Introduction
Background
The ecological footprint of a city refers to the impact of human activities on natural resources to generate income, which is the amount of money a person receives to buy goods and services (Ota 1). Cities have an ecological footprint based on their biocapacity to use ecological assets, such as farmland and fishing grounds, to sustain income-generating activities (Muthu 79). The concepts of biocapacity and ecological footprint are in tandem with one another in the sense that a city’s ecological footprint should not surpass its biocapacity. If this happens, there will be a “natural deficit,” meaning that its demand for goods and services exceeds the capacity that natural ecosystems can provide (Muthu 79-80). In such cases, there is need for remedial action to correct the imbalance.
Each nation has its share of responsibility in adding to the global ecological footprint and India’s is among the highest in Asia. This paper seeks to find out the extent that income levels play in determining the ecological footprint of Hyderabad, a city in Southern India (WPR). The current investigation will be conducted in recognition of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on income levels and consumer purchasing behaviors in the city. It will be important in informing future policy reforms aimed at improving the efficacy of environmental management programs in Hyderabad and cities that share its demographic characteristics.
Aim
This study aims to investigate the extent that income levels determine the ecological footprint of Hyderabad.
Research Question
To what extent do income levels determine the ecological footprint of Hyderabad during the COVID-19 period?
Research Plan
As highlighted in Table 1 below, the main variables relevant to the study include, independent, dependent, uncontrolled, and controlled. The two main independent variables are income and age – income will be divided into three categories and age into five, as shown below.
Variables
Table 1. Classification of Variables
As shown above, the dependent variable will be the city’s ecological footprint, while uncontrolled variables will be weather conditions and the availability of people to take part in the experiment. Alternatively, the control variables will be location, data collection method, sample size, and the number of questions asked.
List of Apparatus
The materials used in the research and relating to the data collection process are outlined in this section of the report. Questionnaires were developed in hard and soft copies to suit different demographic profiles of the participants. A notebook and pen were used to document important points in the investigation, while a desktop with internet access was instrumental in analyzing data and drafting the final report. Table 2 below lists the materials used and their respective quantities.
Table 2. List of Apparatus
The above-mentioned items were bought and employed by the researcher, subject to sample size requirements and volume of information gathered in the study.
Hypothesis
The underlying hypothesis of this study is that people who have high incomes have a low ecological footprint compared to their peers who have a lower income. The reasoning behind this assumption is rooted in the understanding that people, who have high incomes have more resources at their disposal to make ecologically sound decisions, like buying an electric car or investing in solar power (Ota 1). Comparatively, people from low-income households are deemed to lack the resources or education to make such choices, thereby accounting for a higher ecological impact.
Ethical Consideration
The participation of the respondents was voluntary and none of them was paid to take part in the study. The questions posed were designed not to offend them based on their cultural, religious, or personal ideologies and their views were recorded anonymously to protect their privacy. The researcher also allowed the participants to withdraw from the investigation at any point without repercussions.
Procedure
The questionnaire was divided into four parts. The first one related to the informants’ demographic information, including income and age, while the second, third, and fourth parts related to waste management, environmental degradation, and efficiency, respectively. Each of these sections of the questionnaire had three questions (see appendix 1). Participants reacted to the statements using a five-point Likert Scale that measured their responses based on whether they “strongly agreed,” “agreed,” “neither agreed nor disagreed,” “disagreed,” or “strongly disagreed” with the statements posed. Income levels were defined according to the recommendations of Statista Research Department where lower-income groups include residents earning less than Rs. 750,000, middle-income groups were made up of people who earned between Rs.750,000 – Rs.1,500,000, and those who earned more than Rs.1,500,000 were of the high-income category.
Data Collection and Processing
Twenty respondents were sampled randomly to reduce bias during data collection. Data were collected using questionnaires to understand the lifestyles of Hyderabad’s residents, relative to the ecological impact of their activities. Information was also analyzed using tables to track changes in income levels across various ecological categories of assessment.
Analysis
Table 3 below shows the intersection between the respondents’ ecological impact and their income levels.
Table 3. Income and Ecological Impact
The relationship between income levels and the ecological footprint of residents was assessed by associating responses 1 (“Strongly Agree”) and 2 (“Agree”) to a low-risk environmental profile. Similarly, response 3 (“neither agree nor disagree”) was linked to moderate risk and 4 and 5 (“Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree”) with a high-risk environmental profile. The findings highlighted in Table 3 above are consistent with those that have affirmed a positive relationship between people who have high incomes and a lower ecological impact (Muthu 79). Similarly, this paper affirms the hypothesis, which suggests that low-income populations have a high ecological impact.
Discussion and Evaluation
The findings represented in this report were collected from a small sample of people in Hyderabad. This means that it is representative of the local population, thereby accurately capturing the economic conditions of city dwellers. However, the small number of respondents was a weakness in data collection because of its limited generalizability. Therefore, there is a need to use a bigger representative sample in future studies.
Application
This study has shown that income levels play a significant role in determining the environmental impact of Hyderabad. Based on differences in ecological footprint across various income groups identified, high-income populations have the highest probability of adopting environmentally sound lifestyles. This is because they have resources to buy electric vehicles and pursue other environmentally friendly options, while low-income populations lack this capability. Solving this inequality may require policy and economic reforms to bridge the gap between the different income groups. For example, local communities could be educated about the importance of proper environmental management practices and policies may be introduced to increase access to waste management resources to allow all residents to dispose of their waste correctly.
Works Cited
Muthu, Subramanian. Assessment of Ecological Footprints. Springer Nature, 2021.
Ota, Tatsuyuki. “Economic Growth, Income Inequality and Environment: Assessing the Applicability of the Kuznets Hypotheses to Asia.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-10.
Statista Research Department. Number of Households by Gross Annual Income Brackets Across India in 2010 and 2016, With a Forecast for 2025. Web.
WPR. Hyderabad Population 2021. World Population Review. Web.
Appendix 1
Questionnaire
Part A: Demographic Data
What is your income level? (Please, tick on the appropriate Box)
- Lower than Rs. 750,000
- Between Rs. 750,000 – 1,500,000
- Above Rs.1,500,000
Age:
What is your Age? (Please, tick on the appropriate box)
Part B: Waste Management
The waste generated from my daily purchases has increased during the COVID-19 period
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
My local waste management program fits my budget:
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
My agency can sort out waste before collection
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
Part C: Environmental degradation
How concerned are you about environmental degradation?
- Extremely Concerned
- Very Concerned
- Somewhat Concerned
- Not so Concerned
- Not Concerned At All
I plant trees often:
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
I have a plan for disposing hazardous waste:
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
Part D: Efficiency
I manage water efficiently:
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
How often do you recycle?
- Always
- Most of the Time
- About Half the Time
- Once in a while
- Never
I would be willing to change my lifestyle to reduce the impact that I have on the environment:
- Strongly Agree
- Strongly Disagree
- Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree
- Disagree
*End*
Thank you for participating in the study!