You are on page 1of 22


SURAT affiliated with


Report entitled
“Public Participation in Town Development”
In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the award of degree of

Submitted under
Pathik Chaudhari (Enrolment No.140420748011)
M. E. CIVIL (TCP) – I Semester – II
Under the guidance of
Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya
Associate Professor in CED
Prof. Sejal Bhagat
Prof. Palak Shah
Assistant Professor in CED

(MARCH, 2015)

Department of Civil Engineering


I hereby declare that the work being presented in this Graduate Report entitled “Public
Participation in Town Development ” by Pathik Chaudhari M., of Semester – II, ME Civil (Town & Country
Planning) - I bearing Enrolment No: 140420748011 submitted to the Civil Engineering Department at
Sarvajanik College of Engineering and Technology, Surat; is an authentic record of my own work carried
out during the period of odd semester 2014-2015 under the supervision of Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya and
Prof. Sejal Bhagat.
Neither the source there in, nor the content of the seminar report have been copied or
downloaded from any other source directly. I understand that my result grades would be revoked if later
it is found to be so.

Pathik M. Chaudhari

Department of Civil Engineering


This is to certify that Graduate Report entitled “Public Participation in Town Development” is presented
and report is submitted by Pathik M. Chuadhri of Second Semester for partial fulfilment of requirement
for the degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN (CIVIL) TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING of Sarvajanik College
of Engineering and Technology, Surat during the academic year 2014-2015.

Prof. Sejal Bhagat

Prof. Himanshu J. Padhya

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor & Head

Civil Engineering Department

Civil Engineering Department

External Examiner

Date: ______________

Place: ______________

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

1. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.1 MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2. POINT OF ENTRY FOR PUBLIC INPUT----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.1 THE PLANNING PROCESS: IDEALIZED CONCEPT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.2 POINTS OF ENTRY FOR INITIAL PARTICIPATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3. IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
4.1 A BETTER DECISION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
4.2 STRONGER DEMOCRACY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
4. PREPARING FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
4.1 CREATING A PARTICIPATION STRATEGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
5. RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
5.1 ESTABLISHING PURPOSES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS ----------------------------------------------------- 10
5.2 IDENTIFYING THE PUBLIC’S PERSPECTIVE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
5.3 TIMING AND APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ---------------------------------------------------------------- 11
5.4 IDENTIFYING CITIZEN PREFERENCES AND SATISFACTION LEVELS. ------------------------------------------------------ 11
5.5 DECIDING HOW TO INCORPORATE INFORMATION INTO DECISION-MAKING ----------------------------------------- 12
5.6 PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW THEIR INPUT HAS BEEN USED --------------------------------------- 12
6. CASE STUDY: SURAT CITY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM------------------------------------------ 13
6.1 OBJECTIVES FOR AN INNOVATIVE & MODERN SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: -------------------------------------- 13
6.2 THE NEW AND MODERN APPROACH TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ----------------------------------------- 13
6.3 PRESENT STATUS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

6.4 PRIMARY COLLECTION THROUGH DOOR-TO-DOOR GARBAGE COLLECTION ----------------------------------------- 15
6.5 BENEFITS FROM THE PROJECT-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
7. CONCLUSION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
POTENTIAL RISKS OF PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS:--------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
REFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

Table 1 Present status of Surat SWM system source : SMC website(2015) ........................... 15


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

1. Introduction
Building on access roads, waterways and unauthorized places had remained one of the
major problems confronting city and town managers over the years.
The situation is more disturbing in major cities where private land developers have
consistently ignored laid down drawings and plans and continue to build haphazardly, resulting
in near slums in urban residential areas.
It has also been said that lack of capacity on the part of the Town and Country Planning
Department to enforce laws and regulations on area and site planning schemes, as well as the
inability of city authorities to control physical developments in their areas have compounded
the problem. Traditional authorities and landowners have also been blamed for intentionally
allocating waterways and reserved areas to private developers for their own selfish interest.
However, one could equally put the blame on the current town and country planning
regulations and systems in the country, which is centrally controlled and does not give
opportunity to the stakeholders in the communities to participate in the development of
planning schemes in their areas.
Traditional rulers, landlords, developers and other opinion leaders, who have vital
information, which are needed for proper planning, are denied the opportunity to make
meaningful contributions before area and site planning schemes are prepared for the
community. As a result, most of the stakeholders, especially chiefs and landowners see these
plans as "foreign" and thereby disregard them and go ahead to either design their own plans or
begin to demarcate lands anyhow.
Others who even decide to use the planning schemes designed by the town and country
planning to allocate plots to developers, often do not understand the interpretations in the plans
and the reasons why certain areas should not be allocated.
Thus, the current planning approach has alienated the very people, who owned the land
and, therefore, denied them the proper management and control of the land, resulting in the
confused state cities and towns find themselves.
The Department has started engaging in discussions with relevant bodies to change
some of its laws and regulations to enable it to involve all stakeholders in land to participate in
planning schemes in all communities in the country.
Under the new system, chiefs, landowners, developers, identifiable groups and all other
opinion leaders would be engaged in all town planning processes and a committee comprising


