PLANNING AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, COLLEGE OF
SOCIAL SCIENCES
Effects of a Dumpsite
A case study of two neighbourhoods, near the
Perungudi dumpsite in Chennai, India
yorick vink, 10164103 15-8-2014
Key words: Perungudi, Legitimacy, deliberative legitimacy, procedural legitimacy, solid waste management, externalities
First reader: Maarten Bavinck Second reader: Leo de Klerk
1
“Respected Sir,
With huge hopes we saw you become the Mayor of this city.
The Perungudi dump yard is a curse to all the residents of this
locality. Everyday
it’s a torture to get-up in the morning and being
felt like pushed in a room full
of toxic smoke for 3-4 hours, the same
is repeated in the night.
I request you to come to my home and stay for a day and feel the
torture that
we go through every single day and night. Small children
being rushed to
doctors to be treated for Asthama, office goers
falling sick with throat pain and
eye infection.
A
s respected mayor of the city can you please put a stop to this
never
ending agony that we face every day.”
Quotation from a letter sent to the mayor of Chennai, written by a resident living near Perungudi dump site and sent in response to a newspaper article in The Hindu of May 29th
2
Abstract
Current practice of solid waste management of the Perungudi dumpsite in Chennai, India, is damaging the environment. The Chennai Corporation is dumping large amounts of solid waste in an area in the middle of the wetland. The people living close to this dumpsite are heavily impacted by the externalities of this dumpsite. This thesis is about the perceived legitimacy of the Perungudi dumpsite by residents in its surroundings. A comparison is made between two areas near the dumpsite and two types of legitimacy are investigated: Deliberative as well as procedural legitimacy. The research is conducted with the help of qualitative and quantitative interviews with residents of the areas. A total of 62 residents were interviewed. It seems that in both research areas both types of investigated legitimacy are perceived as low. In the Sai Nagar area, as well as the Selvaganapathi research areas, procedural legitimacy is perceived as of very bad condition. No real difference can be observed between the two research areas. This is different for deliberative legitimacy. Perceived deliberative legitimacy in the Sai Nagar area is higher in contrast with the perceived deliberative legitimacy in Selvaganapathi Avenue area. It is argued that this is because of the existence of a resident welfare association
3
Index
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Research Framework ... 8
2. 1 Solid Waste Management... 8
2. 2 Externalities ... 9
2. 3 Legitimacy ... 10
2. 3 .1 Deliberative legitimacy ... 11
2. 3. 2 Procedural legitimacy ... 11
3. Context & Methodology ... 13
3. 1. 1 Location & general information ... 13
3. 2. 2 Current waste dump practices & future plans ... 14
3. 2 Methodology ... 15
3. 2. 1 Research method ... 15
3. 2. 2 The Research Area ... 16
3. 2. 3 Advantages & disadvantages of used methods ... 18
4. Selvaganapathi Avenue Neighbourhood ... 19
4. 1 Area ... 19
4. 2 Externalities of the dumpsite ... 22
4. 3 Acquisition of information about dumpsite ... 24
4. 4 Voices to be heard ... 26
4. 5 Exceptions ... 27
4. 6 Conclusion ... 28
5. Sai Nagar Neighbourhood ... 29
5. 1 Area ... 29
5. 2 Externalities of the dumpsite ... 33
5. 3 Acquisition of information about dumpsite ... 34
5. 4 Voices to be heard ... 36
5. 5 Exceptions ... 37
5. 6 Conclusion ... 38
6. Discussion & Conclusion ... 40
4
6. 2 Deliberative legitimacy ... 41
6. 3 Procedural legitimacy ... 42
6. 4 Possible recommendations ... 43
6. 5 Conclusion ... 43
7. Literature List ... 44
8. Appendix ... 47
5
1. Introduction
Human development and the use of wetlands have been strongly connected through history. The earliest of civilisations were centred around the collective natural resource management of wetlands (Maltby & Barker, 2009). These civilisations used elaborate and often intricate ways of irrigation to drive up agricultural production and sustain major populations. But also in the recent past, wetlands have played important roles. For example the extraction of peat, formed over hundreds of years in wetlands, was used as an important fuel during the industrial revolution in Holland (Verhoeven, 1992). This relation between human development and the use of wetlands can still be found around the world.
In Tamil Nadu, India, the city of Chennai has seen rapid urbanization and industrialization and a rise in the use of the adjacent wetland can be observed. The wetland is called Pallikaranai and is currently used as a dumping ground for solid and liquid waste.
This thesis will focus on the wetland of Pallikaranai in India and the Perungudi dump site in the middle of it and examine the effects of the dumpsite on the local population. In addition it will investigate the relation between these people and the government.
The Palikaranai wetland, home to many different types of flora and fauna (table 1), is under major threat. The current practice of solid waste management is damaging the environment. The Chennai Corporation is dumping large amounts of solid waste in an area in the middle of the wetland. According to L. Venkatachalam, from the Madras Institute of Development Studies, around 2553000 tonnes of solid waste were dumped at the Perungudi dumpsite in 2013 alone (Venkatachalam, 2014). The amount of solid waste generated per capita in Chennai is the highest of India, with an amount exceeding 0,6 kilograms per person per day (Esakku, et al., 2007). This also means that the area of the dumpsite is increasing in size every year. In the beginning the dumpsite consisted of an area of five hectares, but they have taken an extra 70 hectares and till today have not stopped taking additional area (Madhav & Victor, 2010).
All this dumped waste has serious negative effects on the wetland and the services it is providing. A well functioning wetland can provide all sorts of goods and regulating benefits. These goods and benefits are known as ecosystem services. These ecosystem services can be helpful for the local people as well as helpful for the more general area of Chennai or even
6
the whole world. Especially people in close proximity to the dumpsite are heavily impacted by the dump yard and all its effects on the environment.
The environmental problems of the Palikaranai wetlands require change in the way the local corporations and citizens interact with the environment. Numerous actions have already been taken such as the preparation of a development plan for the wetland by the Conservation Authority of Pallikaranai Marshland in which roadside parks will prevent illegal dumping of municipal solid waste in the area (Staff, 2013). Another pressing issue is the fact that a large proportion of the marshland was classified using an outdated archaic system, in which the state classified the Pallikaranai Marsh as a wasteland of no significance, which makes dumping more justifiable (Shah, 2013).
