Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Review on Indian Municipal Solid Waste Management practices for T

reduction of environmental impacts to achieve sustainable development
goals
Yash Pujaraa, Pankaj Pathaka,b,*, Archana Sharmaa,b, Janki Govania
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Marwadi University, Rajkot, Gujarat, 360-003, India
b
Department of Environmental Science & Engineering, Marwadi Education Foundation, Rajkot, Gujarat, 360-003, India

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Open dumping is a common practice for MSW disposal in most of the Indian cities, apart from the metro-cities.
Environmental impact This practice poses significant environmental and health risks due to toxic and greenhouse gases (GHGs)
Life cycle assessment emission through direct combustion and/or decay of wastes. Therefore, integrated solid waste management
Municipal solid waste (ISWM) using different methods viz., incineration, composting, anaerobic digestions, refuse derived fuel, ma-
Waste-to-energy
terial recovery facility and sanitary landfilling, is much needed. Accordingly, three waste management case
Sustainability
scenarios were studied for year 2001–2051 by keeping weightage of sustainable development goals 2030 of
India. Case I depicts Indian present scenario of waste management where 164–735 tonnes/year of wastes would
be generated for year 2001–2051. Further, 60% of waste can be treated in case II that help in reducing the land
requirement up to 40% from estimated conditions of 2031 i.e., 83.8 × 107 m3. The case III is most ideal waste
management condition for year 2031 to reduce 80% waste hence landfill requirement would minimize up to
16.76 × 107 m3 where population is at controlled conditions. This article concludes the formal handling and
treatment of ISWM would minimize the landfilling, where LCA can be an antidote to achieve sustainable de-
velopment goals.

1. Introduction 2017-18; EAI, 2019EAI Report, 2019; Generation of solid waste, 2018).
Therefore, generation of huge volume of MSW, due to the ceaseless
Incessant increase of solid waste is causing serious global concern to urbanization of rural India, is exceeding its carrying capacity with the
manage the waste in a sustainable manner and hence several solid limited geographical area and facing a major challenge for safe disposal
waste management (SWM) options have been explored till date. of MSW.
Globally, the major contributory countries in solid waste generation The combination of household and commercial refuse/waste in the
and their treatment are presented in Table 1 (Rigamonti et al., 2016; Indian MSW usually dominated by the organic constituents (70–80%),
Sanchez et al., 2015; Taweesan et al., 2016). It infers that India stands while rest belongs to the inorganic compounds (Gupta et al., 2015;
fifth with a generation of 0.12 million tonnes/day solid wastes in the Ramachandra et al., 2018). Therefore, a direct landfill disposal (without
year 2016, behind the USA, China, Brazil, and Japan (World Bank, any pre-treatment) of MSW causes several geo-environmental issues
2005). The approximation of worldwide municipal solid waste (MSW) such as emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and hazardous volatile
generation is more catastrophic and anticipated to be more than 2200 organic compounds, rotten odors, and groundwater contamination due
million tonnes/year by 2025 (Tyagi et al., 2018). The 1.36 billion po- to leaching and seepage (Fernandez-Gonzalez et al., 2017; Gouveia and
pulation of India is also expected to generate more than 56 million do Prado, 2009; Patil et al., 2017). Moreover, Singh et al. (2014) have
tonnes/year of MSW with a yearly growth rate of 5% (CPCB Report, noted that ~11% of the global methane is produced due to the

Abbreviations: MSW, Municipal Solid Waste; GHGs, Greenhouse Gases; ISWM, Integrated Solid Waste Management; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; SWM, Solid Waste
Management; CPCB, Central Pollution Control Board; MSWM, Municipal Solid Waste Management; WtE, Waste to Energy; MNRE, Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy; MW, Mega Watt; FU, Functional Unit; GWP, Global Warming Potential; LCIA, LFGs; Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Landfill gases; NPGP, Net Power
Generation Potential; CV, Calorific Value; kW, Kilowatt; MBT, Mechanical Biological Treatment; RDF, Refuse-derived Fuel; SCF, Segregated Combustible Fraction;
MRF, Material Recovery Facility; SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals; UNSDG, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
*
Corresponding author. Department of Environmental Engineering, Marwadi University, Rajkot, Gujarat, 360-003, India..
E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Pathak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.009
Received 10 April 2019; Received in revised form 23 June 2019; Accepted 5 July 2019
Available online 15 July 2019
0301-4797/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Table 1
Generation, treatment and utility of urban solid waste and energy generation capacity worldwide in 2012 (Aniekan and Ikechukwu, 2016; World Bank, 2005).
Country Solid Waste Generation (MT/ Treatment Processes Capacity of electricity generation
D) (MW)

USA 6,24,700 Landfilling, recycling, recovery, WtE, Composting, MBT, AD 2254

China 5,20,548 Incineration, Pyrolysis, Conventional gasification, Plasma Arc Gasification, Composting –
Brazil 1,49,096 1.4% Recycling, Resource recovery, Sanitary landfilling, 0.8% Composting, < 0.1% –
Incineration
Japan 1,44,466 WtE, Recycling, Resource recovery, Recover electricity and fuel from biomass, Semi-aerobic 1501
landfilling
India 1,09,589 Composting, Vermi-Composting, WtE, Landfilling, Biogas, RDF/Pelletization, Bioreactor 274
landfilling
Germany 1,27,816 35% WtE, 51% Recycling, 14% Composting 1888
Russia 1,00,027 Recycling, Resource recovery, AD, Composting, MBT, incineration, landfilling –
UK 97,342 Recycling, Resource recovery, Anaerobic digestion, Composting, Mechanical biological 781
treatment, incineration, landfilling, WtE
Spain 72,137 60% landfilling, 10% WtE, 20% recycling, 10% composting 251
South Africa 53,425 Recycling, Incineration, Disposal –
South Korea 48,397 Recycling 184
Thailand 39,452 Recycling 75
Switzerland 14,329 Landfilling, composting, WtE, recycling 398
Sweden 12,329 1% Landfilling, 50% WtE, 32% Recycling, 17% Composting 459
Denmark 10,959 Landfilling, composting, WtE, recycling 325
Singapore 7205 WtE, Recycling 128

- Not reported, Mechanical biological treatment– MBT, Anaerobic digestion– AD, TPD– Tonnes per day.

mismanagement of MSW and considered as the third largest anthro-

pogenic source of GHGs. However, direct combustion is also a common
practice to handle the MSW which is an unfavorable option (Mittal
et al., 2017), as direct combustion of 1 Tonne MSW generates ~1090 kg
CO2 equivalents (Botello-Alvareza et al., 2018). In the Indian scenario,
both the direct combustion and landfill disposal without prior treat-
ment are in practice, except few metro-cities of India (Rana et al., 2019;
Rathore et al., 2019). Henceforth, two major challenges are recognized
to be responsible for the improper management of MSW, these are: (i)
collection and segregation of MSW and, (ii) the informal recycling and
lack of treatment facilities (Babu et al., 2014; Botello-Alvareza et al.,
2018; Mohanty et al., 2014). Looking at the huge volume of waste
generation, its management is a tedious task in India which requires
proper planning to handle such problem in a sustainable manner
Fig. 1. Different key steps of life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO 14040-2006).
(Nabavi-Pelesaraei et al., 2017; Ramachandra et al., 2014; Yadav and
Samadder, 2017 & 2018).
The Government of India has taken significant step imposing the can give a pathway to develop a better MSWM system in the country.
Waste-to-energy (WtE) policy under the Municipal Solid Waste Further, environmental impact and economic feasibility of MSW are
Management (MSWM) Rules. In this context, Ministry of New and discussed to harness the energy and potential material before MSW
Renewable Energy (MNRE), 2014 has reported that 1460 MW of energy reaches to landfill.
can be obtained from the MSW (EAI, 2019; Kalyani and Pandey, 2014;
Singh et al., 2014). Consequently, co-processing and co-generation 2. Literature framework
technologies, part of integrated solid waste management (ISWM) plays
significant role for managing Indian MSW. In these technologies, waste This study describes the waste management practices in India in-
produced from one process can have potential use for another process cluding waste generation from residential/commercial sectors, trans-
such as kitchen wastes are used for composting and anaerobic digestion portation, segregation, treatment and disposal in urban and metro cities
(Reza et al., 2013). This may bring sustainability in the environment, of India. Further, study focuses on utilization of LCA for potential re-
economy, and technical aspects; where the formal collection, transport, covery of energy and materials from waste. This would minimize en-
treatment, elimination and landfilling are included (Solid Waste vironment and economic impact and able to fulfill the sustainable de-
Management, 2016). Nevertheless, the ISWM requires the concurrent velopment goals by 2030. It also highlights the formal treatment of
fulfillment of the environmental, economic, technical, and societal MSW which utilizes cleaner technologies may improve the environ-
constraints and it can be estimated by using life cycle analysis (LCA) mental and social impacts. The entire manuscript can be explored with
tool in MSW. It includes an entire range from collection to treatment waste management practices in India, treatment methods and impact
approaches that would handle all the possible materials of the waste analysis using LCA, Furthermore, three case scenarios are presented
stream (Rajamanikam et al., 2014; Sharma and Chandel, 2017). using hypothetical model to reduce the waste generation. It also
Therefore, LCA is the decision-making tool which can be helpful to minimizes the landfill space requirements and indicates the sustainable
govern the environmental and economic viability in the management of approach for waste disposal. The study focuses on global and Indian
MSW (ISO 14040- 1997; ISO 14040- 2006). LCA can be divided into scenario of MSWM, MSW composition and management options, effi-
four steps as shown in Fig. 1 (Koroneos and Nanaki, 2012; Kulczycka cacy of LCA studies with functional unit and system boundary, and
et al., 2015; Lam et al., 2018). Moreover, looking at the major shift recommendation for best MSWM options in India including three dif-
towards LCA in MSWM, the current practices in India along with the ferent case scenarios that describe the sustainable perspectives of waste
LCA guidelines in waste management system is vital to understand that to resource for 2030.

