




































Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 8(1): 55-76, January 2025 

RESEARCH PAPER 
 

Scenario of Solid Waste Management in Indian Cities: 
A Study of Pune, Visakhapatnam, and Tirupati 
 

Poulomee Arun Ghosh, Eshwar Reddy Bobba, Sai Sanjay Dodda , 

Vamsi Krishna Jasti, Sarvan Meka, Hasitha Reddy Vanga 
 
Abstract: The quantum of solid waste generated by the world is growing with 
increasing development and changing lifestyles, making waste management a 
daunting challenge. The Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, of India, along with 
initiatives by the Smart City Mission and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, are pivotal in 
encouraging sustainable waste management. This paper establishes progress, gaps, 
and ground realities in solid waste management (SWM) in three of the best-
performing cities in India. The paper first documents trends and practices in SWM 
in the three cities and then cross-checks the ground scenario through a primary 
survey of 322 citizens. The results show that all three cities have experienced 
improvements in SWM following government initiatives. Segregation of waste is 
the dominant protocol, and all three cities show a positive trend. The 
decentralization of wet waste treatment and sorting processes has facilitated 
material recovery. Centralized facilities, such as the waste-to-energy plant in 
Vishakhapatnam, the compressed biogas plant in Pune, and the biomethanation 
plant in Tirupati, are adding economic value to the system. Effective segregation 
and recovery have enabled scientific disposal, and advances have been made in the 
redemption of former dumpsites, with complete success in Tirupati. 
 

                                                      
 Assistant Professor, School of Real Estate and Facilities Management, NICMAR 

University, Pune, India 411045; poulomee16@gmail.com  

 Postgraduate Student, Advanced Construction Management (ACM), NICMAR; 
eshwarbobba07@gmail.com  

 Postgraduate Student, ACM, NICMAR; saisanjay.dodda@gmail.com  

 Postgraduate Student, ACM, NICMAR; vamsijasthi30@gmail.com  

 Postgraduate Student, ACM, NICMAR; mekasarvan@gmail.com  

 Postgraduate Student, ACM, NICMAR; hasithareddyv@gmail.com  

Copyright © Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 2025. Released under Creative 
Commons Attribution © NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the 
authors.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1119  

mailto:poulomee16@gmail.com
mailto:eshwarbobba07@gmail.com
mailto:saisanjay.dodda@gmail.com
mailto:vamsijasthi30@gmail.com
mailto:mekasarvan@gmail.com
mailto:hasithareddyv@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v8i1.1119


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [56] 

Keywords: Municipal Solid Waste Management; Service Level Progress; Swachh 
Survekshan; Waste Segregation and Collection; Waste Recovery and Disposal; User 
Charges 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Every year, the world generates two billion tonnes of municipal solid 
waste—a figure set to increase with the growing population, economic 
development, and the increased consumption of products (The World Bank 
2022). Given its large population, India is one of the largest waste 
generators in the world. According to the Central Pollution Control Board’s 
reply to a Right to Information request in 2020, India produces around 1.5 
lakh tons of waste per day (2020). Although India’s per capita waste 
generation is far less than that of developed nations, the cumulative amount 
is considerable and growing fast. However, the pressing concern regarding 
municipal solid waste in India is the lack of waste segregation and the 
consequent inability to scientifically treat, recover, and dispose of waste 
(Kumar and Agrawal 2020; Kumar et al. 2017). 

Unlike rural areas, cities pose a challenge to decentralized waste treatment at 
source due to the concentration of economic activities, population density, 
and urban lifestyles. In cities, the burden of waste management falls on 
urban local bodies (ULBs). In India, municipal solid waste management 
(SWM) is a mandatory function of the city’s municipality or municipal 
corporation under the 74th Constitution Amendment Act, 1992. However, 
due to a lack of streamlined procedures, capacity, financial mechanisms, and 
citizen participation, many SWM systems adopted by ULBs may be 
inefficient (Singh 2020). The Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000, and the 
Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016, were enacted to guide ULBs 
through the process of adopting standards and techniques. They state the 
roles and duties of various allied authorities and stakeholders, including the 
different consumer classes (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate 
Change 2016), as well as establish a structure for the SWM logistical chain. 

The existing literature has highlighted the need for regular monitoring and 
data collection to make sound decisions and take action (Goel 2008). The 
Swatch Bharat Mission 1 (2016) and 2 (2021) aim for scientific SWM, which 
is a step forward in complying with the requirements of the SWM Rules, 
2016. The Swachh Survekshan (“survey”) collects SWM information from 
ULBs, field observation, and citizens’ experiences and ranks ULBs on their 
performance. This ranking promotes city competitiveness and emphasizes 
data-based management. Each year, the Swachh Survekshan has a unique 
agenda against which progress is measured using an extensive set of 
indicators. In contrast, the Service Level Benchmarking (SLB) initiative of 



[57] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

2010 is an urban governance reform that mandates that ULBs report data 
regarding urban services such as SWM under fixed, measurable, and 
comparable parameters (Ministry of Urban Development 2010). The 
achievements reported in the SLBs had served as the basis for sanctioning 
funds and tracking progress. While the SLBs served as a comprehensive 
means of assessing the performance of ULBs and identifying gaps in service 
delivery, reporting under Swachh Survekshan is elaborate and agenda-
specific. Since the onset of Swachh Survekshan, reporting and data 
collection under the SLB initiative have been phased out, and instead, 
similar indicators are captured under the Service-Level Progress (SLP) 
reported by the ULBs in the Swachh Survekshan. As the indicators are the 
same, the performance of cities can be tracked since the SLB initiative was 
launched.  

Despite efforts to improve SWM in Indian cities, municipal corporations 
face many challenges. Data from the Swachh Survekshan reveal stark 
variations in cities’ performance across various parameters. For instance, 
Pune demonstrates excellent waste collection practices yet struggles with 
scientific disposal (NITI Aayog 2021). Cities continue to face challenges in 
several aspects of SWM, which calls for an assessment of on-ground 
realities and gaps in following SWM processes. 

