See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23806520

Municipal solid waste management in Lahore City District, Pakistan

Article  in  Waste Management · February 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.016 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

133 8,347

2 authors:

Syeda Adila Batool Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhry

University of the Punjab Lahore School of Economics
38 PUBLICATIONS   1,101 CITATIONS    481 PUBLICATIONS   3,257 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Solid waste composition View project

Economic Evaluation of Mica, Feldspar Decorative stones View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Syeda Adila Batool on 26 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Country Report

Municipal solid waste management in Lahore City District, Pakistan

Syeda Adila Batool a,*, Muhammad Nawaz Ch b,1
a
Department of Space Science, Punjab University, Lahore, Pakistan
b
College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study deals with generation, composition, collection, transportation, and disposal, as well as the
Accepted 12 December 2008 present cost of the waste management on the basis of 60% collection of the total waste and the cost
Available online 20 January 2009 of proposed improved system of management on the basis of 100% waste collection using the IWM-
2 LCI model. A GIS map of Data Ganj Bakhsh Town (DGBT) of Lahore City District showing communal
storage facilities is also provided. DGBT has a population of 1,624,169 living in 232,024 dwellings. The
total waste generated per year is 500,000 tons, or 0.84/kg/cap/day. Presently 60% of the MSW is col-
lected and disposed in open dumps, while 40% is not collected and lies along roadsides, streets railway
lines, depressions, vacant plots, drains, storm drains and open sewers. In DGBT, 129 containers of 5-m3
capacity, 120 containers of 10-m3 capacity and 380 skips of 2.5-m3 capacity are placed for waste col-
lection. The overall collection and disposal cost of the MSW of DGBT is $3,177,900/yr, which is
$10.29/ton. Modeling was conducted using the IWM-2 model for improved collection and disposal on
the basis of 100% service, compared to the current 60% service. The modelled cost is $8.3/per ton, which
is 20% less than the present cost, but the overall cost of 100% collection and disposal increases to
$4,155,737/yr.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in press), MSW management generally comprises primary and

The management of MSW is a highly neglected area of the over-
all environmental management in most developing countries
(Murtaza and Rahman, 2000). Developing nations are now seri-
ously concerned with the consequences of improper handling of
MSW (Shimura et al., 2001; Sharholy et al., 2000). MSW manage-
ment in most low and middle income countries draws on a signif-
icant proportion of the Municipal budget, yet current practices
pose a serious threat to the environment and to public health
and well being (Bartone, 1999). Waste management planning is a
subset of environment planning in that the environmental problem
being assessed is reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal of re-
sources in a manner that minimizes overall biophysical and socio-
economic impacts (Morris and Holthausen, 1994; Chuck, 1999;
Agarwal et al., 2005).
In most developing countries like India (Das et al., 2002; Shar-
holy et al., 2000) and Pakistan (Adila et al., 2008; Adila and Nawaz,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 42 9230370.
E-mail addresses: aadila_batool@yahoo.com (S.A. Batool), muhammadnawaz-
chaudhry@yahoo.com (M.N. Ch).
1
Tel.: +92 42 5900046, Mobile: +92 0345 4005008.
secondary collection and open dumping of more than 90% of the
collected waste. Only 60% of the waste generated is actually col-
lected in most Indian and Pakistani cities. The uncollected waste
lies in topographic depressions, vacant plots, along streets, roads
and railway lines, drains, storm drains and open sewers within
overall urban limits.
Pakistan has a population of 160 million, with 35% people living
in urban areas. Solid waste generated in urban areas of Pakistan is
estimated at 55,000 tons/day (JICA, 2005). The areas under the
jurisdiction of the Lahore City District Government with a popula-
tion of 8 million produce 5000 tons/day of MSW (KOICA – World
Bank, 2007) The major obstacles to proper MSW management in
Pakistan include lack of reliable data and research, shortage of
trained manpower, inadequate legal and regulatory cover, poor
institutional and administrative arrangements, shortage of equip-
ment, financial and technical difficulties and a serious shortage of
competent private operators (KOICA – World Bank, 2007). The
MSW being produced in the present study area of DGBT of Lahore
City District is estimated in this study at 1369.8 tons/day, 67.02% of
which is organic waste.
This study basically focuses on the determination of total and
per capita waste generation in DGBT (which represents urban
Lahore); its composition, storage, transportation, and disposal in
open dumps; and the cost of management of the existing system
and of the proposed improved system using the IWM-2 model. A

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.12.016
 Author's personal copy