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

the stakeholders and other technical experts constituted to ensure the implementation of
approved schemes.
This will enable the people to own the schemes and protect them in order to prevent
others from encroaching on unauthorized areas. Although the idea had eluded the town and
city planners for quite some time, it is considered as a welcoming change.

1.1 Major Considerations
Specific planning approaches designed to balance the trade-off between technical
demands and public involvement can only be developed on a case-by-case basis. There are two
broad corners, however, which arise from previous experience and which address this basic
trade-off, which must be considered in the attempt to form any general approach to
participatory planning.
 First, public participation should not be viewed as an adjunct to planning, but rather as an
inherent and continuous element of the planning process.
 Second, to assure that public input will have an impact upon decision-making, it must produce
results in a form that can be utilized by planners as an integral part of ongoing data analysis.
Taken together, the two major considerations concern in eliciting effective public
participation; that is, to identify appropriate mechanisms of participation, and to effectively
link these mechanisms to the planning process.


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

2. Point Of Entry For Public Input
2.1 The Planning Process: Idealized Concept
Figure shows the regional economic development planning process as an idealized
concept. It is considered as idealized because the steps in the process are represented in a
strictly sequential order.

Figure 1 Steps in Planning Process Cycle

The model shown contains eight specific steps within the planning process cycle. A
review of these steps will reveal a basic sequential logic to the process. Models based upon the
same essential logic but containing a greater or lesser number of specific steps might be equally
valid, as might be variations on the names of each of the steps. Critical to a rational planning
process, however, is the basic pattern of a continuous iterative framework. The planning cycle
shown is two to three years in duration; the process is continuous, so that as one cycle reaches
its end, the succeeding cycle has been initiated.

2.2 Points of Entry for Initial Participation
The selection of “points of entry” is guided by the rational, iterative nature of the
planning process. The adjustment and refinement that takes place among the steps diminishes
the importance of the sequential nature of the process. This suggests that public input can be


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

effective and useful even if not a direct component of the decision-making associated with each
The nature of the first step away from conventional, centralized planning and the lack
of necessity for public involvement at every planning ster suggest that there two points
appropriate for the initial entry of public participation in the regional planning process:
formulation of goals (step one) and comparative assessment of options (step five).
In the initial stages of goal formulation, when the planner collects data to enhance his
perception of the region’s development problems and to conceptualize potential solutions,
public input can provide valuable information not included in the physical and economic data
normally utilized by the planner. At this stage, the planner should have a definite understanding
of the general concerns of the public so that the formulation of goals, and each subsequent step,
benefits from valid interpretation of the region’s development needs. It is important that data
from participatory efforts be collected early enough in the planning cycle to provide planners
with an accurate orientation to the region’s needs which can be utilized in setting appropriate
directions for planning activities.
The second appropriate point to introduce public participation is strep five, the
comparative assessment of project options. By this stage, enough of the basic technical
planning work has been performed by the staff of the planning authority for specific project
options to be submitted to the public. The range of choices presented for public response in any
community or within any sector will be relatively narrow and well-defined. Clearly defined
choices are essential to obtaining useful direct public input, especially in the initial phases of
popular participation in the planning process. Since the nature of the public input will be
focused upon specific project options, it can be easily integrated into the planning process by
a planning staff lacking extensive experience with public participation.