While several works of literature point out the challenges pertaining to 
SWM in Indian cities (Naveen and Sivapullaiah 2020; Kumar et al. 2017; 
Joshi and Ahmed 2016), there has been insufficient research on the 
reported benchmarks and the reasons for various successes and challenges. 
The primary objective of this study is to discover ground realities and the 
reasons underlying cities’ reported SWM performances, including best 
practices, challenges, and compliance. By examining the status of SWM in 
three cities—Pune, Tirupati, and Visakhapatnam—this paper first briefly 
reports on the SWM practices followed and the reasons for improvement in 
recent years. Thereafter, through a citizen survey, it gauges the accuracy of 
SLB and SLP reporting to cross-check and identify critical issues.  

These three cities were selected based on their SWM practices, locational 
importance, uniqueness, availability of documentation, and ease of 
conducting the survey. All three cities have some of the best SWM practices 
and ranked among the top 20 cities in the Swachh Survekshan in 2020 and 
2021 (IITTM.ORG 2021). In 2022, in the above 10 lakh population 
category, Visakhapatnam was ranked fourth, and Pune was ranked ninth. In 
the below 10 lakh population category, Tirupati was ranked first (Singh 
2023). Further, all three cities are a part of the Smart City Mission. This 
study also tracks the effects of the mission on SWM services in 2022. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [58] 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

The processes associated with SWM, the provisions of the SWM Rules, 
2016, and the challenges in meeting the requirements of the SWM Rules, 
2016, need to be understood in order to compare and interpret the realities 
of SWM practices. This section elaborates on the same. 

2.1 SWM Process 

Solid waste refers to the “unwanted solid materials generated from human 
activities in residential, industrial or commercial areas commonly known as 
trash or garbage” (Awasthi, Chataut, and Khatri, 2023). Municipal solid 
waste is the solid waste generated within the jurisdiction of municipal 
authorities/ULBs, and it is to be collected, treated, and disposed of by the 
respective ULB (Stafford 2020). The municipal solid waste (MSW) 
management process is typically broken down into several steps as shown 
in Figure 1. 

Figure 1: Functional Process of Municipal Solid Waste Management  

 

Source: Author’s compilation based on NITI Aayog (2021). 

MSW is categorized into organic waste (biodegradable, commonly known 
as wet waste), recyclables (dry waste), inerts, sanitary and medical waste, 
construction waste, and hazardous waste (Miezah et al. 2015). The source of 
waste generation—such as households, commercial establishments, 
industries, or construction sites—determines the type and quantum of 
waste. Instead of a waste collection and disposal process, the integrated 
solid waste management concept suggests a sustainable waste reduction and 
reuse approach at every stage (Cobo et al. 2018). It emphasizes a conscious 
effort to generate less waste by promoting the following (Central Public 
Health and Environment Engineering Organisation 2016): 



[59] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

 reuse at source 

 waste segregation 

 use of organic waste in biogas plants or to generate compost 

 collection of segregated waste for efficient recovery 

 a focus on door-to-door collection rather than secondary bins 

 recycle and reuse of waste 

 incineration and waste-to-energy conversion of non-recyclable 
waste 

 reduction of landfill demand. 
This process deviates from the traditional unsustainable approach of 
collecting waste through secondary bins, transportation, and dumping. 

2.2 SWM Rules, 2016, and Service-level Reporting 

The SWM Rules, 2016, adopt an integrated SWM approach. This mandates 
waste segregation by various categories of generators and requires ULBs to 
perform door-to-door collection and treatment of segregated waste. 
Further, it is suggested that informal waste pickers, who recover reusable 
waste for a living, be roped into the formal waste management system as 
waste collectors. The rules also empower ULBs to charge waste generators, 
collect fines, generate revenue, and cover the service cost through these 
charges (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 2016). The 
rules thus make waste generators responsible for waste management 
through charges and fees. Efforts towards making SWM financially 
sustainable through user charges are one of the fundamental policy reforms 
of the SWM Rules, 2016. 

India’s SLB initiative includes the urban services of SWM, water supply 
provision, and wastewater disposal. It is being expanded to include other 
sectors. The initiative requires ULBs to systematically and continuously 
measure, monitor, and report service levels. Performance parameters, 
procedures, and units of measurement are predetermined and comparable 
for uniformity in reporting across cities. The performance indicators for 
SWM include household coverage, efficiency of collection, extent of 
segregation, waste recovery and scientific disposal, collection of SWM 
charges, cost recovery, and complaints redressal (Ministry of Urban 
Development 2011). However, the enumeration of data per the SLB 
initiative has progressively become scant since the introduction of Swachh 
Survekshan.  

The Swachh Survekshan ranking comprises three components: SLP (based 
on data provided by ULBs), certification (based on Garbage Free Cities 
rating, Open Defecation-Free rating, and so on) and citizen voice (based on 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [60] 

feedback, citizen engagement, and so on). The SLP indicators reported for 
2023 were grouped into three criteria—segregated collection (7 indicators), 
processing and disposal (13 indicators), and sustainable sanitation (8 
indicators) (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2023a). These SLP 
categories include all the SLB indicators and have additional ones even 
though the three criteria’s indicators and weightings slightly change yearly. 
However, as the data compiled is extensive, the project’s dashboard has 
only published information on source segregation; door-to-door collection; 
waste generation versus processing; and remediation of dumpsites and 
cleanliness thus far. 

2.3 Challenges to SWM 

While, in principle, the SWM Rules, 2016, promote sustainable SWM, their 
implementation faces several challenges. Waste segregation at source is a 
major challenge, as there is a lack of awareness among the citizenry in 
addition to an underdeveloped sense of responsibility (Kumar et al. 2017). 
In certain regions, segregating waste into multiple categories faces cultural 
resistance, as it may require certain waste to be stored at the source for 
several days due to infrequent collection, such as in the case of electronic 
waste. In many Indian cities, open dumping in fringe areas is rampant 
because the expansion of door-to-door collection services has not been able 
to catch up with rapid urban development (Naveen and Sivapullaiah 2020). 
Littering in public places calls for regular cleaning, which adds to service 
costs and effort. 