The initial intention of my fieldwork was to study illegal dumping of waste in the Pallikaranai wetland by local people. The aim was to find these people and question them about their practices and attitude towards solid waste management. But upon arrival and after first looks at the area, it was made clear that this topic is no so longer relevant. In 2013 the Forest Department had taken over a great part of the wetland. They constructed multiple watch huts and anti-dumping rules were strictly enforced with the help of surveillance. Because of this the aim of this research shifted to procedural and deliberative legitimacy, which considers the informing of the public and the transparency of decision making. In the field all the respondents pointed out that they were never informed by the government, not regarding any future plans of the dumpsite. The only information they ever got was when they, themselves, went to the government. That is when the aim of this research changed again. It shifted to a study which tries to unearth how people exactly acquire information from the government. So this thesis is about the way in which local people are affected by the dumpsite and how they get their information and make their voices heard. In that way one could argue that this thesis is about in what way residents provide themselves with procedural and deliberative legitimacy.
The main research question of this thesis is:
What is the perceived legitimacy of future plans of the dumpsite and its surroundings amongst different categories of people in its surroundings?
7
To find the answers to this question, a number of sub-questions need to be formulated:
1: What is current waste dumping practice?
2: What are the future plans of the government regarding the dumpsite?
3: What are the effects of the dumping on the local people of Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Avenue?
4: How do the local people get information about the dumpsite? 5: How do people give voice to their problems regarding the dumpsite?
6: What are possible recommendations regarding the improvement of legitimacy?
The first and second sub question will be answered in a context chapter. Here general information about the dumpsite and the research area will be given. The next chapter will consist out of the theoretical framework and the methodology. The fourth and fifth chapter will consist out of the gathered data and will be divided according to the two different research locations (Sai Nagar and Selvaganapathi Avenue). These chapters will answer sub questions three, four and five. Finally, in the conclusion, sub question six will be answered and the overall conclusion of the research will be given.
Table 1: Biodiversity of Pallikaranai (Vencatesan, 2007)
Plant/animal groups Number of species
Plants 114
Butterflies 7
Crustaceans (crabs and prawns) 5
Molluscs (snails and clams) 9
Fishes 46
Amphibians (frogs and toads) 10
Reptiles 21
Birds 115
Mamals 10
8
2. Research Framework
This chapter will provide the user with the concepts used in this thesis. First it will discuss the meaning of solid waste management. This will help the reader to grasp an idea of the changes happening in waste management in the whole of India. Secondly the concept of externality will be covered followed by the concept of legitimacy, which is divided into deliberative and procedural legitimacy.
2. 1 Solid Waste Management
In India, municipal Solid Waste includes commercial and residential wastes generated in municipal or notified areas, in either solid or semi-solid form excluding industrial hazardous wastes, but including treated bio-medical wastes (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2000). The way of collection and disposal of this waste is called Solid waste management (SWM). Typically, SWM is seen as an unequivocal public health service realized by local government, but in reality it is a complex, multilayered issue, which asks for an integrated approach of all parties in play (Srinivasan, 2006). Its management is an extensive problem for most Indian cities because of growing waste generation due to population rise and consumer changes (Kurian, et al., 2012) .
The National Institute of Urban Affairs estimates that around 20 to 50 per cent of a local authority’s budget is reserved for SWM (Srinivasan, 2006). Around 60 to 70 per cent of this budget is spent on collection, 20 to 30 per cent on transportation and finally less than 5 per cent is spent on the actual disposal (Kumar, 2010). The disposal costs are so low because almost all India’s waste is disposed of at open dump sites. These open dump sites are the cheapest and easiest way of disposing municipal solid waste. However open dumps are a cause of land, water, and air pollution, as well as public health hazards (Kumar, 2010).
The legislation around SWM is governed by multiple parties. On the one hand there is the central government of India which evokes rules and targets. For example in 2010 the central government asked all state governments to constitute a State Wetland Appraisal Committee to monitor the situation and shut down any illegal dumping on wetlands. In 2012, Tamil Nadu had yet to set up such a committee (Mukunth, 2012). On the other hand smaller parties, such as the Chennai Corporation, evoke different rules on the area, sometimes
9
audaciously and openly stating not to follow central ruling. The Ministry of Environment and Forest notified Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 however made it mandatory for all municipal authorities in the country of India, without any exceptions, to implement these rules. To improve the systems the following seven directives are given (Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2000):
1. Prohibit littering on the streets by ensuring storage of waste at source in two bins; one for biodegradable waste and another for recyclable material.
2. Primary collection of biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste from the doorstep, (including slums and squatter areas) at pre-informed timings on a day-to-day basis using containerized tricycle/handcarts/pick up vans.
3. Street sweeping covering all the residential and commercial areas on all the days of the year irrespective of Sundays and public holidays
4. Abolition of open waste storage depots and provision of covered containers or closed body waste storage depots.
5. Transportation of waste in covered vehicles on a day to day basis.
6. Treatment of biodegradable waste using composting or waste to energy technologies meeting the standards laid down.
7. Minimize the waste going to the land fill and dispose of only rejects from the treatment plants and inert material at the landfills as per the standards laid down in the rules.
These rules were set in 2000 but are as of now not yet implemented in all SWM plans across India; some cities have started to take measures, where others have done nothing of the sort (Asnani, 2006). The status of compliance of MSW Rules in the country is not represented in any official data although all the states are expected to submit their annual reports (Asnani, 2006). One can conclude that the processes taking place are part of an intricate but also interesting social-ecological system.
2. 2 Externalities
Every day of our lives we deal with markets, most of the time subconsciously and sometimes consciously. These markets organize and coordinate the entire system of information spread trough society. Markets do this by pricing goods according to certain criteria. But markets fail and almost never does the price of a certain good represent the actual price which is
10
desired by society, or it does reflect the actual burden felt by society. When this is the case, externalities come into play.
Externalities are defined as: the costs and benefits that arise when the social or economic activities of one group of actors (people/firms) affect another group of actors and the effects are outside (‘external’) the pricing system, therefore, these are non-marketed goods (Eshet, et al., 2005). Another definition is: any cost or benefit from the production or consumption of a good or service that is not borne or enjoyed by the producer or consumer but is borne or enjoyed by a third party (Ruhl, et al., 2007). An example is given in a footnote on this page1.