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

3. Importance of public participation
Public participation in making decisions is vital. It brings benefits in making an
individual decision and also for democracy more generally. It uses the knowledge, skills and
enthusiasm of the public to help make the decision and recognizes that the public have a
significant role to play.
It is also a moral duty. Public authorities work for the public. To do so in a way that the
public want and to ensure that they know what the public needs, they must involve the public
when they make decisions. Each person has a stake in protecting and enhancing the
environment and citizens know the needs of their communities through work, play and travel.
That is why public involvement is a central part of sustainable development policies. Solutions
to achieve economic, social and environmental improvements at the same time will only be
found if everyone is involved and if the discussion is open so that new ideas and approaches
can be considered.

4.1 A Better Decision
Public participation can lead to better decisions. That is, decisions that better meet the
needs of more people, decisions that last longer and decisions that have more validity. Better
decisions will lead to improvements in everyone’s quality of life. By considering the issue as
widely as possible, improvements in social conditions, the economy and the environment can
occur at the same time.
There is no secret to this. Involving more people in the process uses a wider range of
experiences. It brings in more points of view and uses knowledge about local conditions that
might not be widely known. If the decision takes account of this wider range of experience and
views, it is more likely to be ‘right’ since more issues have been considered and more risks
Public participation does not guarantee that everyone will be happy with a decision
since different groups of people will have different priorities and concerns. But involving the
public at an early stage in the decision-making process, and finding ways for their views to be
heard and taken into account, helps to build consensus. It means that concerns can often be met
early in a planning process, when changes may be easier to make, rather than late in the process
when even small changes may cost both time and money.
In addition, by being involved in the process, the public is exposed to the whole range
of factors which may influence a decision. Even if people do not agree with the final decision,
they are more likely to understand why it was made.

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

4.2 Stronger Democracy
In the longer term, public participation can improve democracy. Again, this is no secret.
Regular public participation shows people that they are valued and that their views are
important. These exercises build trust and confidence in the authority undertaking the exercise
and demonstrate to the public that change is possible. Individuals and community groups can
become more active and more responsible for their environment and quality of life. People can
feel more part of a community and authorities can make better relationships with these
communities which continue after the decision has been taken. Participation exercises can build
confidence to undertake other initiatives, help give the public the skills to do so and generate
enough enthusiasm to complete the initiative.


Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

4. Preparing for public participation
In general, public participation should be undertaken when people are affected by the
decision. They should be involved even when it is uncertain what they will say or when they
may oppose the proposal.

4.1 Creating a participation strategy
The most obvious starting point for preparing a strategy for a participation exercise are
the existing legal requirements. In many countries, the law sets a framework for public
participation exercises. Good practice goes beyond these minimum requirements and even
where there is no legal framework in place, it is still possible to organise effective public
participation exercises. The participation exercise must be open and honest to encourage trust
and show that the decision is fair. Giving the impression that the decision has already been
made is very damaging to the process. The public will not participate if they think that the
decision has already been made.
It can be difficult to build sufficient trust for the public to want to participate, especially
in places where public participation is relatively new. The strategy might need to include a trust
building phase with the public, NGOs and businesses or be part of a longer strategy for building
a relationship between the authority and the public.
The strategy must be honest about the level of public participation. An exercise which
promises action on decisions that cannot be changed will undermine the public’s trust. They
are much less likely to participate in future exercises if this happens. In making the strategy,
recognize that local circumstances can be different. A plan which worked well for one area
might not work well somewhere else. If in doubt, find out what is required for the area
Although making a strategy is vital, it should not be followed at all costs. Review
progress against the plan regularly and consider whether changes need to be made to achieve
the objective.To provide a clear focus for the process, someone should be appointed to act as
the manager with overall responsibility. His or her role will be to make sure that:

the process is properly prepared;

the process is reviewed regularly to monitor progress;

Preparing for public participation

the process follows the timetable;

the results are achieved; and

Feedback is given so that lessons can be learnt.

5. Recommendations
The Government should include the following considerations in designing their efforts:
 Purposes for involving the public;
 Assurances that they are getting the public’s perspective rather than only that of a small number
of highly vocal special interest groups;
 Approaches to eliciting public participation and the points in the planning-budgeting-performance
management cycle those approaches are likely to be most effective;
 Information that the process will be incorporated into decision making;
 Communication to the public regarding how the information collected will be and was used; and
 Buy-in from top government officials.