ULBs incur high service costs to provide SWM services due to a lack of 
established and effective logistical infrastructure (Naveen and Sivapullaiah 
2020). India does not subscribe to the culture of paying for SWM services, 
rendering the system financially inefficient (Krishna 2017). Several technical 
deficiencies exist, as many cities do not have mechanical/automatic waste-
sorting machinery and continue to deploy manual sorting, which violates 
human dignity. Ragpickers and scrap dealers traditionally play critical roles 
in waste recovery, but the formalization of their roles in the mainstream 
SWM system is incomplete (Ahuja 2019).  

Localized or decentralized treatment processes, such as vermicomposting 
organic waste, can be very effective. However, these practices are not 
widespread, and their application requires incentivization. Most local 
vermicompost plants are not well maintained or receive waste beyond their 
capacity, which causes problems for residents. Ultimately, they become 
defunct due to the not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome (Joshi and 
Ahmed 2016). Research and policies necessitate that the responsibility of 
waste management be extended to waste producers by levying appropriate 



[61] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

charges and incentivising waste prevention. Dealing with legacy waste—that 
is, waste dumped over the past decades—and overfilled landfills are some 
of the other challenges faced by ULBs. Amidst residents’ opposition to the 
establishment of landfills in their vicinity, there have been renewed efforts 
to reduce the existing stock through recovery processes such as 
bioremediation and scientific mining, which can also promote a circular 
economy (Singh 2021). 

 

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The cities of Pune, Visakhapatnam, and Tirupati were selected for this 
study, as they follow SWM best practices and rank well in city cleanliness as 
per the Swachh Survekshan (IITTM.ORG 2021; Singh 2023). These cities 
are also part of national missions related to urban services, such as the 
Smart City Mission and Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban 
Transformation (AMRUT). The three cities have different population sizes. 
This helped us deduce success factors and challenges in cities of different 
scales and with varying municipal capacities. The study of various 
population categories revealed the unique challenges facing the respective 
ULBs as well as their capacity to overcome these challenges. The ease of 
data collection was also considered during sample selection. 

The first step was to review the best practices followed in the sample cities. 
The compendiums published by different government organisations and 
news reports were used to consolidate this information. Next, secondary 
data were gathered from the SWM plans, detailed project reports, SLBs, 
SLP, etc., provided by the concerned municipal corporations and internet 
sources such as the Swachh Survekshan dashboard. Information related to 
human resources deployed for SWM, transport vehicles and equipment, 
processing plant capacity, and other details were gathered as well.  

A questionnaire survey was conducted among the residents of the sample 
cities to understand ground realities. The questions were based on the SWM 
Rules, 2016, and challenges pertaining to SLBs, SLP indicators, and SWM 
that have been reported in the literature. The questionnaire had three parts. 
The first part had questions on respondent type (household or 
institutional). The second part was about SWM services and practices. The 
third part provided space for collecting suggestions for improvement and 
the rationale for the same. The questions were close-ended; only the 
opinion-based questions used a Likert Scale. Responses were collected 
through door-to-door visits, online forms, and telephonic means to cover 
all segments of society. The data collection was performed in 2021–22. A 
total of 322 responses were used for the analysis, of which 103 were from 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62] 

Pune, 108 from Visakhapatnam, and 111 from Tirupati. Lastly, the 
responses were compared using simple additive techniques. Thereafter, 
inferences were drawn and compliance was checked.  

 

4. BEST PRACTICES IN THE SAMPLE CITIES 

All three cities have adopted unique practices to tackle their municipal 
waste. The city background, quantum of waste handled, and SWM practices 
in the three cities are elaborated in this section. 

4.1 Pune, Maharashtra 

Pune is the second-largest city in Maharashtra and has a population of 3.1 
million as per the 2011 Census (Pune Municipal Corporation, 2022). Its 
estimated current population of more than 4 million resides within 479 sq 
km, with a density of 6,522 persons per sq km (Pune Municipal 
Corporation, 2022). Pune generates 2,258 tons of waste every day (NITI 
Aayog 2021). Its SWM best practices include partnering with the waste 
pickers’ association, SWaCH (or Solid Waste Collection and Handling), for 
door-to-door waste collection and recovery. This model has achieved high 
service coverage, including of slum settlements. The practice of segregating 
waste into dry and wet was introduced between 2006 and 2008 as a step 
towards easing waste handling when SWaCH became operational (Climate 
and Clean Air Coalition 2018). However, the challenge was the mixing of 
non-biodegradable waste, including sanitary, hazardous, medical, and 
recyclable waste. This proved to be a health hazard to workers and posed 
challenges for waste recovery, with a large amount ending up in landfills.  

The municipal corporation initiated the Red Dot Campaign to promote 
segregation dry waste further into e-waste, plastic, sanitary, biomedical, 
garden, and construction waste at source for ease of handling and to 
increase efficiency in waste recovery (NITI Aayog 2021). The project 
helped mitigate the challenges associated with sorting mixed waste and 
enabled the operation of waste recycling plants at an industrial level. The 
city has adopted a zero-garbage policy, as part of which it aims to treat all 
types of waste in a decentralized manner. Under the policy, housing 
societies are incentivized to establish vermicomposting plants through 
discounts on property taxes (Thevar 2022). Biodegradable waste from 
hotels and eateries is collected and processed separately in a bio-
methanation plant that receives funds from corporate social responsibility 
programmes (CSR) (Pune Municipal Corporation 2024). In this plant, the 
slurry is converted into compost and compressed biogas. Such initiatives 



[63] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

help convert waste into profit. These programmes have been strengthened 
further and expanded under the Smart Cities Mission.  

Pune’s biggest challenges are legacy waste, overwhelmed landfills, and 
defunct local treatment plants and recycling units. Efforts have been made 
to remediate dump-site land, and the ULB is working on reclaiming part of 
the land. One of the garbage depots of Pune—a 100-acre plot of land in 
Uruli Devachi—has been the source of significant complaints from local 
citizens over the past decade. In 2018, the municipal corporation converted 
part of this land into a scientific landfill site, and a few other similar sites 
have been established in different parts of the city. This has led to a 
reduction in untreated waste volumes. Further, the land holding the legacy 
waste is slowly being reclaimed through bioremediation and is being 
converted to urban forests—around 20 acres have already been 
transformed (Khairnar 2024). 