Open waste dumps face exactly the same issues; externalities which are not represented in the price of waste disposal. It is known that, per example, water quality is lower near dump sites because of the leaching of toxins into the groundwater (Yany, 2006). The external costs of landfills are a kind of welfare loss that the managers of landfills do not pay but that the residents who live around them are obliged to bear (Sasao, 2004).
2. 3 Legitimacy
In research of social-ecological systems, the notion of legitimacy in governance is on the rise as a cog in the wheel of improving social-ecological resilience. This section will give a better look at two parts of legitimacy in governance, namely procedural and deliberative legitimacy. The incorporation of regulations that enhance these both forms of legitimacy may facilitate enhanced governance with better public acceptance and contentment (Cosens, 2013). Both of them will be shortly explained.
1 Take for example an ordinary coal fired power plant. In this plant coals are used to produce
heat which in turn is used to generate electric energy. The price of the electrical energy is, inter alia, based upon the cost of coals, plant maintenance and transportation. But during the burning of the coals, another cost comes into existence; greenhouse gasses are formed and emitted to the atmosphere. The cost of this pollution is not represented in the price of the electrical energy and is felt by society as a whole. So this is a perfect example of an externality.
11
2. 3 .1 Deliberative legitimacy
Deliberative legitimacy looks into involvement of public notice and comment during the decision making process as well as the information provided by decision makers (Cosens, 2013). Deliberative legitimacy is based on the theory of deliberation as a process in which four actions have a central role: “(1) collective decision making with participation by all who will be affected by the decision or their representatives; (2) decision making by means of arguments offered by and to participants who are committed to the values of “rationality and impartiality” such that they are able to argue in terms of public rather than simply particular interests; (3) conversing so that individuals speak and listen sequentially before making collective decisions; (4) ensuring that the interests of certain participants are not privileged over those of others and that no individual or group can dictate the outcome of others’ actions, which means that outcomes are not known before deliberations are conducted and completed.” (Rai, 2007).
A deliberative process implies that at the time that new policy decisions are being made, the local government has to notify local residents about the change in governance. One can think of a poster action or a door to door postal action. It also entails that when local residents object to these changes or have questions about them, they can attend a pre-arranged meeting for comments. Whether government agencies are indeed responsive to comments on agency proposals is different in every case (Shapiro, 2008).
Possible downsides to the process of increased public participation are the burdens put on governmental agencies because of regulations. In extreme cases the regulatory process has become so intensely time consuming by procedural requirements, that normal policy making becomes an enormous task. Especially because responding to comments take time for regulatory agencies (Shapiro, 2008). Deliberative legitimacy is important because it arms the public with the information necessary to participate in shaping the decision through the political process (Cosens, 2013).
2. 3. 2 Procedural legitimacy
Procedural legitimacy looks mostly into the transparency of decision making (Cosens, 2013). Transparency enables increased access to government information as an end in itself (Berliner, 2014). It is by some seen as one of the pillars of democratic principles in public decision-making (Drew & Nyerges, 2004). Persons under a government have the basic right
12
to know what their representatives are doing. Some even argue that because citizens pay taxes for activities of their government, information and insight about those activities is rightfully theirs and full transparency should be maintained (Drew & Nyerges, 2004). The access to this knowledge can legitimize questions by citizens, put pressure on politicians and also lay bare corruption. This makes transparency a strong political game. Berliner (2014) argues that most politicians prefer secrecy to transparency, so that their actions are not as constrained by the public observing their every move. But residents, businesses, NGO’s or other societal groups all depend on government information for many activities (Drew & Nyerges, 2004).For example obtaining basic services, mobilizing for social goals, and applying for public contracts. When political actors control access to information, they can benefit by demanding bribes in exchange, steering contracts to allies, obfuscating policy actions and goals, and restricting information about the policy process to privileged groups. Transparency is also believed to enable citizens to better participate in decision making processes by making them more effective and more efficient from a long-term perspective (Drew & Nyerges, 2004). Citizens who have the ability to be better informed and who actually are, tend to be more involved with public debate (Berliner, 2014).
Procedural legitimacy also includes the ability of judicial review as well as the ability for citizens to attend meetings where decisions will be made, so that they can get insight in the law making process (Cosens, 2013). Good governance requires public participation and effective access to the courts. An unengaged public and no independent judiciary can mean that laws may not be enforced and implemented (Dernbach & Mintz, 2011).
13
3. Context & Methodology
In this chapter an overview of the research area will be given. Secondly current waste dump practices of the Perungudi dumpsite will be discussed. This will provide with a solid base of awareness of practices on which further chapters can be build. After this the future of the dumpsite will be covered, which also provides essential knowledge used in other chapters.
3. 1. 1 Location & general information
Tamil Nadu, with Chennai as capital is located on the south-eastern part of India. Chennai was established in 1663 by the British and quickly became the largest city in the southern regions of India and one of the four
national cities. It covers an area as big as 174 square kilometres (Kurian, et al., 2012).In the south of Chennai is the wetland named Pallikaranai (figure 1). This once vast wetland once comprised an area of around 50 square kilometres, but because of urbanization, the wetland is reduced to a mere 6 square kilometres (Vencatesan, 2007). All the former area is encroached by businesses and residential areas. In the north of the wetland an area close to 100 hectares is being used as a municipal waste dump. This dump site is called the Perungudi or Chennai Corporation dump site. Next to the dumpsite there is a sewage treatment plant where some of the liquid waste brought to the
area is treated. But also untreated liquid waste is dumped in the area because the treatment plant does not have enough capacity (Madhav & Victor, 2010).
14
3. 2. 2 Current waste dump practices & future plans
When it comes to municipal waste management, the city of Chennai is divided into 10 zones. Seven of those zones are under direct supervision of the Chennai Corporation. In the three other zones private companies are hired to handle municipal waste.