5.1 Establishing Purposes for Public Participation Efforts
Articulating the purpose for conducting a public participation process is critical because
the purpose becomes the foundation for deciding who to involve, how to select them, what
activities they will be involved in, what information will be collected, and how the government
will use the information. Consequently, determining the purpose should be the first step in
designing a participation effort. Governments should not initiate public participation processes
without establishing a tangible purpose or objectives, nor is it sufficient to create a public
participation process simply because it is a best practice or because other governments have done
Purposes may include one or more of the following, and, in addition, individual
governments may identify other purposes for involving the public:
 To improve performance by better understanding what the public wants and expects from its
 To adjust services and service levels more closely to citizens’ preferences;
 To establish performance measures that incorporate the public’s perspective;
 To differentiate among the expectations of a jurisdiction’s various demographic groups in policy
and service design;
 To understand public priorities in planning, budgeting, and managing services. (Public priorities
are particularly important in making budget decisions when revenues are not sufficient to continue
to provide all services at their current levels);
10 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

 To establish long term strategies to provide for a fiscally sustainable future for the jurisdiction;
 To ensure that capital investment decisions, such as the location of infrastructure elements, are
informed by public input;
 To provide information to the public about a government’s services and results.

5.2 Identifying the Public’s Perspective
Citizens are diverse. Not only do citizen viewpoints differ from those of government “insiders,” but
from citizen to citizen. No single citizen or group of citizens is able to represent the views of all
citizens. The best way to assure a broad perspective is to collect information in a variety of ways and
from a variety of sources.

5.3 Timing and Approaches to Public Participation
Timing and approaches are related because approaches that work in one phase of planning, budgeting,
and performance management may not be effective in other phases. For example, a community goal
setting session would be very appropriate in assisting a government to establish priorities in
developing a strategic plan or in the early stages of the budget process.
General approaches and timing are listed below:

5.4 Identifying citizen preferences and satisfaction levels.
Such efforts should occur before a decision has been made, or to test various ideas and approaches.
Governments may solicit information for general purposes, such as strategic planning, or may solicit
targeted information as input for specific projects, plans, or initiatives. Unless there is a compelling
reason to target only certain segments, public involvement approaches should encourage all citizens
to participate. In addition, governments should make involvement opportunities accessible to all
citizens and hold meetings at various times to provide maximum participation. Local governments
have used numerous mechanisms for eliciting public input. Common methods for soliciting
information include the following:
o Surveys, either in person or via mail, phone, or Internet.
o Focus groups
o Interviews
o Comment (or point of service) cards
o Public meetings, such as public hearings, “Town Hall” meetings, and community vision sessions
11 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

5.5 Deciding how to incorporate information into decision-making
Information derived from public involvement processes provides a critical perspective for making
decisions in planning, budgeting, and management.

However, such information should be

considered along with expert knowledge and judgment (such as the engineering expertise
necessary to build a bridge) and objective data (such as economic and demographic information,
both of which are also critical to good decision making).

5.6 Providing feedback to the public on how their input has been used
Governments should systematically collect, maintain, monitor, and analyze information gained
from public involvement activities, maintain contact information on individuals and groups that
wish to be kept informed, and use multiple communication mechanisms to ensure that those
involved or interested in the process are notified of opportunities for additional feedback and of
decisions made based on the public involvement process. Most importantly, governments should
explain how public involvement has made a difference in plans, budgets, and performance, and
gather public feedback on how successful the process has been through the public’s eyes.

12 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

6. Case Study: Surat City Solid Waste Collection System
6.1 Objectives for an innovative & modern Solid Waste Management:

To devise a system of storage of waste and segregation of recyclable waste at source.
To improve system of primary collection of waste.
To devise more efficient system of day to day cleaning, conventionally and mechanically.
To devise system to eliminate practices of throwing garbage on the road causing nuisance
& health threat.
To modernize the system of community waste storage & synchronize the system of
primary collection as well as transportation of waste.
To eliminate manual handling of waste and open transportation vehicles.
To improve the system of transportation of waste by ensuring "handling waste only once".
To construct four more semi close body transfer station to strengthen the existing primary
collection-transportation and secondary transportation system.
To reduce quantity of waste going to landfill site by adopting suitable technology.
Land to be acquired for other landfill disposal site.
To derive income from the processing of waste.
To ensure safe disposal of waste including bio-medical wastes.
To do institutional strengthening.
To have public participation.

6.2 The new and modern approach to the Solid Waste Management

Integration of SWM with other activities viz. sewerage, water supply, health care,
engineering departments, etc.