4.2 Visakhapatnam, Andra Pradesh 

Visakhapatnam is the second-largest city in Andra Pradesh. It has a 
population of 1.7 million per the 2011 Census and an estimated current 
population of 2 million, which resides within 681 sq km of the Greater 
Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The city generates 1,150 tons of 
solid waste daily (Rao 2019). Its SWM best practices include the segregated 
collection of dry waste, wet waste, biomedical waste, and e-waste. Waste 
from commercial and market areas is collected separately, and a private 
agency has been employed to collect waste from hospitals (Hari Narayanan 
et al. 2018).  

Much of the transformation in Visakhapatnam’s SWM occurred after 
Cyclone Hudhud in 2014. The municipal corporation and the state 
government, with the aim to build back better and more resilient, 
introduced several initiatives. One such initiative is the regular collection of 
waste from a large part of the city. Earlier, waste was collected in two ways: 
via pushcarts for door-to-door collection or in dumper and compactor bins. 
Now, e-autorickshaws are deployed for waste collection. The municipal 
corporation is also focusing on eliminating secondary bins to improve 
cleanliness (Gilai 2020). Currently, it operates five compost yards where 200 
tons of wet waste is converted into compost. The sale of this compost 
generates revenue for the system (Ahuja 2018). The city has also introduced 
recycling systems to tackle plastic waste management.  

Further, Visakhapatnam is scaling up waste recovery through mechanized 
units and waste-to-energy plants, where 950 tons of dry waste is treated and 
about 9.9 MW of power is generated per day. This project is operated and 
managed by Jindal Urban Waste Management. A power purchase 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64] 

agreement has been executed with a power distribution company, and the 
energy sales support cost recovery for the SWM system (The Hindu 2022). 
Procurement of garbage transport vehicles, the distribution of bins, and the 
setting up of processing plants is also supported by the Clean Andra 
Pradesh (CLAP) programme, which makes the system more centralized 
(Rao 2021). 

4.3 Tirupati, Andra Pradesh 

Tirupati has a population of 0.28 million as per the 2011 Census, and an 
estimated population of 0.5 million resides within 27.44 sq km of the 
Tirupati Municipal Corporation. Tirupati is a temple city and receives 
around 50,000 visitors every day. It produces 194 tons of waste daily 
(Venkiteela 2020). Tirupati ranked first in the below 10 lakh population 
category in Swachh Survekshan 2022 and secured 8th position overall in 
Swachh Survekshan 2023 (Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2024). 
Waste is collected using pushcarts in congested and crowded areas, tricycles 
in other parts, and motorized vehicles in the outskirts, which typically have 
a lower population density. Colour-coded dustbins have been distributed to 
households for waste segregation into wet and dry waste, and a time slot is 
allotted for collection. Additionally, container bins are placed in chronic 
dumping spots.  

The city has a centralized compost plant to treat wet waste. However, 
recently, a decentralized mechanism has been introduced, wherein 
households and societies are encouraged to oversee composting using 
simple techniques. A part of the city’s composting is performed in open 
spaces such as gardens and parks, where dry leaves are composted using 
cost-effective, easy-to-use techniques and equipment (Swachh Bharat Urban 
2018). Bulk generators have onsite box composting, and bio-chest machines 
have been established near the market and bazar areas for waste treatment 
(Mani et al. 2019; The Hans India 2018).  

For centralized SWM, segregated waste is first moved to transfer stations. 
From here, dry waste is sent to a centralized processing unit, where it is 
further segregated into plastic, cloth, leather, etc., through mechanized and 
manual methods. Bales are created and sold to recycling industries for 
reuse. Tirupati has material-specific plants that process plastic and 
construction waste. Similarly, wet waste is centrally treated in compost and 
biomethanation plants (Arundhathi 2018). These processing plants have 
been constructed with Smart Cities funds (Municipal Corporation Tirupati 
2022).  

In 2017, there were several protests by the residents around the dumpsite. 
In 2022, Tirupati completed its dumpsite remediation project through 



[65] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

biomining and treatment of its legacy waste by partnering with a private 
company, Zigma (Swachh Bharat Mission Urban 2, 2022). The waste was 
segregated, sorted, and sold to recycling companies such as those that 
supply the cement and paper industries. These initiatives were undertaken 
jointly by the municipal and Smart City corporations, wherein they 
conducted extensive citizen campaigns to raise awareness. User charges 
have been introduced to meet the cost of waste management. The 
management of the enormous amount of waste generated by the pilgrims in 
and around the temple complexes is well supported by Tirumala Tirupati 
Devasthanams, which deploys waste collectors and oversees sorting and 
treatment plants (Raju and Sreenivasulu n.d.). Table 1 summaries SWM best 
practices in the sample cities. 

Table 1: SWM Best Practices in the Sample Cities 

City Best Practices 
Pune  Partnership with the waste pickers’ association for door-

to-door waste collection and recovery 

 Red Dot Campaign for further segregation of dry waste 

 Decentralization of wet waste treatment through 
incentivization 

 Attempt to incrementally convert legacy waste dumpsites 
into scientific plants or urban forests 

Visakhapatnam  Segregated collection of waste 

 Elimination of secondary bins through door-to-door 
collection 

 Waste-to-energy plants and compost yards 

Tirupati  Segregated waste collection initiated with dustbin 
distribution 

 Streamlined, centralized scientific wet and dry waste 
treatment; recycling and reuse by industries 

 Decentralized process for bulk waste generators 

 Complete redemption of the dumpsite  

Source: Author’s compilation based on the literature review. 

 

5. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 

The analysis and results are discussed in two parts, the first based on the 
data reported in the SLB and SLP and the second based on the household 
survey conducted. 

 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66] 

5.1. Analysis of SLB and SLP data 

Error! Reference source not found. shows the SLBs reported by the 
municipal corporations to the Ministry of Urban Affairs (formally known as 
the Ministry of Urban Development) in 2010. Since then, with the 
introduction of the SWM Rules, 2016, the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan 
launched in 2014, and AMRUT launched in 2015, much progress has been 
made, as indicated in Error! Reference source not found., which shows 
the SLP documented by the Swachh Survekshan. 