With the current population of Chennai of more than 6.5 million, an enormous amount of municipal solid waste is being produced within the city. The total production is around 4,000 tonnes of waste per day (Kurian, et al., 2012). All this waste, generated by businesses as well as households, is collected by the Corporation of Chennai or by private companies. The zones serviced by corporation staff have a door to door collection system in which a corporation worker walks the streets with a rickshaw and a whistle. He will whistle every now and then to announce to the people that he is there to pick up their waste. The residents will than come out of their house and turn their waste over to the Corporation worker. An example of a collector’s rickshaw can be seen in figure 2. The corporation worker is supposed to collect plastics and non plastics separately, but this is not always done. An administrative charge can be given to people who never turn in their waste at the collector; this is to discourage illegal dumping of waste in the area. In areas where private companies handle waste collection, no source segregation is being done at all (Kurian, et al., 2012). All the collected waste is transported to big waste bins scattered all across the city of Chennai. Big waste trucks will pick up the waste from these bins and will dump it at one of the two open waste dumps of Chennai; either Perungudi or Kodungaiyur. One respondent stated that the councillor was owner of many lorries and that he was making money by making these lorries collect and dump waste. Out of the total municipal waste collected, about 94 % is disposed by open dumping in this way and the rest is composted.
There have been numerous plans to change this system of municipal waste management by the government of Chennai. One plan was to build a waste to electricity power plant near the Perungudi dumpsite, but these plans were cancelled after heavy discussion with multiple parties (News Service, 2012). The current plan is to shift the whole dumpsite away from the area in the Pallikaranai wetland. The land currently occupied by the dump site will be transformed into a green park. The mayor of Chennai, Saidai Sa Duraisamy, confirms this in an interview held on the sixth of May 2014:
15
“We will change the dumpsite away from the Pallikaranai area. The whole area will become a non pollution zone and it will be done in 18 months”.
At time of the interview no steps were being taken to shift the dump site away from the area. And the displacement of a whole dumpsite in 18 months is an ambitious goal. Only the future will tell if this is really going to happen, or that the statements made by the mayor were a bit audacious.
3. 2 Methodology
3. 2. 1 Research method
The location of the research is situated near the Perungudi dumpsite, situated in the north-east of the Pallikaranai wetland. This research differentiates between the government and the citizens and is mainly focused on local residents and not the government. The first people contacted were people who were doing the actual dumping for the Chennai Corporation. This dumping is considered legal by the corporation, and no extensive attention was given to this dumping. During interviews with these persons a better view on the situation was established. In this way areas, which are heavily affected by the dumpsite, can be identified for research purposes. So this will be a bottom up approach in which, through the start at the dump site, the actual citizens will be revealed.
At the identified places two types of research strategies will be used; a quantitative as well as a qualitative. The quantitative research design will consist out of a cross-sectional design in which local residents are questioned with a help of a pre designed structured questionnaire. The respondents contacted for an interview are selected in a convenience sampling way. This will mean that of every street in the research area a number of houses are selected and targeted for an interview. If the respondent is not home, the house next to it will be targeted. After a day of research the questionnaires will be transcribed into a excel file suitable for use in SPSS.
The qualitative part of the research is structured in another way. Also this part consists out of a cross-sectional design but with a semi-structured questionnaire. This means that only a few general questions are pre arranged and that the answers of the respondents will trigger new questions to be asked by the researcher. In this way a more in-depth analyses of social
16
mechanics can be identified. Respondents for these in-depth interviews will be key players as well as some residents.
Both the qualitative and quantitative part of the research will be done with the help of a translator. The questions are asked in English, translated to Tamil and the answers are then translated back into English.
3. 2. 2 The Research Area
For researchers it is rather convenient to make a comparison between two different entities. So this research also makes a comparison between two different entities; namely two regions close to the dump site. At first possible regions were selected on the basis of talks with people close to the dumpsite. Quickly it became apparent that the region west of the dumpsite was heavily impacted by the externalities of the dump site. When this region was visited a striking difference made an appearance. Two neighbourhoods next to each other and very close to the dumpsite, but the houses and residents were totally different. The first neighbourhood, Selvaganapathi Avenue, was home to more low class people such as housekeepers or drivers with smaller houses. Whereas the second neighbourhood, Sai Nagar, was home to higher class people such as doctors or engineers with bigger houses. The two regions were located between the Corporation road to the north and the 200 feet road to the south (figure 2 & 3).
17
Figure 3: Research area; red is Selvaganapathi and blue is Sai Nagar (photo from Google Maps)
18
3. 2. 3 Advantages & disadvantages of used methods
Just like every kind of research, the chosen design has it advantaged and its disadvantages. For example the fact that in this research a translator is used also has it pro’s and con’s. On the one hand the use of the translator makes it possible to interview people who do not speak English. Was it not for the translator, many respondents could not be interviewed. The translator also makes it easier for the researcher to interact with people from a different culture. Certain norms and values and habits are bridged by the translator.
But on the other hand the translator also acts as an extra step in the data gathering process. During the translation the translator does not translate all the things said word for word. In that way the translator gives its own interpretation on the actual answers given by the respondent. Especially during the in-depth qualitative interviews this process is of importance. The translator may drop certain things said by the respondent because he deems it not important to the research, while in reality it may have been.
The chosen research design of cross-sectional research design also has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. Especially during the quantitative research there is little room for digression which makes small differences between respondents hard to show. In other words: the ecological validity is in jeopardy because of the disruption of the “natural habitat (Bryman, 2008). But this very same quantitative research has a high replicability, which looks into the way in which the research can be executed again. A research which can be repeated easily and have the same outcome has a high replicability (Bryman, 2008).
A last note which has to be made is the fact that this research looks into the views of the residents near the dumpsite on legitimacy. A cross-check with governmental data was not possible. This means that statements made by residents may in fact not always be correct. But this research is about perceived legitimacy, and therefore the opinion of residents is important.
19
4. Selvaganapathi Avenue Neighbourhood
This chapter will provide the necessary information about the Selvaganapathi Avenue area to come to conclusions in the last chapter. The chapter starts with a section giving an overview of the area, providing essential information to grasp the overall setting of the research. This is followed by a section describing the many difficulties the residents have to face because of the nearby dump site. This will give an idea of the need for change in the area. The next section will clarify in which way residents acquire information regarding the dumpsite, which is important for a discussion on deliberative legitimacy. After this, a section about the contact of residents with the local government will illustrate an idea of procedural legitimacy. A section with exceptions will precede the last section which will give a short conclusion.
4. 1 Area
As explained in chapter 3, the Selvaganapathi Avenue area is one of the areas closest to the Perungudi dumpsite. It is situated directly south of the corporation road, the road leading to the dumpsite. Most people living here are families living in two room houses, consisting out of a living room and a kitchen. The
average amount of years the residents
are living in the area is 13 years. In this area interviews are conducted with residents ranging in age from 16 to 69 with a rounded mean of 42 years of age. Most of the respondents have stopped school after Primary schooling.