2
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Table 2
Generation and handling of solid waste in urban areas of different Indian States in November 2017 (Generation of solid waste, 2018; Ghosh, 2016; India
Environmental Portal, 2018).
State Waste Generation (MT/ Waste Collected Waste Treated Landfilled (MT/D) Treatment Methods
D) (MT/D) (MT/D)

Andhra Pradesh 6525 6331 500 143 Vermi-Composting, Biomethanization, WtE (63 MW generation
capacity)
Arunachal Pradesh 181 11 – – –
Assam 1134 6336 200 – WtE
Bihar 1192 – – – WtE, Landfilling
Chandigarh 340 360 – – Landfilling
Chhattisgarh 1959 2036.97 828.18 1294.97 Composting, Vermi-composting,
Delhi 10,500 – – – Landfilling, WtE (52 MW generation capacity), Composting
Goa 240 – – Landfilling
Gujarat 10,145 10480 2565 7730 Vermi-Composting, Biogas, RDF, WtE
Haryana 4514 3102.51 188 2163.18 Composting, Landfilling
Jammu & Kashmir 1792 1388.7 3.45 425 –
Jharkhand 2451 3238.65 65 3179.7 –
Karnataka 10,000 7716 3584 3946 Landfilling, Composting, Vermi-Composting, Biogas, RDF
Madhya Pradesh 6424 – – – Composting, Vermi-composting, WtE
Maharashtra 22570 21867.27 6993.2 14993.07 Composting, Vermi-composting, WtE (16 MW generation
capacity), Biogas, Bio-reactor landfill
Meghalaya 268 156 36 120 Composting, Vermi-composting
Orissa 2460 2283.9 30 – –
Pondicherry 495 513 10 503 –
Punjab 4100 4435 3.72 3214 Landfilling
Tamil Nadu 15547 210 – 207 Biomethanation, WtE, RDF, Compost, Recycling
Tripura 421 368.2 250.4 164.4 Composting, Vermi-composting
Telangana 7371 6625 3175 3050 RDF, WtE (30 MW generation capacity)
Uttar Pradesh 15,547 11394 1857 – Composting, RDF
Uttarakhand 1400 917.89 – – –
Others 18,050 – – – –
Total 1,45,626 67903.8 20289 41133.3

3. Waste management in India disposal options, refer Fig. 2a and b. On the other hand, the Planning
Commission Report (2014) has revealed around 377 million people
The MNRE has identified huge energy potential for MSW that residing in the urban areas are generating 62 million tonnes/year of
usually contains 50% biodegradable substances, 20% recyclable mat- MSW, which is anticipated to be 165 million tonnes/year and 436
ters, and 30% inert and inorganic materials like sands, pebbles, and million tonnes/year by the year 2031 and 2050, respectively. To ac-
gravels (Planning commission India, 2014). The metropolitan cities and commodate this amount of generated MSW, the corresponding re-
towns of different states of India generate ~0.5 kg/capita/day MSW quirement of landfill space would be 23.5 × 107 m3 by 2031 and
however the amount of annual solid waste generations in urban areas 43 × 107 m3 by 2050, piled up in 20 m height. The MSWM guidelines
and its collection in different states are shown Table 2. Joshi and enforced to minimize the burden from landfills by recovering potential
Ahmed (2016) have reported that only 12–14% of the MSW is formally material and energy from the MSW. The current MSWM practices are
treated in India and rest are directly sent to open dumping and landfill shown in Fig. 3, whereas 145 million tonnes of MSW is generated every

Fig. 2. Municipal solid waste management in India (CPCB Annual report 2017-18; Yadav and Samadder, 2017)

3
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Fig. 3. Current MSWM practices in India (Solid Waste management Rule, 2016).

day and further processed through MSW guidelines. In this practice, gastrointestinal problems, allergies and psychological disorders are
85% of MSW is collected by Municipal Corporation and rest 15% waste noticed due to burning of MSW or pathogenic microbes (Salemdeeb
is directly goes on open dumping. Of late, 30% of collected waste is et al., 2017; Kandasamy et al., 2013). In this context, glimpse of en-
getting treated and rest 70% wastes are preferred for landfilling op- vironmental and health impact due to MSW can be seen in Fig. 4.
tions. However, several issues are encountered during implementation Subsequently, Jayakrishnan et al. (2013) have done study on occupa-
of MSWM guidelines in different cities of India such as formal collec- tional health and safety of workers who were associated with Kolkata
tions, segregation, waste utilization awareness, and treatment, which and Mumbai Municipal Corporation and found that ~71% of waste
has been summarized in Table 3. To create awareness in waste man- collectors from Kolkata and 25% from Mumbai were suffering with
agement sector Clean India Mission is introduced by government where respiratory diseases. Besides, other problems like chemical poisoning,
cities are getting rewards and recognition based on cleanliness and low birth rate, cancer, congenital malformations, nausea and vomiting,
converting waste into wealth. Consequently, six WtE plants are func- neurological diseases are caused due to the mixing up of uncontrolled
tioning in India with cumulative installed capacity of 114.08 MW hazardous and electronic wastes with solid waste (Pathak et al., 2017).
(MNRE report, 2018). It promotes segregation at source and formal The risk of Hepatitis B and HIV are increased due to mixing of health
treatment of MSW (Swachh Survekshan, 2019). The planning com- care products and household biomedical wastes with domestic waste
mission report of India (2014) stated that only 31% expense share is for that disposed to dumping sites without treatment (MSW rules, 2016).
formal management of the MSW (12% from private parties, 12% central
and 7% state governments), therefore informal sectors are mainly in-
4. Assessment of impacts associated with MSW through life cycle
volved in collection and handling of MSW. However, 80–85% of cost
analysis
spent on collection and transportation of waste and only 15–20% goes
for treatment, which is very nominal cost. The overall treatment and
Life cycle analysis (LCA) helps in estimating the environmental
disposal cost for MSW is shown in Table 4.
burdens that occur during collection, treatment and disposal of waste
Owing to this, several environmental and economic issues are being
(Winkler and Bilitewski, 2007). Different scenarios of waste manage-
raised with informal handling and disposal of MSW (Singh and Basak,
ment are being used to minimize their associated environmental im-
2018; Singh and Francis, 2017). It leads to environmental degradation
pacts and some of them are shown in Table 5 (Cherubini et al., 2009;
and has severe impacts on human health (Joshi and Ahmed, 2016) as
Fernandez-Nava et al., 2014). In the LCA study, generation of MSW is
mentioned in the subsequent section.
considered as the functional unit, FU (1 tonne of waste generated),
whereas collection and transportation of MSW, its treatment and dis-
3.1. Environmental and health impacts due to MSW posal, incineration, composting and landfilling methods are known as
the system boundaries between product and waste management
Direct combustion and decay of MSW in open space causes gaseous (Evangelisti et al., 2015; Havukainen et al., 2017). Further, environ-
emissions, mixing of particulate matters and volatile matters in the air, mental impacts can be determined within system boundaries of unit
chemical and biological contamination in soil and groundwater due to process, where time, space and functions are considered as the system
seepage (Cremiato et al., 2018; Fernandez-Nava et al., 2014; Olaniyan boundaries (Cleary, 2009). The obtained processed data from system
et al., 2015). However, decomposition of organic waste produces huge boundary is used in different softwares viz., SimaPro, OpenLCA, GaBi
amount of methane (greenhouse) gas that contributes to enhance the which includes different algorithms that determine the life cycle impact
global temperature and changes the climatic conditions (Cetinkaya assessment, LCIA and life cycle costing, LCC (Gentil et al., 2010). The
et al., 2018). Moreover, high organic contents in MSW increases the inbuilt secondary literature data and libraries in the software are being
growth of microbial pathogens and may lead to infectious and chronic used to interpret the process impacts and help to analyze environmental
diseases to waste workers, rag pickers and people living in/nearby vi- costs and economical cost (Winkler and Bilitewski, 2007). Abiotic de-
cinity (Arafat et al., 2014; Fan et al., 2018; Marshal, 1995). Numerous pletion (fossil fuels), acidification potential, global warming potential
health problems like respiratory system, skin irritation, eyes and nose, (GWP), ozone layer depletion, human toxicity, freshwater, marine and