1972 S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981

GIS map is also presented to show the position of the communal most populated area of the province. It comprises the central areas
bins in the study area. of Lahore city.
Semi-arid; hot composite climates, as in Lahore, usually occur in
large land masses near the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, which
2. Methodology are sufficiently far from the equator to experience marked seasonal
changes in solar radiation and wind direction. In Lahore the
The study methodology consisted of the following: summer temperature may reach as high as 40 °C, while winters
temperatures may be as low as 2 °C. The rainfall in Lahore over
 Designing and conducting a questionnaire survey, select- the last 30 years has averaged 628.8 mm/yr.
ing material categories and developing waste sort working The administrative jurisdiction of the DGBT Municipal Adminis-
sheets tration more or less extends to the entire Ex-Metropolitan Corpo-
 Division of study area into three economic classes (low, middle ration Lahore area. There are 33 union councils of the city; the
and high) based on area of house, property value and income of union council is the smallest administrative unit. DGBT houses
households. nearly one-fourth of the city district population as shown in
 Collection of information on the number of households in the Fig. 1. All the major administrative, recreational, institutional, offi-
study area. ces and commercial areas are located in this town.
 Use of LCA methodology for cost analysis of present and pro- The solid waste management system for the city of Lahore was
posed system and proposed improved system. formalized when it became part of Lahore Urban Development Pro-
ject (LUDP), which was initiated in 1978. The main component of
LUDP was upgrading of the Walled City solid waste management.
2.1. Data collection In November 1980, a pre-appraisal mission of the World Bank first
addressed a solid waste management (SWM) project. The Metro-
For this study, the primary and secondary data were collected politan Corporation of Lahore (MCL) was designated as its execut-
during the years 2002–2005. Output method or direct waste sam- ing agency. At present, the Solid Waste Management Department
pling method (Shanklin et al., 2002) and continual random sam- of City District Govt. Lahore (CDGL) is responsible for the collection
pling (Guven, 2001) were used for calculating generation rate and disposal of the solid waste within the limits of City District
and determining the physical composition of MSW. The methods Govt. Lahore.
focus both on the sources of waste generation as well as on dis- The District Nazim (administrator), CDGL, heads Solid Waste
posal sites. Management Department. For administrative purposes the city
Before starting a detailed study, a preliminary survey of 1000 has been divided into six towns. Each town is headed by an Assis-
households was carried out by studying their generated waste. tant District Officer (ADO) (SWMD, 2005).
Questionnaires were also completed (300 in English and 700 in
Urdu) on the basis of interviews to get maximum information 3.1. Generation and composition of solid waste in baseline scenario
(Adila et al., 2008). This study provided insight, besides other
parameters, into the generation rate, physical composition and col- The municipal solid waste generated in DGB town is approxi-
lection methods of the waste. mately 500,000 tons per year, which is 0.84 kg/cap/day (Adila
For detailed sampling of 360 houses, 118 from the low income, and Nawaz, in press).
210 from the middle income and 32 from the high income groups The solid waste streams are characterized by their sources and
were selected (Adila et al., 2008). For sampling methods, refer to: the types of wastes produced, as well as by generation rates and
Oregon DEQ (1995), WHO (1996), CIWMB (1998), SENES (1999), composition. Accurate information in these three areas is a prere-
Beck (2000), MFE (2002) and OWDO (2002). The houses were se- quisite for monitoring and controlling existing waste management
lected randomly on the basis of socioeconomic groups (WHO, systems and for making regulatory, financial, and institutional
1996; Parks and Brockman, 2000; MFE, 2002). These houses were decisions.
in proportion to the actual distribution of income groups in the The composition and quantity of the solid waste produced in
population (Adila et al., 2008). The low income group households Lahore is given in Table 1.
have a monthly income of up to Rs. 6000 (£56), the middle in-
come households have a monthly income of Rs. 6001–14,000
(£56-131), while the high income group households have a 3.2. Solid waste storage system
monthly income of more than Rs. 14,000 (£131) (Adila and Na-
waz, in press). The storage of solid waste in proper containers is not commonly
Samples collected from each household covered all seasons in practiced. In contrast to developed countries, there are no separate
order to take into account the occasional and seasonal variations
(Ireland EPA, 1996; OWDO, 2002). This continual random strati- Table 1
fied sampling was carried out over a period of 1 year (2004– Composition and quantity of solid waste produced source: Adila and Nawaz (in
2005). press).
Total waste generated in DGBT was calculated on the basis of Series No. Description Tons per Day % Weight
surveys carried out for this study, which included collected waste
1 Paper 69.1 5.04
collected and uncollected waste. The data thus obtained matched 2 Glass 30 2.19
well with estimates of the Solid Waste Management Department 3 Ferrous metal 0.3 .02
of Lahore (SWMD). 4 Non ferrous metal 6.5 0.47
5 Film plastic 177.3 12.94
6 Rigid plastic 76.0 5.55
7 Organics 917.9 67.02
3. Status of MSW: an overview
8 Textiles 13.7 1.00
9 Others 79.0 5.77
The DGBT is inhabited by 1,624,169 (DGBT Office) persons liv-
Total 1369.8 100.00
ing in 232,024 dwellings (Adila and Nawaz, in press). DGBT is the
 Author's personal copy

S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981 1973

Fig. 1. A map of DGBT Lahore (source: Department of Planning and Coordination, 2003).

