Meaning Of Hotel Industry

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Introduction :

Hotel means friendly and generous reception and service to the guest. Hotel is an establishment that provides paid lodging, food, drink, facilities for a short term period. Few years ago a most widely accepted where catering industry are all operations which were involved in tourist leisure. Some hotels are built up with trees to provide a living atmosphere to the guests.

1.1.2 Meaning of Hotel Industry:

The growth of tourism in India has led to the growth of the hotel industry and today, the hotel industry provides a promising career to youth. Being a service industry, the motive of the hotel management lies in providing the best services to its customers. The hotel management course provides the students to acquire the required knowledge and skill standards in the operational areas of Food Production, Food and Beverage Service, Catering, Front Office Operation and Housekeeping. Apart from these, it also imparts substantial managerial training in the areas of Sales and Marketing, Financial Management, Human Resource Management, Hotel and Catering Law, Property Management, and Entrepreneurship Development. Satisfying the guests needs.The hotel industries can be defined as the.

Anticipating the guests’ desire.

Creating a friendly atmosphere.

Creating pleasant or sustaining pleasant environment.

Receiving guest in a generous and a cordinal manner.

Waste Management

Meaning of Waste:

Waste is unwanted or undesired material left over after the completion of the process. Waste can be in the form of solid, liquid and gas. When released in the form of liquid or gas, waste is referred to as emissions. Identifying waste is a subjective matter, and waste is only defined as such when perceived as such. Some see waste as a negative externality, but it can also viewed as a potential resources as in industrial ecology. In western culture such a concept is expressed by such idioms as "one man’s trash is another man’s treasure". The food waste or food loss means the food which is discard or uneaten. As of 2011 nearly 1.3 billion of food and one third of global food products are lost or wasted. Loss or wastage occurs on all steps of the food chain. In a low-income state most loss occurs during production and in a developed countries a person waste food about 100 kilograms during the consumption stage

Meaning of waste management:

Waste management is the collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing and monitoring of waste materials. The term usually relates to materials produced by human activity, and the process is generally undertaken to reduce their effect on health, environment. Waste management is a distinct practice from resource recovery which focuses on delaying the rate of consumption of natural resources. The management of waste treats all the material as a single class. Whether solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive substance, and to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of waste management. The waste management practices differ for developed and developing nations, for urban or rural areas, and for residential and industrial producers. The management for non-hazardous waste residential and institutional waste in metropolitan areas is usually the responsibility of local government.

The importance of waste management:

Hotel generate large volumes of solid and hazardous waste. By proactively Managing these wastes, a hotel can reduce operating costs, preserve local nature attractions such as coral reefs and beaches, and reduce odors and pest infestation.

Advantages of Waste Management:

Solid waste management can control and use of mice can spread other diseases dangerous. One may eliminate habitat for rats and insects through residential and commercial waste disposal.

Rodents and insects can cause health risks, and waste in the maker of this insect. One of the most miraculous benefits of waste management is that it includes requirements for burying or burning waste may cause health risks for people living near the area.

Solid will be regarded as a perfect way to recycle waste and convert it in some useful material.

Waste management is another popular method in each type of waste will be removed to reduce public health risk is that the solid waste or liquid waste.

It is also necessary to keep the environment pollution free and safe for residents. One can see that dump toxic waste in industrial areas where industrial wastes are ignored or not properly followed. Residents in these areas face serious health threats such as asthma.

We are all equally responsible for the areas around us, and we have a white local authorities in some cases we found trash in the area surrounding us.

Recycling of waste to be important in the present moment continues to increase environmental pollution.

Domestic and industrial wastes pose a threat to our precious ecosystem and so we must begin to waste management.

Recycling

1.4.1 Definitions and terminology:

The terminology related to recycling is often confusing to business and consumers. The following definition of terminology will help to clarify some of these terms.

