Module-3

Biochemical Processes and Composting: Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste.
Current Issues in Solid Waste Management and Review of MSW Management Status in
First List of 20 Smart Cities in the Country.

ENERGY RECOVERY FROM WASTE

Energy recovery is the process of releasing the energy stored in waste so that it can be utilized
either directly or indirectly to generate heat and electricity or biofuels. Energy recovery is the
process by which solid waste is converted into feedstock materials or renewable energy.

The environmental case for energy form waste versus landfill:

When considering the relative environmental benefits of landfill and energy from waste, the most important
factor is their potential contribution to climate change. Different amounts of greenhouse gases would be
released if the same waste was burned or buried.

The balance between the many factors that affect this is complex and much work has been done to understand
it that is beyond the scope of this guide. However, there are two simple rules that can help guide our
decision making on which route to follow:
• The more efficient the plant is at turning waste into usable energy the better
• The proportion of the waste that is considered renewable is key – higher renewable (biodegradable)
content makes energy from waste inherently better than landfill.

Energy from waste is therefore better than landfill, providing the residual waste being used has the right
renewable content and is matched with a plant that is efficient enough at turning the waste to energy.
These considerations should be at the heart of any proposal.

There are rules about when energy from waste can be counted as recovery or disposal in the context of the
waste hierarchy. However, if the principles above are followed then even when it is classified as disposal
the environmental balance may still favor energy from waste over landfill.

Energy from waste and recycling:

There is often concern that energy from waste discourages greater recycling. Government’s goal is to move
waste up the hierarchy. Throughout Europe there are examples where energy from waste coexists with high
recycling, ultimately delivering low landfill.

At the more local level the risk that energy from waste can compete with, not complement, recycling does
exist. However, it is an avoidable risk if contracts, plants and processes are flexible enough to adapt to
changes in waste arisings and composition.

Waste infrastructure has a long lifetime and care needs to be taken at the start to ensure systems can adapt to
potential long-term change and drive waste up the hierarchy, not constrain it. Flexibility of the overall
approach to future change should therefore be another key consideration in any proposal.

Energy from waste as an energy source: Energy from waste is not just about waste Management.

• The energy it produces is a valuable domestic energy source contributing to energy security.

• As a partially renewable energy source it can also contribute to our renewable energy targets which are
aimed at decarbonizing energy generation.

• It has the added advantage that it is non-intermittent, so it can complement other renewable energy
sources such as wind or solar.
Energy outputs: Most of the energy from waste is currently produced in the form of electricity. However, more and
more plants are also looking to use the heat generated. This is known as combined heat and power. More innovative
technologies have the potential to also transform the waste into other energy products such as transport fuels or
substitute natural gas.

The Government provides a number of different financial incentives to help drive growth in energy from waste,
particularly for the more novel technologies and energy outputs beyond electricity. These along with the effective use
of heat have the potential to deliver higher overall efficiency and therefore deliver the Government’s goal of more
energy from less waste.

Energy from Waste Infrastructure: An energy from waste solution consists of a number of components: the fuel,
the plant, the location etc., and the decisions around these are interlinked.

Waste as a fuel
While waste will differ from one bag to the next, at the scale of an energy from waste plant it is possible to estimate an
average composition for the waste. This will define important properties such as the energy available in the waste
and the renewable content. These need to be understood to pick the best solution.

Pre-treatments
Some technologies can cope with a wide range of waste composition. However, others need more specific properties,
and will therefore require pre-treatment of the waste to transform it into a refuse derived fuel. Pre-treatment requires
energy which needs to be considered as part of the overall environmental assessment of the solution. The waste fuel
needs to be matched to the technology in terms of both physical properties and environmental impact.

The basic process All energy from waste plants will have the same basic steps
• A reception area to receive the waste and get it ready for combustion
• A thermal treatment – this essentially releases the energy from the waste
• Conversion to a transportable form of energy – e.g. electricity, heat, fuels
• Emissions clean-up – ensuring waste gases are safe.

The overall environmental benefits will depend not only on the thermal treatment but the energy conversion technology
to which it is coupled. The important factor to consider is the overall efficiency, net of any energy required to run the
process.

Energy from waste technologies and outputs

The most common thermal treatment is incineration; less common are Advanced Thermal Treatments (ATT) such as
gasification or pyrolysis. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, with no ‘one size fits all’ solution.
The size and site of the plant will influence the type of technology that is appropriate.

Use of heat significantly increases the overall efficiency of the process and the environmental benefits. Sites with heat
customers available should be favoured, along with technologies that can exploit this. Smaller sites may suit the
ATTs which can operate at smaller scale.

The most common way to generate energy is to use hot gases from the thermal step to boil water to create steam. This is
then fed into a steam turbine to generate electricity and/or used for heating. This is the only route for incineration.

Advanced thermal treatments create a mixture of products from the thermal step that still have a lot of chemical energy
stored in them e.g. gases and oils. These can be burnt and used to raise steam as above. However, they also have the
potential to be cleaned and burnt directly in gas engines or gas turbines, or converted to transport fuels or synthetic
natural gas.
The latter routes have the potential to convert the energy from the waste more efficiently than through steam generation,
which makes them attractive. However, they are technically difficult, relatively unproven at commercial scale, and
some of the generated energy is used to power the process, reducing the overall benefits.