Table 2: Service-level Benchmarks Reported by the Sample Cities in 2010–11 
(Baseline) 

Source: Ministry of Urban Development (2012) 

It can be observed from the baseline SLBs and the recent SLP indicators 
that the sample cities have significantly improved household coverage for 
SWM services as well as enhanced collection efficiency. The SLP markers 
for Vishakhapatnam and Tirupati show remarkable advancements in waste 
collection. As evidenced by Table 3, Pune’s waste segregation capacity has 
remained high and steady above 95%. Vishakhapatnam has also made 
tremendous progress in increasing segregation by 38% between 2020 and 
2023. On the other hand, Tirupati trails behind in this regard.  

Pune reported high efficiency in collecting service charges and cost 
recovery in the 2011 SLB itself. Visakhapatnam reported some progress in 
collecting user fees, while Tirupati did not collect any service charges in 
2011 as per the reported SLBs; however, they were considering the 
possibility (Kummara, 2021). Cost recovery and user charges were not 
directly covered in the SLP but were part of a sub-parameter, for which 
recent data is unavailable. However, some observations regarding user 

Service-level benchmarks Benchmark Pune Visakhapatnam Tirupati 

Household-level coverage 100% 52.7% 61.7% 6.5% 

Efficiency in the collection of 
solid waste 

100% 100% 90% 87.5% 

Extent of segregation of 
MSW 

100% 27.9% 13% 0% 

Extent of MSW recovered 80% 80% 11% 0% 

Extent of scientific disposal 
of MSW 

100% 100% 0% 0% 

Extent of cost recovery 100% 60.9% 23% 0% 

Efficiency in collection of 
SWM charges 

90% 67% 30% 0% 

Efficiency in redressal of 
customer complaints 

80% 84.7% 60% 80% 



[67] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

charges can be drawn based on SWM practices in the cities. In Pune, the 
SWM charges are built into  property  taxes, and, with  advances in  online 

Table 3: Service-level Progress of the Sample Cities Reported in the Swachh 
Survekshan 2020 and 2021 

  
Segregation 
of waste 

Door-to-door 
collection 

Dumpsite 
remediation 

Dry waste 
processed 

Wet waste 
processed 

Pune         

2020 100% 80% 67% 67% 83% 

2021 100% 100% 72% 82% 95% 

2022 96.50% 99%   100% 

2023 97% 99% 14% 100% 

Vishakhapatnam         

2020 60% 60% 33% 67% 83% 

2021 88% 100% 80% 75% 100% 

2022 98.38% 99.50%   100% 

2023 98% 100% 26% 100% 

Tirupati         

2020 100% 60% 50% 100% 100% 

2021 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

2022 75.75% 98.25%   91% 

2023 76% 98% 100% 91% 

Source: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (2022; 2023b). 

collection, the extent of SWM charges collection is also improving. 
Visakhapatnam has also enforced tax-based SWM fees (Rao 2022). The user 
charges for SWM in Tirupati were revised recently, which is expected to 
improve revenues (Indian Express 2021). All three cities generate revenue 
from waste recovery in dry as well as wet waste management plants. 
Moreover, the involvement of private parties in establishing treatment 
plants, operating them, and selling recycled products has transformed waste 
management into a financially sustainable sector. Lower cost recovery leads 
to greater demand for grants and budgetary allocations from central and 
state governments. These grants may be appropriate to meet capital 
requirements for construction or one-time purchase of machinery. 
However, at least a part of the cost associated with operating high-quality 
services needs to be recovered through user charges, or they will be 
rendered financially unsustainable. Currently, there is no precedent of any 
state charging cost-covering service charges to the public. Higher charges 
might result in people sidestepping the waste collection system and 
resorting to open dumping. The polluters pay principle holds polluters 
liable for environmental degradation caused by solid waste and makes the 
payment of charges for treating waste a responsibility of waste generators 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68] 

(Gaur, Gurjar, & Chaudhary, 2022). Thus, steps need to be taken to 
increase the service charges paid by the people to recover SWM costs. 

According to the baseline SLBs, waste recovery and scientific disposal were 
very high in Pune and negligible in Vishakhapatnam and Tirupati. The 
situation in Tirupati has improved with the installation of centralized and 
decentralized treatment plants and the remediation of legacy waste 
dumpsites. All three ULBs have reported improvements in wet waste 
processing, as on-site and centralized composting has been partially 
implemented in all three cities. It should be noted that the SLBs reported in 
2011 on scientific disposal and waste recovery are supposedly inaccurate; 
there have been multiple agitations and allegations regarding waste, which 
have led to the identification of newer sites (Jadhav 2022; Banerjee 2020). 
Efforts have been made since then to increase waste recovery and scientific 
disposal, and the figures reported in SLP 2023 show an improving trend.  

Pune has historically struggled with dry waste processing and has been 
forced to send waste to its dumpsite. Initiatives have been launched under 
various missions since to establish scientific waste-recovery plants, and the 
city reported satisfactory performance as per its SLP markers. Though Pune 
has begun bioremediation at the city’s legacy waste dumpsite, it has not yet 
been able to remediate the complete dumpsite. The dumpsite remediation 
scenario in Vishakhapatnam is similar. Only Tirupati has managed to 
remediate the whole site. Lower scientific disposal indicates a higher chance 
of open dumping, which can lead to environmental degradation, health 
hazards, and soil and water pollution. If waste treatment, recovery, and 
disposal are not effective, then waste segregation becomes purposeless. 
Additional efforts and investment towards segregating waste would not 
then aid in bettering the environment.  

Table 4: Results from the Household Survey 

 Pune Visakhapatnam Tirupati 
Household coverage 100% 94.5% 98% 

Waste segregation 90% 70% 89% 

Collection frequency (every day) 94% 64% 57% 

Door-to-door waste collection 76% 45% 69% 

Use of community bins 2% 24% 10% 

Non-payment of service charges 45% 76% 57% 

Willingness to pay 29% 10% 21% 

Performance improvement rating 
(average out of 5) 

3.3 3.4 3.4 

Source: Author’s compilation. 