1.4.2 Meaning of Recycling:

The recycling refers to "the separation and collection of waste, their subsequent transformation or remanufacture into usable or marketable products or materials, and the purchase of products made from recyclable materials". The EPA described recycling as "a series of activities that includes collecting recyclable materials that would otherwise be considered waste, sorting and processing recyclables into raw material into new products". The recycling symbols consist of three arrows representing the three stage of recycling

Collect

Remake

Reuse

Pre-consumer waste:

Pre-consumer waste is defined as the materials and co-products that are generated during the manufacturing process and reused within the same manufacturing process. During manufacturing process and food supply process loss occurs more. Examples include such material as

Envelope cutting,

The end cuts of paper

Scrap from manufacturing

Scrap from plastic manufacturing

Aluminum or improperly processed materials

Post-consumer waste:

The EPA defines post-consumer waste as "materials that have served their intended use as consumer items and have been recovered or diverted from solid waste for recycling". The other post-consumer wastes on food includes

Steel food cans

Other food containers

Beverage containers

Plastic bottles

Waste papers

To facilitate the market demand for post-consumer waste, the federal and state government agencies have issued executive orders or passed laws respectively, that requires the purchase of office supplies that include post-consumer materials.

Recyclable materials:

Recyclable materials "may or may not contain recycled materials, but can be recycled and made into new products. The recycling symbol for these materials is three arrows against a white background

Recycled materials:

Recycled materials are products that include either post-consumer or pre-consumer waste. The recycling symbol for these materials is three arrows against a black background

Recycled content:

The EPA defines recycled content as "the portion of a product, by weight or volume, which is composed of pre-consumer and/or post consumer recovered materials"

Advantages of recycling:

Recycling helps to reduces the amount of waste that are required to disposal

Recycling helps to reduces the pollution in the economy

Recycling helps to reduces green house gas emission in the economy

1.5 Objectives of the study:

To know about the percentage of waste produced in hotels

To know how the food waste can be re-used or re-cycled

To study on process of re-usability of waste food

To know how the food waste can be prevented

To study on the quality of the re-used product

To study on the service provided to the customers

1.6 Need of the study:

To know that the waste food is re-used

To know the waste management in hotel industries in Coimbatore city

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The aim of the project is to provide reliable waste data for anyone involved or interested in the waste industry, particularly waste management planners. There will be eleven SWMR reports - one for every Waste Strategy Area in Scotland - each providing the following information:

Key facts about waste management infrastructure and waste data

Background information, for example, population and number of households

Numbers and types of operational waste management facilities and their capacity for handling waste

Types and quantities of waste handled, including municipal waste, commercial and industrial waste, special waste, exempt waste and incinerated wastes [1] 

Guidance on the disposal of waste for the UK was initially outlined in the Health & Safety Commission’s document, Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste (1992), and this was superseded by the Health Guidance Note in 1995. Updated again in 1999, this document has been removed due to legislative changes in 2003. A joint agencies initiative for safe management of healthcare waste is under development. Revised guidance for the UK is due to be published in August 2005. Guidance produced by the Property and Environment Forum Executive, and which is particular to Scotland, appears in the Scottish Hospital Technical Note No. 3 (Version 4) (2002), available. All of the guidance produced to date has taken account of the detailed legislation in this field and much of the literature focuses on legal issues for clinical waste producers. Clinical waste is controlled waste as defined under the Environmental Protection Act (1990) and must be managed safely, recovered or disposed of without harming environment or human health in accordance with regulatory requirements of SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). The Environmental Protection Act (1990) also demands a ‘duty of care’ in relation to waste management to ensure waste is managed, recovered and disposed of properly (Moritz, 1995). Articles such as Tare’s (2001) discuss the definition of this ‘duty of care’. Under Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work Act (1974) there is a duty on employers to ensure as far as is practicable the health and safety of their employees and any others who may be affected by work activity. However, the ability of an employer to control all steps in the process from pick-up at hospitals to final disposal was highlighted by an incident reported in the media in 1996 involving illegal dumping of clinical waste by a contractor in Hertfordshire (Woodman, 1996). [2] 

Arrangements should be in place with the local waste collection authority for the collection and removal of any bags/receptacles. Waste should be kept in a safe place in the interim. Local authorities have a duty to collect waste under the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations (1988). The transport of healthcare risk waste is governed by several sets of regulations depending on the materials transported to improve safety:

Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations (2004);

European Communities (Safety Advisers for Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail Regulations, 2001);

Waste Management (Collection Permit) Regulations (2001);

Waste Management (Movement of Hazardous Waste) Regulations (1998).