4
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

terrestrial ecotoxicity, photochemical oxidation potential and resource

Disposal is illegal and without planning. Lack of technical staff and facilities. No segregation and lack of funding.
depletion are significant environmental impacts produced by tradi-

No appropriate segregation, requirement is more for recycling units. Wastes are dumped without any prior
tional MSWM practices (Cetinkaya et al., 2018; Fernandez-Nava et al.,
2014). However, studies have shown that sorting of waste and changing
raw materials may decrease environmental issues which promotes
economic and environmental benefits (Arena et al., 2003; Bueno et al.,
2015; Cherubini et al., 2009).
Furthermore, LCA can also be useful in managing MSW for big
events like world cup cricket tournaments, new year celebration,
95% of waste is directly dumped at the dumping sites without any treatment. Kumbh Mela in India otherwise, it is difficult to manage waste due to
Most of the waste is dumped in to the landfill without any prior treatment.

various factors such as participation of different groups of people and

complex waste disposal design procedure (Parkes et al., 2015; Kumar
et al., 2017; Swachh Survekshan, 2019). Therefore, it necessitates es-
Debris disposal is very difficult. Garbage is not collected properly.

timating environmental and economic costs prior to the events

(Liikanen et al., 2018). The environmental cost of big events can de-
termine using LCIA which entails the total environmental cost of a
product service throughout its life cycle where the negative ex-
ternalities such as pollution in air, water and soil are quantified during
Swachhta Application user engagement is less.

waste generation, collection, and treatment process. On the other hand,

Segregation is not done properly in all area.

Insufficient collection system and funding.

economic cost can overcome by the recovering material and energy

from MSW and these reclamation options can be introduced into the
events that can reduce the primary resource utilization. It is also opined
Lack of facilities and technology.

that organic waste for aerobic and anaerobic conditions have good
Waste dumping is very high.

synergy between material recovery and energy generation instead

employing conventional treatment method (Thomsen et al., 2017;
Tyagi et al., 2018; Yap and Nixon, 2015). Further, the remaining waste
goes to incineration and sanitary landfilling options (India
Environmental Portal, 2018; Gradus et al., 2017; Kalyani and Pandey,
Challenges

treatment.

2014).
Henceforth, circular economy is being promoted in ISWM where
recycled materials (compost and compressed natural gas obtained from
waste) are encouraged to use as raw materials instead of employing
Composting, Advanced Locality Management (ALM), Recycling, WtE,

natural materials for manufacturing (Malinauskaite et al., 2017; Wang

et al., 2015; Waste to Energy, 2016). Further, it is also noted that WtE is
Gasification, Incineration, Composting, Landfilling, Recycling.

suitable for minimizing carbon footprint by shifting the generation of

electricity from fossil-fuel to waste. Consequently, it prevents un-
controlled methane gas emission from the landfill site and reduces the
global warming potential (Waste to Energy, 2016).
Recycling, Composting, WtE (52 MW), Landfilling
Composting, RDF, Landfilling, Recycling, WtE.

5. Preeminent waste management methods for Indian MSW

Door to door collection, Landfilling.

5.1. Composting
Cities in India practicing MSWM (Ghosh, 2016; Swachh Survekshan, 2019).

Composting is one of the most widely used treatment method in

Recycling, Composting.

Indian MSW where organic waste fraction is 60–70% as mentioned in

Table 2. In this method, microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, algae
MSWM Practices

and protozoa degrade the organics under controlled environmental

conditions and acquire compost matter used as soil conditioner
Landfilling

(Bohacz, 2018). The aerobic decomposition of organic fraction is shown

RDF.

in Eq. (1).

Organic matter + O2 → Compost + CO2 + H2 O+ NO−3 + SO24−+Heat

Population (million)

[1]
In the composting process, food waste and garden trimmings of
MSW is used as a feed and four major reaction stages occurs in com-
1.96
5.58

4.65
19.0

18.4

8.52

posting process as shown in Table 6. Different types of aerobic com-

4.5

posting methods such as windrow composting, aerated static pile

Area (km2)

composting, in-vessel composting and vermicomposting are widely

used in India. Apart from the conventional methods of composting,
603.4
1484
530
464

426

205

650

some advanced technologies for composting have been developed like

Bangalore method, Indore method and Coimbatore method that
Ahmedabad

changes the reaction phase by varying location, climatic conditions,

Bangalore
Mumbai
Chennai

soil, types of microorganisms/worms, fly species, types of waste, par-

Kolkata
Table 3

Indore

Delhi
City

ticle size, pH of soil, moisture holding capacity of soil and carbon to

nitrogen ratio (Cickova et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2018). It was also

5
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Table 4
Cost Analysis for treatment and disposal of MSW (Solid Waste Management, 2018).
Researchers Treatment and disposal methods Cost analysis

Zhou et al. (2015) Landfill withdrawal and recycling in The Chinese twelfth five-year plan (2011–2015) has sanctioned 3.4 billion USD for the landfill eco-
China remediation project. Whereas, 1 tonne of waste requires 12.7 USD for storing. Net positive benefit
from the landfill mining varying between 1.9 and 16.63 million USD.
Dobraja et al. (2016) MBT, WtE, CHP Handling and landfilling require 54.51 USD per tonne of waste, for dry-fermentation process and
operation 18.30 USD per tonne of waste, for wet-fermentation process and operation 39.41 USD per
tonne of waste.
Fernandez-Gonzalez et al. MBT, WtE, Biomethanization, Energy profit is 84.54 USD per tonne of waste recovery.
(2017) Gasification, RDF
Gradus et al. (2017) Incineration, recycling for plastic Plastic recycling requires 903.64 USD, plastic incineration 660.94 USD, net treatment cost is 7.07
USD per tonne of waste. Energy recovery cost is 77.76 USD per tonne of waste.
Lam et al. (2018) WtE, AD, Landfilling, Composting Onsite incineration requires net cost of 58.85 USD per tonne of waste and 707 kWh of energy
recovered through the incineration process from per tonne of waste. Economic and environmental
savings through the recovery option would be 88.94 USD and 60.03 USD per tonne of waste,
respectively.

Anaerobic digestion- AD; Combined heat and power- CHP; Mechanical biological treatment– MBT; Refuse derived fuel- RDF, Waste to energy– WtE.

Fig. 4. A schematic view of environmental and health impacts due to MSW (Ramachandra et al., 2018).

noted that temperature and pH have significant role for survivals of fly 5.2. Anaerobic digestion/biomethanation
in composting method where 20 °C − 40 °C temperature is optimum for
growth of flies though pH less than 4 would not be good for develop- Anaerobic digestion (Biomethanation) is a process where organic
ment of fly (Tomberlin et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2018). A piece of land matter is allowed to decompose in anaerobic conditions to generate
either on-site or off-site with proper upholding of aerobic conditions, carbon dioxide and methane as major by-products. The digestate (solid
suitable microorganisms, optimum temperature and moisture for mi- residue of the process) can be recycled as manure or soil conditioner. It
crobes survival, are utmost important factors for composting process. is noted that during this process 55–60% of methane is obtained which
The compost gets ready within 2–4 weeks to few months. It is rich in can be used as fuel for various industrial and residential purpose. Ahsan
nutrients and used directly for gardening, horticulture and agricultural (1999) has estimated that the controlled anaerobic digester can gen-
activities where it serves as soil conditioner. There are several appli- erate 2–4 times more methane from 1 tonne of MSW within 3 weeks as
cations for compost materials such as preventing soil erosion, land and compared to landfills which may take 6–7 years. In India several cities
soil reclamation, construction of wetlands and landfill covers. It is like Delhi, Bangalore, Nagpur, Pune, Lucknow, Indore have adopted
noted that composting method is economical and technically viable for this technology for harnessing methane (renewable energy) from MSW
its implementation; it helps in reducing the volume of MSW and may (Swachh Survekshan, 2019). Further, 75 Indian cities were assessed by
turn this waste into a resource. Further, it can be commercialized and Saini et al. (2012) which generate energy from MSW (includes ≥40%
able to generate revenue for the country. However, the biggest chal- organic fractions, ≥45% moisture and 20–30% Carbon to Nitrogen
lenge in this method is for survival of microorganisms with optimum ratio). The net power generation potential (NPGP) from MSW was
environmental conditions. There are few other environmental issues calculated by using following equations.
also associated with composting such as contamination at surface and
NPGP (kW) = P× Q [2]
underground water by leakage of leachate, acidifying the land, odour
and health impacts due to consumption of contaminated water. How- P = X× Y× Z× L× W1 × 103 [3]
ever, if the environmental conditions maintain well then composting
can reduce 20–25% of carbon emission from MSW and help in mini- Q= W2 × CV × h [4]
mizing the landfill disposal. 3
Where, X is produced biogas (m per kg of volatile solids per day), Y
is efficiency of digester (%), Z is total organic fraction (%), L is organic
biodegradable fraction (%), W1 is total waste generated everyday in

6
 Table 5
A critical observations of LCA for different scenarios of MSW.
References Functional Unit (FU), Software (SW) and Waste Management Scenario/Options Impact assessments Critical Remarks
Y. Pujara, et al.