 



[69] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

5.2. Results of the Household Survey 

The results from the residents’ survey, as shown in Table 4, revealed similar 
trends. As the survey was conducted in 2021–22, the results reflect the 
opinion of respondents regarding in-progress work vis-à-vis SWM in the 
three cities. 

Several observations can be made when the results from   

Table 4 are compared with It can be observed from the baseline SLBs and 
the recent SLP indicators that the sample cities have significantly improved 
household coverage for SWM services as well as enhanced collection 
efficiency. The SLP markers for Vishakhapatnam and Tirupati show 
remarkable advancements in waste collection. As evidenced by Table 3, 
Pune’s waste segregation capacity has remained high and steady above 95%. 
Vishakhapatnam has also made tremendous progress in increasing 
segregation by 38% between 2020 and 2023. On the other hand, Tirupati 
trails behind in this regard.  

Pune reported high efficiency in collecting service charges and cost 
recovery in the 2011 SLB itself. Visakhapatnam reported some progress in 
collecting user fees, while Tirupati did not collect any service charges in 
2011 as per the reported SLBs; however, they were considering the 
possibility (Kummara, 2021). Cost recovery and user charges were not 
directly covered in the SLP but were part of a sub-parameter, for which 
recent data is unavailable. However, some observations regarding user 
charges can be drawn based on SWM practices in the cities. In Pune, the 
SWM charges are built into  property  taxes, and, with  advances in  online 

Table 3. The following are the observations: 

Household coverage: Coverage of SWM services is high in all three cities, 
and the respondents’ opinions are in line with the SLP reported. 

Waste segregation: Around 90% of Pune respondents reported that they 
segregate their waste into dry and wet waste, and most were aware of the 
localized treatment of organic waste. However, despite the city’s acclaimed 
Red Dot Campaign, as described in the best practices section, none of the 
respondents reported segregating medical and sanitary waste. 
Approximately 70% of the respondents in Visakhapatnam and 89% of the 
respondents in Tirupati said that they segregate their waste into dry and wet 
waste. Nearly 6% of Tirupati respondents segregate medical and sanitary 
waste. An additional question was posed about the amount of waste 
generated by each household (in terms of the number of dustbins used). 
Only Tirupati respondents reported using more than two bins, which 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [70] 

indicates waste segregation. For Tirupati, the survey results show better 
compliance than the reported SLP in terms of segregation. 

Collection frequency: Almost 94% of the Pune respondents said that 
waste is collected every day, 2% said it is collected every two days, and the 
remaining reported irregular collection. In Visakhapatnam, 64% of the 
respondents reported daily collection, 27% said the collection was 
scheduled on alternate days, and the remaining said it was infrequent. In 
Tirupati, 57% of the respondents said waste is collected daily, 33% said it is 
collected on alternate days, and the remaining said it was infrequent. Even 
though Visakhapatnam and Tirupati nearly fulfilled the SLP requirements, 
there is room for service improvement.  

Waste collection method: Around 76% of the Pune respondents reported 
that waste is collected from home; 45% of the Visakhapatnam and 69% of 
the Tirupati respondents concurred. The remaining respondents—22% in 
Pune, 23% in Visakhapatnam, and 16% in Tirupati— said that their waste is 
collected from a fixed site along the route of the waste collection service. 
Only 2% of respondents from Pune use community bins, while 24% of 
respondents from Visakhapatnam and 10% from Tirupati use community 
bins. While none from Pune said they self-dispose their waste, 8% of 
Visakhapatnam and 5% of Tirupati respondents said they self-dispose their 
waste, indicating open dumping. Moreover, Pune respondents reported that 
they put out segregated garbage bins at their time of convenience outside 
their door. The waste then gets collected door-to-door by the SWaCH 
workers at designated times. In Tirupati, waste is collected at a fixed time by 
vehicles, and citizens should deposit their waste when the vehicle is near 
their place. Thus, the door-to-door collection system in Pune is more 
effective and user-friendly. The survey results are notably lower than the 
SLP reported for door-to-door services in all three cities. 

Service charges: Approximately 45% of Pune respondents said that there 
are no charges for SWM services; 76% of the Visakhapatnam and 57% of 
the Tirupati respondents reported the same. In Pune, charges are collected 
in lump sum as a component of property tax. It should be noted that 
participants may be unaware of property tax components and, 
consequently, may have responded that the service is free. Further, in all 
three cities, residential societies can employ a private waste collection 
service for which charges are collected privately. Consequently, some 
participants may have responded that they are paying SWM charges, even 
though the user charges reaching the respective ULB may be low.  

Willingness to pay: Around 57% of the Pune respondents, 83% of the 
Visakhapatnam respondents, and 66% of the Tirupati respondents said they 



[71] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

are unwilling to pay for SWM services, whereas around 10% of the 
respondents said they would pay only nominal charges. Nonetheless, 29% 
of the Pune, 10% of the Visakhapatnam, and 21% of the Tirupati 
respondents are willing to pay cost-covering charges. This indicates that 
citizens do not recognize the waste producer’s responsibility and reversing 
the culture of providing free service will be a challenge. 

Performance improvement: The respondents were asked to rate the 
improvement in SWM in the past five years on a scale of 1 to 5. This 
question was to gauge the development under the Smart City Mission and 
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. The average score in all three cities was between 
3.3 and 3.4, which indicates that citizens have noticed a significant 
improvement in SWM services. Thus, this study’s observations regarding 
improvements in performance due to the implementation of various 
government initiatives and missions align with the observations made in the 
literature (Rao 2019).  

 

6. DISCUSSION 

Swachh Survekshan employs a holistic and integrated approach to monitor 
SWM services, including SLP reporting, certifications, and collection of 
public feedback. The SLP reported by the three cities is in tune with the 
ground realities found in this survey. However, the final scores do not 
portray the complete picture and miss out on ground-level details such as 
the frequency of waste collection and collection of SWM charges. Larger 
cities, such as Pune, and their ULBs have optimum SWM capacities, which 
is reflected in their performance. In a smaller city such as Tirupati, public 
action—such as proper waste segregation—may be prompt but is often 
short-lived. Installation of waste processing units in smaller cities should be 
accelerated and made more effective.  