Details of methods to dispose of clinical waste, including incineration and disinfection, are outlined in the literature. However, concerns have grown in recent years surrounding the efficacy and safety of incineration techniques. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Act (1990) dictates that the incineration of waste must avoid pollution of the environment in residential areas. Non-incineration disinfection methods are often referred to as alternative technology and include heat treatment, radiation or chemical disinfection. Once rendered free of infection using any of these methods, this waste is no longer considered ‘risk waste’. Audit Scotland recently produced a report to highlight the recommendation within NHS Scotland for appropriate segregation of waste for safety, environmental and cost reasons. They also made a recommendation that SEHD should develop a policy to support NHS Boards work in partnership with councils and private industry to ensure disposal of surplus, redundant, used equipment in line with new regulations. According to Phillips (1999), most clinical waste in Scotland is incinerated to reduce waste mass and volume prior to landfill. Recent decades have seen enormous change, however, from approximately 150 small incinerators in Scotland on hospital premises, operated generally by partnering staff (Wassermann, 1999), to centralized modern incinerators. A subsequent cutback on government funded capital investment resulted in a shift of services to the private sector and clinical waste disposal being established as a service contract. Study findings have indicated, however, that incineration does not necessarily remove all bacteria and that microbial hazards can be released from exhaust flues in certain circumstances. . Blenkharn JI & Oakland D (1989) studied the exhaust gases of an oil fired hospital incinerator during normal operation. Flue gas temperatures varied over a range 186-305 degrees Celsius. Bacteria were recovered from the base of the exhaust stack in numbers up to 400cfu m-3, but no sampling was performed at the top of the flue stack where flue gases were discharged. Those bacteria which were isolated were predominantly gram positive (Bacillus spp., Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase negative staphylococci). Low numbers of gram negative species (e.g. Pseudomonas fluorescents) were also recovered. From these results and the findings of other studies, incineration may not be an absolute method for sterilization of clinical waste. In addition to these findings, revised emission standards for incinerators came into force in October 1995 which has led to pressure to provide suitable alternatives for those plants which could not meet the new specifications [3] 

Methodology :

Methodology is generally a guideline for solving a problem, with specific components such as, tasks, methods, techniques and tools. It can be defined as

"The analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline",

"The systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline",

the study or description of methods

3.1 AREA OF THE STUDY

The area of the study is with hotel industry in Coimbatore city

3.2 PERIOD OF THE STUDY

The research is been done for a period of 6 months

3.3 Sample method:

Sampling methods are classified as either probability or non-probability. In probability samples, each member of the population has a know non-zero probability of being selected. Probability methods include random sampling, systematic sampling and stratified sampling. In non-probability sampling, members are selected from the population in some non-random manner, these includes convenience sampling. The advantage of probability sampling is that sampling error can be calculated. Sampling error is th degree to which a sample might differ from a population. When inferring to the population, result are reported plus or minus the sampling error. In non-probability sampling, the degree to which the sample differs from the population remains unknown.

3.4 SAMPLE SIZE

The sample size for the dealers was 50 in number while the sample size for Customers was 100.

3.5 TOOLS

Percentage analysis and the Chi-square were used as tools for this study

DATA ANALYSIS:

Data analysis is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming, and modeling data with the goal of highlighting useful information, suggesting conclusions, and supporting decision making. Data analysis has multiple facets and approaches, encompassing diverse techniques under a variety of names, in different business, science, and social science domains.

4.1 INFORMATION SOURCE:

"Source" means data that originates from either primary of secondary source. An information source is a source of information for somebody (i.e.) anything that might inform a person about something or provide knowledge to somebody. Information sources may be observations, people, speeches, documents, pictures, organizations etc.

4.1.1 PRIMARY DATA SOURCE:

Most of the data are collected by primary data through a structured questionnaire, which was operated on the reuse of the materials in the hotels.