Emissions
The emissions clean-up step ensures that all the waste gases emitted from the plant meet the very tight limits placed
on them by EU legislation. As a result, energy from waste plants contribute only a small fraction of both local and
national particulate and other emissions.

Health impacts
The potential health implications of emissions are often a major focus of concern, hence the tight regulation of the
emissions and the high priority. Government gives to the ongoing process of conducting, evaluating and
disseminating high quality science. Experts have reviewed research undertaken to examine the suggested links
between emissions from municipal waste incinerators and effects on health. It notes that modern, well-managed
incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) contains organic as well as inorganic matter.

The latent energy present in its organic fraction can be recovered for gainful utilization through adoption of suitable
Waste Processing and Treatment technologies. The recovery of energy from wastes also offers a few additional
benefits as follows:

(i) The total quantity of waste gets reduced by nearly 60% to over 90%, depending upon
the waste composition and the adopted technology.
(ii) Demand for land, which is already scarce in cities, for landfilling is reduced.
(iii) The cost of transportation of waste to far-away landfill sites also gets reduced
proportionately.
(iv) Net reduction in environmental pollution.

BASIC TECHNIQUES OF ENERGY RECOVERY

(i) Thermo-chemical conversion: This process entails thermal de-composition of organic matter
to produce either heat energy or fuel oil or gas. The main technological options under
this(thermo-) category include Incineration and Pyrolysis/ Gasification.

(ii) Bio-chemical conversion: This process is based on enzymatic decomposition of organic

matter by microbial action to produce methane gas or alcohol. Are preferred for wastes having high
percentage of organic bio-degradable matter and high level of moisture/ water content, which aids microbial
activity. The main technological options under this category is Anaerobic Digestion, also referred to as Bio-
methanation.

Parameters affecting Energy Recovery:

Quantity of waste, and Physical and chemical characteristics (quality) of the waste. The actual production of energy will
depend upon specific treatment process employed, the selection of which is also critically dependent upon (apart
from certain other factors described below) the above two parameters.

The important physical parameters requiring consideration include:

 Size of Constituents: Smaller size →faster decomposition

 density : the high density → high proportion of biodegradable organic matter and moisture.
 Low density → high proportion of paper, plastics and other combustibles moisture content
  High moisture content → biodegradable waste fractions decompose more rapidly
than in dry conditions

The important chemical parameters to be considered for

determining the energy recovery potential:
 Volatile Solids
 Fixed Carbon content
 Inert,
 Calorific Value
 C/N ratio (Carbon/Nitrogen ratio)
 Toxicity
In most cases the waste may need to be suitably segregated/ processed/ mixed with suitable additives at site before
actual treatment to make it more compatible with the specific treatment method.

For example, in case of Anaerobic digestion, if the C/N ratio is less, high carbon content wastes (straw, paper etc.) may
be added; if it is high, high nitrogen content wastes (sewage sludge, slaughter house waste etc.) may be added, to
bring the C/N ratio within the desirable range.

TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS

1 Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

2 Landfill Gas Recovery
3 Incineration
4 Pyrolysis/ Gasification

Anaerobic Digestion (bio-methanation)

AD process can be divided into three stages with three distinct physiological groups of micro-organisms:

Stage I: It involves the fermentative bacteria, which include anaerobic and facultative micro-organisms. Complex
organic materials, carbohydrates, proteins and lipids are hydrolysed and fermented into fatty acids, alcohol, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen, ammonia and sulphides.

Stage II: In this stage the acetogenic bacteria(produce acetate by anaerobic respiration) consume these primary
products and produce hydrogen, carbon dioxide and acetic acid.

Stage III: It utilizes two distinct types of methanogenic bacteria. The first reduces carbon dioxide to methane, and the
second decarboxylates acetic acid to methane and carbon dioxide.

Factors, which influence the Anaerobic Digestion process, are temperature, pH, nutrient concentration, loading rate,
toxic compounds and mixing.

A temperature of about 35-38 degree is generally considered optimal in mesophilic zone (20-45degree) and higher gas
production can be obtained under thermophilic temperature in the range of 45-60degree. Figure 1 represents the
stages of Anaerobic Digestion.
 Fig 1: Anaerobic Digestion flow chart

Different Designs and Configurations of AD Systems:

(i) Low / Medium Solid Digestion Systems: A large number of systems presently available
worldwide for digestion of solid wastes are for low (< 10%) or medium (10-16%) solid
concentrations. Some of these systems, when applied to MSW or Market Waste, require the
use of water, sewage sludge or manure.

(ii) High Solid Continuous Digestion Systems: Developed in late eighties principally for the
organic fraction of MSW but have also been extended to other industrial, market and
agricultural wastes. The digestion occurs at solid content of 16% to 40%. These systems are
referred to as ‘Dry Digestion’ or Anaerobic Composting when the solid concentration is in the
range of 25-40% and free water content is low.

