www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste managementin Mumbai, India

Sarika Rathi

International Research Institute for Climate Prediction, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, 61 Rt. 9W, Monell, Palisades, NY 10964, USA

Accepted 27 September 2005Available online 8 November 2005

Abstract

Waste is an unavoidable by product of human activities. Economic development, urbanization and improving living standards in cit-ies, have led to an increase in the quantity and complexity of generated waste. Rapid growth of population and industrialization degradesthe urban environment and places serious stress on natural resources, which undermines equitable and sustainable development. Inef-ficient management and disposal of solid waste is an obvious cause of degradation of the environment in most cities of the developingworld. Municipal corporations of the developing countries are not able to handle increasing quantities of waste, which results in uncol-lected waste on roads and in other public places. There is a need to work towards a sustainable waste management system, which requiresenvironmental, institutional, financial, economic and social sustainability.

This study explores alternative approaches to municipal solid waste (MSW) management and estimates the cost of waste managementin Mumbai, India. Two alternatives considered in the paper are community participation and public private partnership in waste man-agement. Data for the present study are from various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and from the private sector involved inwaste management in Mumbai. Mathematical models are used to estimate the cost per ton of waste management for both of the alter-natives, which are compared with the cost of waste management by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). It is foundthat the cost per ton of waste management is Rs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797 (US$41) with public privatepartnership (PPP); and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when only MCGM handles the waste. Hence, community participation in waste managementis the least cost option and there is a strong case for comprehensively involving community participation in waste management.� 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Cities in the world are facing a high level of pollution;the situation in developing countries is more acute, partlycaused by inadequate provision of basic services like watersupply, sanitation facilities, transport infrastructure andwaste collection (UNCHS (Habitat), 2001). There is a tre-mendous increase in the amount of solid waste generated inthe cities due to a more affluent lifestyle. Municipal corpo-rations in developing countries are not able to handleincreasing quantities of waste, which results in uncollectedwaste on roads and in other public places. There is a needto work towards a sustainable waste management system,

0956-053X/$ - see front matter � 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.006

E-mail address: sarika@iri.columbia.edu.

which requires environmental, institutional, financial, eco-nomic and social sustainability. There is an emerging glo-bal consensus to develop local level solutions and toinvolve community participation for better waste manage-ment (United Nations, 1992).

The trend of involving the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in municipal solidwaste (MSW) management in Mumbai has started in therecent past with involvement of private industries likeExcel Industry Limited (1999) and NGOs like Stree MuktiSangathan (SMS). There are a number of successful casestudies of community and private sector participation inMSW management in developing countries (Anand, 1999;Poerbo, 1991; Ogu, 2000). A study done for waste manage-ment in urban Tanzania has advocated for a communitybased waste management approach (Kironde and Yhdego,

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1193

1997). However, these kinds of studies are missing in theIndian context and, therefore, this study will be a valuableaddition to MSW management literature. The presentstudy explores alternative approaches to MSW manage-ment and estimates the cost of waste management in Mum-bai. The alternatives considered are as follows:

� Community participation in waste management: a caseof cooperation among community based organizations(CBOs), NGOs and local government.� Public private partnership (PPP) in waste management:

a case of cooperation between the private sector andlocal government.

2. Data collection

Data and information were collected from variousNGOs, the private sector and research organizations work-ing on various aspects of MSW management, includingSMS, Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute, ExcelIndustry, Exnora, Pakruti, etc. Data were collected onwaste generation, cost of collection, transportation and dis-posal. Personal interviews were carried out with concernedresource personnel in these organizations to obtain the nec-essary information and data for the present study. Datawere collected for the year 2001–2002.

3. Alternative approach I: Community based waste

management

Community participation is a crucial element in solidwaste management (Anschutz, 1996). Case studies fromdifferent countries have documented the success of commu-nity and private sector participation in waste management(UNESCAP, 2002). Community participation in wastemanagement has been initiated in Mumbai as a result ofa good urban governance campaign, which started as ajoint project between the Government of India andMCGM, in collaboration with United Nations Center forHuman Settlements. This model of decentralized wastemanagement system is called �Advanced Locality Manage-ment (ALM)�. ALM is a community based approach foreffective management of civic services at the grass rootlevel. The concept of ALM was introduced in 1997 andwas implemented in 1998.

3.1. Main goal of community participation

ALM is based on the principle of cooperation and part-nership amongst CBOs, NGOs and the Municipal Corpora-tion of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for managing civicservices at the local level. The main objective behind thisscheme is to ensure segregation of waste at the source intobiodegradable and recyclable material, where the biodegrad-able waste is processed locally and the recyclable materialsare sold.

3.2. Functional model

The ALM model works as follows: The locality partici-pating under this scheme forms a committee, which isresponsible for planning, implementing and inspecting var-ious aspects of locality development. It also coordinatesbetween MCGM and local residents for smooth function-ing of civic services. MCGM carries out various educa-tional programs to create awareness among citizens.Moreover, MCGM gives priority in solving the civic prob-lems of the communities involved in waste managementprograms. MCGM appoints an officer at the ward levelto look into citizens� complaints and to coordinate withthe local committee. Various stages of waste managementunder ALM are shown in Fig. 1.

All residents who fall under the ALM scheme have tosegregate their waste into wet and dry fractions, corre-sponding to biodegradable and recyclable materials. Ragpickers, organized and trained by NGOs, collect thesewastes and process the biodegradable waste and sell therecyclable material. MCGM helps to establish compostingpits in these areas and also gives priority attention to suchareas for other civic services. In this scheme, NGOs alsoplay a very important role by organizing the rag pickersand giving them necessary training for collecting and com-posting waste. There are 360 ALM groups which have beenformed, covering 0.2 million people generating 69 tons/dayof waste. In addition, 283 composting centers are workingunder this scheme. Table 1 explains the division of respon-sibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM for manage-ment of waste with under the community participationapproach.

3.3. Financial viability

Residents make monetary contribution towards the sal-aries of the rag pickers. MCGM contribute towards the ini-tial set up cost.

3.4. Costs and benefits of converting waste into manure

Under this scheme, residents segregate their waste in twocategories – wet and dry wastes. Trained rag pickers collectthese wastes and sort them out further. Organic waste is fedinto composting pits and processed. These schemes mostlyuse vermicomposting or aerobic composting techniques forcomposting waste. There are a number of social and environ-mental benefits associated with this approach, shown inFig. 2. In this study intangible benefits associated with betterliving standard for rag pickers and clean and healthy sur-roundings are not estimated. This paper focuses on estimat-ing tangible costs and benefits associated with this approach.

3.5. Case studies of community participation

There are a number of successful case studies on com-munity participation in waste management. NIUA (1999)

Table 1Division of responsibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM

CBOs NGOs MCGM

Collection of waste from households Training rag pickers Collection and transportation of non-biodegradableand non-recyclable materials

Composting of organic waste Coordinating betweenCBOs and MCGM

Disposal of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials

Payment of salary of rag pickers Looking after the complaints of communities participatingin waste management programme

TransportedSold

Dumpsite

OtherRecyclable

Sold

Composting

Compost

House to HouseCollection

Sorting by

workers

Organic Non-

Organic

Fig. 1. ALM (community participation in waste management).

1194 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

explains successful case studies of community participa-tion in waste management in a number of Indian cities.Memon (2002) had studied community participation in

Benefits to CBOs andsociety

• Value of recyclablematerials

• Value of compost • Reduced burden on

disposal sites • Better standard of

living for rag pickers • Clean and healthy

surroundings

Benefits to MCGM

• Decline in cost ofwaste management

• Lower burden ondisposal sites

Costs borne by CBOs

• Cost of labour andsupervision

• Cost of land • Cost of equipments

Costs borne by MCGM

• Collection cost • Transportation cost • Disposal cost of inert

materials

Community participation

Fig. 2. Different costs and benefits associated with community compostplant.

Dhaka. A research based NGO, Waste Concern, initiateda pilot community compost plant in 1995 in Dhaka. Itintroduced door-to-door collection of waste for whichhouseholds paid TK 15–60 (US$0.23–0.91) per month.On the demand side, Waste Concern conducted a survey,which revealed that there is a good demand for compostin Dhaka and the adjoining area, as 94% of farmers indi-cated they were willing to buy compost. Waste Concernsigned an agreement with Map Agro Ltd., a fertilizermarketing company and Proshika, one of the largestNGOs in Bangladesh, to market compost. Communityparticipation in Dhaka was highly successful (Memon,2002).

Inchon city, Republic of Korea, introduced a �volumebased collection fee system� for solid waste. This programwas successful because it not only generated revenue forthe corporation but also led to a reduction in the amountof waste generated (UNESCAP, 2002). In Nonthaburi,Thailand, a pilot project was implemented in 2001–2002to motivate households to segregate waste at the sourcein order to increase recycling. It was highly successful. Thismodel of community government partnership shows thatpublic awareness is the most vital component in promotingseparation of waste at the source.

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1195

3.6. Economic valuation of waste management system based

on community participation

The economic valuation of the community participationscenario has been conducted using a mathematical modelfor each activity of MSW management. The economic val-uation for community participation can be divided intotwo parts:

� Costs and benefits associated with CBOs and NGOs.� Costs borne by MCGM.

The cost of waste management under the community par-ticipation scenario is calculated as follows:

Labor and supervision cost per ton (Rs./ton) = C1.Cost of land per ton of waste (Rs./ton) = R1.Total benefits of waste management per ton (Rs./ton) = B1.Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste (Rs.) = C1M.Fraction of biodegradable waste = f.Cost per ton of waste management with community par-ticipation (Rs./ton) (CCM) CCM = C1 + R1 · f +C1M � B1.

3.6.1. Costs and benefits associated with CBOs and NGOs

3.6.1.1. Labor and supervision cost. Labor and supervisioncosts are calculated as follows:

Waste handled by ALM per day (ton) = WALM.Fraction of biodegradable waste = f.Waste composted per day under ALM (ton) = WALM ·f.Wage of ALM workers (Rs./day) = W.Productivity of ALM workers (ton/worker) = w.Miscellaneous expenditure per day (Rs./day) = 20% ofsalary of workers = W ALM�f

w

� �� W � 0:20.

Labor and supervision cost per day under ALM (C1)

(Rs./ton) =W ALM�f

w �W�ð1:20Þ� �

W ALM.

3.6.1.2. Land cost. Data on land requirement for compo-sting a ton of waste per day is collected from BhawalkarEcological Research Institute, and is calculated as follows:

Area required for a ton of waste (ft2) (L) = (w + s) · l · 4.Rent per ft2 (Rs.) = r.Rent on land per ton of waste (R1) (Rs./ton) = r · L.

3.6.1.3. Benefits per ton of waste management.

Compost produced by weight = 25% of input (surveydata).Price of compost (Rs./ton) = p.Revenue from compost (Rs.) = p · 0.25 · (WALM · f).

Price of paper (Rs./ton) = Ppa.Price of plastic (Rs./ton) = Ppl.Price of metal (Rs./ton) = PM.Price of glass (Rs./ton) = PG.Amount of paper recovered (ton) (APa) = WALM ·0.0790.Amount of plastic recovered (ton) (APl) = WALM ·0.0446.Amount of metal recovered (ton) (AM) = WALM ·0.0097.Amount of glass recovered (ton) (AG) = WALM ·0.0188.Total revenue from recyclable material (Rs.) (RR) =Apa · Ppa + Apl · Ppl + AM · PM + AG · PG.Benefits of waste management under ALM (B1) (Rs./ton) = p�0:25�ðW ALM�f ÞþRR

W ALM.

3.6.2. Costs borne by MCGM

All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material ishandled by MCGM under the community participationalternative. Considering C1M as the cost borne by MCGMfor management of 1 ton of waste with community partic-ipation, below is a mathematical formulation for C1M:

Cost of collection per ton of waste (Rs.) = Cc.Cost of transportation per ton of waste (Rs.) = Ct.Cost of disposal per ton of waste (Rs.) = Cd.Cost of personnel and other exp per ton of waste(Rs.) = Cm.Amount of waste handled under MCGM = fnbnr, wherefnbnr is fraction of non-biodegradable and non-recycla-ble material.Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste managementwith community participation (Rs.) = C1M = (Cc +Ct + Cd + Cm) · fnbnr.

4. Alternative approach II: PPP for waste management

Public private partnerships in providing basic environ-mental services like waste management and wastewatermanagement are gaining importance in many Asian cities.This aspect of waste management has been successfully dem-onstrated by various private sector companies participatingin waste management; Excel Industry in Mumbai is one suchcase of demonstration. In the present study, the advantagesof applying public private partnerships in waste manage-ment are demonstrated by considering the case of a partner-ship between Excel Industry and MCGM (see Table 2).

4.1. Mathematical model of PPP

Excel Industry Limited was found in 1941 and is one ofthe India�s larger agro chemical companies. The companyconverts the organic component of MSW into manurethrough mechanical aerobic composting. It processes

Table 4Types of equipment used and investment for mechanical aerobiccomposting

Types Capital costin million Rs.(million US$)

Operation and maintenancecost in millionRs. per year (US$ per year)

Life period(year)

Processingmachines

12.0 (0.3) 0.28 (6437) 10

Automobiles 3.5 (0.1) 0.39 (8966) 5Civil works 22.5 (0.5) 25

Table 5Salary of staff and other expenditure by Excel Industry

Types of worker Number Expenditure in millionRs. (US$)

Managerial 3 0.288 (6621)Skilled 5 0.350 (8046)Unskilled 15 0.900 (20,690)Miscellaneous

(water, electrical and others)2.500 (57,471)

Table 6Distribution of cost of waste management under different headings

MCGM Community participation PPP

Rs. per ton (US$ per ton)

Cost of collection 950 (22) 428 (9.8) 950 (22)Cost oftransportationand disposal

390 (9) 178 (4) 394 (9)

Personnel cost 319 (7) 144 (3) 361 (8)Cost of land 380 (8.7) 730 (17) 451 (10)Cost of capital – 147 (3.4)Operation andmaintenance cost

562 (13) 18 (0.4)

Table 2Division of responsibility between MCGM and private sector for wastemanagement under PPP

MCGM Private sector

Collection of wastefrom community bins

Capital investment for processingof organic waste

Transportation of wasteto private sector compound

Conversion of organic waste into compost

Disposal of non-biodegradableand non-recyclable materials

Marketability of compost

1196 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

30–40 tons of waste per day, which is supplied for free fromMCGM to Excel Industry. The entire process requires 2 haof land. The annual costs for land rental and electricity areRs. 0.50 lakh (US$1142) and Rs. 1.6 lakh (US$3646),respectively. Detailed information on costs associated withcomposting is given in Tables 4–6. Under this partnership,waste is collected and transported by MCGM, and ExcelIndustry processes the organic waste by aerobic compo-sting. All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materialseparated by the company is transported to dump sites.Fig. 3 presents the flow chart of activities carried out underthis partnership. Table 2 explains the division of responsi-bilities between MCGM and the private sector for wastemanagement under PPP.

4.2. Case studies of PPP

NIUA (1999) provides an account of a case study inRajkot, India, where private sector participation in wastecollection has resulted in lower cost. Kathmandu Munici-pal Corporation, Nepal, introduced the participation ofprivate sector for door-to-door collection, street sweepingand waste transfer, without providing any subsidy to theprivate sector (Manandhar, 2002). In this case, householdswere charged by the private sector for providing the ser-vices. After 1 year, it was seen that private sector was mak-ing a profit and was willing to continue and expandservices. However, in this public–private cooperation, therole of local government in management and inspectionwas important. Some of the other places where private sec-tor participation is encouraged in delivery of waste servicesare Sao Paulo, Brazil and Malaysia (Bartone et al., 1991).

Table 3Expenditure statements by SMS for composting of waste

Date Expenditure on salaryof workers in Rs. (US$)

Amount paid tosupervisors in Rs. (US$)

Apr-01 13,040 (300) 5241 (121)May-01 12,600 (290) 4529 (104)Jun-01 13,425 (309) 5119 (118)Jul-01 13,500 (310) 6003 (138)Aug-01 13,687 (315) 5836 (134)Sep-01 13,275 (305) 5448 (125)Oct-01 13,875 (319) 4337 (100)Nov-01 13,275 (305) 5502 (127)Dec-01 13,950 (321) 5634 (130)Jan-02 13,380 (308) 4736 (109)Feb-02 12,352 (284) 4448 (102)

4.3. Economic valuation of waste management system with

PPP

This section presents mathematical models for eachactivity of MSW management for case study two. The var-ious costs and benefits associated with waste managementwith public private sector participation are as shown in

Misc. costin Rs. (US$)

Cost of filter ofmanure in Rs. (US$))

Total cost in Rs. (US$)

466 (11) – 21,747 (500)398 (9) – 24,027 (552)

3676 (85) 900 (21) 25,270 (581)1426 (33) – 24,028 (552)1719 (40) – 24,342 (560)265 (6) – 21,988 (506)371 (9) – 21,858 (503)

17,183 (395) 2525 (58) 41,385 (951)1369 (32) – 24,053 (553)

40 (0.9) 220 (5) 21,476 (494)60 (1.4) – 19,661 (452)

Municipalbins

Transportedby MCGM to

Excel site

Sortingby Excel

OrganicRecyclable

Other

Transportedto dumpsite

Compost

SoldAerobiccomposting

Sold

Householdscarry waste

Fig. 3. Waste management by private sector participation.

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1197

Fig. 4. Based on this model, the cost per ton of waste man-agement for PPP is estimated. Economic valuation for PPPcan be divided into two parts:

� Costs and benefits associated with private sector.� Costs borne by MCGM.

Benefits to Excel Industry

Value of recyclable materialValue of compost

Benefits to MCGM

Reduced burden on disposal sitesReduced cost of waste management

Costs borne by ExcelIndustry

Cost of labourCost of capitalCost of land

Cost borne by MCGM

Cost of collection and transportationCost of disposal of inert materials

Public Private Partnership

Fig. 4. Different costs and benefits associated with PPP.

The cost of waste management under the public privatepartnership scenario is calculated as follows:

Operation and maintenance cost per ton (Rs./ton) = C2.Annualized capital cost per ton of waste (Rs./ton) = A.Value of land per ton (Rs./ton) = R2.Fraction of biodegradable waste = f.Total benefits of waste management per ton (Rs./ton) = B2.Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management(Rs.) = C2M.Cost per ton of waste management (Rs./ton) = CPM,CPM = C2 + A + R2 · f + C2M � B2.

4.3.1. Costs and benefits associated with PPP4.3.1.1. Operation and maintenance cost.

Salary of workers per ton of waste (Rs.) = S.Total miscellaneous expenditure per ton of waste(Rs.) = M.Total expense per ton of waste (Rs.) (C2) = S + M.

4.3.1.2. Annualized cost of land.

Investment in equipment (Rs.) = Ie.Life of equipment (year) = n.Rate of discount = r.Annualized cost of equipment (Rs.) = A ¼ Ie�r

1�ð1þrÞ�n.

4.3.1.3. Cost of land. The data on land requirement forcomposting a ton of waste per day is collected from ExcelIndustry. Let us consider:

Land required for one ton of waste (ft2) = La.Rent per ft2 (Rs.) = r.Rent on land for a ton of waste (R2) (Rs.) = La · r.

4.3.1.4. Benefits per ton of waste management.

Compost produced by weight = 25% of input (ExcelIndustry).Price of compost (Rs./ton) = p.Revenue from compost per day (Rs.) = p · 0.25 ·WEx · f.Price of paper (Rs./ton) = Ppa.Price of plastic (Rs./ton) = Ppl.Price of metal (Rs./ton) = PM.Price of glass (Rs./ton) = PG.Amount of paper recovered (ton) (APa) = WEx · 0.0790.Amount of plastic recovered (ton) (APl) = WEx · 0.0446.Amount of metal recovered (ton) (AM) = WEx · 0.0097.Amount of glass recovered (ton) (AG) = WEx · 0.0188.Total revenue from recyclable material (Rs.) (RR) =Apa · Ppa + Apl · Ppl + AM · PM + AG · PG.Benefits of waste management under Excel (B2)(Rs./ton). = p�0:25�W Ex�fþRR

W Ex.

1198 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

4.3.1.5. Cost borne by MCGM. All non-biodegradable andnon-recyclable material is handled by MCGM. In this sec-tion a mathematical formulation is derived for costs borneby MCGM for management of 1 ton of waste with publicprivate partnership that is C2M.

Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste manage-ment with public private partnership (Rs./ton) C2M =(Cc + Ct + Cm) + Cd · fnbnr.

Here all the notations have same meaning as given inSection 3.6.2.

5. Results

Various costs and benefits associated with communityparticipation and public private participation in wastemanagement are calculated using the mathematical formu-lation outlined above. Following is the estimation of costsand benefits associated with both of the alternativesstudied.

5.1. Estimation of unit cost of waste management with

community participation

Labor and supervision cost (C1) of waste managementwith community participation is estimated from Table 3to be Rs. 561.5 (US$13) per ton. The land requirementfor composting pits differs depending upon the technol-ogy used. Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute hasestimated a land requirement of 2153 ft2 (200 m2) forprocessing 1 ton of organic waste per day. It implies that840 ft2 (78 m2) of land are required for 1 ton of wastegenerated, since the wase has only 39% wet waste. Con-sidering a rental rate of Rs. 20 (US$0.4) per ft2 per mo(Accommodation Times, 2003), the cost of land (R1) perton of waste per day comes out to be Rs. 559.2(US$12.9).

The benefits per ton of waste with community participa-tion (B1) = Rs. 524 (US$12).

The costs per ton of waste management by MCGM areestimated from data collected through personal interviews.

Collection cost per ton of waste management underMCGM (CC) = Rs. 950 (US$22).Cost of transportation per ton of waste under MCGM(CT) = Rs. 389.65 (US$9).Cost of personnel per ton of waste management underMCGM (CM) = Rs. 318.9 (US$7).Cost of disposal per ton of waste under MCGM(CD) = Rs. 8.8 (US$0.2).Cost of land per ton of waste under MCGM (CL) = Rs.380 (US$9).Fraction of non-biodegradable and non-recyclablematerial per ton of waste generated (fnbnr) = 0.45.Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste managementwith community participation C1M = (950 + 389.65+ 318.9 + 8.8 + 380) · 0.45 = Rs. 921.30 (US$21).

Net cost per ton of waste management with communityparticipation CCM = 561.5 + 559.2 + 921.30�524 = Rs.1518 (US$35).Some of the other advantages of communityparticipation in waste management are as follows:

� Lessened requirement for community bins, which inturn implies cleaner, better and healthier surroundings.� Decline in transportation cost.� Reduced burden on land for waste disposal, resulting in

extended landfill life.� Reduced use of burning of waste to a large extent.� Reduction in environmental pollution.� Better living standard for rag pickers.

5.2. Estimation of unit cost of waste management under PPP

Table 4 shows the investment costs for a mechanicalaerobic composting plant. Assuming a discount rate of10% per year and a plant capacity of 100 tons perday, using data from Table 4, the annualized capital cost(A) of the processing equipment is estimated to be Rs.1.95 million (US$44,828) and the annualized capital costof the automobiles is estimated to be Rs. 0.92 million(US$21,149). This works out to be a capital cost ofRs. 79 (US$2) per ton of waste. Operation and mainte-nance costs (C2) are estimated to be Rs. 18 ($0.4) perton. Further, assuming the life of civil works to be 30years and a discount rate of 10% per year, the annual-ized cost of buildings is estimated to be Rs. 2.48 million(US$57,012), which is Rs. 68 rupees ($1.6) per ton ofwaste.

The expenditure of Excel Industry on worker salariesis shown in Table 5. The expenditure on salaries perton of waste is estimated to be Rs. 42 (US$1) per tonof waste. The land requirement to process 100 tons ofwet waste per day is 2 ha (215,278 ft2) of land (data col-lected from Excel Industry). The land required to process1 ton of waste = (215,278·0.39)/100 = 839.58 ft2 (where0.39 is the fraction of organic waste in 1 ton of wastegenerated). The average rental rate is Rs. 20 (US$0.46)per ft2 per month (Accommodation Times, 2003). How-ever, since the composting plant is located near thedumpsite, land value will be much lower. Hence, a dis-count factor of 0.5 is applied to the rental prices. Renton land for processing per ton of waste per day(R2) = Rs. 280 (US$6.4).

The cost borne by MCGM for 1 ton of waste manage-ment with PPP is:

C2M = 950 + 389.65 + 318.9 + (8.8 + 380) · 0.45 = Rs.1833.51 (US$42).Benefits per ton of waste with PPP (B2) = Rs. 524(US$12).Net cost of waste management with PPP:C2M = 18 + 79 + 68 + 42 + 280 + 1833.51 � 524 = Rs.1797 (US$41) per ton.

S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1199

6. Analysis

Fig. 5 shows the net cost of waste management for threeapproaches: (1) waste is handled only by MCGM; (2) wasteis handled with community participation; and (3) privatesector participation in waste management. The cost perton of waste management with community participationis Rs. 1518 (US$35), with PPP it is Rs. 1797 (US$41) andwhen waste is handled solely by MCGM it is Rs. 1908(US$44). (When waste is handled only by MCGM, thevalue for recyclable materials is lower because recyclablematerials are retrieved from rag pickers from communitybins and disposal sites, which reduces the quality of recy-clable materials and hence results in a lower price.)

The cost per ton of waste management is least withcommunity participation, which is substantially lowerthan with PPP. Fig. 6 shows the cost sharing amongMCGM, CBOs and the private sector for waste manage-ment under different alternatives. In case of communityparticipation, a larger proportion of the cost, that is

Fig. 5. Comparison of net cost of waste management under threeapproaches.

Fig. 6. Cost sharing among MCGM, CBOs and private sector for wastemanagement.

Rs. 1121 (US$26) per ton, is borne by CBOs and Rs.921 (US$21) is borne by MCGM, whereas in the caseof PPP a larger proportion of cost, that is Rs. 1834(US$42), per ton is borne by MCGM and Rs. 487(US$11) is borne by the private sector. It is clear fromFig. 6 that the cost of waste management borne byMCGM is reduced in both the cases, i.e., with commu-nity participation and with PPP.

Further, in the case of community participation, the costis borne by waste generators whereas in the case of PPPthere is no mechanism to recover cost from waste genera-tors. Table 6 presents a distribution of the cost of wastemanagement with community participation and PPP underdifferent headings. The cost of collection and transporta-tion of waste management is much lower with communityparticipation than with PPP because in the case of commu-nity participation waste is separated at the source and onlynon-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials are trans-ported to dumpsites. It reduces the requirement for com-munity bins and transportation of waste. From the aboveanalysis, it is clear that the community participationapproach to waste management out performs private sec-tor participation in terms of the net cost of wastemanagement.

6.1. Barrier and implementation analysis

Although community participation is the least costoption, there are certain bottlenecks associated with it.Some of the bottlenecks in the community participationalternative, which were identified during the data collectionand field survey, are as follows:

� CBOs and NGOs faced the problem of non-participa-tion from some people in the community.� Problem with the revenue recovery from compost.

CBOs frequently face a lack of cooperation in the com-munity. This problem arises because it is the general per-ception that it is the duty of MCGM to pick up thegarbage. Hence, there is a need to work towards changingthe perception of people. There is a need to sensitize thepublic to the need for public cleanliness and to the problemof limited resources of municipal corporations, which willhelp to increase community participation in waste manage-ment. Moreover, MCGM can make ALM schemes moreattractive by providing incentives in the form of municipaltax reductions.

There is also a problem with selling the compost gener-ated from waste. A small proportion of compost can beused by city dwellers, whereas a large proportion of com-post needs to be sold to farmers. However, farmers havenot shown much interest in compost produced fromMSW. It has been demonstrated in Dhaka that if a propermarketing network is developed and the quality of the com-post is controlled, there will not be any problem with reve-nue recovery from compost (Memon, 2002).

1200 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

A number of case studies have demonstrated that if PPPis designed properly, it can be efficient and cost effective(Bartone et al., 1991; NIUA, 1999). However, in the pres-ent study it has been analyzed that PPP as practiced cur-rently in Mumbai is more expensive than communityparticipation because the design of PPP is inefficient. Inthe current design, the private sector is involved only inthe processing of waste whereas collection and transporta-tion of waste is handled by MCGM. This in turn does notimprove the collection and transportation of waste andresults a higher cost of waste management. Hence, thereis a need to remove inefficiencies associated with collectionand transportation of waste in order to reduce the cost ofPPP. There is a need to investigate the role of private sectorparticipation in collection and transportation of waste.

7. Conclusions

In the current study two alternative approaches to MSWmanagement are explored. The first approach is commu-nity participation and the second is private sector partici-pation. Data for the present study is from various NGOsand the private sector. Mathematical models are developedto estimate the cost per ton of waste management for bothof the alternative approaches and to compare those costswith the cost of waste management by MCGM alone.

It is found that the cost per ton of waste management isRs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797(US$41) with PPP; and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when onlyMCGM handles the waste. Hence, community participa-tion in waste management is the least cost option. A sub-stantial reduction in the cost of waste management withcommunity participation is achieved due to separation ofwaste at source, which in turn leads to a reduction in therequirement for community bins and transportation ofwaste. However, the PPP system focuses on processing ofwaste without improving the collection and transportationactivities, which leads to a higher cost per ton of wastemanagement. There is a strong case for community partic-ipation in waste management. However, there has to beconcerted efforts from urban local bodies and NGOs tobuild up an informed community and overcome the bottle-necks for community participation in waste management.Moreover, there is a need to further analyze the role ofPPP in waste management.

Acknowledgements

I thank my supervisors, Sudhakar Yedla and reviewersfor their valuable comments on this paper. I gratefullyacknowledge the scholarship received from IGIDR forcompleting this work.

References

Accommodation Times, 2003. 1st–15th April 2003, vol. 17, no. 21,Mumbai.

Anand, P.B., 1999. Waste management in Madras revisited. Environmentand Urbanization 11 (2), 161–176.

Anschutz, J., 1996. Community Based Solid Waste Management andWater Supply Project: Problems and Solutions compared – a survey ofthe literature, UWEP working paper document 2, Gouda, WASTE.

Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., Schertenleib, R., 1991. Private sectorparticipation in municipal solid waste service: Experiences in LatinAmerica. Waste Management and Research 9 (6), 495–509.

Excel Industries limited, 1999. Excel Environmental, Capability docu-ment, Bombay, India.

Kironde, J.M. Lusugga, Yhdego, Michael, 1997. The Governance of wastemanagement in urban Tanzania: towards a community basedapproach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 213–226.

Manandhar, Rajesh, 2002. Private Sector Participation in Solid WasteManagement in Kathmandu, Directory: Successful and transferablepractice, Kitakyushu Initiative Network. Available from: http://host3.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/Successful%20Practices/SP%20(Analyzed)/Solid%20Waste/3%20Kathmandu%20%20(Paper).pdf accessed on 16th

August 2004.Memon, Mushtaw Ahmed, 2002. Innovation in Community Driven

Composting, Kitakyushu Initiative Network. Available from: http://host-3.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/practices_database.htm accessed on 23rdJuly 2004.

NIUA (National Institute of Urban Affairs), 1999. Solid Waste Manage-ment: Improvement Initiatives in Selected Cities of India, Researchstudy series no. 75, New Delhi.

Ogu, Vincent Ifeanyi, 2000. Private sector participation and municipalwaste management in Benin city, Nigeria. Environment and Urban-ization 12 (2), 103–117.

Poerbo, Hasan, 1991. Urban solid waste management in Bandung:towards an integrated resource recovery system. Environment andUrbanization 3 (1), 60–69.

UNCHS (Habitat), 2001. The State of the World�s Cities 2001, Nairobi,Kenya.

UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asiaand the Pacific), 2002. Best practice/case study portfolio Environmentand Natural Resources Development Division, UNESCAP.

UnitedNations,1992.Environmentally SoundManagementofSolidWastesand Sewage Related Issues, chapter 21 of Agenda 21, United Nations.Available from: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?Docu-mentID=52&ArticleID=69 accessed, 13th March 2004.