4.1.2 SECONDARY DATA SOURCE:

The secondary information was collected from the published Sources such as Journals, Newspapers and Magazines and websites.

5.ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:

5.1 PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS:

A percentage is a way of expressing a number as a fraction of 100 (per centum meaning "per hundred" in Latin). It is often denoted using the percent sign, "%", or the abbreviation "pct". Percentages are used to express how large/small one quantity is, relative to another quantity

FORMULA FOR CALCULATING PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS IS

PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS = x

_____________________________ X 100

Y

Note :

x =No. of Respondents

y = Total no. of respondents

Table 5.1.1

Table showing the type of hotel

S.NO

TYPE OF HOTEL

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

RESTURANT

40

40

B

FAST FOOD

16

16

C

CAFÉ

28

28

D

VEGETARIAN HOTEL

8

8

E

OTHERS

8

8

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 58% of respondents to restaurant , 20% of the respondents to fast food, 17% of the respondents to vegetarian hotel and 5% of the respondents to other.

Chart 5.1.1

Chart showing type of hotel

Table 5.1.2

Table showing the nature of hotel

S.NO

NATURE OF HOTEL

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

VEG

16

16

B

NON-VEG

58

58

C

BOTH

26

26

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 28% of respondents to vegetarian hotel, 8% of the respondents to non-vegetarian and 64% of the respondents to both.

Chart 5.1.2

Chart showing the nature of hotel

Table 5.1.3

Table showing the hotel using eco-friendly products

S.NO

DOES HOTEL USE ECO- FRIENDLY PRODUCTS

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

YES

66

66

B

NO

34

34

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 100% of respondents to yes. It is clear that all of the respondents are using only eco-friendly products.

Chart 5.1.3

Chart showing the hotel using eco-friendly products

Table 5.1.4

Table showing food service operation to minimizes the food waste

S.NO

WHICH FOOD SERVICE OPERATION MINIMIZES THE FOOD WASTE

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

RESTURANT

20

20

B

FAST FOOD

34

34

C

CAFÉ

28

28

D

OTHER

18

18

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 43% of respondents to restaurant, 12% of the respondents to fast food, 20% of the respondents to cafe and 25% of the respondents to other. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that restaurant type of hotel should minimize the food waste

Chart 5.1.4

Chart showing food service operation to minimizes the food waste

.

Table 5.1.5

Table showing percentage of food becomes waste on production

S.NO

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD BECOME WASTE ON TOTAL PRODUCTION(PER DAY)

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

10%

12

12

B

20%

24

24

C

30%

52

52

D

40%

8

8

E

BELOW 10%

4

4

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 58% of respondents to 10%, 7% of the respondents to 20% and 35% of the respondents to below 10%. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that 10% of food becomes waste on total production (per day).

Chart 5.1.5

Chart showing percentage of food becomes waste on production

Table 5.1.6

Table showing type of food remains waste

S.N0

TYPE OF FOOD REMAINS WASTE

NO. OF RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

A

VEGETARIAN

16

16

B

NON-VEGETARIAN

44

44

C

BOTH

40

40

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 44% of respondents to vegetarian, 16% of respondents to non-vegetarian and 40% of the respondents to both. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that the vegetarian food are wasted more.

Chart 5.1.6

Chart showing type of food remains waste

Table 5.1.7

Table showing percentage of food becomes waste in vegetarian

S.NO

VEG WHAT PERCENTAGE FOOD BECOMES WASTE

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

1-5%

12

12

B

6-10%

62

62

C

11-15%

26

26

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 40% of respondents to 1-5%, 25% of the respondents to 5-10% and 5% of the respondents to 10-15%. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that only 1-5% of vegetarian food are wasted

Chart 5.1.7

Chart showing percentage of food becomes waste in vegetarian

.

Table 5.1.8

Chart showing percentage of food becomes waste in non-vegetarian

S.NO

NON-VEG WHAT PERCENTAGE 0F FOOD BECOMES WASTE

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

BELOW 5%

24

24

B

5-10%

30

30

C

11-15%

32

32

D

16-20%

14

14

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 58% of respondents to 5-10%, 4% of the respondents to 10-15% and 38% of the respondents to below 5%. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that they can use 5-10% of the non-vegetarian food are wasted.