(iii) Two Stage Digestion Systems:

In these systems the hydrolysis, acidogenesis and acetogenesis of the waste are carried out separately from the
methanogenesis stage.
 (iv) Dry Batch Digestion: This design concept is closest to the processes occurring naturally in
a landfill. The reactor containing the organic material is inoculated with previously digested
waste from another reactor, sealed and allowed to digest naturally. Batchwise anaerobic
process of digestion and recirculation is shown in Figure2.

Fig 2: Batchwise Anaerobic Process

Landfill Gas Recovery

When waste is deposited in landfills, an anaerobic decomposition takes place, and landfill gas will be produced. The
gas contains approximately 50% methane, which can be used for energy purposes. Extraction of gas reduces the
emission of methane into the atmosphere. Figure 3 illustrates the recovery of methane from landfill and the
distribution of fuel, extracted.

Using LFG helps to reduce odours and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps businesses, states,
energy providers, and communities protect the environment and build a sustainable future. The main components in
landfill gas recovery are: An extraction system and a utilization system.

Fig 3: Landfill gas recovery process and distributed pipelines

 1) Extraction System
Vertical perforated pipes, Horizontal perforated pipes, and in some cases a membrane covering for gas collection.
Pump or a Compressor leading the gas into the production system. However, in a number of sites horizontal suction
pipes are built in, when the waste is deposited on the landfill.

In this way the gas can easier be extracted from the very beginning of the gas production, as the gas can then be sucked
out before closure/covering of the landfill. Sometimes an impermeable membrane will cover the landfill, and almost
all the gas can then be collected and recovered.

2) Utilization System
The gas can be used in a gas boiler for the production of hot water for heating or process heat. Landfill gas is used as
fuel in a gas engine, which drives a power generator. The following systems may be adopted for utilizing LFG.

[Link] production and Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP

Plant): The most known use of the gas is in a gas engine running an electric generator
producing power. CHP plants compared with only power production are the most efficient
system for utilizing the energy from landfills.

2 Boiler System the gas is used for heating of water in a boiler system:

The heat from some boiler systems is used in greenhouses, either by normal circulation of hot water, or by heating of
air that is blown into the greenhouses. This is also a relatively simple and efficient way to use the gas.

3 Upgrading to Natural Gas Quality:

The main step in the upgrading process is the separation of methane and carbon dioxide. For this process three
techniques are applied:
• Chemical Absorption
• Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA)
• Membrane Separation

4. Use of Gas in Vehicles landfill gas is compressed and used in either compactors, refuse
collection vehicles, busses or ordinary cars:
The tax system differs in the single country and is important when finding out whether the system is profitable or not.
Fuel Cells may be compared to large electric batteries, which provide a means to convert the chemical bonding
energy of a chemical substance directly into electricity. The difference between a battery and a fuel cell is, that in a
battery, all reactants are present within the battery and are slowly being depleted during battery utilization. In a fuel
cell the reactants (fuel) are continuously supplied to the cell.

Incineration
Direct burning of wastes in the presence of excess air (oxygen) at temperatures of about 800°C and above, liberating heat
energy, inert gases and ash. Net energy yield depends upon:
 The density and composition of the waste;
 Relative percentage of moisture and inert materials;
 Ignition temperature;
 Size and shape of the constituents;
 Design of the combustion
 System (fixed bed/ fluidised bed ), etc
The combustion temperatures of conventional incinerators fuelled only by wastes are about 760°C in the furnace, and
in excess of 870°C in the secondary combustion chamber. Some modern incinerators utilise higher temperatures of
up to 1650°C using supplementary fuel. The following figure 4 shows the construction of an incinerator.

Fig 4: Incineration Process.

Basic Types of Incineration Plants

Incineration plants are categorized by combustion technology, with common types including fixed grate, moving
grate, rotary kiln, and fluidized bed incinerators.
By Combustion Technology:
 Fixed Grate and Moving Grate (Direct-Flame) Incinerators: These are common for large
waste treatment plants, burning waste in a single combustion chamber with excess air. 
o Fixed Grate: Waste is burned on a stationary grate.
o Moving Grate: Waste is moved along a series of moving grates.
 Rotary Kiln Incinerators: These use a rotating kiln for high-temperature combustion,
suitable for various waste types.
 Fluidized Bed Incinerators: Waste is suspended in a bed of hot, moving particles,
promoting efficient combustion.
 Pyrolytic Chamber Incinerators: These use a pyrolytic chamber and a post-combustion
chamber for more complete combustion.
 Liquid Injection Incinerators: These are used for incinerating liquid wastes.
 Multiple Hearth Incinerators: These use multiple hearths for waste processing.
 Catalytic Combustion Chamber: These use a catalyst to reduce emissions.
 Waste Gas Flare Incinerator: These incinerate waste gases.

Other Classifications:
 Mass-burn systems: Incinerate all waste, typically large facilities.
 Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) systems: Process waste to create a fuel source for incineration.
  Hazardous Waste Incinerators: Designed for burning hazardous materials at high
temperatures to destroy contaminants.
 Medical Waste Incinerators: Specially designed for burning medical waste, including
infectious and non-infectious materials.