Methods

Cherubini et al. FU is 1 tonne of MSW. S0: landfilling Landfilling is worst waste management option. GWP, AP, Sorting plant with biogas recovery and incineration would be
(2009) S1: biogas recovery from landfill EP and Dioxin emissions are major environmental the best option
S2: waste sorting plant impacts.
S3: waste Incineration
Cleary (2009) FU and SW are MSW and LCA computer Secondary literature data AP and GWP effects are more common. Comparative analysis study suggested that many LCA users
software, respectively. Secondary don't make clear decision during goal and scope phase
literature data is used in Method.
Koroneos and Nanaki FU: LCA for Integrated SWM and energy S1: Leachate and Biogas production are not Energy recovery from biogas is expected to replace part of Segregation and collection at source and recycling of the
(2012) production- A case Study utilized the Lignite electricity recovery. HH, EQ and RD are major segregated waste are needed. Modern sanitary landfill site
SW: SimaPro 5 S2: Without capturing energy, biogas burned. environmental impacts. should be equipped with sorting and material recovery
Methods: Landfilling, Biological S3: No utilization of thermal energy. plants.
treatment, paper recycling S Biocells: Biocell can be used as utilization of
biogas and leachate collection
Elwan et al. (2013) FU: 3.52 KTonnes waste Scenarios are not available Reduced emission to the air 5 tonnes to −10 kg CO2 eq., Gasification is used to generate energy from the waste and its
SW: GaBi v.4 fresh water from 4 kg to −2 kg CO2 eq. AP, EP, GWP are impact on the environment is negative.
major environmental impacts.
Babu et al. (2014) FU: 4500 tonnes S1: Open dumps Open dumping has the highest impacts (EDP, GWP, EP) on S1 has the highest and S4 has least impact on environment.
Methods: Buswell and Mueller equation S2: Landfilling the Bioreactor landfill system proved better option as compared
S3: Landfilling with recovery of gas Environment with the other scenarios, but the initial cost is very high and
S4: Bioreactor landfill cost recovery period is ~50 years.
Fernandez-Nava et al. FU: 480 Ktonnes of Municipal waste S0: Landfilling with biogas recovery S3 has the least contribution to the HH category. Landfill produces the maximum environmental impacts in all
(2014) generated in Asturias S1: Incineration of waste with energy Landfilling is the worst application in the damage analyzed damage categorize.
SW: SimaPro and Ecoinvent reclamation categories. Major impacts are HH, EQ, GWP, RD Biomethanization contributes the reduction impact of
Methods: Environmental impact S2: Source separated organic fraction damage categories. Incineration is always affecting the

7
categories converted into biomethanization, Sorting and damage categories of human health and climate change but it
incineration of rejected waste is help to reduce the damage in resource category.
S3: Biomethanization, Sorting, and
incineration
S4: Biomethanization, Sorting, Aerobic
stabilization of biodegradable fraction and
Incineration
S5: Biomethanization, Sorting, Aerobic
stabilization and landfilling
Ghinea et al. (2014) FU: Waste management and recycled S1: Sorting, composting and landfilling S3 is the most environments friendly than other scenarios Tissue paper manufacturing scenarios developed, which
paper system S2: sorting, composting, anaerobic digestion which cases AP, EP, GWP, POCP, HTP, AD impacts. propose the use of recycled fibers from recovered paper as
SW: GaBi and incineration raw materials, instead of virgin fibers.
Methods: all the input and output S3: Sorting, composting, incineration and
assessment landfilling
S4: Sorting, composting and incineration
Jeswani and Azapagic FU: Disposal of 1 tonne of waste and S1: Incineration (only electricity) Electricity and CHP incinerator estimates 496 and 487 kg Electricity generation from incineration would have higher
(2016) electricity generation from MSW S2: Incinerator (CHP) CO2 eq. per tonne of waste without credits of recovered impact on environment as compared with from landfilling.
SW: GaBi v6.4 S3: Landfilling (only electricity) materials but with credits it has reduced to 174 and 58 kg
S4: Landfilling (CHP) CO2 eq. per tonne of waste. From Landfill electricity
without credit is 271 kg CO2 eq. per tonne of waste and
with credits 240 kg CO2 eq. per tonne of waste. The major
impacts are GWP, ADP, EP, ODP, HTP, POCP.
Sharma and Chandel FU: 1 tonne of waste S1: Open dumping, bioreactor landfilling The result was found that S5 had minimum environmental Energy recovery from all the scenarios is saves the
(2017) SW: GaBi v6.0 S2: MRF, SLF impacts (GWP, EP, AP, HT). environment significantly.
Method: IPCC S3: MRF, composting, SLF
S4: MRF, AD, SLF
S5: MRF, composting, SLF, AD
S6: MRF, composting, incineration
S7: MRF, Incineration
(continued on next page)
Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238
 Table 5 (continued)

References Functional Unit (FU), Software (SW) and Waste Management Scenario/Options Impact assessments Critical Remarks
Methods
Y. Pujara, et al.

Havukainen et al. FU: MSW S1: Landfill AD plant has the lowest environmental effects (GWP, AP, RDF has the highest potential for energy recovery as
(2017) SW: GaBi v6.0 S2: Incineration EP). compared with MSW incineration.
Methods: CML-2010 S3: RDF
S4: AD
Yadav and Samadder FU: 1 tonne of MSW S1: Transportation and collection S4 had the lowest environmental impacts viz., GWP, EP, S2 has the maximum impact on the environment (GWP,
(2017) SW: SimaPro v8.0.1 S2: Base case scenario AP, ODP, POCP, HTP, AD, as compared with other three POCP and EP) and existing waste management practices is
Methods: CML Baseline 2000 S3: Landfilling and composting scenarios. not suitable for climatic conditions.
S4: Composting, landfilling and recycling
Cetinkaya et al. FU: Solid waste composition S1: 75% landfill, 25% composting The lowermost values for four types of damage categories It shows S1 75% of landfilling is a good option to decrease the
(2018) SW: SimaPro and Ecoinvent S2: 50% landfill, 35% AD, 15% incineration (HH, EQ, CC, RD) are in S1. environmental damages but landfilling without any prior
Methods: Library of Ecoinvent-3 and S3: 35% landfill, 25% AD, 25% AD, 15% treatment is the worst application.
Impact 2002+ to assess the chemical Incineration
toxicity S4: 30% landfill, 70% incineration
Cremiato et al. (2018) FU: Effect of AD, MRF and secondary fuel S1: Source separation having diversion rate Improved MRF and Anaerobic digestion with diversion Scenarios designed with high rate of diversion rate
production 50% rate up to 60% is a good option for decrease on unnecessarily considered as least environmental impacts
SW: GaBi S2: Improved base case with diversion rate up environmental burdens (AP, GWP, HTP, POCP, EP).
Methods: Environmental impact of to 60%
MSWM using LCA S3: MRF and AD with diversion rate of 50%
S4: Improved MRF and AD with diversion rate
up to 60%
Liikanen et al. (2018) FU: Mixed waste S1: Collection and transportation Based on the results it shows the lowest environmental AD of segregated waste at source would have the lowest
SW: GaBi v7.0 S2: Treatment impacts (GWP, AP, EP) environmental Impacts.
Methods: CML-2001 S3: Landfilling
S4: MBT
S5: Incineration

8
Acidification Potential- AP; Abiotic depletion- AD; Anaerobic digestion- AD; Eutrophication Potential-EP; Climate Change CC; Combined heat and power- CHP; Ecosystem Quality- EQ; Global warming potential- GWP;
Human health- HH; Human toxicity Potential- HTP; Material Recovery Facility- MRF; Ozone depletion potential- ODP; Photochemical ozone creation potential- POCP; RD-Resources depletion; Sanitary Landfill- SLF.
Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Table 6
Reaction phase for composting process.
Reaction Phase Attributes

Mesophilic Compost bacteria combine with oxygen to produce CO2 and energy. Temperature ranges from 30 °C to 40 °C.
Thermophilic Thermophilic microorganisms digest the organic matter. Temperature may rise up to 70 °C.
Cooling Phase Microorganisms which were replaced by thermophile migrate back to compost. Organic matter digestion takes place.
Maturation/Curing Temperature gradually decreases. Compost gets ready in few weeks to months.

external energy, no issues of odour and rodents during operation, and

Waste Generation
later generated methane and CO2 gases can easily store within the tank.
(100%)
Further, these gases are taken out for energy generation and digestate
slurry used as soil conditioner.