Chart 5.1.8

Chart showing percentage of food becomes waste in non- vegetarian

Table 5.1.9

Table showing is the waste food is thrown away

S.NO

WASTE FOOD THROWN AWAY

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

YES

58

58

B

NO

42

42

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 70% of respondents to yes and 30% of the respondents to no. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that they throw the remaining waste food.

Chart 5.1.9

Chart showing is the waste food is thrown away

Table 5.1.10

Table showing people do prefer reuse of food

S.NO

DO YOU PREFER RE-USE OF FOOD

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

YES

36

36

B

NO

64

64

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 90% of respondents to yes and 10% of the respondents to no. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that they prefer reusing of waste food.

Chart 5.1.10

Chart showing people do prefer reuse of food

Table 5.1.11

Table showing kind of food easily reusable

S.NO

KIND OF FOOD EASILY RE-USABLE

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

VEGETARIAN

66

66

B

NON-VEGETARIAN

34

34

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 4% of respondents to vegetables and 96% of the respondents to non-vegetarian. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that non-vegetarian type of waste food can be reusable.

Chart 5.1.11

Chart showing kind of food easily reusable

Table 5.1.12

Table showing types of food wasted more

S.NO

TYPE OF SRVICE FOOD WASTED MORE

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

BUFFET

26

26

B

PRE-PLATED

34

34

C

SILVER SERVICE

40

40

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 42% of respondents to buffet, 27% of the respondents to pre-plated and 31% of the respondents to silver service. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that buffet type of service food is wasted more.

Chart 5.1.12

Chart showing types of food wasted more

Table 5.1.13

Table showing category of food wasted more on total production

S.NO

CATEGORY OF FOOD WASTED MORE ON TOTAL PRODUCTION (PER DAY)

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

STATERS

22

22

B

MAIN COURSE DISH

36

36

C

SIDE COURSE DISH

20

20

D

DESSERTS

22

22

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 45% of respondents to main course dish, and 55% of the respondents to side course dish. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that side course food is wasted more in total production per day

Chart 5.1.13

Chart showing category of food wasted more on total production

.

Table 5.1.14

Table showing types of food wasted more in main course

S.NO

TYPE OF FOOD WASTED IN MAIN COURSE

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

SOUTH INDIAN

32

32

B

NORTH INDIAN

24

24

C

CHINESE

40

40

D

OTHERS

4

4

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 53% of respondents to south Indian, 27% of the respondents to north Indian, 7% of the respondents to Chinese and 15% of the respondents to others. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that south Indian food is wasted more in main course

Chart 5.1.14

Chart showing types of food wasted more in main course

Table 5.1.15

Table showing types of food wasted more in side course

S.NO

TYPE OF FOOD WASTED IN SIDE COURSE

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

DRY

16

16

B

SEMMI-GRAVY

42

42

C

GRAVY

20

20

D

FRIED

22

22

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 5% of respondents to dry, 24% of the respondents to semi-gravy, 65% of the respondents to gravy and 6% of the respondents to fried. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that gravy type of food is wasted more in side course

Chart 5.1.15

Chart showing types of food wasted more in side course

Table 5.1.16

Table showing reason for wastage of food

S.NO

REASON FOR WASTAGE OF FOOD

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

QUALITY

24

24

B

LACK OF TIME

26

26

C

CANCEL OF FOOD

30

30

D

PREPARATION

18

18

E

OTHERS

2

2

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 44% of respondents to quality, 25% of the respondents to lack of time, 28% 0f the respondents to preparation and 3% of the respondents to cancel of food. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that meat can be minimum reused

Chart 5.1.16

Chart showing reason for wastage of food

Table 5.1.17

Table showing waste food products can be minimum re-used

S.NO

WASTE FOOD PRODUCT CAN BE MINIMUM RE-USED

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

MEAT

18

18

B

FRUITS

34

34

C

VEGETABLES

30

30

D

DIARY PRODUCTS

18

18

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 74% of respondents to meat, 12% of the respondents to vegetables and 14% of the respondents to diary products. It is clear that majority of the respondents says that meat can be minimum reused.