Several initiatives, such as the introducing RFID-tagged collection vehicles, 
distributing coloured-coded dustbins, increasing the involvement of NGOs 
and private-sector stakeholders, and promoting business opportunities in 
waste recovery, have strengthened SWM services in the three cities 
(Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs 2024). Sustaining the capital-
intensive treatment processes initiated under the Smart City Mission and 
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan is the next objective for ULBs. Another challenge 
is finding a market for recovered and recycled products such as compost, 
biofuel, scrap metals, papers, glass, and rubber. Various industries must be 
roped in to complete the reuse cycle.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [72] 

This work will be useful in tracing the progress made in SWM in the sample 
cities, as it reveals the ground reality of SWM policy and programme 
implementation and highlights performance improvements and gaps. These 
findings are relevant to city governments, policy formulators, NGOs, 
researchers, other institutions in the sector, and citizens at large. Several 
other cities, such as Bengaluru, Navi Mumbai, Indore, and Surat, have 
unique, noteworthy initiatives that are helping them improve their SWM 
services (Pushkara 2022). A comprehensive study of best practices can add 
value to SWM practices in other Indian cities as well. Many new 
technologies, such as waste converters and shredders (Earth Care 2022), are 
emerging, and an understanding of these technologies can immensely 
streamline and enhance waste management processes. 

 

7. CONCLUSION 

This study agrees with the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan’s Swachh Survekshan 
principle of implementing a data-driven SWM process. Reporting of the 
SLBs—and, now, the SLP—is crucial for tracking the performance of 
SWM services, comparing it with peers, and comprehending trends and 
patterns. The SLP indicators and the survey show that SWM services have 
improved in all three cities due to the Smart Cities Mission and Swachh 
Bharat Abhiyan initiatives. By studying best practices in Pune, 
Visakhapatnam, and Tirupati, this study indicates that several initiatives by 
all levels of government and citizens have led to improvements against 
most parameters by 40% to 50%.  

The practice of waste segregation at source is taking root among the 
citizenry. Progressive efforts are being made to segregate dry waste further 
into sanitation, medical, garden, plastic, and other waste for a more efficient 
waste recovery process. Setting up waste processing plants and involving 
private-sector stakeholders in waste recovery and recycling has led to the 
development of innovative business models such as waste-to-energy plants 
in Visakhapatnam and compressed biogas in Pune. Centralization of these 
treatment processes and decentralization of certain processes, such as by 
establishing society-level vermicomposting and bio-chest machines near 
bulk generators, have added value to SWM services and reduced the burden 
on disposal services. Efforts towards establishing scientific waste disposal 
and dumpsite remediation have led to an incredible change in practices, 
wherein former dumpsites detested by citizens are being used for tree 
plantations and are being converted into urban forests attracting visitors.  

Even though waste recovery and recycling are boosting cost recovery, the 
entire system is not financially independent. SWM is a societal necessity 



[73] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

created by human activities, and thus, SWM charges must be normalized on 
the polluters’ pay principle to enable a mindset shift among citizens. The 
efficiency of segregated collection, treatment and recovery, scientific 
disposal, and the financial sustenance of the system are mutually dependent. 
Consistent and reliable waste collection will likely improve citizen 
satisfaction as well as reduce the environmental externalities. 

Ethics Statement: We hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee 
for the conduct of this research.  

Data Availability statement: All data used is included in the paper. 

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES 

Ahuja, Aastha. 2018. “Visakhapatnam's Sole Landfill To Breathe Easy As City 
Starts Composting 200 Tonnes Of Kitchen Waste Daily.” NDTV, September 4. 
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-andhra-pradesh-
visakhapatnam-landfill-waste-to-compost-24713/. 

__. 2019. “Waste Is Money' Says 'The Kabadiwala', An Online Scrap Dealer From 
Bhopal, Promoting Effective Waste Management.” NDTV, April 27. 
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-in-bhopal-sell-scrap-online-to-
the-kabadiwala-33707/. 

Arundhathi, Y. 2018. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in India with Special 
Reference to Tirupati Town in Andhra Pradesh.” International Journal of Innovative 
Science and Research Technology 3 (6): 669-72. 

Awasthi, Prakash, Chataut, Gopi, and Khatri, Ram. 2023. “Solid Waste 
Composition and Its Management: A Case Study of Kirtipur Municipality-10”. 
Heliyon, 9(11): e21360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21360. 

Banerjee, Shoumojit. 2020. “'Smart' Pune's Garbage Woes Flare Up Again.” The 
Hindu, March 2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/states/smart-punes-garbage-
woes-flare-up-again/article30959246.ece. 

Central Pollution Control Board. 2020. Information under the RTI Act 2005-Reg. 
Retrieved from CPCBD/R/E/20/00437. 

Central Public Health and Environment Engineering Organisation. 2016. Municipal 
Solid Waste Management Manual. Swachh Bharat Mission, Ministry of Urban 
Development. 

Climate and Clean Air Coalition. 2018. “Pune Waste Management Programme.” 
https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/pune-waste-management-programme. 

Cobo, Selene, Antonio Dominguez-Ramos, and Angel Irabien. 2018. “From Linear 
to Circular Integrated Waste Management Systems: A Review of Methodological 

https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-andhra-pradesh-visakhapatnam-landfill-waste-to-compost-24713/
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-andhra-pradesh-visakhapatnam-landfill-waste-to-compost-24713/
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-in-bhopal-sell-scrap-online-to-the-kabadiwala-33707/
https://swachhindia.ndtv.com/waste-management-in-bhopal-sell-scrap-online-to-the-kabadiwala-33707/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21360
https://www.thehindu.com/news/states/smart-punes-garbage-woes-flare-up-again/article30959246.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/states/smart-punes-garbage-woes-flare-up-again/article30959246.ece
https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/pune-waste-management-programme


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [74] 

Approaches.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135: 279-95. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.003. 

Earth Care. 2024. “What Are Organic Waste Converters.” Earth Care Equipments 
Pvt. Ltd, July 17. https://www.ecepl.com/what-are-organic-waste-converters/. 