Organic Inorganic 5.3. Refuse-derived fuel (RDF)

Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) is also known as the mechanical biolo-

Refused-Derived gical treatment (MBT), most convenient method to utilize the non-
Composting Incineration
Fuel biodegradable combustible material such as plastic, paper, labels, and
(20%) (40%)
(20%) cardboard which cannot be used for recycling purpose (Sharholy et al.,
2008). It has higher calorific value thus can be used as a feedstock
Anaerobic material for waste to energy plant. In India, many metro and urban
Digestion/Biogas Landfilling cities viz., Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Indore, Rajkot are
(20%) having RDF plant which produces fluffy solid fuels and pallets that can
Fig. 5. A framework of MSW for integrated solid waste management.
be used as an alternate fuel materials in the industry. This method is
technically proven method for the MSW that reduces the environment
2.8 800
and land impacts (Sharma and Chandel, 2017). The calorific value of
Population the RDF is ranged between 8 and 14 MJ/kg, the produced energy/
2.6 Waste generation electricity can be used for district heating system, and industrial pur-
pose. Therefore, RDF is a good substitute for fossil fuel to produce en-
Waste Generation (million MT/year)

2.4
600
ergy in production of steel and kilns of cement (Govani et al., 2019). In
2.2 India, overall 36 RDF facilities are operational and many more RDF
Population (Billion)

2.0
facilities are under planning phase to generate segregated combustible
fraction (SCF) which utilizes around 10% of the total waste generation.
1.8 The government of India has made a rule for industries to utilize at least
400
1.6 5%–15% replacement fuel from the RDF. Applications of SCF/RDF are
sustainable to the environment, through the diversion the waste
1.4 amount from the landfill and reduction of GHG emissions (SWM Rules,
1.2 2016). In this context, RDF is useful, economic, and convenient tool to
200
optimize the environmental impacts.
1.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 5.4. Material recovery facility (MRF)
Year
Fig. 6. Predicted population and waste generation from 2001 to 2051 (Census, In India, waste segregation at source is not being practiced properly
2001 & 2011; CPCB annual report 2016-17). and therefore it necessitates a centralized material recovery facility to
segregate the non-biodegradable content from the mixed waste.
Table 7 Further, it can be directly sent to the authorized recyclers for material
Forecasted Population, MSW generation and required land capacity used for recovery. Poor waste management facility in India is contributing 11%
sustainability study. of the GHGs emissions (Ramachandra et al., 2018). In addition, MRF
separates and stores hazardous waste before it reaches to landfill with
Year Population Per Capita Waste Total Waste Land required
(Billion) Generation (kg/ Generation ( × 107 m3) various methods that enable to reduce landfill volume and environ-
Day) (million tonnes/ mental impacts. Informal sectors of waste management play a sig-
year) nificant role to reduce the amount of MSW through the recycling and
reusing of waste but it causes several environmental and social issues
2001 1.03 0.439 164 32.8
2011 1.21 0.498 220 44.0 (Sharma and Chandel, 2017). In this context, some organisation like
2021 1.46 0.569 303 60.6 Chintan Environmental Research & Action Group is working on MSW
2031 1.77 0.649 419 83.8 recycling project where unsorted waste from New Delhi railway station
2041 2.14 0.741 578 115.6 is collected. Further it recycled to recover potential materials from
2051 2.59 0.778 735 147.0
waste and reduces the carbon footprints (India Environment Portal,
2009). The prime focus of this project is to educate and aware people
tonnes, h is conversion efficiency (%), W2 is a constant obtained from who are associated with informal waste management sector. The rag-
(860 × 24)−1, CV is calorific value of MSW (kcal/m3). This technology pickers are getting trained for separate collection of the biodegradable
is suitable for Indian MSW where organic solid waste has high potential and non-biodegradable waste at the collection center where organic
for methane generation. Moreover, this process does not consume any waste goes for the composting or anaerobic digestion and non-biode-
gradable waste for mechanically sorted into several recyclable

9
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

6 6
Waste generation ( 10 tonnes/year) Land capacity ( 10 m3)

Controlled population condition. Segregation at source and 60% waste reduction due to composting, biogasification, RDF, MRF, Landfilling.
1600
1400 (a) Case I
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Segregation at source and, 60% waste reduction due to composting, biogasification, RDF, MRF and Landfilling.

700
600 (b) Case II
500
400
300

Waste generation + Land capacity

200
100
0
400
(c) Case III
300

200

100

0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year
Formal collection, segregation, Landfilling

Fig. 7. Different case scenario for managing MSWM with waste generation and
land capacity from 2001 to 2051 (a) case I, (b) case II, and (c) case III.

resources. This MRF facility achieved diversion amount ~21 tonnes of

waste from the 3 different landfill sites and gained profits from this
work are used for spreading awareness and providing educational fa-
cilities to the rag-pickers and their community.
Technology

6. Integrated waste management approach for sustainable India

and futuristic perspective
Treatment duration

LCA advocates that the integrated solid waste management system

not only reduces the amount of waste but also has the potential to re-
2021–2051
2021–2051
2021–2051

cover material and energy out of it. In this context, contributions of

integrated waste management approach for urban areas are important.
Different case scenarios to estimate sustainable treatment of solid waste.

Herein, waste has been divided in organic and inorganic fractions by

highlighting the different scenarios for treating the MSW as presented
Amount of MSW (Billion Tonnes/year)

in Fig. 5. It is expected that 40% organic waste get treated equally with
composting and anaerobic digestion or biogas production. Further, as
per India’s 2030 plan 20% inorganic plastic waste can be used as RDF
and rest 40% waste goes for the incineration and sanitary landfilling for
energy recovery.
This estimation would be feasible with successful implementation of
six beneficial sub scenarios in solid waste management practices for
sustainable India.
0.303–0.735
0.121–0.294
0.121–0.167

6.1. Environmental education in waste management practices

Environmental education is a preliminary approach from the gov-

Populations (Billion)

ernment to educate all the individuals of India towards reduction of

waste and utilize it as a resource. In this context, primary and secondary
education in school and colleges can make significant influence towards
1.46–2.59
1.46–2.59
1.46–1.77

sustainable waste management practices in India. Moreover, environ-

mental education not only describes the environmental issues of solid
waste but it also gives roadmap to Indian agronomy to proceed towards
Table 8

Case

sustainability whereas processed household waste (compost) can be a

III
II
I

good conditioning of the soil and nutrients in agriculture field. Further,

10
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Table 9
Addressing the societal and environmental issues of MSWM with sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Rodic and Wilson, 2017; UNSDG, 2015).
Societal and Environmental Issues Sustainable Development goal (SDG)

1. Discrimination between residential area and landfill site difficult due to increasing population 1. SDG3: Good health and well-being for people
2. Improper management of municipal waste 2. SDG6: Clean Water and Sanitation
3. Dumping and open burning of waste 3. SDG7: Decent Work and Economic growth
4. Use of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for the waste management 4. SDG9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
5. SDG11: Sustainable cities and communities
6. SDG12: Responsible consumption and production
7. SDG13: Climate Action
8. SDG14: Life below water
9. SDG15: Life on Land
10. SDG17: Partnership for the goals