Pyrolysis/ Gasification
Pyrolysis is also referred to as destructive distillation or carbonization. It is the process of thermal decomposition
of organic matter at high temperature (about 900°C ) in an inert atmosphere or vacuum, producing a mixture of
combustible Carbon Monoxide, Methane, Hydrogen, Ethane [CO, CH4, H2, C2H6] and non-combustible Carbon
Dioxide, water, Nitrogen [CO2, H2O, N2] gases, pyroligneous liquid, chemicals and charcoal. The process of
pyrolysis is shown in figure 5.

Fig 5: Pyrolysis process

Gasification involves thermal decomposition of organic matter at high temperatures as shown in figure 6 in presence
of limited amounts of air/ oxygen, producing mainly a mixture of combustible and non- combustible gas (carbon
Monoxide, Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide).

Fig 6: Gasification reactions and the by-products.

This process is similar to Pyrolysis, involving some secondary/ different high temperature (>1000°C) chemistry which
improves the heating value of gaseous output and increases the gaseous yield (mainly combustible gases CO+H2)
and lesser quantity of other residues.

Current Issues in Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management is a critical challenge worldwide, and several pressing issues affect its efficiency and
sustainability. Here are some of the current issues in solid waste management:

1. Increasing Waste Generation: Rapid urbanization and population growth have led to an
exponential rise in solid waste generation. Many cities struggle to keep up with collection,
transportation, and disposal.
2. Inadequate Waste Segregation: Lack of proper waste segregation at the source leads to
inefficient recycling and landfill overuse. Public awareness and enforcement of segregation
policies remain a challenge.
3. Overflowing Landfills & Limited Space: Many existing landfills are nearing capacity,
causing environmental and health hazards.
Finding new landfill sites is difficult due to space constraints and public opposition (NIMBY – "Not In My Backyard"
syndrome).

4. Inefficient Recycling & Low Public Participation: Many recyclable materials end up in
landfills due to lack of awareness, infrastructure, or incentives.
Informal waste pickers play a key role but often lack support and recognition.

5. Hazardous & Electronic Waste Mismanagement: E-waste and hazardous materials like
batteries, chemicals, and medical waste require specialized disposal.
Many developing countries lack proper regulations and disposal facilities for such waste.

6. Marine & Plastic Pollution: Plastic waste, especially single-use plastics, continues to pollute
oceans, rivers, and cities.
Microplastics have become a major concern for marine life and human health.

7. Inefficient Waste-to-Energy Technologies: While waste-to-energy plants can reduce

landfill dependency, many countries struggle with high costs and technology adoption.
Emissions from incineration plants raise environmental concerns.

8. Policy & Regulatory Challenges: Many regions lack strict enforcement of waste
management policies. Corruption and inefficient governance hinder proper waste
management practices.
9. Climate Change Impact on Waste Management: Extreme weather events like floods can
disrupt waste collection and landfill operations. Decomposing waste in landfills releases
methane, a potent greenhouse gas, contributing to global warming.
10. COVID-19 Waste Management Issues: The pandemic led to an increase in medical waste,
including masks, gloves, and PPE kits. Many municipalities struggled to handle the sudden
surge in biomedical waste safely.
Possible Solutions:

✔️ Promoting waste segregation at the source.

✔️ Encouraging circular economy and zero-waste policies.
 ✔️ Expanding recycling infrastructure and waste-to-energy initiatives.
✔️ Strengthening policies and enforcing strict waste management laws.
✔️ Raising public awareness through education and incentives for responsible waste disposal.

REVIEW OF MSW MANAGEMENT STATUS IN FIRST

LIST OF 20 SMART CITIES IN THE COUNTRY
A review of MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) management in the first list of 20 Indian smart cities reveals a mixed
picture, with some cities showing progress in collection and segregation, but significant gaps remain in proper
treatment and disposal, highlighting the need for improved infrastructure, public awareness campaigns, and
effective waste management strategies to achieve true "smart city" status across all aspects of waste management.
Some of key findings are:

 Uneven progress:
While some cities like Surat, Indore, and Visakhapatnam have made strides in waste collection and segregation
initiatives, others still struggle with basic collection systems and lack proper treatment facilities.

 Focus on collection:
Most cities prioritize waste collection, but the treatment and recycling aspects, including composting and energy
recovery, are often underdeveloped.

 Challenges with segregation:

Inadequate source segregation at household level remains a major challenge, impacting the efficiency of waste
processing.

 Informal sector involvement:

Many cities rely heavily on informal waste pickers for collection, requiring better integration and support to ensure
proper waste management.
 Landfill dependence:
Despite efforts to reduce reliance on landfills, many cities still primarily dispose of waste in open dumps, leading to
environmental concerns.

Positive examples of smart cities in waste management:

o Surat: Recognized for its focus on waste segregation and efficient collection systems.
o Indore: Demonstrates good waste management practices with initiatives like door-
to-door collection and composting.
o Visakhapatnam: Implementing advanced waste treatment technologies like RDF (Refuse
Derived Fuel) generation.

 Areas needing improvement:

o Bhubaneswar: Requires better waste collection infrastructure and improved recycling
facilities.
o Jaipur: Needs more awareness campaigns to promote source segregation.
o Ahmedabad: Challenges in managing large volumes of waste and improving landfill
management.

The key areas for improvement for better waste management in smart cities are:
  Infrastructure development:
Investing in modern waste collection vehicles, transfer stations, and treatment plants like composting units and waste-
to-energy facilities.
  Public awareness campaigns:
Educating citizens about proper waste segregation and responsible disposal practices.

 Policy and regulatory framework:

Strengthening existing regulations and enforcement to ensure compliance with waste management guidelines.
 Collaboration with the informal sector:
Integrating informal waste pickers into the formal waste management system.

Overall, while some cities in the first smart city list are taking positive steps towards improved MSW management, a
comprehensive approach is needed to address the existing gaps and achieve sustainable waste management practices
across all selected cities.

Integrated Waste Management in smart cities:

In India's 20 smart cities, waste management initiatives primarily focus on utilizing technology like IoT sensors in
smart bins to monitor fill levels, enabling efficient collection routes, promoting source segregation through color-
coded bins, and implementing door-to-door collection systems with a strong emphasis on awareness campaigns to
encourage the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" approach; notable cities include Indore, Visakhapatnam, Bhopal, and
Udaipur, which are leading the way with pilot projects in waste segregation and advanced collection methods. The
aspects of waste management in Indian smart cities:

 Smart bins with sensors:

Bins equipped with IoT sensors to monitor fill levels, allowing optimized collection schedules and reducing
unnecessary truck trips.

 Source segregation:
Promoting citizen participation by providing separate bins for dry and wet waste, encouraging proper segregation at
the source.
 Door-to-door collection:
Implementing efficient door-to-door collection systems to ensure convenient waste disposal.
 Waste-to-energy plants:
Utilizing waste to generate energy through incineration plants in some cities.
 Recycling facilities:
Setting up recycling centres to process recyclable materials like plastic, paper, and glass.
 GIS mapping:
Utilizing Geographic Information Systems to map waste generation hotspots and optimize collection routes.

 Community awareness campaigns:

Educating citizens about the importance of waste segregation and responsible waste management practices.
Some prominent smart cities leading in waste management:
 Indore: Considered one of the cleanest cities in India, with a robust waste segregation
system and awareness campaigns.
 Visakhapatnam: Implementing pilot projects with door-to-door collection and color-coded
bins.
 Bhopal: Initiating projects to improve waste collection and treatment facilities.
 Udaipur: Focusing on source segregation and awareness
programs Challenges in smart city waste management:
 Lack of citizen participation: Insufficient awareness and engagement in proper waste
segregation.
 Inadequate infrastructure: Insufficient waste processing facilities and collection vehicles in
some cities.
 Enforcement issues: Difficulty in enforcing waste management regulations and penalties
for non- compliance.

Pathways to sustainable waste management in Indian

Smart Cities
Administrative structure
The administrative structure for governing the SWM activities includes three levels -centre, state, and local. The
Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate change (MoEF & CC) is the authority for reviewing, monitoring,
and implementing SWM rules at the national level. The MoEF & CC constitutes a monitoring committee for
evaluating the status of solid waste management yearly. The CPCB is the coordinating authority between the central
and state government levels. CPCB reviews, monitors, and publishes environmental standards and approves
technologies. The State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) is the coordinating body between the CPCB and the council
authorities. They have the same duties as the CPCB at the state level. They also regulate the interstate transfer of
waste. At the council level (urban local body), the state government appoints an Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
rank officer designated as Commissioner. The sanitation section under the public health division is the authority for
waste management activities. Revenue, finance, education, engineering, and town planning divisions also extend
services to develop SWM systems. The town planning section is instrumental in the planning, identifying, and
allocating land for the setting up of solid waste processing, treatment, and disposal facilities. The civil engineering
section will look after construction activities; the mechanical division will look after transport activities and heavy
vehicles involved in SWM activities. The finance and revenue wings are responsible for budget allocation and
auditing, collection of taxes, and levies. The education division is engaged in conducting awareness programs on
source segregation, treatment of waste, and health effects due to improper waste management. The figure 1 shows
the organization or administrative structure of the Municipal Corporation.

Figure 1: Organization or administrative structure of the Municipal

Corporation.
Indicative pathways for designing a sustainable waste system
Studies performed in the selected Indian smart cities revealed that effective integration of the new solid waste
management rules with the government objectives and diagnostic analysis of existing systems provides insights
into futuristic strategies. The study's indicative strategies provide insight into developing an integrated solid waste
management plan for different urban cities across the globe. Source segregation of the waste is the key to the
development of good waste treatment and processing system. Scientific approach integrated with the technologies
and effective administration is the key for transforming the existing waste management systems to develop smart
and liveable cities. Integration of the public and private sector by creating special purpose vehicles will provide
scope for investments. Maintenance of data records will provide scope for developing a waste management index
for systematic monitoring of the implementation of provisions developed by the regulatory norms. The figure 2
represents the solid waste management systems in the study areas.

Fig 2: The solid waste management systems in the study areas.

Financial provisions for waste management systems

The economic component is an essential parameter for the decision-making process to a ULB in a developing
country like India. Councils allocate 70–80% of the budget for waste collection and transportation systems.
Inefficient source segregation and storage mechanisms pose a critical challenge to the local authorities.
Development of infrastructure is required to facilitate the constant increase in the quantities of waste. In the Indian
scenario, mixed solid waste is reaching the waste treatment units. Mixed waste reduces the quality of the output
product leading to a decrease in profit, resulting in an infeasible economic situation for the treatment plants.
Collaboration under public-private partnerships and corporate social responsibility also contribute to the
development of waste management systems.
The circular economy is a new way of thinking for sustainable growth in developing countries. The basic concept
behind the linear economy is: “take, make, consume, and discard. In the linear economy, products are used until they
are discarded and disposed of as waste to the environment, and disposed waste is not used further. In the circular
economy, waste management practices are based on the 3R approach “Reduce,
Reuse, and Recycle,” where waste products are recycled and reused rather than disposed of to the environment. In
the circular economy, waste from one process becomes a valuable input for other operations. Waste management
through circular economy approaches could be a boon in terms of revenue generation and employability
opportunities for developing countries. The circular economy concept requires improved design and production
practices to use waste material as a resource efficiently.

Application of the systems engineering approaches

In a smart city, the waste management systems should be planned, designed, optimized, and implemented to ensure
sustainable waste management systems. Collaborative planning, infrastructure development, capacity building,
database management, and implementation play a vital role in developing an integrated waste management system.
A system engineering framework combining decision support systems (Multi- Criteria Decision Modeling and
Knowledge-Based systems, Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems, Life Cycle Assessment,
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), and Internet of Things (IoT) applications provide a
multidisciplinary approach for the urban planners

Development of solid waste management performance index

The development of SWM systems requires a strategic and sustainable approach that emphasizes environmental
performance, financial viability, and social equity. A system is a time-targeted approach involving multiple
stakeholders during different stages of execution. Assessment of the operations at regular intervals, both qualitative
and quantitative, provides an overview of the project based on the site- specific conditions. These assessment reports
give a holistic overview, equipping the regulatory and local authorities during decision-making. Swachh
Sarvekshana is a service level benchmarking (SLB) exercise conducted by the Government of India annually since
2016 to assess water and sanitation systems. Solid waste management is one of the significant parameters in this
SLB. The indicators for SWM include household level coverage of SWM services, the efficiency of collecting
MSW, the extent of segregation and recovery, the scientific disposal of municipal solid waste, efficiency in
customer complaints' redressal, collection SWM charges, and cost recovery in SWM services. A detailed report
will be developed initially and submitted to the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in this process. A team of
experts will assess the documented proofs and review the systems physically based on the report provided by the
ULB. The performance index calculation includes a review from experts, field/site visits, and citizen feedback.
Implementation of this mechanism provides a peripheral overview of the systems in the ULB. Hence to have precise
quality control and assurance on the MSW practices, a Solid Waste Performance Index (SWPI) is required. SWPI
will include environmental, economic, and social components for each unit process involved in SWM. Development
of datasheets for each unit operation of SWM, including all three elements, provides scope for identifying indicators.
Goal and targets are designed based on the identified indicators specific to the ULB. The data sheets are made
available to the ULBs, service providers, and stakeholders involved in the SWM. A detailed report is submitted
based on the specified time intervals. Based on the collected data, the scores will be developed for each indicator.
Final performance index The weighting process will be used to arrive at the final performance index.
 CASE STUDIES:

Solid Waste Management (SWM) by Smart Cities, with a particular focus on Bhubaneswar and Rourkela in
Odisha, India. The report critiques the implementation of SWM initiatives within the Smart City Mission
guidelines.

1. Objectives of Smart Cities & Institutional Mechanisms

The Smart City Mission aimed to provide core infrastructure and a sustainable environment. The document states:
"The objective of Smart City Mission was to promote cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent
quality life to its citizens, a clean and sustainable development."
To implement the mission, Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) were envisioned at the city level to plan, appraise,
approve, and manage smart city projects. These SPVs are headed by Chief Executive Officers and nominees of
central and state governments.

3. Strategic & Financial Action Plans

As per the guidelines, Smart City Proposals (SCPs) should have consisted of strategic action plans for area
developments. The SCP should include a financial plan identifying internal and external funding sources over an
8-10 year period.

4. Citizen-Driven Action Plan SCPs were also intended to have a citizen-driven action plan to
engage citizen participation in waste management in the smart cities.

5. Implementation of SWM Component & Waste Generation

The implementation of the SWM component of the Smart City Mission is the responsibility of the SPV and requires a
dedicated and sustainable revenue stream. The document presents data on waste generation in Bhubaneswar Smart
City Ltd (BSCL) and Rourkela Smart City Ltd (RSCL) from 2011-12 to 2014-15 and from 2015-16 to 2019-20,
focusing on solid waste and C&D waste. Data indicates substantial amounts of waste disposed of in landfills without
processing. The report highlights the "hierarchy of 3Rs… Reduce-to reduce unnecessary waste generation, Reuse-
to use again and Recycle- convert unwanted things into and marketable recycled products."

