Whilst urban waste is considered as an environmental issue, it is also a behavioural, infrastructural, economic and institutional problem. This study aims to analyse the characteristics of sustainable waste-management practices of local commercial waste producers and to look at how everyday waste practices relate to the principles of the circular economy. The study was a community-engagement project with direct contact with small and medium sized business, comprising roadside food stalls, restaurants, grocery stores, medical stores, stationery stores and bakeries. The fieldwork involved structured answer to questions, observation, community interaction, awareness activities and reflection. A relationship between awareness and action is explored with particular focus. The current project evidence shows that plastic and packaging waste are major waste flows and that source segregation is poorly implemented. Community assessment from earlier found that of 22 respondents that reported plastic waste generation, only one respondent reported that waste was always segregated, 15 respondents said recycling was important to take action individually, seven of the respondents were aware of sustainable waste-management practices, and 14 respondents were willing to change their waste-disposal practices. The findings indicate that there can be a situation where people are willing but not aware of the problem and the situation is not a good situation to be in. Sustainable behaviour is thus considered to be the result of an interaction between knowledge, convenience, infrastructure, habits, perceived effort, institutional support and opportunities for material recovery. The paper suggests the interpretation of this gap under an Awareness–Action–Infrastructure framework. The study does not simply believe that information is enough – community interventions need to include not only information but also facilities which are easy to use, simple behavioural prompts, source-segregation systems, convenient collection, and coordination between businesses, citizens, municipal authorities, waste workers, recyclers and producers, as well as the provision of facilities for reusing waste. The paper also contextualizes local insights and research in an ever-changing policy landscape in India, such as the Swachh Bharat Mission- Urban 2.0, plastic waste management and Extended Producer Responsibility, and the activities of the Circular Economy Cell at NITI Aayog. The community survey is still undergoing refinement and the paper contains clearly marked-editable fields for the final result counts, percentages, cross-tabulations and figures. The verified results already obtained from the community project are kept and whenever the final response spreadsheet needs the statistic, it is indicated for later insertion. This way, there aren't any statistics made up and the paper stays academically coherent as the final survey analysis is added in.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Garg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: