1. Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste management
in 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 2005
Available 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 degrades
the 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 developing
world. 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 requires
environmental, institutional, financial, economic and social sustainability.
This study explores alternative approaches to municipal solid waste (MSW) management and estimates the cost of waste management
in 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 in
waste 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 found
that the cost per ton of waste management is Rs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797 (US$41) with public private
partnership (PPP); and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when only MCGM handles the waste. Hence, community participation in waste management
is the least cost option and there is a strong case for comprehensively involving community participation in waste management.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Cities in the world are facing a high level of pollution;
the situation in developing countries is more acute, partly
caused by inadequate provision of basic services like water
supply, sanitation facilities, transport infrastructure and
waste collection (UNCHS (Habitat), 2001). There is a tre-
mendous increase in the amount of solid waste generated in
the cities due to a more affluent lifestyle. Municipal corpo-
rations in developing countries are not able to handle
increasing quantities of waste, which results in uncollected
waste on roads and in other public places. There is a need
to work towards a sustainable waste management system,
which requires environmental, institutional, financial, eco-
nomic and social sustainability. There is an emerging glo-
bal consensus to develop local level solutions and to
involve community participation for better waste manage-
ment (United Nations, 1992).
The trend of involving the private sector and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) in municipal solid
waste (MSW) management in Mumbai has started in the
recent past with involvement of private industries like
Excel Industry Limited (1999) and NGOs like Stree Mukti
Sangathan (SMS). There are a number of successful case
studies of community and private sector participation in
MSW management in developing countries (Anand, 1999;
Poerbo, 1991; Ogu, 2000). A study done for waste manage-
ment in urban Tanzania has advocated for a community
based waste management approach (Kironde and Yhdego,
0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.006
E-mail address: sarika@iri.columbia.edu.
www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman
Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

2. 1997). However, these kinds of studies are missing in the
Indian context and, therefore, this study will be a valuable
addition to MSW management literature. The present
study 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 case
of 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 and
local government.
2. Data collection
Data and information were collected from various
NGOs, the private sector and research organizations work-
ing on various aspects of MSW management, including
SMS, Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute, Excel
Industry, Exnora, Pakruti, etc. Data were collected on
waste generation, cost of collection, transportation and dis-
posal. Personal interviews were carried out with concerned
resource personnel in these organizations to obtain the nec-
essary information and data for the present study. Data
were collected for the year 2001–2002.
3. Alternative approach I: Community based waste
management
Community participation is a crucial element in solid
waste management (Anschutz, 1996). Case studies from
different countries have documented the success of commu-
nity and private sector participation in waste management
(UNESCAP, 2002). Community participation in waste
management has been initiated in Mumbai as a result of
a good urban governance campaign, which started as a
joint project between the Government of India and
MCGM, in collaboration with United Nations Center for
Human Settlements. This model of decentralized waste
management system is called ÔAdvanced Locality Manage-
ment (ALM)Õ. ALM is a community based approach for
effective management of civic services at the grass root
level. The concept of ALM was introduced in 1997 and
was 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 civic
services at the local level. The main objective behind this
scheme is to ensure segregation of waste at the source into
biodegradable and recyclable material, where the biodegrad-
able waste is processed locally and the recyclable materials
are sold.
3.2. Functional model
The ALM model works as follows: The locality partici-
pating under this scheme forms a committee, which is
responsible for planning, implementing and inspecting var-
ious aspects of locality development. It also coordinates
between 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 management
programs. MCGM appoints an officer at the ward level
to look into citizensÕ complaints and to coordinate with
the local committee. Various stages of waste management
under ALM are shown in Fig. 1.
All residents who fall under the ALM scheme have to
segregate their waste into wet and dry fractions, corre-
sponding to biodegradable and recyclable materials. Rag
pickers, organized and trained by NGOs, collect these
wastes and process the biodegradable waste and sell the
recyclable material. MCGM helps to establish composting
pits in these areas and also gives priority attention to such
areas for other civic services. In this scheme, NGOs also
play a very important role by organizing the rag pickers
and giving them necessary training for collecting and com-
posting waste. There are 360 ALM groups which have been
formed, covering 0.2 million people generating 69 tons/day
of waste. In addition, 283 composting centers are working
under this scheme. Table 1 explains the division of respon-
sibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM for manage-
ment of waste with under the community participation
approach.
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 two
categories – wet and dry wastes. Trained rag pickers collect
these wastes and sort them out further. Organic waste is fed
into composting pits and processed. These schemes mostly
use vermicomposting or aerobic composting techniques for
composting waste. There are a number of social and environ-
mental benefits associated with this approach, shown in
Fig. 2. In this study intangible benefits associated with better
living 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)
S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1193

3. explains successful case studies of community participa-
tion in waste management in a number of Indian cities.
Memon (2002) had studied community participation in
Dhaka. A research based NGO, Waste Concern, initiated
a pilot community compost plant in 1995 in Dhaka. It
introduced door-to-door collection of waste for which
households 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 compost
in Dhaka and the adjoining area, as 94% of farmers indi-
cated they were willing to buy compost. Waste Concern
signed an agreement with Map Agro Ltd., a fertilizer
marketing company and Proshika, one of the largest
NGOs in Bangladesh, to market compost. Community
participation in Dhaka was highly successful (Memon,
2002).
Inchon city, Republic of Korea, introduced a Ôvolume
based collection fee systemÕ for solid waste. This program
was successful because it not only generated revenue for
the corporation but also led to a reduction in the amount
of waste generated (UNESCAP, 2002). In Nonthaburi,
Thailand, a pilot project was implemented in 2001–2002
to motivate households to segregate waste at the source
in order to increase recycling. It was highly successful. This
model of community government partnership shows that
public awareness is the most vital component in promoting
separation of waste at the source.
Table 1
Division of responsibilities among CBOs, NGOs and MCGM
CBOs NGOs MCGM
Collection of waste from households Training rag pickers Collection and transportation of non-biodegradable
and non-recyclable materials
Composting of organic waste Coordinating between
CBOs and MCGM
Disposal of non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials
Payment of salary of rag pickers Looking after the complaints of communities participating
in waste management programme
Benefits to CBOs and
society
• Value of recyclable
materials
• 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 of
waste management
• Lower burden on
disposal sites
Costs borne by CBOs
• Cost of labour and
supervision
• 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 compost
plant.
TransportedSold
Dumpsite
Other
Recyclable
Sold
Composting
Compost
House to House
Collection
Sorting by
workers
Organic Non-
Organic
Fig. 1. ALM (community participation in waste management).
1194 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

4. 3.6. Economic valuation of waste management system based
on community participation
The economic valuation of the community participation
scenario has been conducted using a mathematical model
for each activity of MSW management. The economic val-
uation for community participation can be divided into
two 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 À B1.
3.6.1. Costs and benefits associated with CBOs and NGOs
3.6.1.1. Labor and supervision cost. Labor and supervision
costs 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% of
salary of workers = W ALMÂf
w
 Ã
 W  0:20.
Labor and supervision cost per day under ALM (C1)
(Rs./ton) =
W ALMÂf
w ÂW Âð1:20Þ
 Ã
W ALM
.
3.6.1.2. Land cost. Data on land requirement for compo-
sting a ton of waste per day is collected from Bhawalkar
Ecological 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 (survey
data).
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) = pÂ0:25ÂðW ALMÂf ÞþRR
W ALM
.
3.6.2. Costs borne by MCGM
All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material is
handled by MCGM under the community participation
alternative. Considering C1M as the cost borne by MCGM
for 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, where
fnbnr is fraction of non-biodegradable and non-recycla-
ble material.
Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management
with 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 wastewater
management are gaining importance in many Asian cities.
This aspect of waste management has been successfully dem-
onstrated by various private sector companies participating
in waste management; Excel Industry in Mumbai is one such
case of demonstration. In the present study, the advantages
of 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 of
the IndiaÕs larger agro chemical companies. The company
converts the organic component of MSW into manure
through mechanical aerobic composting. It processes
S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1195

5. 30–40 tons of waste per day, which is supplied for free from
MCGM to Excel Industry. The entire process requires 2 ha
of land. The annual costs for land rental and electricity are
Rs. 0.50 lakh (US$1142) and Rs. 1.6 lakh (US$3646),
respectively. Detailed information on costs associated with
composting is given in Tables 4–6. Under this partnership,
waste is collected and transported by MCGM, and Excel
Industry processes the organic waste by aerobic compo-
sting. All non-biodegradable and non-recyclable material
separated by the company is transported to dump sites.
Fig. 3 presents the flow chart of activities carried out under
this partnership. Table 2 explains the division of responsi-
bilities between MCGM and the private sector for waste
management under PPP.
4.2. Case studies of PPP
NIUA (1999) provides an account of a case study in
Rajkot, India, where private sector participation in waste
collection has resulted in lower cost. Kathmandu Munici-
pal Corporation, Nepal, introduced the participation of
private sector for door-to-door collection, street sweeping
and waste transfer, without providing any subsidy to the
private sector (Manandhar, 2002). In this case, households
were charged by the private sector for providing the ser-
vices. After 1 year, it was seen that private sector was mak-
ing a profit and was willing to continue and expand
services. However, in this public–private cooperation, the
role of local government in management and inspection
was important. Some of the other places where private sec-
tor participation is encouraged in delivery of waste services
are Sao Paulo, Brazil and Malaysia (Bartone et al., 1991).
4.3. Economic valuation of waste management system with
PPP
This section presents mathematical models for each
activity of MSW management for case study two. The var-
ious costs and benefits associated with waste management
with public private sector participation are as shown in
Table 3
Expenditure statements by SMS for composting of waste
Date Expenditure on salary
of workers in Rs. (US$)
Amount paid to
supervisors in Rs. (US$)
Misc. cost
in Rs. (US$)
Cost of filter of
manure in Rs. (US$))
Total cost in Rs. (US$)
Apr-01 13,040 (300) 5241 (121) 466 (11) – 21,747 (500)
May-01 12,600 (290) 4529 (104) 398 (9) – 24,027 (552)
Jun-01 13,425 (309) 5119 (118) 3676 (85) 900 (21) 25,270 (581)
Jul-01 13,500 (310) 6003 (138) 1426 (33) – 24,028 (552)
Aug-01 13,687 (315) 5836 (134) 1719 (40) – 24,342 (560)
Sep-01 13,275 (305) 5448 (125) 265 (6) – 21,988 (506)
Oct-01 13,875 (319) 4337 (100) 371 (9) – 21,858 (503)
Nov-01 13,275 (305) 5502 (127) 17,183 (395) 2525 (58) 41,385 (951)
Dec-01 13,950 (321) 5634 (130) 1369 (32) – 24,053 (553)
Jan-02 13,380 (308) 4736 (109) 40 (0.9) 220 (5) 21,476 (494)
Feb-02 12,352 (284) 4448 (102) 60 (1.4) – 19,661 (452)
Table 4
Types of equipment used and investment for mechanical aerobic
composting
Types Capital cost
in million Rs.
(million US$)
Operation and maintenance
cost in million
Rs. per year (US$ per year)
Life period
(year)
Processing
machines
12.0 (0.3) 0.28 (6437) 10
Automobiles 3.5 (0.1) 0.39 (8966) 5
Civil works 22.5 (0.5) 25
Table 5
Salary of staff and other expenditure by Excel Industry
Types of worker Number Expenditure in million
Rs. (US$)
Managerial 3 0.288 (6621)
Skilled 5 0.350 (8046)
Unskilled 15 0.900 (20,690)
Miscellaneous
(water, electrical and others)
2.500 (57,471)
Table 6
Distribution of cost of waste management under different headings
MCGM Community participation PPP
Rs. per ton (US$ per ton)
Cost of collection 950 (22) 428 (9.8) 950 (22)
Cost of
transportation
and 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 and
maintenance cost
562 (13) 18 (0.4)
Table 2
Division of responsibility between MCGM and private sector for waste
management under PPP
MCGM Private sector
Collection of waste
from community bins
Capital investment for processing
of organic waste
Transportation of waste
to private sector compound
Conversion of organic waste in
to compost
Disposal of non-biodegradable
and non-recyclable materials
Marketability of compost
1196 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

6. Fig. 4. Based on this model, the cost per ton of waste man-
agement for PPP is estimated. Economic valuation for PPP
can be divided into two parts:
Costs and benefits associated with private sector.
Costs borne by MCGM.
The cost of waste management under the public private
partnership 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 À B2.
4.3.1. Costs and benefits associated with PPP
4.3.1.1. 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 IeÂr
1Àð1þrÞÀn.
4.3.1.3. Cost of land. The data on land requirement for
composting a ton of waste per day is collected from Excel
Industry. 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 (Excel
Industry).
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). = pÂ0:25ÂW ExÂf þRR
W Ex
.
Benefits to Excel
Industry
Value of recyclable
material
Value of compost
Benefits to MCGM
Reduced burden on
disposal sites
Reduced cost of
waste management
Costs borne by Excel
Industry
Cost of labour
Cost of capital
Cost of land
Cost borne by MCGM
Cost of collection and
transportation
Cost of disposal of inert
materials
Public Private Partnership
Fig. 4. Different costs and benefits associated with PPP.
Municipal
bins
Transported
by MCGM to
Excel site
Sorting
by Excel
Organic
Recyclable
Other
Transported
to dumpsite
Compost
SoldAerobic
composting
Sold
Households
carry waste
Fig. 3. Waste management by private sector participation.
S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1197

7. 4.3.1.5. Cost borne by MCGM. All non-biodegradable and
non-recyclable material is handled by MCGM. In this sec-
tion a mathematical formulation is derived for costs borne
by MCGM for management of 1 ton of waste with public
private 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 in
Section 3.6.2.
5. Results
Various costs and benefits associated with community
participation and public private participation in waste
management are calculated using the mathematical formu-
lation outlined above. Following is the estimation of costs
and benefits associated with both of the alternatives
studied.
5.1. Estimation of unit cost of waste management with
community participation
Labor and supervision cost (C1) of waste management
with community participation is estimated from Table 3
to be Rs. 561.5 (US$13) per ton. The land requirement
for composting pits differs depending upon the technol-
ogy used. Bhawalkar Ecological Research Institute has
estimated a land requirement of 2153 ft2
(200 m2
) for
processing 1 ton of organic waste per day. It implies that
840 ft2
(78 m2
) of land are required for 1 ton of waste
generated, 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) per
ton 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 are
estimated from data collected through personal interviews.
Collection cost per ton of waste management under
MCGM (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 under
MCGM (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-recyclable
material per ton of waste generated (fnbnr) = 0.45.
Cost borne by MCGM per ton of waste management
with 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 community
participation CCM = 561.5 + 559.2 + 921.30À524 = Rs.
1518 (US$35).Some of the other advantages of community
participation in waste management are as follows:
Lessened requirement for community bins, which in
turn 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 mechanical
aerobic composting plant. Assuming a discount rate of
10% per year and a plant capacity of 100 tons per
day, 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 cost
of the automobiles is estimated to be Rs. 0.92 million
(US$21,149). This works out to be a capital cost of
Rs. 79 (US$2) per ton of waste. Operation and mainte-
nance costs (C2) are estimated to be Rs. 18 ($0.4) per
ton. Further, assuming the life of civil works to be 30
years 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 of
waste.
The expenditure of Excel Industry on worker salaries
is shown in Table 5. The expenditure on salaries per
ton of waste is estimated to be Rs. 42 (US$1) per ton
of waste. The land requirement to process 100 tons of
wet waste per day is 2 ha (215,278 ft2
) of land (data col-
lected from Excel Industry). The land required to process
1 ton of waste = (215,278·0.39)/100 = 839.58 ft2
(where
0.39 is the fraction of organic waste in 1 ton of waste
generated). 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 the
dumpsite, land value will be much lower. Hence, a dis-
count factor of 0.5 is applied to the rental prices. Rent
on 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 À 524 = Rs.
1797 (US$41) per ton.
1198 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200

8. 6. Analysis
Fig. 5 shows the net cost of waste management for three
approaches: (1) waste is handled only by MCGM; (2) waste
is handled with community participation; and (3) private
sector participation in waste management. The cost per
ton of waste management with community participation
is Rs. 1518 (US$35), with PPP it is Rs. 1797 (US$41) and
when waste is handled solely by MCGM it is Rs. 1908
(US$44). (When waste is handled only by MCGM, the
value for recyclable materials is lower because recyclable
materials are retrieved from rag pickers from community
bins 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 with
community participation, which is substantially lower
than with PPP. Fig. 6 shows the cost sharing among
MCGM, CBOs and the private sector for waste manage-
ment under different alternatives. In case of community
participation, a larger proportion of the cost, that is
Rs. 1121 (US$26) per ton, is borne by CBOs and Rs.
921 (US$21) is borne by MCGM, whereas in the case
of 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 from
Fig. 6 that the cost of waste management borne by
MCGM is reduced in both the cases, i.e., with commu-
nity participation and with PPP.
Further, in the case of community participation, the cost
is borne by waste generators whereas in the case of PPP
there is no mechanism to recover cost from waste genera-
tors. Table 6 presents a distribution of the cost of waste
management with community participation and PPP under
different headings. The cost of collection and transporta-
tion of waste management is much lower with community
participation than with PPP because in the case of commu-
nity participation waste is separated at the source and only
non-biodegradable and non-recyclable materials are trans-
ported to dumpsites. It reduces the requirement for com-
munity bins and transportation of waste. From the above
analysis, it is clear that the community participation
approach to waste management out performs private sec-
tor participation in terms of the net cost of waste
management.