storage arrangements for collection of recyclables. Household and In the model, this situation was handled by putting all the
commercial wastes are discarded indiscriminately into the streets. waste input in the collected household waste because there is no
 Author's personal copy

1974 S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981

Fig. 2. A GIS map for the assessment of storage bins in DGBT.

discrimination between household waste and commercial waste. nario wherein the households put their waste outside their houses
The kerbsite collection system was selected for the baseline sce- and the collection service provider collects all the waste.
 Author's personal copy

S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981 1975

The storage system in the DGBT consists of the following:

 Outside the houses in big polythene bags

 Open dumps
 Containers
 Skips of 2.5 m3

3.2.1. Location of storage bins through GIS and arc view

GIS deals with the manipulation of the spatial and non-spatial
data. Arc view, arc info and TNT maps are some of the software
packages to develop GIS. Arc view, along with certain extensions,
helps to acquire, create and visualize the data.
For this study a road network layer of the DGBT was acquired
from National Engineering Services of Pakistan (NesPak), which
also contains the names of roads as its attribute. The area was vis-
ited and coordinates of the sites where the solid waste of residen-
tial and commercial areas was locally collected were found by
using GPS. Data on containers was obtained. Using Arc View, the Fig. 4. Municipal solid waste around the 10 m3 storage containers.
location coordinates and container types were converted into spa-
tial and attribute data, respectively.
These layers, i.e., road network and containers location, and
the capacity of containers help to identify the existing waste
generation rate with respect to the areas. The GIS map in Fig. 2
shows the actual situation of communal storage centers of the
study area.

3.2.2. Storage of waste outside the houses

In approximately 1.3% of the houses of the study area, the waste
is stored in big polythene bags which are provided by the private
solid waste collection companies for a charge. This practice is not
considered in the cost analysis of the baseline scenario, as the
number of houses are negligible compared to the total houses in
the study area.
3.2.3. Open dumps
According to rough estimates carried out for this study through
field work, over 3000 open dumps are found every day from the
roads, walkways, vacant plots, storm water drains, and open
sewers (as shown in Figs. 3 and 4) and streets of the city. The prac-
tice of open dumping makes the area unsightly, and disease pro-
ducing vectors are spread all around the dumping sites, posing a
constant health hazard for the surrounding population. The open
dumps are also found near the container bins because it is most
common practice to throw waste onto the road instead of into
the container.
Fig. 5. View of 5 m3container that is being lifted mechanically by Mazda arm roll.
3.2.4. Containers
The SWMD uses containers for onsite storage of solid waste.
These are lifted mechanically, hauled to disposal site and emptied
mechanically (Fig. 5). In DGBT 129 containers of 5-m3 capacity and
120 containers of 10-m3 capacity are being used for waste collec-
tion. The storage capacity of the 10-m3 container is 6 tons, while
that of the 5-m3 container is 3 tons. The 10-m3 container is 1.75
m high; as a result users with average or less than average height
throw the waste outside the containers. The waste is disposed
mainly by children and maids working in houses. These containers
are not accessible to children and therefore not utilized to full
capacity. Figs. 3 and 4 show waste around the 10-m3 container. Ta-
ble 2 shows the allocation of skips & containers to DGBT, based on
information from SWMD, CDGL (2005) and verified in this study.

3.2.5. SKIPS 2.5 m3

The 2.5-m3 skips are the smallest storage containers (Fig. 6),
each with a 1-ton capacity. The Solid Waste Management Depart-
ment has 698 skips, 380 of which have been allocated to DGBT. The
number of containers and skips were verified through the field
survey.

Table 2
Allocation of skips and containers to DGBT.

Capacity of containers Skips Containers

2.5 m3 5 m3 10 m3
No. of Containers 380 129 120

Fig. 3. Heaps of municipal solid waste along the road side. Source: SWMD, CDGL, 2005 and verified in this study.
 Author's personal copy

1976 S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981

when the waste reaches the final disposal site. The allocation of the
vehicles in DGBT is given in Table 3.
The functions of all the above-mentioned vehicles are discussed
below. The mechanical sweeper and wheel loaders are seldom
used and are not considered as a part of collection system by the
SWMD.

3.3.2. Mazda truck or Isuzu truck

The open dumps of solid waste are usually lifted by these
trucks. They operate manually. The total number of Mazda or Isuzu
trucks (Fig. 7) for Lahore is 94, out of which 24 are allocated to
DGBT. The capacity of the Mazda and Isuzu trucks is 2.5 tons/
day; they make two trips per day.
Waste collection by the Mazda truck takes an average of 30 min.
Solid waste falls from the uncovered overloaded trucks as they
Fig. 6. View of skip. move along their routes to the dump sites (SWMD, 2005).

3.3.3. Compactor
The skips are lifted and emptied mechanically into compactor
The solid waste stored in and around the skips are automati-
trucks. Skips are limited in number and often are not properly si-
cally lifted by the compactor as shown in Fig. 8. This study shows
ted. The skips do not have covers, and therefore produce contami-
that on average it lifts ten skips in one trip. Its capacity is 5.6 tons
nated water during rains and become the breeding grounds for
disease vectors like mosquitoes and flies.