huge amount of waste is generated from agricultural field can be uti- 6.5. Incineration
lized in waste to energy plant of India. Thus, educating individuals
towards environment may also open the employment opportunity in Incineration technology is an easiest method to deal with solid
India. waste in presence of air at 850 °C temperature. However, in this process
carbon dioxide is emitted in the atmosphere and non-combustible ma-
6.2. Governmental policies and initiatives in MSWM terials i.e., ash is produced. Various types of incinerators such as
moving grate, fixed grate, rotary-kiln, and fluidized bed are developed
Government of India has made waste management rules and po- to deal with solid waste. However, incineration technology is not much
licies to promote the safe management of MSW and protect the public recommended by Indian municipal solid waste due to high moisture
health. In this context, government of India started clean India Mission content (40%–60%) and low calorific value (800–1100 kcal/kg) in
in 2014 under MSWM rule (2000). In line with this rule, waste to MSW. It is reported that an incinerator installed at Timarpur, Delhi
wealth policies was made where waste generator will take responsi- capable of generating 3.75 MW power from 300 TPD MSW could not
bility to segregate their waste in biodegradable and non-biodegradable operate successfully due to low net calorific value of MSW. Hence, the
categories. Further, MSW treatment guidelines under SWM rules (2016) plant is lying idle and the investment is wasted.
states all the organic waste either be used in composting or anaerobic
digestion to generate energy. On the other hand, non-recyclable waste
with 1500 K/cal/kg should not dispose to landfill rather it should use in 6.6. Sanitary landfilling
energy generation. It is also being recommended that high calorific
value waste should go for co-processing in thermal power plant or ce- Landfilling is final waste disposal method with different liners and
ment industries. Consequently, government has also made regulations has earth cover on top of it. It is the most common and economical
for assessing environmental parameters before establishing waste to disposal method in developing countries. A landfill is a facility which is
energy plant. Therefore, few technologies are shown in Fig. 5 to treat designed for the safe disposal of solid wastes. The bottom liners and a
the MSW as mentioned in the following sections. top cover of the landfill are considered as the most critical components
that prevent leachate penetration into the soil. It also produces landfill
gases (LFGs) i.e. CH4 which may cause global pollution and leachate
6.3. Composting techniques in ISWM system which can harm human and natural systems. Landfill gases, LFGs pro-
duced when methanogens decompose complex molecules, are primarily
India has huge potential to utilize organic solid waste. In this con- methane and carbon dioxide (up to 90%), but also include CO, N2, al-
text, government of India has emphasized that all organic waste should cohols, hydrocarbons, organosulfur compounds, and heavy metals.
be processed for making compost. The ministry of chemical and ferti- Leachate can cause surface water and ground water pollution. These
lizers of India has made a policy to ‘make compost, use compost’. Till gases have been treated and further utilized for energy production. The
date 5% of organic waste is being used in making of compost however, bioreactor landfill is one of the emerging technologies introduced by
for sustainable waste management system it is recommended that 20% several cities of India. It utilizes the LFGs for electricity production. The
of organic waste should be utilized to make compost as shown in Fig. 5. Kanjurmarg landfill in Mumbai, India has introduced bioreactor first
In addition, to implement composting process in Indian scenario, seg- time in India which has 1.9 MW of electricity generation. This tech-
regation of solid waste is utmost important. In India, Bangalore and nology can save the global warming issues of world and also minimize
Indore methods are commonly being used to make compost. Further, electricity consumption of waste disposal plant.
based on color of compost i.e. dark black or dark brown its function is Henceforth, based on above discussion, a hypothetical sustainability
being decided which would be used for soil conditioning or as soil model is proposed for three different case scenarios where population,
nutrients. Hence, it is more feasible and fastest method for decom- amount of generated MSW and land requirement are considered utmost
position of solid waste in aerobic condition. important parameters for sustainable management of waste. Amongst
three case scenarios, Case-I belongs to the actual scenario which is
6.4. Anaerobic digestion for producing energy being observed at present time. Case-II represents the controlled and
well-managed waste management system and land required in ac-
Remaining 20% of organic solid waste is proposed for anaerobic cordance to achieve the sustainable development goals for 2030.
degradation, refer Fig. 5. In this method, organic fraction containing Though, Case-III is the most ideal condition where controlled popula-
municipal solid waste, sewage sludge, agriculture waste are used and tion and controlled waste generation and management system is hy-
further biogas is produced which is clean and renewable energy source. pothesized.
The produced biogas (CH4:CO2) ranges from 0.28 m3 to 2.38 m3. On the Notably, 2001 is considered as the base year in this study per day
other hand, obtained digested sludge can be used as fertilizer in Indian waste generation is 0.45 million tonnes. The population data has been
agronomy. Therefore, Indian solid waste is considered as one of the taken from the census report of India (Census, 2001 & 2011) and fur-
potential source of renewable energy (biogas). ther geometric mean method is employed to forecast the population

11
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

until year 2051. With increasing population and changes in the living 7. Concluding remarks
standard of people, the rate of waste generation is estimated to be in-
creased by ~5% on yearly basis (CPCB, 2016-17). Thus, the waste The present review highlights the significance of LCA in Indian
generation will get increased from 164 million tonnes/year to 735 MSWM system which provides different scenarios such as composting,
million tonnes/year within the year 2001–2051, respectively as shown anaerobic digestion, incinerations, landfilling. These methods are not
in Fig. 6. Owing to this, requirement of landfill space would be in- only minimizing environmental issues but have enough potential to
creasing to dispose the MSW and it may exceed the carrying capacity of maximize the economic and technical aspects of waste. It is acclaimed
land which leads to sustainability issues as shown in Table 7. Therefore, that segregation of waste, combining with electricity and biogas re-
it is utmost important to estimate the future requirement of land area covery would be the best option for MSWM. Whereas, LCA should be
that has been calculated by following the MSW guidelines (2000) where prerequisite in MSWM to fulfill the purpose of solid waste management
density of compacted MSW is kept 500 kg/m3 and height of landfill is practices and achieve the environmental targets in minimizing the as-
assumed 30 m. Different case scenarios of sustainable waste manage- sociated impacts. Moreover, WtE practices avoid the potential materials
ment from 2021 to 2051 is presented in Table 8, which states that as loss from MSW that increases the environmental and economic impacts.
population is increasing waste generation rate would be more. There- However, incentives and training to formal and informal sectors are
fore, it is highly recommended to minimize the growth of population highly needed to do segregation at source that minimizes the losses of
and waste generation. The case I shows population is tremendously energy and material. Based on this observation, it is concluded that LCA
increasing from year 2001–2051 that maximize the waste generation and WtE practices are key factors of ISWM which helps to bring en-
and necessitate large land volume from 32.8 × 107 m3 to 147 × 107 m3 vironment and economic sustainability. In this context, case scenario II
as shown in Fig. 7a. Case II is anticipated with 60% waste reduction of and III shows minimization of MSW from 60 to 80% which would re-
the total waste generation and further land requirement is calculated duce required land capacity for MSW from 335.2 million m3 to 167.6
accordingly. Reduction of waste amount can be diverted through best million m3 till year 2031. It can help in minimizing adverse impacts
waste management scenarios as mentioned in section 5. Based on the associated with MSW and fulfill the goals of sustainable development
Indian MSW composition, the biodegradable to non-degradable waste introduced by United Nations.
ratio is kept 60:40. In this case, 100% waste is assumed to be generated
every day where 20% of which directed for composting, 20% for biogas Acknowledgments
production through anaerobic digestion, 20% will be utilized for the
RDF and MRF, and rest 40% waste would have landfilling options. In Authors are thankful to their present organisation for continuous
this view, the quantity of waste to go for landfilling will be reduced; support. Moreover, it is declare that this research work did not receive
therefore, the resultant land requirement will be reduced as shown in any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
Fig. 7b. Case III is taken for the most ideal condition, where population not-for-profit sectors.
is controlled and as per Indian waste composition 80% of MSW can be
maximum recycled. Considering that population is balanced up to 1.77 References
billion with available natural resources after 2025 and the waste
treatment is done effectively to reduce the amount of MSW. Thus, re- Ahsan, N., 1999. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian J. Environ.
ducing the land requirement for waste disposal as presented in Fig. 7c. Prot. 19 (2), 90–95.
Aniekan, I., Ikechukwu, O., 2016. Review of municipal solid waste management tech-
These are proposed hypothetical scenario which entails the population nologies and its practices in China and Germany. Int. J. Technol. Enhancements
must be maintained based on carrying capacity of land where waste Emerging Eng. Res. 4 (5), 1–7.
should be utilized as a resource and it may lead to zero landfilling. Arafat, H.A., Jijakli, K., Ahsan, A., 2014. Environmental performance and energy re-
covery potential of five processes for municipal solid waste treatment. J. Clean. Prod.
The potential tapping of WtE program by utilizing the source of 105, 233–240.
MSW can be one of the leading pathways to achieve the 10 GW bio Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L., Perugini, F., 2003. The environmental performance of al-
energy productions by 2022. Therefore, the applicability of LCA seems ternative solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. J. Chem.
Eng. 96, 207–222.
to be a good tool for the prior estimation of environmental and eco- Babu, G.L.S., Lakshmikanthan, P., Santhosh, L.G., 2014. Life cycle analysis of municipal
nomic costs (Gentil et al., 2010). It is estimated that segregation of solid waste (MSW) land disposal options in Bangalore city. International conference
waste by combining with production of biogas and electricity would be on sustainable infrastructure. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784478745.
075.
the best preferable options for MSW. In this context, composting, bio-
Bohacz, J., 2018. Microbial strategies and biochemical activity during lignocellulosic
methanation, MRF, RDF and sanitary landfilling options are preferable waste composting in relation to the occurring biothermal phases. J. Environ. Manag.
for Indian MSW and it may decrease the environmental damages. It is 206, 1052–1062.
estimated that 1 tonne of organic waste can generate 20–80 m3 of Botello-Alvareza, J.E., Rivas-Garciab, P., Fausto-Castro, L., Estrada-Baltazar, A., Gomez-
Gonzalez, R., 2018. Informal collection, recycling and export of valuable waste as
biogas and 474 kWh of energy. Therefore, aforementioned techniques transcendent factor in the municipal solid waste management: a Latin-American
should be employed after determining its associated environmental, reality. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 485–495.
social and economic impact. The LCA and LCIA can help in addressing Bueno, G., Latasa, I., Lozano, P.J., 2015. Comparative LCA of two approaches with dif-
ferent emphasis on energy or material recovery for a municipal solid waste man-
the environmental and social issues of MSWM and can bring sustain- agement system in Gipuzkoa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 449–459.
ability in nation by following the goals of United Nations sustainable Census, 2001. http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Newsletters/
development (Rodic and Wilson, 2017). It includes various societal and Newsletter_Links/eci_3.htm, Accessed date: 4 March 2019.
Census, 2011. http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/CensusData2011.html, Accessed
environmental issues such as sanitation, public health, climate change, date: 4 March 2019.
global warming issues, and life on land and below the water (UNSDG, Cetinkaya, A.Y., Bilgili, L., Levent Kuzu, S., 2018. Life cycle assessment and greenhouse
2015). Out of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) 10 goals are gas emission evaluation from Aksaray solid waste disposal facility. Air Quality,
Atmosphere and Health 11 (5), 549–558.
directly or indirectly identified from MSW as shown in Table 9 and can Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste man-
be minimized by adopting LCA as a broader spectrum in integrated agement strategies: landfilling, sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34–12,
MSWM. Henceforth, it is recommended that there should be pre- 2116–2123.
Cickova, H., Newton, G.L., Lacy, R.C., Kozanek, M., 2015. The use of fly larvae for organic
requisite to determine LCA primary data for MSWM in India. Further,
waste treatment. Waste Manag. 35, 68–80.
MSWM projections can be made based on case scenarios II and III which Cleary, J., 2009. Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: a
infers the waste utilizations effectively for sustainable development. comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ. Int. 35–8,
1256–1266.
CPCB Annual Report, 2016. http://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/hwmd/MSW_AnnualReport_
2016-17.pdf, Accessed date: 19 January 2019 17.