The Selvaganapathi Avenue area is an area for people with lower to middle incomes. The stated monthly
expenditures ranged from 7740 rupees to 26100 rupees, with a mean of 14457 rupees a month. Next to directly asking the income of inhabitants one can deduce that in a number of ways. First of all one can look at the general state of the public facilities in the area, for
Class subclass value
Income mean 14457 Gender Male 37% Female 63% Age Mean 42 Education Illiterate 15% Primary schooling 40% secondary schooling 15% high school 19% graduation 11%
Time living in area in years
Mean 13
Natural Problems x 100%
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of Selvaganapathi Avenue
20
example the state of the roads. People with higher incomes tend to live in areas with better public facilities because this is generally more preferred. In the Selvaganapathi Avenue area the roads are in bad condition. All but one road are dirt roads without asphalt covering (Figure 1).
Another aspect one can look at is the housing of the people living in the area. In the Selvaganapathi Avenue area most people live in small stone houses. Most of the time they have built it themselves or had it commissioned to be built. This means that they do not belong to the lowest income groups of India. Lower income groups often live in slums or in houses made out of thatch. Out of the 27 households contacted for an interview in the Selvaganapathi Avenue, only 3 households were not the homeowner but told us they were renting the house. The owning of the house is, by some residents, seen as a not only an advantage but also a big problem. One of the respondents said:
“If I wasn’t the owner of this house, I would have packed my things and moved to another location. The problems here, because of the dumpsite, are just too horrible to stand”
Of the 25 households contacted for an interview, a total of 15 (60%) stated that if they had the possibility to shift their house to a different place they most certainly would. Others stated that they were too connected to the area although it had changed so much in the last decades. They simply would not move even if they had the change because of their psychological and social bond with the area.
Another striking problem is the open sewage system still in use in some parts of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area. This open sewage system drains most of the sewage water to a central point. The problem is that this drainage water is highly unsanitary and has very bad smell. During rainy days waste from the Perungudi dumpsite apparently blocks the drainage systems and wastewater would flood the streets. This problem has been partially tackled by building walls around the dumpsite, but still some waste seems to come into the area.
21
22
4. 2 Externalities of the dumpsite
When talking to the residents of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area a number of problems regularly come to the fore. These problems are felt by everyone in the area and are of major influence on their daily lives. One of the worst problems faced because of the dumpsite is the enormous number of mosquitoes invading the area. The mosquitoes nest in the waters next to the dumpsite and come to the area in substantial amounts. All 27 respondents in the Selvaganapathi Avenue area state that the mosquitoes are a serious natural problem in the area. They are constantly bothered by a large amount of mosquitoes invading their homes. The government provides an opportunity to get your house cleaned of mosquitoes with smoke, but most respondents argue that this is bad for health. In the beginning they happily accepted the exterminators from the government and got their house smoked. But after some time they noticed that their children were not feeling well. And on top of that, they did not really notice any difference regarding the mosquito plague. Another problem concerning the extermination is the irregular time the exterminators visit to the area. For the smoke to have good effect the house has to be smoked regularly. For some time the exterminators hired by the government would come by every week, but now that is far less and very irregular. Respondents state that nowadays they do not allow the exterminators to smoke their house because of these two things; the consequences for, especially their children’s, health and the irregularity of the visits.
Another serious issue caused by the dumpsite is the persistence of diseases in the area. Out of the twenty-seven respondents, seventeen of them stated that they experience diseases because of the dumpsite. In the qualitative interviews, a number of different diseases and general negative effects on health came to the fore. One of them was troubles with breathing because of fumes emitted by the dumpsite, especially when there are fires at the dumpsite. If the wind blows in the direction of Selvaganapathi Avenue area and there is a fire, the entire area can be black with smoke. However a respondent stated that the burning, and with that the troubles with breathing, have become less:
“I have a lot of problems with my breathing because of the dumpsite. I know this because I am coughing up dust that is in the air I breathe. Although, it has become less since they moved the dumpsite a bit away from my house and shop.”
23
Another pressing issue is the spread of a disease by mosquitoes. A number of respondents of qualitative interviews stated that they suffered from Chikungunya. Aedes mosquitoes, which are prevalent in the Perungudi dumpsite area, can carry the chikungunya virus (Sujatha, et al., 2012). Chikungunya is a specifically tropical viral disease which typically causes of sickness with fever, incapacitating arthralgia (joint pains) and skin problems (Pialoux, et al., 2007). The word chikungunya, which refers to the disease as well as the virus, has an African origin and means: “he who bends over” in the African dialect Makonde. This name probably refers to the effect of the joint pains, which makes people suffering from the disease to bend over while walking. (Pialoux, et al., 2007)
At the moment there is no cure for chikungunya and all treatments consist of pain and sickness relieving strategies but a possible vaccine is being researched at the moment (Pialoux, et al., 2007) . As long as there is no vaccine, the only effective measures that can be taken to tackle the disease are individual preventive measures and vector control (Pialoux, et al., 2007).. Vector control consists out of the removal, destruction or cleaning of breeding sites and the killing of mosquitoes with the help of insecticides and is considered the best available method of preventing Chikungunya. But this practice is an endless, costly, and labour-intensive measure and almost unconceivable on a dumpsite the size of Perungudi.
The problem with probably the most impact is the problem of water pollution. 23 of the 26 respondents stated that the groundwater from their well was heavily polluted and not drinkable. Only one respondent stated that he drank the water from his well without purifying it. Other respondents either purified their well water or bought canned water for drinking purposes. Sijelmass (2014) argues that heavy metal concentrations do not endanger the residents, but other concentrations might (Sijelmass, 2014).
The last and most mentioned problem caused by the dumpsite is the foul stench as a result of all the waste decomposing at the dump yard. Out of the twenty-six people interviewed with a questionnaire, only two people stated that they did not encounter foul stench in and around their house. Most respondents indicated that the smell was far worse during the rainy season because the rain made it easier for the waste to decompose. Some respondents stated that the problem of smoke and that of stench alternated each other. During the dry season, smoke is a far larger problem than stench and during the rainy season, foul stench
24
problems come to the fore and there is far less smoke from burning. This can easily be explained by the fact that burning is much more severe during the dry season because of subterranean burning of waste.