Chart 5.1.17

Chart showing waste food products can be minimum re-used

Table 5.1.18

Table showing percentage of waste food can be re-used

S.NO

PERCENTAGE OF FOOD WASTE CAN BE RE-USED

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

1-2%

12

12

B

3-5%

42

42

C

6-7%

24

24

D

8-10%

22

22

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 50% of respondents use 1-3% of food waste and 50% of the respondents use 2-5%.

Chart 5.1.18

Chart showing percentage of waste food can be re-used

Table 5.1.19

Table showing mode of re-usability

S.NO

MODE OF RE-USEABILITY

NO. OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

BURIAL

26

26

B

COMPOSTING

34

34

C

VERMICULTURE

26

26

D

RE-CYCLING

14

14

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

From the above table it clearly show that only 16 respondents from the total respondents are recycling their food.

Chart 5.1.19

Chart showing mode of re-usability

Table 5.1.20

Table showing types of food in which complaint arises

S.NO

TYPE OF FOOD DOES COMPLAINT ARISES

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

FRESH FOOD

44

44

B

RE-USED FOOD

56

56

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 75% of respondents to fresh food and 25% of the respondents to re-used food. It is clear that majority of the respondents are fresh food user’s

Chart 5.1.20

Chart showing types of food in which complaint arises

Table 5.1.21

Table showing to reduce the wastage of food products

S.NO

DO YOU REDUCE THE WASTAGE OF FOOD PRODUCTS

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

FOOD PRODUCTION PRACTICE

22

22

B

PORTION CONTROL

52

52

C

SERVICE METHOD

26

26

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 48% of respondents to food production practice, 32% of the respondents to service method and remaining 20% of the respondents to portion control. It is clear from the table that the majority of the respondents say’s that the food production practice is the process to reduce the wastage of food products.

Chart 5.1.21

Chart showing to reduce the wastage of food products

Table 5.1.22

Table showing increase in profit due to reusing of waste food products

S.NO

RE-USING OF WASTE FOOD PRODUCTS HAS INCREASED ANY PROFIT

NO OF RESPONDENT

PERCENTAGE

A

YES

46

46

B

NO

54

54

 

TOTAL

100

100

INTERPRETATION:

The above table shows that 18 respondents are re-cycling the waste food. It is clear from the table that the profit has not increased by using the re-used food products.

Chart 5.1.22

Chart showing increase in profit due to reusing of waste food products

5.2 CHI-SQUARE TEST:

The Chi-Square test is one of the simplest and commonly used non-parametric test. It is denoted by Greek letter x2. It was first used by Karl Pearson x2 test describes the magnitude of discrepancy between theory and actual observation. Theory refers to Expected frequencies and it is denoted by ‘E’ while actual observation is actual or observed frequency and is denoted by ‘O’

X2 test can be stated as x2 = # (O-E) 2 / E

Where,

O= Observed frequencies

E=Expected frequencies

HYPOTHESIS:

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, hyposthenia meaning "to put under" or "to suppose".

NULL HYPOTHESIS:

There is no significant difference between observed frequencies and excepted frequencies.

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS:

There is a significant difference between the observed frequencies and the excepted frequencies.

Table 5.2.1

Table showing the waste made in main course and side course dish

O

E

O-E

(O-E)2

(O-E)2 / E

13

6.72

6.28

39.44

5.87

7

6.72

0.28

0.08

0.01

2

9.86

-(7.86)

61.78

6.26

4

2.69

1.31

1.71

0.63

2

8.28

-(6.28)

39.44

4.76

8

8.28

-(0.28)

0.08

0.009

20

12.14

7.86

61.78

5.09

2

3.31

-(1.31)

1.71

0.35

58

22.979

STEPS FOR CALCULATING THE CHI-SQUARE:

Step 1: Enter the Observed value

Step 2: Calculate the excepted value and enter the values

Step 3: Compute the deviations (O-E) for each frequency and then square them to obtain (O-E) 2

Step 4: Divide the square of deviation (O-E)2 by the corresponding excepted frequencies to obtain (O-E)2 / E

Step 5: Add the values to compute

X2 = # (O-E) 2 / E

Step 6: Decide the level of significance at 5% and also calculated degree of freedom

V=n-1 (i.e.) V= 6-1;

Therefore V = 5

Step 7: The table value of x2 0.05 is 14.07

Step 8: The calculated value is 22.979and the table value is 14.07

Therefore it is called as Alternative Hypothesis.

