

pesticides as pollutant. While from the age category of above 61

years half of them mentioned 'yes' and half mentioned 'no'. A

majority of highly educated mentioned insecticides and

pesticides pollutes the environment. While majority of the

uneducated had the opposite views. The majority of the

respondents from service, business and those who had higher

income considered insecticides and pesticides as pollutants.

215

The majority of the respondents considered perfumes as

pollutant. An overwhelming majority of the aged respondents

mentioned that perfumes degrade the environment while young

respondents mentioned that it makes no differences (eh jado

spray krde aa tan thoda ja tan hunda hai ehne naal environment

khraab nahi hunda). The respondents who were highly educated

considered perfumes as pollutants in majority. While who were

not educated were of the view that perfumes do not effect the

environment. This indicates that either they were not aware or

they may not be using the perfumes. Further data reveals that

those who had high income were of the view that perfumes

create environmental pollution. While the respondents from the

lower income category said perfumes did not pollutes the

environment.


mentioned that e-wastage is a big pollutant. While one-third of

the total respondents mentioned that e-wastage is not a

pollutant. Majority of the respondents from the age category of

20 to 40 years and 41 to 60 years considered e-wastage as

pollutant, because they were aware about the consequences of

these things. While those respondents who responded in

negative were from 61 years and above age category in majority

because they did not have any concern about these things.

Again with regard to the education, occupation and income of

the respondents showed the same trend that majority of the

respondents who were highly educated; who were having higher

income; and who were from service and business type of

occupations.

The data revealed that a vast majority of the respondents

considered polythene as a pollutant. With regard to the age the

216

analysis revealed that the majority of the respondent from all

the age category considered polythene as a pollutant. With

regard to the education the data revealed that an over whelming

majority of the respondents from the higher educational

categories considered polyethene as a pollutant. The data also

revealed that the respondents who were uneducated did not

considered polythene as pollutant because it becomes a part of

their life and they said (ehna lifafayan bin tan bilkul ne sarda).

The people considered polythene as a pollutant but in practice

they use polythene in their daily routine. Nobody refuse to

accept it when it is given by the shopkeepers. The analysis also

revealed that the respondents from occupational category of

labour and lower income considered polythene as no pollutant.

An overwhelming majority of the respondent considered

hospital wastage as a pollutant with regards to the age the

analysis revealed that majority of the respondents from all the

age categories considered hospital wastage as a pollutant. The

data revealed that an over whelming majority of the

respondents from all the educational categories considered

hospital wastage as a pollutant. And the trend is also same in

occupation and income categories. It was found that an

overwhelming majority of the respondents considered

deforestation as a factor of environmental degradation but it

was observed that upto some extent they themselves were

responsible for deforestation. There was no significant

association with age and occupation was found regarding

deforestation as a factor of environmental degradation. The

analysis revealed that the respondents from high education and

high income categories considered deforestation as a pollutant,

in majority.

217

The fifth chapter highlights impact of socio cultural

factors on environmental degradation. The analysis of the

impact of socio-cultural factors on environmental degradation

points out the following main findings.


mentioned migration from rural to urban areas as a factor of

environmental degradation. While one-third of the respondents

mentioned that migration did not effect the environment. The

analysis revealed that majority of the respondents from the

higher educational categories mentioned migration as a factor

of environmental degradation. While who were low educated

and uneducated mentioned 'no' regarding migration as a factor

of environmental degradation, because they did not have any

vision about these things. It was observed that a majority of the

respondents from the higher income categories were of the view

that migration is responsible for environmental degradation.

But who placed in the low income category did not feel like.

Who considered migration as factor of environmental

degradation gave some reasons like there is an increase in

cutting of trees for building houses, increase in slums,

increasing number of vehicles etc. Chi-square vale shows a

significant association. This also proves the hypotheses the

migration of population from rural to urban put a burden on

the existing infrastructural resources leading to environmental

degradation.


had a view that growth of urbanization and industrialization

degrades the environment. It was found that majority of the

respondents from the age category of 20 to 40 years mentioned

growth of urbanization and industrialization leads to

218

degradation of the environment followed by the age category of

41 to 60 years. The data also revealed that from the age

category of 61 years and above half of the respondents

mentioned 'yes' and half mentioned 'no'. It was observed that

majority of the respondents from middle and higher education

stated that the increase in urbanization and industrialization

degrades the environment. In case of occupation majority of the

respondents from service and business occupation had the

same view. It was also found that the respondents from middle

and higher income categories said that urbanization and

industrialization is responsible for degrading the environment.

While the respondent from low education and lower occupation

who consider urbanization and industrialization as a factor of

environmental degradation have given some reasons, like

development of new unplanned colonies, development of

industry and even small scale industries like, dairies, dying

clothes, leather work, poultry. Increasing number of vehicles,

automobiles shops and development of slums, butchers, hair

dressers, and tailors are the consequences of growth of

urbanization and industrialization. Chi-square also shows

significant association between all these independent variables.

This too proves the hypotheses in this context.