The people of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area are apparently heavily impacted by the externalities caused by the dumping of waste in the Pallikaranai Wetland close to their homes. They suffer from diseases, a mosquito plague and alternately a foul stench or smoke pollution.
4. 3 Acquisition of information about dumpsite
As seen in the subchapter above; the problems caused by the dumpsite heavily affect the daily lives of the people in Selvaganapathi Avenue area. Information about the future of the dumpsite and its effects on the population is of great importance to this very population. It has a big impact on the way the future will look like for them. But how do the inhabitants of Selvaganapathi Avenue area acquire this information?
Nine out of the twenty-seven people (35%) interviewed in the Selvaganapathi Avenue area stated that they knew about future plans by the government regarding the dumpsite. Of those nine people, three people knew about these plans through acquaintances, two trough newspapers and four knew about it through actual information from the government. These numbers can even be reduced considering the fact that two of these respondents were also selected specifically for a qualitative interview. From these interviews it became clear that although they stated they knew about future plans, these were actually outdated plans. Both stated that the government planned to build an incinerator plant nearby the dumpsite. But this plan has already been set aside by the government as seen in the interview with the mayor of Chennai. This decision was probably made because of the many environmental experts who disapproved of such a power plant (News Service, 2012).
So the question remains how many people in the Selvaganapathi Avenue area actually are up to date informed about the plans of the government. Three of the targeted people stated that they had direct contact with a higher official about future plans, but also this information was from more than two years ago, when plans were different. The conclusion
25
that can be made is that none of the respondents are up to date regarding future plans of the dumpsite.
Officials from the government never visited the area to inform people about the future of the dumpsite, the only time they ever acquired information was when they themselves visited per example the councillor to complain about their troubles. One respondent from a qualitative interview stated:
“As of now I don’t know anything of the future plans of the dumpsite. When they started dumping in the area they told us that the waste was going to be use to make energy. But something like that has not yet happened.”
This quote clearly shows how the respondents are in total ignorance regarding the dumpsite and its future plans. They sometimes hear things but do not know whether it is true or not.
Another aspect of is the distribution of false information. Government plans are often not executed as promised. For example the mosquito netting issue. A good countermeasure against a mosquito plague is the use of a mosquito net. These will keep the away during sleep, but not during the day. Most respondents stated that the buying of such nets was too large of expenditure for their household. During one of the in-depth qualitative interviews a respondent stated that the local government had promised to provide all the people close to the dumpsite with free mosquito nets. This is also mentioned in a news article published on June 13th of 2013 in The Hindu (Staff, 2013). The article states that 78.000 people in the city of Chennai were identified to be given free mosquito nets for the entire household (Staff, 2013). The respondent noted that as of then (29-04-2014) no nets were provided. She stated:
“At first I was really excited when I heard about the news that we were going to get the mosquito nets. It would really help to lift some of the problems we are facing. But I no longer believe we are going to get them, it was just because of upcoming elections.”
26
This quote shows how badly people are informed by the government and the way in which false promises can be made by politicians. These false promises can have serious effect on the credibility and legitimacy of the government. In a way it undermines the extent into which civilians can trust the government to live up to their own promises.
4. 4 Voices to be heard
As seen above, the people of Selvaganapathi avenue area have no real idea of the future plans of the government regarding the dumpsite. But what they do experience are the hardships they have to face because of the dumpsite. To let their voices be heard they sometimes spontaneously form action groups to go talk to the councillor. One of the qualitative interviews gives a good view of the way it happens.
An action group often formed when the natural problems caused by the dumpsite became so bad that it would make the residents very upset. At one point someone would just start walking across the area announcing that he/she would go to the councillor at that exact moment and that everyone who wants to come should come with him/her. Every time this happened it was initiated by a different person, so there is not really a leader or any form of leadership and there is not a planning to it. It just happens sometimes when things become too bad and people are simply fed up with the situation. One of the respondents estimates that it happens around every two years.
For example, one time the burning of waste was a really big problem in the area. Ashes would be released into the air that would cause problems with breathing, rashes and other bodily discomforts. The amount of smoke intensified during some time and at one moment the inhabitants of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area became so angry that they made a visit to the councillor. They went to his office and had a good talk with him, he understood the problems, he said, and would do something about it. After that the burning stopped for some time and they did not have problems because of burning anymore.
But after a while the burning started again. This made them even angrier than the first time, because the councillor had promised that the burning would not take place anymore. The residents started protesting against the burning by stopping all the lorries coming into the area and posting protest signs. They even reached the news and all the newspapers and news broadcasters included information of the protest. After that the state government
27
interfered with the problem and they banned the burning of waste completely. One of the respondents stated that she was happy about the stopping of the burning:
“It is now implemented pretty well, sometimes there are burnings, but these are seen as being without purpose and just accidents.”
‘’Accidents’’ refer to the subterranean burning mentioned in section 4.2. Whenever this happens and the residents of Selvaganapathi Avenue area have to endure heavy smoke pollution they will go to the Panchayat office to complain. After some time the town Panchayat will send over a water truck to douse the fire, but this always takes a great amount of complaining of the population. One respondent argued that a permanent mediation was needed in which habitants of Selvaganapathi Avenue area should be able to commission a Panchayat water truck easily.
A statement given by one of the respondents of a qualitative interview gives a good explanation why no action groups are formed in the area:
“Each and every one of us has their own work and has to take care of their own family. Next to that we do not have enough time for social work, which makes it hard to unify”
Apparently the people of Selvaganapathi Avenue have neither time nor intention to form permanent action groups to combat the externalities of the dumpsite.
4. 5 Exceptions
It is the exception that proves the rules. In section 4.4 above, it is stated that respondents are too busy with earning a living and saving for education of their children to form a permanent group of people that represents their ideals. But one of the respondents in this research did however point out that he is part of the association in Sai Nagar. The respondent stated that he was invited by one of the members of the association to join the association because he is a social worker (works in free time for others without getting paid). So this person did find enough time to join the association and fight for the ideals of the people of Selvaganapathi Avenue.
28
However, in an interview with the president of the Sai Nagar association, it was made clear that a person not living in Sai Nagar could never join the association. This is what the president had to say about the social worker:
‘’He probably knows someone in the association and with them joins the meetings. This is possible, but he is not a real member of the association and so has no real power.’’