Emphasis was laid on Complaint redressed system, Grievance redressed system, Litter
Slum Up gradation & Rehabilitation, Field work, Daily meeting in this regard, etc.

Financial commitment: Equipment, Vehicles, communication.

Involving citizens: Positive involvement, penalizing truants, creating public awareness.

13 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

6.3 Present Status:
Quantity of M.S.W. generation: 1575.000 M.T. (350 gpcd)
Collection and transportation: 1499.440 M.T. per day (Average of 01/04/13 to 31/03/14)
System of collection and transportation:

Primary collection & its transportation:- Sweeping during day time.
- Container lifting.
- Door to Door collection system.
- Night scraping & brushing activity.
- Hotel-Kitchen waste management
- Society ANUDAN


Secondary transportation:-

Municipal Solid Waste collected through primary collection system reaches to the
Semi closed body transfer station of the respective zone from where it is being sent to the
Khajod Disposal transported through close body container in a mechanically compacted

14 | P a g e

Name of Transfer station



South west


North & Central (Part)









Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP


Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

Disposal of M.S.W.:M.S.W. transported from the transfer stations reaches to the final disposal site at
Khajod whereat M.S.W. is dumped and levelled by the heavy machineries. Daily cover of
soil is also laid on the levelled M.S.W. Out of total collection of garbage average 400 TPD
garbage is sent to processing plant which is established on BOOT basis contract through
PPP mode. This plant is in operation from September 2008. At present the plant is not in
operation due to snapshot of financial condition of the PPP agency.

Table 1Present status of Surat SWM system source : SMC website(2015)

6.4 Primary Collection through Door-to-Door Garbage Collection
The door-to-door garbage collection was planned for the timely removal of waste at the
source. Door-to-door collection of waste was introduced in four out of the seven zones of SMC
with the help of private sector participation, however owing to the excellent performance of the
private agencies; it was introduced in all the 7 zones of SMC. The practice of night scrapping and
brushing of roads was done by SMC staff. Listed are the main features of the door-to-door services
in SMC:

Adopted PPP model - Service Contract – the entire system of door-to-door garbage
collection has been leveraged through 7 different private agencies.
Period of concession/engagement – 7 years based on the useful life of vehicle.
Private Parties: There are seven different private agencies involved in door-todoor collection.
Arrangement between parties in the PPP arrangement: The agencies are paid
Tipping fee against door-to-door collection services. The private operator is
responsible for the capital as well as the entire O&M expenses for the system during
the concession period. Vehicles employed for garbage collection are monitored
through Time-Place Movement Chart, under which vehicles have to move in
accordance with the time schedule, area of coverage, and number of units allotted
to each vehicle. Vehicles under door-to-door collection system are also monitored
by the Vehicle Tracking System. Complaints of non-coverage of wards/spots are
monitored at the ward level.
Responsibility of the Private Agencies/Operators: The agencies employ and
maintain their own garbage collection vehicles as per the requirement laid down by
SMC. Garbage collected is unloaded at one of the six TS located within the
Municipal area of SMC. The private operator bears the entire O&M cost of primary
collection and collects almost 700 TPD of mixed waste from door-to-door
collection from the different wards of Surat.
Responsibility of the Municipal Body: The municipal body facilitated the private
agencies with transfer stations for easy tipping of garbage. This has helped improve
the trip time of the collection vehicles.
Funds Infused by Private Party: The private agency brought in ‘closed body
vehicles’ for door-to-door garbage collection. Around Rs. 15 Cr. was spent by the
agency for the purchase of 300 of closed type vehicles to carry out collection

15 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

Project Progress: Door-to-door collection of waste for all the zones was awarded
to 7 agencies based on competitive bidding. The bidding process was done through
eprocurement system where the agencies were selected based on their financial
quotes. Agencies who quoted least were selected and entrusted the work.
Tipping Fee: The agencies are paid tipping fee at a rate ranging between Rs. 570
per metric ton to Rs. 1188 per metric ton of waste collected. The rates will be
escalated after every 1 year during the procurement period.