The analysis revealed that an over whelming majority of

the respondent mentioned that poverty degrades the

environment. Because it is the well known fact that the poor

has to depend on the nature to fulfill his daily needs by cutting

tree for fuels, using roadside for toilets etc. The analysis

revealed that majority of the respondents from all the age

categories mentioned that poverty is the factor of environmental

degradation. Very lesser respondents mentioned 'no'. A majority

219

of the respondents from the high level of educational category

were of the view that poverty contributes in degrading the

environment. Those who mentioned that it does not effect were

from lower level of education in majority. A majority of the

respondents from service, business and agricultural occupation

further supported the same view. While those who mentioned

that poverty does not play any role in degrading the

environment were from labourers. The same trend was found in

the income categories. Chi-square also shows a significant

association. The respondents gave many reasons in support of

their answers. Such as poor people have lack of basic

amenities; like no proper kitchen; no washrooms; no toilets;

they use clay hearths which produces smoke and they use to

throw garbage in the open etc. And even they did not bother

about the environment. Hence, proving our hypotheses that

poverty has a leading impact of environmental degradation.

It was found that majority of the respondents mentioned

that increasing population degrades the environment. Only one

fourth of the total respondents mentioned 'no'. It was observed

that a majority of the young and middle aged respondents were

of the view that increasing population degrades the

environment, while the aged respondents had fifty-fifty

response. Further a vast majority of the respondents from the

higher educational categories stated that increasing population

plays a big role in the environmental degradation. While a

majority of the low educated and uneducated respondents had

opposite views. Again with regard to occupation the analysis

revealed that from service, business and agriculture occupation

the majority of the respondents mentioned 'yes'. On the other

side from the occupational category of labourers majority of the

220

respondents mentioned 'no'. Which means increasing

population did not degrade the environment because they had

lack of knowledge regarding environment. It was found that a

majority of the respondent from all income categories were of

the view that increasing population has great impact on

environmental degradation. The respondent had different views

regarding how increasing population degrades the environment

like increasing population disturbs the balance of the earth,

more exploitation of natural resources, more poverty, more

slums, lack of space, mining deforestation etc. Hence it

conclude the increasing population is major cause of

environmental degradation. This also proves the hypotheses

that increasing population contributes much in environmental

degradation.


considered religious rituals as a factor of environmental

degradation. While a lesser proportion of the respondents did

not agree that rituals degrades the environment. It was observe

that the respondents from the age category 20-40 years

mentioned that religious rituals degrades the environment

followed by the age category of 41-60 years. The analysis also

revealed that majority of the respondent from the age category

of 61 years and above did not accept it. Because they still have

faith in religious rituals. With regard to education the analysis

revealed that those who were highly educated stated 'yes', while

those were less educated stated 'no' in majority. The analysis

revealed that the respondent from higher level of occupation

stated that religious rituals degrade the environment. While

who were engaged in lower level of occupation stated that these

rituals did not degrade the environment. They said (eh tan

221

vatavaran nu saaf karde ne na ki khrab). The majority of the

respondent from the higher income were of the view that rituals

degrades the environment, while the respondent from lower

level income did not accept it. Further the respondents were

asked how these rituals degrade the environment. Their views

were like immersion of many kinds of things in the rivers,

smoke created by hawans, cremations of human bodies etc.


mentioned that modern lifestyle degrade the environment while

near about one third of the respondent reported that modern

life style did not degrades the environment. In this era of

modernity the analysis revealed that majority of the younger

generation reported that modern lifestyle did not degrades the

environment. While the aged respondents mentioned in

majority that modern lifestyle degrades the environment. Again

with regard to education, occupation and income the trend was

found as majority of the respondents from lower level of

education, occupation and income stated that modern lifestyle

did not degrades the environment. While the respondents from

higher education, higher occupation and higher income

reported that modern lifestyle degrades the environment. Some

reason were given by the respondents that how modern lifestyle

degrades the environment like nobody wants to do manual

work; use of mobile phone, TVs, cars computers etc., for

luxurious life excessive use of ACs and other electrical

appliances, use of disposal utensils which are not really

disposed off etc. This also corroborate the hypotheses that the

environmental degradation is likely to be influenced by the

cultural factors like change in living style, festivals, ceremonies,

rituals etc.

222

Majority of the respondent mentioned that festival like

Diwali, Dusshara, Lohri, Holy, Baisakhi, etc. degrades the

environment. But some of the respondents mentioned that

festivals did not degrade the environment. Their views were

cross tabulated with age, education occupation and income. It

was found that hundred percent of the aged respondents were

of the view that our festivals degrades the environment by loud

speakers, bursting crackers; using harmful dust colours; loud

music, loud speakers use in gurudwaras, temples etc. While

majority of the younger were of the view that festivals are there

to enjoy that is why festivals did not has much influence on the

environment.

It was found that majority of the respondents from higher

educational category, higher occupations and higher income

reported that festivals degrades the environment while the

respondents who were low educated, lower occupation and

lower income stated that festivals did not make any affect on

the environment.

In present study it was found that the personal

characteristics like age, education, occupation and income has

great influence on the thinking of the respondents. While other

variables like caste, religion, marital status, type of family did

not have any significant association with the views of the

respondents. It was found that education and income has

significant impact on the views of the respondents regarding

environmental degradation as compared to age and occupation.

It was found that though people from higher age education,

income, occupation were more aware about the environment

but in practice upto some extent they too don't bother. There is

a great difference in thinking and doing (Kathni te Karni vich aje

v bada fark hai).

IMPACT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS ON ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4933/13/13...149...

Documents

Transcript of IMPACT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS ON ...shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/4933/13/13...149...