4. 6 Conclusion
The people of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area are in serious predicament. They close to a dumpsite which has many negative externalities. Because they own their houses it is very difficult to move away from the area. In the area they have to face a mosquito plague, a great amount of diseases, smoke pollution and extremely foul stench.
The residents however, with the exception of a few, state that they do not know what the future plans are of the dumpsite. This is because they are never informed by the government of any future plans. And also because the only time they get information, is when they themselves go to the government. Another problem is that when they are promised certain things by the government, it is not always implemented. For example the promised free mosquito nets are still not provided, which were guaranteed in 2013.
The people of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area do let the government know about their problems, but this happens in an irregular way. Most of the time, the residents will start a protest when the effects of the dump site become intolerable. So no permanent action groups are available in the Selvaganapathi Avenue area.
29
5. Sai Nagar Neighbourhood
This chapter will follow the exact same order of sections as the data chapter of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area. This will make comparison in the conclusion chapter easier and more valid. This chapter therefore begins with a general overview of the area followed by a section covering the externalities of the dumpsite. That is than superseded by a section covering the knowledge of the people of future plans of the dump site which in turn is followed by a section explaining the connection between the people and the government. All ended with a short exception and a concluding section
5. 1 Area
As explained in chapter 3, the Sai Nagar area is just a fraction further away from the Perungudi dumpsite in comparison with the Selvaganapathi Avenue area. It is situated directly north of the 200 ft road, the road bordering the dump site on the south, and south of the Selvaganapathi Avenue area. Most
people living here are families living in multiple room houses, consisting of a living room, a kitchen and multiple bedrooms. In this area interviews are conducted with residents ranging in age from 17 to 68 with a rounded mean of 42 years of age.
The Sai Nagar area is an area for people with middle to higher incomes. . The stated monthly expenditures ranged from 4000 rupees to 101950 rupees, with a mean of 26896 rupees a
month. Next to directly asking the income of inhabitants, it is possible to deduce economic status in a number of ways. Just like the last chapter, one can look at the general state of public facilities in the area, for example the state of the roads. In the Sai Nagar area the
Class subclass value
Income (rupees/month) mean 26896 Gender Male 42% Female 58% Age Mean 42 Education Illiterate 5% Primary schooling 5% secondary schooling 23% high school 12% graduation 55%
Time living in area in years
Mean 17
Natural Problems x 100%
Table 3: Demographic characteristics of Sai Nagar
30
roads are in generally good condition. All the roads are in decent state of repair, no potholes are visible and even very few cracks are present (Figure 2).
Another aspect one can look at is the housing of the people living in the area. In the Sai Nagar area the housing of people can be divided between two groups of people; people who live in one/two storey stone multiple room houses and people who live in high end multiple storey apartment complexes (Figure 2). On the one hand, the residents living in the one storey houses have often built the house themselves or had it commissioned. These houses were built during a time that the area was far less urbanized. One of the respondents stated:
“When my house was built here, there was swamp to almost every direction from my house; we could even drink from a pond right next to the house. Now in all directions there are other buildings.”
On the other hand there are the people living in the multi storey apartment complexes. These complexes are far less old than the stone houses and were built by private companies. Most of the time the people living in these apartments are the owner of one of the apartments in the complex, but some of the residents are renting their apartments.
Out of the 35 households contacted for an interview in the Sai Nagar area, only four households were not the home owner but told us they were renting the house. But these numbers can cause a fallacious image of the area. The numbers may suggest that the greatest part of the residents own a house. But after in in-depth qualitative interview with one of the respondents, it was made clear that a substantial part of the people living in the area consisted of short-stay IT workers. These IT workers rent rooms in one of the many hostels situated in the apartment complexes. These people were not targeted for the research because of their short stay in the area and had no connection with the neighbourhood.
Of the 35 households contacted for an interview, a total of 15 (42%) stated that if they had the possibility to shift their house to a different place they most certainly would. Others stated that they were stuck in this position because they rented some rooms to short stay workers, and those workers needed to be close to the IT corridor south of Pallikaranai. So moving of their house would mean less interest of these IT workers which in turn would
31
make renting their rooms more difficult. Some residents argued that this made it impossible for them to move their house even in the hypothetical situation of physically lifting their house and placing it somewhere else.
In contrast with the Selvaganapathi Avenue area, the Sai Nagar area has a sewage system which is totally closed, although it is not connected to a central system. This means that sewage trucks still have to pick up the sewage (Figure 3). The benefits of having a totally closed system are the higher level of sanitation in the area and the absence of bad smell. A last public facility worth mentioning is the Sai Nagar children’s play park; depicted as Sai Nagar Park on the map of the research area in chapter 3. This play park has been awarded to the Sai Nagar association by the local government as a token of its good social services. It is a nice park with multiple marvellous playground devices and regular cleaning staff which keeps it in a good state. Total cost was around 10 million rupee.
32
Figure 3: Sai Nagar 3rd Main Road (photo by R. Sijelmass)
33
5. 2 Externalities of the dumpsite
When talking to the residents of the Sai Nagar area a number of problems are repeatedly mentioned. Most of the problems are similar to the problems in Selvaganapathi Avenue area but with some modifications. Still the problems are felt by everyone in the area and still they are of major influence on their daily lives.
As mentioned before, the number of mosquitoes rampant in the area is one of the worst problems faced because of the dumpsite. The waters near the dumpsite are the ideal nesting ground for the mosquitoes. All 36 respondents in the Sai Nagar area state that the mosquitoes are a serious natural problem in the area. But the people of Sai Nagar are able to counter this problem in a formidable way, 24 of the 36 (67%) respondents have netted their entire house. This means that every door and window is provided with mosquito proof netting. This keeps the number of mosquitoes in the house to a minimum. But respondents state that they are still bugged by mosquitoes when leaving their house or while sitting in the garden.
Another serious issue caused by the dumpsite is the persistence of diseases in the area. Out of the 36 respondents, 16 (44%) of them stated that they experienced diseases because of the dumpsite. A number of diseases and general negative effects were mentioned systematically; one of them was troubles with breathing because of fumes emitted by the dumpsite. Especially smoke from burnings at the dumpsite troubled a substantial number of respondents. The school principal of a school situated merely 300 metres from the dump yard stated that a many students suffered from wheezing problems. This could lead to asthma she said. It also has to be mentioned that none of the respondents of the Sai Nagar area ever mentioned the Chikungunya virus.