3.3. Collection of solid waste

‘‘Collection is a process in which solid waste is gathered from

the storage points and hauled to a transfer station or dumping site”
(Kaseva and Mbuligwe, 2005; McDougall et al., 2003). Three collec-
tion systems exist in the study area.

 Private sweepers collect the waste stored outside or inside the

houses/shops with their handcarts and dump that waste into
the storage bins.
 Waste is transferred to the storage points by the households/
shop keepers themselves.
 Private companies collect the waste from house-to-house using
vehicles.

Fig. 7. Mazda truck or Isuzu truck.

The first two systems are almost the same because the house-
holds pay a very small amount to the private sweepers but oblige
them in some other ways like giving them money on special occa-
sions such as Christmas. The households also give the recyclables
to them for free so that they can earn money by selling these items.

3.3.1. Collection vehicles and their availability

Collection vehicles used to collect the waste from storage points
in Lahore include: Mazda truck, compactor, arm roll, Mazda arm
roll, mechanical sweeper, loader, Bedford dumper, Nissan dumper,
Volvo dumper, loader GW & tractor trolley, Gali sucker and chain
bulldozer. In Lahore a stationary container system is used, which
means that the vehicles travel between the storage points until
filled and then travel to the disposal site for unloading.
On paper, the frequency of collection is daily except on Sundays,
while our survey showed that some of the street side dumps, skips
and containers remain untouched for days on end. Under the pres-
ent arrangements, it was observed that a considerable period may
elapse between the times when the households discard wastes and Fig. 8. Compactor.

Table 3
Types of Vehicles Allocated to DGBT.

Towns Mazda /Isuzu Compactor Arm Arm roll M. Wheel Dumper Tractor with Chain Bulldozer and Gali Tractor
truck roll (Tractor) Sweeper loader trolley Sucker loader
DGBT 24 6 31 2 7 1 0 8 0 5

Source: SWMD, CDGL, 2005 and verified in this study.

 Author's personal copy

S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981 1977

per trip, and on average it makes 3 trips per day. The total number Table 4
of compacters in Lahore is 22, out of which 6 are allocated to DGBT. Availability of Vehicles.

This compactor vehicle compacts waste, but when it moves while Type of vehicle Total vehicle available On road Off road Availability (%)
lifting, compacting and unloading, liquid from the waste falls from Mazda/Isuzu truck 24 22 2 92
the vehicle due to design defects (SWMD, 2005). Compactor 6 2 4 33
Nissan arm roll 19 17 2 89
3.3.4. Nissan arm roll and Mazda arm roll Mazda arm roll 12 12 00 100
Arm roll (tractor) 2 2 00 100
The arm roll can lift containers automatically with the help of Tractor with trolley 8 8 00 100
an arm jack. In one trip, it can lift one container and after unloading
the container at the dump site, it brings the container back to its Source: SWMD, CDGL, 2005. The on road, off road vehicles and % availability is based
on verification for this study.
original place. There are two types of arm rolls on the basis of their
capacity which are as follows:

(Fig. 10). There are 36 tractor trolleys, 8 of which are allocated to

 Arm roll 5 m3
DGBT.
 Arm roll 10 m3
Vehicle availability is a very important factor in the collection of
the waste and is directly related with performance of the system.
The capacity of the 5-m3 arm roll is 2 tons per trip, and on aver-
The survey showed that the availability of the Mazda arm roll
age it makes 6 trips per day. The capacity of the 10-m3 arm roll is 4
truck, the arm roll tractor, and the tractor with trolley is 100%;
tons/trip, and it makes on average 6 trips per day.
the availability of the Nissan arm roll truck and the Mazda truck
Presently, 31 Mazda arm roll trucks (Fig. 9) are being used by
is 98%. The vehicles with the lowest availability are the compac-
the Department, out of which 2 trucks are allocated to DGBT. The
tors, at 60%. On average, 28% of the vehicles remain off the road
capacity of the Mazda arm roll is 3 tons and on average it makes
for repairs (Table 4).
5 trips per day (SWMD, 2005).
There is no accurate record of distances covered by vehicles be-
cause the speedometers are mostly out of order. This facilitates
3.3.5. Tractor with trolley
drivers to dump waste in unofficial dump sites located nearer to
These are used to lift the waste from the walled city. They are
the collection sites and to pilfer fuel. This necessitates GPS-based
also used to lift the garden waste from different points in the city.
control systems for tracking the movement of vehicles. Manual
The tractor trolley carries 4 tons of waste per day on average
loading and unloading of the vehicles is uneconomical in terms
of time and effort. In the congested areas, there is limited space
available for storage of the waste. The space limitation necessitates
a higher frequency of collection using smaller vehicles, which are
uneconomical.

3.4. Transfer station

Transfer stations are used to accomplish the removal and trans-

fer of solid waste from collection points and small vehicles to large
transport vehicles. Presently no transfer station is being used, and
there is no specification of a transfer station in the model.