12
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Cremiato, R., Mastellone, M.L., Tagliaferri, C., Zaccariello, L., Lettieri, P., 2018. Liikanen, M., Havukainen, J., Viana, E., Horttanainena, M., 2018. Steps towards more
Environmental impact of municipal solid waste management using Life Cycle environmentally sustainable municipal solid waste management – a life cycle as-
Assessment: the effect of anaerobic digestion, material recovery and secondary fuels sessment study of Sao Paulo, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 150–162.
production. Renew. Energy 124, 180–188. Ma, J., Lei, Y., Rehman, K., Yu, Z., Zhang, J., Li, W., Li, Q., Tomberlin, J.K., Zheng, L.,
Dobraja, K., Barisa, A., Rosa, M., 2016. Cost-benefit analysis of integrated approach of 2018. Dynamic effects of initial pH of substrate on biological growth and metamor-
waste and energy management. Energy Proced 95, 104–111. phosis of black soldier fly (Diptera: stratiomyidae). Environ. Entomol. 47, 159–165.
EAI, 2019. http://www.eai.in/ref/ae/wte/typ/clas/msw.html, Accessed date: 26 January Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczynska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P.,
2019. Thorne, R.J., Colon, J., Ponsa, S., Al-Mansour, F., Anguilano, L.,R., Krzyzynska, R.,
EAI Report, Ministry of new and renewable energy. http://www.eai.in/ref/ae/wte/ Lopez, I.C., Vlasopoulos, A., Spencer, N., 2017. Municipal solid waste management
concepts.html, Accessed date: 7 April 2019. and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy recycling in
Elwan, A.,Z., Arief, Y., Adzis, Z., Izzwan Saad, M.H., 2013. The viability of generating Europe. Energy 141, 2013–2044.
electricity by harnessing household garbage solid waste using Life Cycle Assessment. Marshal, E., 1995. Analytical Study to Evaluate Associations between Dumpsites and
Procedia Technol 11, 134–140. Birth Effects. ATSDR CO.LTD, Atlanta.
Evangelisti, S., Tagliaferri, C., Clift, R., Lettieri, P., Taylor, R., Chapman, C., 2015. Life Ministry of new & renewable energy (MNRE), 2018. Annual report. https://mnre.gov.in/
cycle assessment of conventional and two-stage advanced energy from-waste tech- file-manager/annual-report/2017-2018/EN/index.html, Accessed date: 4 March
nologies for municipal solid waste treatment. J. Clean. Prod. 100, 212–223. 2019.
Fan, Y.V., Lee, C.T., Klemes, J.J., Chua, L.S., Sarmidi, M.R., Leow, C.W., 2018. Evaluation Mittal, S., Pathak, M., Shukla, P.R., Ahlgren, E., 2017. GHG mitigation & sustainability co-
of Effective Microorganisms on home scale organic waste composting. J. Environ. benefits of urban solid waste management strategies: a case study of Ahmedabad,
Manag. 216, 41–48. India. Chem. Eng. Transct. 56, 457–462.
Fernandez-Gonzalez, J.M., Grindlay, A.L., Serrano-Bernardo, F., Rodriguez-Rojas, M.I., Mohanty, C.R., Mishra, U., Beuria, P.R., 2014. Municipal solid waste management in
Zamorano, M., 2017. Economic and environmental review of Waste-to-Energy sys- Bhubaneswar, India — a review. Int. J. Latest Trends Eng. Technol. 3 (3), 303–312.
tems for municipal solid waste management in medium and small municipalities. Municipal Solid Wastes Management (MSWM) Rules, 2000. (Accessed 04 March 2019).
Waste Manag. 67, 360–374. http://www.moef.nic.in/legis/hsm/mswmhr.html.
Fernandez-Nava, Y., Rio, J.D., Rodriguez-Iglesias, J., Castrillon, L., Maranon, E., 2014. Nabavi-Pelesaraei, A., Bayat, R., Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha, H., Afrasyabi, H., Chau, K.,
Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different municipal solid waste management options: a 2017. Modeling of energy consumption and environmental life cycle assessment for
case study of asturias (Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 81, 178–189. incineration and landfill systems of municipal solid waste management - a case study
Gentil, E.C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., Eriksson, O., Thorneloe, S., in Tehran Metropolis of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 427–440.
Kaplan, P.O., Barlaz, M., Muller, O., Matsui, Y., Ii, R., Christensen, T.H., 2010. Models Olaniyan, O.S., Ojoawo, S.O., Olaoye, R.A., Akolade, A.S., Olawoore, B.K., Oyediran, E.R.,
for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manag. 30, 2015. Modelling the environmental impacts of landfilling and incineration waste
2636–2648. management scenarios with GaBi6 tool. Internat. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 4 (7),
Ghinea, C., Petraru, M., Simion, I.M., Sobariu, D., Bressers, H.T.A., Gavrilescu, M., 2014. 259–266.
Life cycle assessment of waste management and recycled paper systems. J. Environ. Parkes, O., Lettieri, Bogle, P., David, L.I., 2015. Life cycle assessment of integrated waste
Eng. Manag. 13 (8), 2073–2085. management systems for alternative legacy scenarios of the London Olympic Park.
Ghosh, S.K., 2016. Swachhaa bharat mission (SBM) – a Paradigm shift in waste man- Waste Manag. 40, 157–166.
agement and cleanliness in India. Procedia Environm. Sci. 35, 15–27. Pathak, P., Srivastava, R.R., Ojasvi, 2017. Assessment of legislation and practices for the
Gouveia, N., do Prado, R.R., 2009. Health risks in areas close to urban solid waste landfill sustainable management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India.
sites. Rev. Saude Publica 44 (5), 1–8. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 220–232.
Govani, J., Patel, H.T., Chabhadiya, K., Jadeja, U., Pathak, P., 2019. Transformation of Patil, B.S., Agnes, A.C., Singh, D.N., 2017. Simulation of municipal solid waste de-
Industrial Waste into Alternate Resource: A Critical Review. National Environmental gradation in aerobic and anaerobic bioreactor landfills. Waste Manag. Res. 35 (3),
Conference (NEC-2019), IIT Bombay, India. 301–312.
Gradus, R.H.J.M., Nillesen, P.H.L., Dijkgraaf, E., van Koppen, R.J., 2017. A cost-effec- Rajamanikam, R., Poyyamoli, G., Kumar, S., Lekshmi, R., 2014. The role of non-gov-
tiveness analysis for incineration or recycling of Dutch household plastic waste. Ecol. ernmental organizations in residential solid waste management: a case study of
Econ. 135, 22–28. Puducherry, a coastal city of India. Waste Manag. Res. 32 (9), 867–881.
Gupta, N., Yadav, K.K., Kumar, V., 2015. A review on current status of municipal solid Ramachandra, T.V., Bharath, H.A., Kulkarni, G., Han, S.S., 2018. Municipal solid waste:
waste management in India. J. Environ. Res. 37, 206–217. generation, composition and GHG emissions in Bangalore, India. Renew. Sustain.
Havukainen, J., Zhan, M., Dong, J., Liikanen, M., Deviatkin, I., Li, X., Horttanainen, M., Energy Rev. 82, 1122–1136.
2017. Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid waste management in- Ramachandra, T.V., Shwetmala, Thomas, D.M., 2014. Carbon footprint of solid waste
corporating mechanical treatment of waste and incineration in Hangzhou. China. J. sector in greater Bangalore. Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial
Clean. Prod. 141, 453–461. Sectors 1, 265–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-41-2_11.
India Environment Portal, 2009. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/ Rana, R., Ganguly, R., Gupta, A.K., 2019. Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid-waste
CoolingAgents-09.pdf, Accessed date: 3 March 2019. management strategies in Tricity region of India. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 21
Indian Environmental Portal, 2018. Generation of Solid Waste. http://www. (3), 606–623.
indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/GENERATION%20OF%20SOLID Rathore, P., Sarmah, S.P., Singh, A., 2019. Location–allocation of bins in urban solid
%20WASTE.pdf, Accessed date: 19 January 2019. waste management: a case study of Bilaspur city, India. https://doi.org/10.1007/
ISO 14040- 1997 Life cycle assessment-principle and guidelines. https://web.stanford. s10668-019-00347-y.
edu/class/cee214/Readings/ISOLCA.pdf, Accessed date: 19 January 2019. Reza, B., Soltani, A., Ruparathna, R., Sadiq, R., Hewage, K., 2013. Environmental and
ISO 14040- 2006 Life cycle assessment-principle and guidelines. https://web.stanford. economic aspects of production and utilization of RDF as alternative fuel in cement
edu/class/cee214/Readings/ISOLCA.pdf, Accessed date: 19 January 2019. plants: a case study of Metro Vancouver Waste Management. Resour. Conserv.
Jayakrishnan, T., Jeeja, M.C., Bhaskar, R., 2013. Occupational health problems of mu- Recycl. 81, 105–114.
nicipal solid waste management workers in India. Int. J. Environ. Health Eng. 2 (42), Rigamonti, L., Sterpi, I., Grosso, M., 2016. Integrated municipal waste management
1–6 2013. systems: an indicator to assess their environmental and economic sustainability. Ecol.
Jeswani, H.K., Azapagic, A., 2016. Assessing the environmental sustainability of energy Indicat. 60, 1–7.
recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK. Waste Manag. 50, 346–363. Rodic, L., Wilson, D., 2017. Resolving governance issues to achieve Priority sustainable
Joshi, R., Ahmed, S., 2016. Status and challenges of municipal solid waste management in development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries.
India: a review. J. Cogent Environm. Sci. 2, 1–18. Sustainability 9 (3), 404–408.
Kalyani, K.A., Pandey, K.K., 2014. Waste to energy status in India: a short review. Renew. Saini, S., Rao, P., Patil, Y., 2012. City based analysis of MSW to energy generation in
Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 113–120 2014. India, calculation of state-wise potential and tariff comparison with EU. Procedia
Kandasamy, S.P., Akolkar, A.B., Manoharan, A., Paranji, S., 2013. Municipal solid waste Social Behavior Sci 37, 407–416.
management at Chennai in southern India - an occupational health perspective. Int. J. Salemdeeb, R., Ermgassen, E.K.H.J., Kim, M.H., Balmford, A., Al-Tabbaa, A., 2017.
Health Promot. Educ. 51 (1), 50–61. Environmental and health impacts of using food waste as animal feed: a comparative
Koroneos, C.J., Nanaki, E.A., 2012. Integrated solid waste management and energy analysis of food waste management options. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 871–880.
production - a life cycle assessment approach: the case study of the city of Sanchez, V.M., Kromann, M.A., Astrup, T.F., 2015. Life cycle costing of waste manage-
Thessaloniki. J. Clean. Prod. 27, 141–150. ment systems: overview, calculation principles and case studies. Waste Manag. 36,
Kulczycka, J., Lelek, L., Lewandowska, A., Zarebska, J., 2015. Life cycle assessment of 343–355.
municipal solid waste management – comparison of results using different LCA Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2008. Municipal solid waste
models. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 24, 125–140. management in Indian cities – a review. Waste Manag. 28, 459–467.
Kumar, S., Negi, S., Mandpe, A., Singh, R.V., Hussain, A., 2018. Rapid composting Sharma, B.K., Chandel, M.K., 2017. Life cycle assessment of potential municipal solid
techniques in Indian context and utilization of black soldier fly for enhanced de- waste management strategies for Mumbai, India. Waste Manag. Res. 35 (1), 79–91.
composition of biodegradable wastes - a comprehensive review. J. Environ. Manag. Singh, A., Basak, P., 2018. Economic and environmental evaluation of municipal solid
227, 189–199. waste management system using industrial ecology approach. Evidence from India
Kumar, S., Smith, S.R., Fowler, G., Velis, C., Kumar, S.J., Arya, S., Cheeseman, C., 2017. 195, 10–20.
Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. Royal Soc. Singh, R.S., Francis, E.R.C., 2017. Case study and comparison of data for solid waste
Open Sci. 4 (3), 160–764. management in Allahabad, Varanasi and Kanpur district in U.P (India). Internat. J.
Lam, C.M., Yu, I.K.M., Medel, F., Tsang, D.C.W., Hsu, S.C., Poon, C.S., 2018. Life-cycle Mech. Eng. Technol. 8 (7), 1060–1067.
cost-benefit analysis on sustainable food waste management: the case of Hong Kong Singh, L., Sunderesan, R., Sarin, R., 2014. Waste to energy generation from municipal
International Airport. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 751–762. solid waste in India. Internat. J. Chemtech Res. 6 (2), 1228–1232.