The dumpsite also has a major influence on the water quality in the Sai Nagar area. Only 3 of the 36 respondents stated that they did not encounter water quality issues. The strange thing is that though these respondents state to encounter no bad water quality, all three of them buy can water for drinking purposes and use corporation or well water for other uses. This behaviour contradicts their statement and two possible conclusions can be drawn, they did not understand the meaning of the question or they do not qualify bad water quality as a natural problem.
34
Foul stench, as a result of decomposing waste, is the most mentioned problem caused by the dumpsite. Out of the 36 people interviewed with a questionnaire, only three respondents stated that they did not encounter foul stench in and around their house. One of the respondents stated that while he lived in his house for 28 years, first the stench worsened and worsened because of the enlargement of the dump yard. But the last 10 years or so the stench has become less because of the urbanization of the area:
“The many buildings act as a shield or something like that from the stench of the dump yard, first it would be very bad, but now with all the buildings, it has become a lot better”
The people of the Sai Nagar area are apparently heavily impacted by the externalities caused by the dumping of waste in the Pallikaranai Wetland close to their homes. They suffer from diseases, mosquito plagues and alternately a foul stench or smoke pollution. But they also protect themselves in a variety of ways against these problems, for example by netting their house and using water filters.
5. 3 Acquisition of information about dumpsite
Although the people of Sai Nagar are able to counter some of the externalities of the dumpsite, the problems still affect their daily lives seriously. Because of this, Information about the future of the dumpsite and its effects on the population is of great importance. How do the inhabitants of Sai Nagar area acquire this information?
Sixteen out of the 36 people (44%) interviewed in the Sai Nagar area stated that they knew about future plans by the government regarding the dumpsite. Of these 16 people, three people knew about these plans trough acquaintances and all the others knew about the plans from direct contact with the Sai Nagar association. The persons who knew about these plans from acquaintances probably knew about the plans in an indirect way through the Sai Nagar association. So the information people get about the future of the dumpsite is mainly, if not only, with help of the association.
35
The Sri Sai Nagar Resident Wellbeing association was founded in 1997 but it had started its work by the 1990s. Every 2nd Sunday of every month, a meeting is conducted by the association in the Sai Nagar Park. All members of the association are invited to this meeting and everyone can speak their minds and raise issues important to the area. The councillor sometimes also attends one of these meetings. To be eligible to become a member of the association one must live in the Sai Nagar neighbourhood. The secretary stated that if they also let people out of the Sai Nagar area join, the association would become too big and problems not home to Sai Nagar could also be raised during meetings. This is why no people of out of Sai Nagar are allowed to join the association and it’s also the reason that he repudiated the claim of the social worker in the exceptions sub chapter 4.6.
To become member one must pay a 1000 rupee lifelong membership fee. At first the membership fee was 20 rupees a month, but collecting was too much of a hassle so they shifted it to its current form with a lifelong membership. About 70% of the people in the Sri Sai Nagar area are member of the association. But the exact number is not known. The most active members are eligible to become a member of the committee of the association. This committee is made up of 12 members of the association and meets at least once a week to discuss plans.
The association apparently started as an action group that fought the existence of the dumpsite, mainly by going to court. But since then it has shifted its focus to a broader spectrum of problems faced by the people of Sai Nagar. Regarding the dumpsite, not many of the problems have changed because of the association, except for the small relocation of some of the waste away from the border area, this happened in 2012. However, the association has made several contributions to a better quality of live for the people of Sai Nagar on other fronts. For example; the association has arranged for streetlights to be placed, it has set up health camps for eye problems and has been rewarded a pristine children’s play park. All these achievements were made possible because of the campaigns the association held to raise attention to these issues. When asked if the association got all these achievements as a compensation for the troubles of the people of Sai Nagar because of the dumpsite, the secretary only replied that it was a good question to ask. This suggests that this might be the case.
36
5. 4 Voices to be heard
As seen above, the people of Sai Nagar neighbourhood have some idea of the future plans of the government regarding the dumpsite. But they keep experiencing hardships caused by the dumpsite. To let their voices be heard, the association has a case in court for 17 years now and that case has almost reached its final verdict in the green tribunal in New Delhi. The lawyer is paid by the Sai Nagar association. The expectation is that this final verdict will have the same verdict as the 2008 case in the high court of Chennai. This case had the following verdict:
“The present site is not suitable for dumping of municipal solid waste, as also not suitable for building a sanitary land fill or for any other activity, and that it needs remediation and that the siting of the dump yard and the handling of waste is in violation of the Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules 2000 framed under Environment Protection Act and The Ramsat Convention on Wetlands (1971).” (Third report submitted by the committee of experts constituted by the honarable high court, 2008)
Going to court is not the only thing the association does to counter the many troubles faced by the residents because of the dumpsite. Next to filing a case in court, they also organize protests against the dump site. The last protest they organized took place a year ago. With this protest a large number of people of the association went to the entrance of the dump site and stopped all the lorries from entering the dump site. They did this by holding hands and forming human chains (figure 4), demanding that the Chennai Corporation would stop dumping. They also demanded the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to install multiple measure apparatuses to continuously measure pollution levels (Special, 2013). This request was partially granted by the government - partially because the government will provide only the apparatuses, but those apparatuses need a small compound structure be installed. The secretary of the association told us that they do not have the funds to build such a small compound to install the apparatuses, so they are not in place as of yet. The secretary told us he thought this was an excuse for the government not to install the measuring apparatuses yet.
37
The secretary of the Sri Sai Nagar association mentioned that the association is part of a bigger organization called: The Federation of Residential associations (FOTRA). This is a network of different welfare associations throughout Chennai. When the association is planning to start a protest they also mention this to the other associations in the FOTRA. Because of this the pool of possible protestors is far larger. This means their protest would be much smaller when they did not have this network of different associations.
5. 5 Exceptions
Also the research in the Sai Nagar area presented multiple exceptions that prove the rule. One of those exceptions was encountered while conducting data gathering with the use of questionnaires. In a section of the Sri Sai Nagar area, a part with smaller houses, we encountered a family who told us they were not able to join the association. When asked for the reason they simply responded:
“They simply do not make us able to join the association, but we would really like to join”