6. Diversion of Funds and Non-Collection of User Charges

Smart City Mission guidelines recommended waste management in cities like waste to energy and fuel, waste to
compost, and water to be treated and recycling and reduction of Construction and demolition waste. The report
notes instances of funds released for SWM projects ("Waste-Lets- Recycle") being diverted or used ineffectively.
For example, BSCL released funds to BMC in two phases toward hiring charges of excavator, water tanker,
vehicles, mini truck, transportation of solid waste, supply of bleaching powder, purchase of dustbin, conservancy
materials etc., without accomplishing the objective of "Waste-Lets-Recycle".
Moreover, the audit reveals that authorized user charges for SWM were not consistently collected by Bhubaneswar
and Rourkela Municipal Corporations. "Audit observed that no such user charges were collected by Bhubaneswar
and Rourkela Smart cities."

7. "Swachha Sarvekshan" Ranking

The "Swachha Sarvekshan" is a ranking assessment of cities based on sanitation, garbage-free status, hygiene, etc.
Bhubaneswar was recognized as a leading city in using technology for resolving urban challenges. However, the
report indicates discrepancies, stating, "It has been observed that the
veracity of the survey and rankings by MoHUA was incomprehensible as the situation of SWM in these smart
cities was not satisfactory as evident from the following."

8. Monitoring Deficiencies
 Lack of State Level Monitoring: A high-powered steering committee (HPSC) at the State
level, chaired by the Chief Secretary, is meant to oversee the mission. However, "However
HPSC had not taken any review meetings for the projects executed by these smart cities. It
indicates poor support to effective implementation of Smart City projects."
 Deficient Monitoring at City Level: Similarly, the city-level advisory forum, advising the SPV,
lacked proper monitoring of SWM activities, and community participation in smart city
development was missing. "Audit observed that no such city level forum committee was
established in both the smart cities to monitor waste management as there was no mayor in
these corporations."

9. Key Concerns & Conclusions

The report raises concerns about the following:
 Lack of strategic and financial planning for SWM projects.
 Insufficient citizen participation in waste management initiatives.
 Failure to achieve targets for waste processing and landfill diversion.
 Diversion and misuse of funds allocated for SWM.
 Inconsistent collection of user charges.
 Inadequate monitoring at both state and city levels.
 Discrepancies between "Swachha Sarvekshan" rankings and the actual state of SWM.
The findings suggest that while the Smart City Mission aimed to improve SWM, its implementation in
Bhubaneswar and Rourkela faced significant challenges related to planning, execution, financial management,
community engagement, and oversight.

Scenarios in few cities for waste management

 List of First 20 Smart Cities of India (Upcoming)
The following are names of urban areas which will be developed as the top 20 smart cities of India.

1. Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 840834

Total Area 135 km2

Literacy Rate (%) 91.89

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 33312
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 4.27

% of households with access to tap water 62.96

% of households with access to electricity 86.53

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
76.47
% of household Waste water outlet connected to
drainage
68.95
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to computer/laptop

with internet 16.05
% of households with access to computer/laptop
without internet 14.80
% of households with access to mobile phones 64.74

No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 57

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 9

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 331

2. Pune, Maharashtra
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 3124458

Total Population of UA (if) 5057709

Area (sq. km) 276.4 km2

Literacy Rate (%) 89.56

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
88341
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 3.29

% of households with access to tap water 99.20

% of households with access to electricity 98.31

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises 89.45
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 98.04
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
22.01
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 16.60
% of households with access to mobile
phones 64.36
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.03

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 90

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 9

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 31

3. Jaipur, Rajasthan
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 3046163

 Area 484.64 sq. km.

Literacy Rate (%) 83.33

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 3046163
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 4.09

% of households with access to tap water 88.85

% of households with access to electricity 97.82

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
89.45

% of household Waste water outlet connected

to drainage 90.94
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
12.42
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
13.84
% of households with access to mobile
phones 66.12
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 67

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 12

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 370

4. Surat, Gujarat
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 4467797

Total Population of UA (if) 4591246

Area 335.82

Literacy Rate (%) 87.89

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
NA
 Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 0.29

% of households with access to tap water 80.50

% of households with access to electricity 98.88

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
93.55
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
96.26
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 5.07
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 8.12
% of households with access to mobile
phones
71.42
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.02

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 29

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 2

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 63

5. Kochi, Kerala
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 602046

Total Population of UA (if) 2119724

Area 107.13 sq. km.

Literacy Rate (%) 97.36

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
63599
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 4.45

% of households with access to tap water 95.55

% of households with access to electricity 99.08

 % of households having toilet facilities within
premises
94.62
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 87.41
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 20.87
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
14.86

% of households with access to mobile

phones 54.12
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people NA

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people NA

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people NA

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 409

6. Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 5577940

Total Population of UA (if) 6357693

Area 468.92 sq. km.