6.1. Barrier and implementation analysis
Although community participation is the least cost
option, there are certain bottlenecks associated with it.
Some of the bottlenecks in the community participation
alternative, which were identified during the data collection
and 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 the
garbage. Hence, there is a need to work towards changing
the perception of people. There is a need to sensitize the
public to the need for public cleanliness and to the problem
of limited resources of municipal corporations, which will
help to increase community participation in waste manage-
ment. Moreover, MCGM can make ALM schemes more
attractive by providing incentives in the form of municipal
tax reductions.
There is also a problem with selling the compost gener-
ated from waste. A small proportion of compost can be
used by city dwellers, whereas a large proportion of com-
post needs to be sold to farmers. However, farmers have
not shown much interest in compost produced from
MSW. It has been demonstrated in Dhaka that if a proper
marketing 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).
Fig. 5. Comparison of net cost of waste management under three
approaches.
Fig. 6. Cost sharing among MCGM, CBOs and private sector for waste
management.
S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200 1199

9. A number of case studies have demonstrated that if PPP
is 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 community
participation because the design of PPP is inefficient. In
the current design, the private sector is involved only in
the processing of waste whereas collection and transporta-
tion of waste is handled by MCGM. This in turn does not
improve the collection and transportation of waste and
results a higher cost of waste management. Hence, there
is a need to remove inefficiencies associated with collection
and transportation of waste in order to reduce the cost of
PPP. There is a need to investigate the role of private sector
participation in collection and transportation of waste.
7. Conclusions
In the current study two alternative approaches to MSW
management 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 NGOs
and the private sector. Mathematical models are developed
to estimate the cost per ton of waste management for both
of the alternative approaches and to compare those costs
with the cost of waste management by MCGM alone.
It is found that the cost per ton of waste management is
Rs. 1518 (US$35) with community participation; Rs. 1797
(US$41) with PPP; and Rs. 1908 (US$44) when only
MCGM 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 with
community participation is achieved due to separation of
waste at source, which in turn leads to a reduction in the
requirement for community bins and transportation of
waste. However, the PPP system focuses on processing of
waste without improving the collection and transportation
activities, which leads to a higher cost per ton of waste
management. There is a strong case for community partic-
ipation in waste management. However, there has to be
concerted efforts from urban local bodies and NGOs to
build 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 of
PPP in waste management.
Acknowledgements
I thank my supervisors, Sudhakar Yedla and reviewers
for their valuable comments on this paper. I gratefully
acknowledge the scholarship received from IGIDR for
completing this work.
References
Accommodation Times, 2003. 1st–15th April 2003, vol. 17, no. 21,
Mumbai.
Anand, P.B., 1999. Waste management in Madras revisited. Environment
and Urbanization 11 (2), 161–176.
Anschutz, J., 1996. Community Based Solid Waste Management and
Water Supply Project: Problems and Solutions compared – a survey of
the literature, UWEP working paper document 2, Gouda, WASTE.
Bartone, C.R., Leite, L., Triche, T., Schertenleib, R., 1991. Private sector
participation in municipal solid waste service: Experiences in Latin
America. 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 waste
management in urban Tanzania: towards a community based
approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 21, 213–226.
Manandhar, Rajesh, 2002. Private Sector Participation in Solid Waste
Management in Kathmandu, Directory: Successful and transferable
practice, 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 23rd
July 2004.
NIUA (National Institute of Urban Affairs), 1999. Solid Waste Manage-
ment: Improvement Initiatives in Selected Cities of India, Research
study series no. 75, New Delhi.
Ogu, Vincent Ifeanyi, 2000. Private sector participation and municipal
waste 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 and
Urbanization 3 (1), 60–69.
UNCHS (Habitat), 2001. The State of the WorldÕs Cities 2001, Nairobi,
Kenya.
UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific), 2002. Best practice/case study portfolio Environment
and Natural Resources Development Division, UNESCAP.
UnitedNations,1992.EnvironmentallySoundManagementofSolidWastes
and Sewage Related Issues, chapter 21 of Agenda 21, United Nations.
Available from: http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?Docu-
mentID=52ArticleID=69 accessed, 13th
March 2004.
1200 S. Rathi / Waste Management 26 (2006) 1192–1200