3.5. Recovery of recylcables

Waste generated in the study area consists of potential recycla-

bles like PET bottles, newspaper, glass bottles, jars and tins. The
segregation of waste starts at the generator source. Private sweep-
Fig. 9. Mazda arm roll truck. ers, maids and other private operators (scavengers) call at houses
and receive recyclables free of cost or purchase them. Scavengers
sort out the materials placed in dustbins, skips and other pickup
points as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. They also collect the recyclables
from disposal sites. These activities serve to reduce the weight of
the solid waste that is disposed. Modern techniques are not applied
for separation of different recyclable materials. The recovered
material is then sold to ‘‘Kabariys” (junk dealers) in the market

Fig. 10. Tractor with trolley. Fig. 11. On site scavengers.

 Author's personal copy
1978 S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981
Fig. 12. Call on scavengers collecting the recyclable materials.
Fig. 13. View of open dumping in DGBT Town.
by the private scavengers at low rates. However, the exact sale
price of material to the industry is not known due to the fact that
it is considered a trade secret. However, reasonably good estimates
were obtained by Adila et al. (2008).
The recycling activities in Lahore have a significant impact on
resource conservation, creation of jobs, provision of economic
opportunity and reduction in the magnitude of the waste disposal
problems (Adila et al., 2008). The recyclable portion of MSW in La-
hore has enough potential to share the economic burden of solid
waste management to a considerable extent if recycling is recog-
nized as an industry (Adila et al., 2008).
3.6. Solid waste disposal system
Solid waste is disposed of in the so-called landfill sites. These
are not scientifically managed sites, but involve illegal open dump-
ing at numerous unplanned locations scattered in and around the
city. There is no official dumpsite for the safe disposal of solid
waste. The field survey shows that open dumping is carried out
mostly in the old ponds, depressions, excavations, active flood
plain of river Ravi, oxbow lakes and back swamps as shown in
Fig. 13. It was observed that if the dumpsite is far away, drivers
tend to dispose the waste at the nearest conveniently traveled dis-
tance. When interviewed, it was claimed that the reason for such
dumping is that the vehicle drivers are not given sufficient fuel
to cover the allocated collection area and travel to the designated
dumping sites, and they therefore are obliged to carry out illegal
dumping. This practice creates complex and serious environmental
problems, and adversely affects the public health. By disposing so-
lid waste in and around the city, disease causing vectors spread all
around the dumpsites, thus causing a serious health hazard for the
surrounding population. Open dumping makes the area unsightly.
Depending on wind direction, materials like paper and polyethyl-
ene bags are seen flying about and scattered in the adjoining area.
Human scavengers collect the recyclable items without restriction.
Dogs, cats, mice, cattle and goats also consume certain edibles from
the waste. Some years ago, about one-third of the total waste gen-
erated was taken by the farmers and utilized as a fertilizer (SWMD,
2005). However, now only a few trucks are collected by the farmers
since they now use synthetic chemical fertilizers. It was found that
open burning, though illegal, is also used as a disposal method in
DGBT by the generators themselves and by sweepers, causing air
pollution in the area.
4. Total waste input
In this scenario all the waste collected is a commingled waste
from household and commercial sources.
Household and commercial waste is discarded into communal
storage containers or on the streets. There is no discrimination be-
tween commercial and household waste.
4.1. Fuel consumed
The LCI model calculations show that 1,500,000 L/yr of diesel is
consumed during collection of waste from commercial storage and
from street sides. Out of this, 250,000 L/yr of diesel is consumed at
the landfill sites.
4.2. Cost of baseline scenario
The baseline scenario is developed to show the existing situa-
tion of solid waste management of the study area. Waste is col-
lected as commingled commercial and household waste. There is
no specific collection method. The collected waste is dumped in
the open.
The cost analysis of the baseline scenario emphasizes two
processes:
1. Collection
2. Landfilling
4.3. Model requirements
It is considered in the model that waste is collected as commin-
gled commercial waste to show the exact situation. The collection
screen of the model needs the ‘‘cost charged to waste generator for
waste management”, which is put at zero because no cost is
charged to the waste generator by the local government.
The landfilling process screen model inputs include:
4.3.1. Transfer and transport cost of restwaste
4.3.1.1. Landfill cost
4.3.1.1.1. Transfer and transport cost. The transfer and transport
cost is calculated by the data collected from different sources
and by personal surveys of collection vehicles.
It is assumed in the model that all the waste generated is col-
lected and landfilled. For this purpose it is also assumed that vehi-
cle availability and storage capacity is 100%. The number of trips of
some of the vehicles per day also increases for the 100% collection
of waste. However, in reality 40% of waste is not collected. The
storage capacity is 64%, which cannot meet the generation rate of
waste.
The vehicles of CDGL are only considered; household car expen-
ditures are not involved. The following will be considered in the
cost analysis of the baseline scenario:
 Author's personal copy