Literacy Rate (%) 88.29

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price NA
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 0.86

% of households with access to tap water 80.12

% of households with access to electricity 98.56

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
92.42
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
93.10
 Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 10.32
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
11.41
% of households with access to mobile
phones 62.51
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.09

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 33

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 2

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 79

7. Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 1055525

Total Population of UA 1268848

Area 152.53 km2

Literacy Rate (%) 87.39

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
38968
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 0.00

% of households with access to tap water 69.81

% of households with access to electricity 95.84

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
81.15
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 91.11
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
8.23
 % of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
12.46
% of households with access to mobile
phones 57.36
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.28

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 54

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 4

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 25

8. Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)
Total Population 1728128

Area 513.61 [Link]

Literacy Rate (%) 81.79

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
50580
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 3.95

% of households with access to tap water 71.18

% of households with access to electricity 96.86

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
83.58
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 92.29
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 8.93
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 11.39
% of households with access to mobile
phones 66.90
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 3
 No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 27

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 2

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 205

9. Solapur, Maharashtra
Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 951,558

Area 178.57

Literacy Rate (%) 82.80

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
45,859
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 1.65

% of households with access to tap water 96.92

% of households with access to electricity 93.64

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
58.67
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
91.46
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
4.62
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
9.08
% of households with access to mobile
phones 61.04
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 2

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 74

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 15

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 54

10. Davangere, Karnataka

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 434971

Area 77.12 Sq. Km

Literacy Rate (%) 84.90

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 30219
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 3.64

% of households with access to tap water 82.45

% of households with access to electricity 97.10

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
82.34
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
94.85
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 5.10
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
12.95
% of households with access to mobile
phones 65.01
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 23

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 133

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 16

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) NA

11. Indore, Madhya Pradesh

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 1964086

Total Population of UA 2170295

 Area 172.39 Sq. Km

Literacy Rate (%) 85.87

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 52501
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 2.07

% of households with access to tap water 73.74

% of households with access to electricity 98.48

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
90.14

% of household Waste water outlet connected

to drainage 92.14
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
11.21
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
12.61
% of households with access to mobile
phones 62.98
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 21

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 5

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) N/A

12. New Delhi, NDMC (Delhi)

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 257803

Total Population of UA 16349831

Area 42.74 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 89.83

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
112510
 Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 2.03

% of households with access to tap water 98.10

% of households with access to electricity 98.82

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
85.03
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
97.06
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 27.74
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 16.48
% of households with access to mobile
phones
62.65
Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 16

13. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 1050721

Total Population of UA 2136916

Area 105.6 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 91.30

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 65781
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 3.21

% of households with access to tap water 98.21

% of households with access to electricity 98.32

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
82.50
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
89.58
 Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 11.69
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
11.56
% of households with access to mobile
phones 69.45
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.48

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 25

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 4

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 196

14. Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 312538

Total Population of UA 443028

Area 57.36 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 80.62

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
37712
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 4.94

% of households with access to tap water 83.29

% of households with access to electricity 97.40

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
82.63
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 84.14
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
6.08
 % of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
9.39
% of households with access to mobile
phones 57.46
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.3

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 134

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 9

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) NA

15. Belgavi, Karnataka

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)
Total Population 488157

Total Population of UA 610350

Area 99.61 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 89.82

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 28856
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 6.50

% of households with access to tap water 90.14

% of households with access to electricity 97.59

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises 91.44
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
88.82
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
8.58
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 12.96
% of households with access to mobile
phones
61.57
 No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 20

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 97

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 13

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) NA

16. Udaipur, Rajasthan

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 451100

Total Population of UA 474531

Area 56.92 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 89.66

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
24135
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 0.30

% of households with access to tap water 80.91

% of households with access to electricity 98.59

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
93.26
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 97.85
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 12.48
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 14.60
% of households with access to mobile
phones
61.13
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 190

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 13

 Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 417

17. Guwahati, Assam

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 957352

Total Population of UA 962334

Area 219.06 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 91.47

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price 43278
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 4.32

% of households with access to tap water 32.64

% of households with access to electricity 92.94

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises 85.04
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
76.93
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
11.96
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 21.82
% of households with access to mobile
phones 78.88
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 53

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 14

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 51

18. Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 4646732

 Total Population of UA 8653521

Area 175 Sq. Km

Literacy Rate (%) 90.18

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
57706
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 2.32

% of households with access to tap water 84.08

% of households with access to electricity 99.08

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises 94.57

% of household Waste water outlet connected

to drainage 97.27
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet
19.64
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
12.51
% of households with access to mobile
phones
62.25
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 71

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 2

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 61

19. Ludhiana, Punjab

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 1618879

Area 159.37 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 85.77

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
51633
 Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 0

% of households with access to tap water 80.93

% of households with access to electricity 98.89

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises
92.58
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage
89.47
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 11.75
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet 10.55
% of households with access to mobile
phones
65.30
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 0.06

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 28

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 5

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 381

20. Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Indicator City (Municipal Corporation)

Total Population 1,798,218

Total Population of UA 1,886,100

Area 285.88 Sq. Km.

Literacy Rate (%) 83.47

Per Capita Income (Rs.) at 2004-05 constant

price
47214
Unemployment Rate, 2011-12 1.53

% of households with access to tap water 78.58

% of households with access to electricity 97.12

 Integrated Waste Management for a Smart City- BCV654C

% of households having toilet facilities within

premises 82.12
% of household Waste water outlet connected
to drainage 91.92
Type of sewerage system Underground sewerage system

Type of solid Waste system Door to Door

% of households with access to

computer/laptop with internet 10.16
% of households with access to
computer/laptop without internet
12.63

% of households with access to mobile

phones 61.24
No. of Hospitals per 1,00,000 people 1

No of Schools per 1,00,000 people 66

No of Colleges per 1,00,000 people 12

Swatch Bharat ranking (2015) 106

43