INTERPRETATION:

There is a significant difference between the main course dish and side course dish that are been preferred to the wastage of food. So the observed frequencies are not the same as the excepted frequency. Hence it is Alternative Hypothesis

Table 5.2.2

Table showing the food can be easily re-usable and the food thrown away

O

E

O-E

(O-E)2

(O-E)2 / E

38

36.13

1.87

3.50

0.10

18

19.87

-(1.87)

3.50

0.18

02

3.87

-(1.87)

3.50

0.90

04

2.13

1.87

3.50

1.64

62

2.82

STEPS FOR CALCULATING THE CHI-SQUARE:

Step 1: Enter the Observed value

Step 2: Calculate the excepted value and enter the values

Step 3: Compute the deviations (O-E) for each frequency and then square them to obtain (O-E) 2

Step 4: Divide the square of deviation (O-E)2 by the corresponding excepted frequencies to obtain (O-E)2 / E

Step 5: Add the values to compute

X2 = # (O-E) 2 / E

Step 6: Decide the level of significance at 5% and also calculated degree of freedom

V=n-1 (i.e.) V= 6-1;

Therefore V = 5

Step 7: The table value of x2 0.05 is 7.82

Step 8: The calculated value is 2.82and the table value is 7.82

Therefore it is called as Null Hypothesis.

INTERPRETATION:

There is no significant difference between the kind of food easily re-usable and the waste food is thrown away on preference to the wastage of food. So the observed frequencies are same as the excepted frequency. Hence it is Null Hypothesis

6.1 Findings:

There are 58% of respondents come under the category of the restaurant.

There are 64% of the respondents produce both the vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

There are 100% of the respondents use only eco friendly products in their hotel.

There are 43% of the respondents saying that restaurant type of hotels should minimize the food waste.

58% of the respondents say that maximum 10% of the food only becomes waste on total production per day

Nearly 44% of the respondents say that vegetarian type of food becomes waste when compared to non-vegetarian food.

From the total production of food in non vegetarian, only 38% of respondents say’s that below 5% becomes waste.

70% of the respondents say that the waste food products are thrown away.

Nearly 16 respondents say that they prefer re-use of food waste

96% of the respondents say that they can re-use non vegetarian type of food waste.

There are 42% of the respondents say that buffet type of food service becomes waste when compared to others.

Nearly 55% of the respondents say that side course type of food becomes waste in total production of food products.

Most of the people say that quality is the main reason for the wastage of food

Only meat kind of food can be reused

In recycling of food, only 1-3% of the food can be easily re-used

Nearly 48% of the respondents say that food production practice is the best way of reducing the waste.

6.2 Suggestions:

Every hotel industry must follow the recycling process in case of food waste or must know about food production practice to be followed.

Though the estimated techniques are followed, the hotels can also get into new ideas for the reuse of the waste food.

Thus by reusing the waste foods, the hotels will not tend to loss. It also does not lose its credibility in the market.

The hotels can provide a specified quantity of food to reduce the waste

Only most of the non-vegetation can be reused, so even the vegetarian can be found to be reused

Even the waste food products can also be recycled

The buffet type of food services can be controlled because only from this many waste product occurs

7. Conclusion:

As from the study it is noted that the hotels are using the waste foods and also it is earning the level of profit. The study includes the retaining capacity of the hotels and their management in the society. Thus the hotels are in use of the waste food and also acting according to their availability in the market. Waste generation and waste reduction reflect many complex economic and social factors. No city or town can adopt recommendations; each must examine its own wastes, and the potential for extending waste reduction. There are many possible ways to implement the general dictum that waste reduction should be the first principle of solid waste management. From this study the hotel management can be easily identified how the recycling is been used in the today’s management.