6.5 Benefits from the Project

The coverage of SWM services increased to 97% in Surat, while door-to-door collection
services increased to 92%. The practice of waste segregation has also been introduced with
almost 17% of MSW generated being segregated presently. Waste segregation was not
practiced before the implementation of the project,
Overall improvement in the environment, as waste is now collected from the door step
avoiding waste to be dispersed in the open. People have developed the habit of storing
waste in domestic bins;
Timely collection of waste from every house/shop on a daily basis;
Reduction in the number of stray animals around containers spots;
Reduction of odor and waste spillage nuisance as it is collected in closed containers/pickup
vans involving less handling;
Reduction in number of containers and container spots have resulted in curtailment of cost
which were otherwise required for lifting of the containers;
Cost curtailment on repairing and maintenance of containers and hydraulic dumper placers
by SMC;
Spare sweepers/workers are now engaged in carrying out sanitation work of new
developing areas in the most effective manner;
The old collection system of waste through open tractors has been curtailed;
Due to the IEC activities being undertaken, it has helped in improving awareness amongst
citizens. This has also helped in improving the cleanliness around the community

Revenue generation from collection of user-charge. SMC has been able to achieve 88%
efficiency in the collection of user-charges from its citizens.

16 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

7. Conclusion
Potential Benefits of Public Partnerships:

Exploring PPs as a way of introducing private sector technology and innovation in
providing better public services through improved operational efficiency
incentivizing the private sector to deliver projects on time and within budget
Imposing budgetary certainty by setting present and the future costs of infrastructure
projects over time
Utilizing PPs as a way of developing local private sector capabilities through joint ventures
with large international firms, as well as sub-contracting opportunities for local firms in
areas such as civil works, electrical works, facilities management, security services,
cleaning services, maintenance services
Using PPs as a way of gradually exposing state owned enterprises and government to
increasing levels of private sector participation (especially foreign) and structuring PPPs
in a way so as to ensure transfer of skills leading to national champions that can run their
own operations professionally and eventually export their competencies by bidding for
projects/ joint ventures
Creating diversification in the economy by making the country more competitive in terms
of its facilitating infrastructure base as well as giving a boost to its business and industry
associated with infrastructure development (such as construction, equipment, support
supplementing limited public sector capacities to meet the growing demand for
infrastructure development
Extracting long-term value-for-money through appropriate risk transfer to the private
sector over the life of the project – from design/ construction to operations/ maintenance.

17 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

Potential Risks of Public Private Partnerships:
 Development, bidding and ongoing costs in PPP projects are likely to be greater than for
traditional government procurement processes - the government should therefore determine
whether the greater costs involved are justified. A number of the PPP and implementation units
around the world have developed methods for analysing these costs and looking at Value for
 There is a cost attached to debt – While private sector can make it easier to get finance,
finance will only be available where the operating cash flows of the project company are expected
to provide a return on investment (i.e., the cost has to be borne either by the customers or the
government through subsidies, etc.)
 Some projects may be easier to finance than others (if there is proven technology involved
and/ or the extent of the private sectors obligations and liability is clearly identifiable), some
projects will generate revenue in local currency only (eg water projects) while others (eg ports and
airports) will provide currency in dollar or other international currency and so constraints of local
finance markets may have less impact.
 Some projects may be more politically or socially challenging to introduce and implement
than others - particularly if there is an existing public sector workforce that fears being transferred
to the private sector, if significant tariff increases are required to make the project viable, if there
are significant land or resettlement issues, etc.
 There is no unlimited risk bearing – private firms (and their lenders) will be cautious
about accepting major risks beyond their control, such as exchange rate risks/risk of existing assets.
If they bear these risks then their price for the service will reflect this. Private firms will also want
to know that the rules of the game are to be respected by government as regards undertakings to
increase tariffs/fair regulation, etc. Private sector will also expect a significant level of control over
operations if it is to accept significant risks
 Private sector will do what it is paid to do and no more than that – therefore incentives
and performance requirements need to be clearly set out in the contract. Focus should be on
performance requirements that are out-put based and relatively easy to monitor
 Government responsibility continues – citizens will continue to hold government
accountable for quality of utility services. Government will also need to retain sufficient expertise,
whether the implementing agency and/ or via a regulatory body, to be able to understand the PPP
arrangements, to carry out its own obligations under the PPP agreement and to monitor
performance of the private sector and enforce its obligations

18 | P a g e

Public Participation In Town Development
Graduate Report in UPTP

Pathik Chaudhari (140420748011)
M.E. Sem-II (TCP)-2015 SCET

 : SMC website
 Surat Solid Waste Management Project under JNNURM:
City Report -Ministry of Urban Development
Government of India
 : public-private partnerships (PPPs) in

19 | P a g e