S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981 1979

1. Cost of diesel used
2. Cost of vehicular maintenance
3. Capital cost
4. Salaries of drivers and helpers
5. Cost of bins
The total waste generated is 500,000 tons/yr.
5. The actual transfer and transport cost
In this scenario expenses are related to collection only because
no treatment is involved. For the collection of waste in DGBT, 62
vehicles are provided by the CDGL.
The most common bin used in the study area is the skip. The
skip used can be easily handled manually as well as mechanically.
Table 5 shows that the use of these bins is economically feasible
with respect to their capital cost and annualized cost. However,
the skips can not fulfill the requirement of waste storage in the
study area. The skips are placed in thickly populated areas and
cannot be used to handle large quantities of solid waste
generated.
The small containers (5 m3) are in between the large containers
(10 m3) and skips. The survey shows that the 5-m3 containers are
more suitable because of their size, as well as economically (Table
5). Their height is less than the height of the 10-m3 containers,
which makes them approachable and hence more useful. The
occurrence of waste thrown around the container can be mini-
mized by the use of these containers.
The Mazda truck with 2.5-ton capacity makes 2 trips in a day
and carries 5 tons of waste daily as shown in Table 6. SWMD issues
30 L of petrol daily for 26 days, as on Sundays no collection activity
takes place. The compactor with a capacity 5.6 tons makes 3 trips
in a day; 45 L of petrol is given to the compactor operator daily for
26 days. The Nissan arm roll and Mazda arm roll trucks with 3-ton
and 6-ton capacities make 5 and 6 daily trips and 65 L and 35 L of
fuel is allocated to these vehicles, respectively. The arm roll and
tractor with trolley carry 9 tons and 6 tons of waste, respectively,
per day, and receive 35 L and 30 L, respectively, of petrol daily
for 26 days.
Table 7 shows that 845 tons of waste is collected daily,
while 40% cannot be collected. Tables 5 and 7 indicate that the to-
tal cost of the existing system is $3,177,900 ($10.27/ton).
6. Transfer and transport cost for modelling
It is considered in the model that all the waste is collected due
to the environmental issues related to the waste arisings. It is
therefore assumed that the availability of vehicles is 100% and
the storage capacity is 100%. For 100% storage capacity, 5-m3 con-
tainers are preferred due to their appropriate size and easy lifting
ability. In total, 548 containers are needed to store 1369 tons of
waste per day. It costs approximately $664,787.
To improve the collection efficiency by 100% it is assumed that
vehicle availability is 100%. The trips of the Mazda truck, Mazda
arm roll and tractor trolley are assumed to increase. The Mazda
truck, Mazda arm roll and tractor trolley will have to make 7.7
and 4 trips, respectively, to collect 100% of the waste. The trips of
the compactor, Nissan arm roll and arm roll tractor are decreased
due to their performance as well as their economic and environ-
mental burdens.

Table 5
Quantity and cost ($) of storage bins in DGBT.

Type of bins No. of bins Storage Total waste stored Total waste stored Annualized cost Annualized cost Capital cost Capital cost Total cost
capacity (tons) (tons/day) (tons/yr) each ($/yr) total ($/yr) each ($) total ($)
Skips 380 .5 190 69,350 177 67,279 197 74,754 142,033
Container (5 m3) 129 2.5 323 117,713 393 50,754 820 105,738 156,492
Container (10 m3) 120 6 720 262,800 689 82,623 1,279 153,443 236,066
Total 534,590

Table 6
Cost per truck of actual collection system in DGBT.

Type of Waste per truck Waste per truck Diesel consumed Cost of diesel Cost of diesel Capital Maintenance Salaries Total cost per Total cost
vehicle (tons/day) (tons/yr) (L/ton of waste) ($/Ton) per truck ($/yr) cost ($) cost ($/yr) ($/yr) truck ($/yr) ($/ton)
Mazda 5 1560 6 3 5370 16,393 3140 4033 28,937 19
Compactor 16.8 5241.60 2.6 1 7819 90,164 5236 1377 104,597 20
Nissan 36 11,232 1.8 1 11,600 49,180 5141 1377 67,299 6
Mazda arm 15 4680 2.3 1 6176 21,311 2674 4033 34,194 7
Arm roll 9 2808 3.8 2 6122 19,672 2674 4033 32,501 12
Tractor T 4 1248 7.5 4 5370 7377 4689 4033 21,469 17

Table 7
Overall cost ($) of actual collection system in DGBT.

Type of Number of Total waste Total cost of Total capital Total maintenance Total salaries Total cost
vehicle trucks collected (tons/yr) diesel (L/yr) cost ($). cost ($/yr) ($/yr). ($/yr)
Mazda Suzuki 21 32,760 344,262 65,941 84,689 607,673
Compactor 2 10,483 15,639 180,328 10,473 2754 209,193
Nissan arm roll 16 179,712 185,604 786,885 82,255 22,033 1,076,777
Mazda arm 15 70,200 92,641 319,672 40,108 60,492 512,912
Arm roll 2 5616 12,245 39,344 5,348 8066 65,002
Tractor trolley 8 9984 42,964 59,016 37,511 32,262 171,753
Total 308,755 2643,310
 Author's personal copy

1980 S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981

Table 8
Cost/truck in an improved. Collection system in DGBT.