13
Y. Pujara, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 248 (2019) 109238

Solid Waste Management, 2018. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ Waste to Energy, 2016. World energy council. https://www.worldenergy.org/wpcontent/
urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management, Accessed date: 5 January 2019. uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_Energy_2016.pdf, Accessed date: 19
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. http://www.moef.gov.in/sites/default/files/SWM January 2019.
%202016.pdf, Accessed date: 4 March 2019. Winkler, J., Bilitewski, B., 2007. Comparative evaluation of life cycle assessment models
Swachh Survekshan, 2019. Analytics. http://swachh.city/analytics, Accessed date: 31 for solid waste management. Waste Manag. 27, 1021–1031.
December 2018. World Bank, 2005. Waste management in China: issues and recommendations, east asia
Taweesan, A., Koottatep, T., Polprasert, C., 2016. Effective measures for municipal solid infrastructure development. , Accessed date: 25 January 2019. http://www.
waste management for cities in some asian countries. Expo Health 9 (2), 125–133. sciencedirect.com/science/_ob=RedirectURL&_method=externalObjLink&
Thomsen, M., Seghetta, M., Mikkelsen, M.H., Gyldenkærne, S., Becker, T., Caro, D., _locator=url&_issn=092B&_targetURL=. http://go.worldbank.org/
Frederiksen, P., 2017. Comparative life cycle assessment of biowaste to resource F2HOVM07ZGO.
management systems – a Danish case study. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 4050–4058. Yadav, P., Samadder, S.R., 2017. Environmental impact assessment of municipal solid
Tomberlin, J.K., Adler, P.H., Myers, H.M., 2009. Development of the black soldier fly waste management options using life cycle assessment: a case study. Environ. Sci.
(Diptera: stratiomyidae) in relation to temperature: table 1. Environ. Entomol. 38, Pollut. Res. 25 (1), 838–854.
930–934. Yadav, P., Samadder, S.R., 2018. A critical review of the life cycle assessment studies on
Tyagi, V.K., Fdez-Guelfoc, L.A., Zhou, Y., Alvarez-Gallego, C.J., Romero Garcia, L.I., Ng, solid waste management in asian countries. J. Clean. Prod. 185, 492–515.
W.J., 2018. Anaerobic co-digestion of organic fraction of municipal solid waste Yap, H.Y., Nixon, J.D., 2015. A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from
(OFMSW): Progress and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 380–399. municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Manag. 46, 265–277.
UNSDG, 2015. United nations sustainable development goal. https:// Zhou, C., Gong, Z., Hu, J., Cao, A., Liang, H., 2015. A cost-benefit analysis of landfill
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300, Accessed date: 19 January 2019. mining and material recycling in China. J. Waste Managem. 35, 191–198.
Wang, H., Wang, L., Shahbazi, A., 2015. Life cycle assessment of fast pyrolysis of muni- Planning commission annual report, 2013-14. http://planningcommission.gov.in/
cipal solid waste in North Carolina of USA. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 511–519. reports/genrep/ann_e13_14.pdf, Accessed date: 4 March 2019.

14