Type of Waste per truck Waste per truck Diesel consumed Cost of diesel Cost of diesel Capital Maintenance cost Salaries Total cost
vehicle (tons/day) (tons/yr) (L/ton of waste) ($/ton) per truck ($/yr) cost ($) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr)
Mazda 17.50 6387.50 5.60 3 20,524 16,393 3140 12,098 52,156
Compactor 16.80 6132.00 2.00 1 7037 90,164 5236 1377 103,814
Nissan 30.00 10,950.00 1.40 1 8796 49,180 51,401 1377 64,494
Mazda arm 21.00 7665.00 2.00 1 8796 21,311 2674 8066 40,847
Arm roll 6.00 2190.00 5.00 3 6283 19,672 2674 4033 32,662
Tractor T 8.00 2920.00 6.25 4 10,471 7377 46,889 8066 306,023

Table 9
Overall cost of improved collection system for DGBT.

Type of Number of Total waste Total cost of Total capital Total maintenance Total salaries Total cost
vehicle trucks collected (tons/yr) diesel ($/yr) cost ($) cost ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr)
Mazda 23 146,913 472,047 377,049 72,222 278,262 1,199,580
Compactor 2 12,264 14,073 180,328 10,473 2,754 207,628
Nissan 18 197,100 158,326 885,246 92,537 24,787 1,160,896
Mazda arm 15 114,975 131,939 319,672 40,108 120,984 612,702
Arm roll 2 4380 12,566 39,344 5348 8,066 65,323
Tractor T 8 23,360 83,770 59,016 37,511 64,525 244,822
Total 498,992 – – – – 3,490,950

Calculations and cross verification show, as against the claim of
drivers, that less diesel is consumed on the collection and disposal
compared to the diesel issued by the Solid Waste Management
Department of Lahore. The cost of the improved system is $8.3/
ton (Tables 8 and 9). The cost is approximately decreased by 20%.
The increased number of vehicles and number of trips increase
the amount of collected waste which decreases per ton cost by 20%.
Approximately 3.0 L of fuel is consumed per ton of waste. It is
further divided into 2.5 L in the transporting of waste to the landfill
site and .5 L on the dumping station.
7. Conclusion
As a result of detailed field studies and surveys, a precise
description of the existing waste management system of Data Ganj
Bakhsh Town (DGBT) is presented. DGBT is the most urban town of
Lahore and represents the city district Lahore with a population of
1,624,169. The primary and secondary data for this study were col-
lected during the years 2002–2005. The output method or direct
waste sampling method (Shanklin et al., 2002) and continual ran-
dom sampling (Guven, 2001) used in this research show that the
waste generation rate in DGBT is 0.84 kg/cap/day. The main com-
ponents of waste are organic, paper and plastic, which account
for about 91% of the total waste generated. The organic component
of the waste is 67.02%.
Because of lack of awareness, improper sizes and siting of con-
tainers at storage sites is not commonly practiced. In contrast to
the developed countries, there are no separate storage arrange-
ments for collection of recyclables. The household and commercial
waste is discarded indiscriminately into the streets. Open dumps
are very common in the study area. The GIS map for the location
of the storage containers shows the inappropriate location of bins.
There is not a single engineered landfill site in the study area.
Results of our field survey, which are in agreement with the esti-
mates of the Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD), show
that only 60% of the waste is collected and dumped while 40% re-
mains uncollected. If managed properly, the number of collection
vehicles and their capacity to carry the waste is adequate to collect
100% of the generated waste. The overall cost of collection and dis-
posal under the current system was calculated at $3.177,900/yr.
The field and questionnaire survey in the study area reveal that
the functioning of SWMD is crippled by political as well as public
interference. The decision to locate the storage bins is one example.
People in general do not cooperate with the sanitary workers and
staff, and are not fully aware of the health and social problems
associated with solid waste management. The sanitary workers
are illiterate or barely educated and untrained. Because of low sal-
aries, they cannot survive without resorting to illegal practices like
selling recyclables, which are the property of SWMD, selling waste
for filling depressions, selling fuel issued for the vehicles and doing
part-time private jobs during duty hours. The sanitary workers lack
self respect and social acceptability and are poorly motivated to
perform their duty. The sanitary staff, compared to sanitary work-
ers, is educated but neither trained nor motivated.
LCA modelling was carried out to calculate the cost of improved
collection and disposal on the basis of 100% collection with the
model IWM-2.
In the proposed MSW management system, the collection rate
is considered to be 100%, subject to the provision that the sanitary
workers and staff are well paid, properly educated, trained and
motivated, as well as made fully accountable. It is further assumed
that education and awareness on SWM issues will be developed in
the public through media and with the cooperation of SWMD,
grass root level local government institutions and NGOs. One
important, but difficult issue that needs to be addressed consis-
tently is that of improving the self respect of the sanitary workers
and of improving their social acceptability.
Information and education can bring a change to people’s atti-
tudes towards waste management, and it can encourage the public
to take responsibility for the waste generated.
This study will be very helpful for the solid waste managers as
they can set their priorities regarding problems which have been
addressed in this study.
Another major social and health problem is related to the col-
lection of recyclables from dumps and storage containers. The for-
mal sector can conduct this activity and can generate considerable
revenue from it.
One of the key areas for future progress is to reduce the amount
of waste generated and sent to the open dumps. Recycling and re-
use practices can make this possible. It is also very important to
improve and help organize markets for the recyclables.
 Author's personal copy
S.A. Batool, M.N. Ch / Waste Management 29 (2009) 1971–1981
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Asif, project offi-
cer, MSW department during the course of this study. We also
thank Mr. Asif for permission to use photographs No 5,6,7,8,9,10.
References
Adila, S.B., Nawaz, M.C., Majeed, K., 2008. Economic potential of recycling business
in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Management 28, 294–298.
Adila, S.B., Nawaz M.C., in press. The impact of municipal solid waste
treatment methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan, Waste
Management.
Agarwal, A., Singhmar, A., Kulshrestha, M., Mittal, A.K., 2005. Municipal solid waste
recycling and associated markets in Delhi, India. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 44 (1), 73–90.
Bartone, C.R., 1999. Financing solid waste management projects in developing
countries, lessons from a Decade of World Bank Lending. In: Proceedings of the
Organic Recovery and Biological Treatment, ORBIT 99, Part 3, Rhombos, Berlin,
pp. 757–765.
Beck, R.W., 2000. Final report, state wide MSW composition study, a study of
discards in the state of Minnesota, Minnesota Office of Environmental
Assistance 98.
CIWMB, 1998. Conducting a Diversion Study: A Guide for Local Jurisdictions, vol.
311, p. 80.
Chuck, H., 1999. Persistence of the rational planning paradigm. In: Waste
Management Tales from the Field Presented toe the Associations of Collegiate
Schools of Planning Annual Conference, Chicago.
Das, K., Smith, M., Gattie, D., Hale, B.D., 2002. Stability and quality of municipal solid
waste compost from a landfill aerobic bioreduction process. Advances in
Environmental Research 6.
Guven, S., 2001. Household waste composition survey in Turkey. In: Fourth
Subregional Training Worship on Environment Statistics, Bangkok, p. 11.
Ireland EPA, 1996. Municipal Waste Characterization. Ireland.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) and Pak-EPA (Pakistan
Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Guidelines for Solid Waste
Management, Pak-EPA, Pakistan.
View publication stats
1981
Kaseva, M.E., Mbuligwe, S.E., 2005. Appraisal of solid waste collection following
private sector involvement in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania, Habitat
International, 29 (2), 353-366.
Koica – World Bank 2007. Solid Waste Management in Punjab. Final Report Draft
Part 2.
McDougall, F., White, P., Franke, M., Hindle, P., 2003. Integrated Solid Waste
Management: A Life Cycle Inventory, second ed. Blackwell Science, Cornwall. p.
3.
MFE, 2002. Ministry for the Environment New Zealand: Solid waste analysis.
Protocol, p. 65.
Murtaza, G., Rahman, A., 2000. Solid waste management in Khulana City and a case
study of a CBO: Amader Paribartan. In: Maqsood Sinha, A.H.Md., Enayetullah, I.
(Eds.), Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience.
Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Morris, G.E., Holthausen, D.M., 1994. The economics of household solid waste
generation and disposal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
26 (3), 215–234.
Oregon DEQ, 1995. Waste composition report, Oregon waste characterization and
composition, Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality – Land Quality
Division.
OWDO, 2002. Residential curbside waste audit guide, Ontario Waste Diversion
Organization, p. 9.
Parks, J.C., Brockman, S., 2000. Using solid waste characterization studies to
determine the potential for expanding a recycling program. In: Joint Service P2,
Proceedings. (quoted from Zuilen, L.F., 2006).
Shanklin, C.W., Hui-Chun, H., Kyung, E.L., Chihyung, O., Sunny, S., Flores, S., 2002.
Interdisciplinary modules to teach waste or residue management in the food
chain. Module 3: Management of Wastes/Residues.
Shimura, S., Yokota, I., Nitta, Y., 2001. Research for MSW flow analysis in developing
nations. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 3, 48–59.
Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Vaishya, R.C., Gupta, R.D., 2007. Municipal solid waste
characteristics and management in Allahabad India. Waste Management 27,
490–496.
Solid Waste Management Department, 2005. Personal communication with the
department officials.
SENES, 1999. Recommended waste characterization methodology for direct waste
analysis studies in Canada. In: CCME Waste Characterization Sub-Committee, p.
64.
WHO, 1996. Procedure for Solid Waste Generation Survey.