Gaur, Abhishek, Gurjar, Suresh Kmar, and Chaudhary, Sangeetha. 2022. “22 - 
Circular System of Resource Recovery and Reverse Logistics Approach: Key to 
Zero Waste and Zero Landfill.” Advanced Organic Waste Management: pp. 365-381. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85792-5.00008-3. 

Gilai, Harish. 2020. “GVMC Aims to Rid City of Dumper Bins.” The Hindu, 
December 18. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/gvmc-
aims-to-rid-city-of-dumper-bins/article33358873.ece. 

Goel, Sudha. 2008. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in India (MSWM) in 
India: A Critical Review.” Journal of Environment Science and Engineering 50 (4): 319-28. 

Hari Narayanan, M., A. Hemanth, and Loveson Edward. 2018. “Clean Visakha 
Green Visakha.” Presented at COMAD Kochi, 2018, April 11-12. 

IITTM.ORG. 2021. “Swachh Survekshan 2021 Results, Cleanest City Ranking 
List.” IITTM.ORG, November 25. https://www.iittm.org/swachh-survekshan-
2021-results-ranking-list/. 

Jadhav, Ajay. 2022. “PMC Must Pay Rs 42 Crore for Not Disposing of Legacy 
Waste Properly: Panel Set Up by NGT.” The Indian Express, July 28. 
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pmc-must-pay-rs-42-crore-for-not-
disposing-of-legacy-waste-properly-panel-set-up-by-ngt-8055875/. 

Joshi, Rajkumar, and Sirajuddin Ahmed. 2016. “Status and Challenges of Municipal 
Solid Waste Management in India: A Review.” Cogent Environmental Science 2 (1). 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1139434. 

Khairnar, Abhay. 2024. “Once Garbage Depot, Uruli Landfill Site Attracts Film 
Shooting and Study Tours.” Hindustan Times, January 12. 
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/pune-news/once-garbage-depot-uruli-
landfill-site-attracts-film-shooting-and-study-tours-101705003377293.html. 

Krishna, Gopal. 2017. “Why Urban Waste Continues to Follow the Path of Least 
Resistance.” Economic and Political Weekly 52 (17). 

Kumar, Akhilesh, and Agrawal, Avlokita. 2020. “Recent Trends in Solid Waste 
Management Status, Challenges, and Potential for the Future Indian Cities - A 
Review.” Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2: 100011. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011. 

Kumar, Sunil, Stephen R. Smith, Geoff Fowler, et al. 2017. “Challenges and 
Opportunities Associated With Waste Management in India.” Royal Society Open 
Science 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160764. 

Kummara, Sri Krishna. 2021. “Tirupati Civic Body Moots Enhanced Garbage 
Collection Charges From July 1.” The New Indian Express, June 22. 
www.newindianexpress.com: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-
pradesh/2021/jun/22/tirupati-civic-body-moots-enhanced-garbage-collection-
charges-from-july-1-2319638.html. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.003
https://www.ecepl.com/what-are-organic-waste-converters/
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85792-5.00008-3
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/gvmc-aims-to-rid-city-of-dumper-bins/article33358873.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/andhra-pradesh/gvmc-aims-to-rid-city-of-dumper-bins/article33358873.ece
https://www.iittm.org/swachh-survekshan-2021-results-ranking-list/
https://www.iittm.org/swachh-survekshan-2021-results-ranking-list/
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pmc-must-pay-rs-42-crore-for-not-disposing-of-legacy-waste-properly-panel-set-up-by-ngt-8055875/
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pmc-must-pay-rs-42-crore-for-not-disposing-of-legacy-waste-properly-panel-set-up-by-ngt-8055875/
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1139434
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/pune-news/once-garbage-depot-uruli-landfill-site-attracts-film-shooting-and-study-tours-101705003377293.html
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/pune-news/once-garbage-depot-uruli-landfill-site-attracts-film-shooting-and-study-tours-101705003377293.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160764
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2021/jun/22/tirupati-civic-body-moots-enhanced-garbage-collection-charges-from-july-1-2319638.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2021/jun/22/tirupati-civic-body-moots-enhanced-garbage-collection-charges-from-july-1-2319638.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2021/jun/22/tirupati-civic-body-moots-enhanced-garbage-collection-charges-from-july-1-2319638.html


[75] Ghosh, Bobba, Dodda, Jasti, Meka, Vanga 

Mani, Shyamala Krishna, Paramita Datta Dey, and Kaustubh Parihar. 2019. Solid 
Waste Management Practices in Urban India: A Compendium. National Institute of Urban 
Affairs. 

Miezah, Kodwo, Kwasi Obiri-Danso, Zsódıa Kádár, Bernard Fei-Baffoe, and 
Moses Mensah. 2015. “Municipal Solid Waste Characterization and Quantification 
as a Measure Towards Effective Waste Management in Ghana.” Waste Management 
46: 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.009. 

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. 2016. Solid Waste 
Management Rules. The Gazette of India. 

Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 2022. “Swatchh Survekshan 2022: 
Dashboard.” https://ss2022.sbmurban.org/#/dashboard 

__. 2024. “Tirupati's Swachh Triumph.” Press Information Bureau, February 20. 
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2007312  

__. 2023a. “Swachh Survekshan Toolkit”. Government of India. 

__. 2023b. “Swatchh Survekshan 2023: Dashboard.” 
https://ss2023.sbmurban.org/#/dashboard. 

Ministry of Urban Development. 2010. Improving Urban Services Through Service Level 
Benchmarking. Government of India. 

__. 2011. Handbook of Service Level Benchmarking. Government of India. 

__. 2012. Service Levels in Urban Water and Sanitation Sector: Status Report. Government 
of India. 

Municipal Corporation Tirupati. 2022. “Dry Waste Processing Plant.” YouTube, 
February 23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa11zCrroVk . 

Naveen, B., and P. Sivapullaiah. 2020. “Solid Waste Management: Current Scenario 
and Challenges in Bengaluru.” In Sustainable Sewage Sludge Management and Resource 
Efficiency, edited by B. K. Taşeli. IntechOpen. 
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90837. 

NITI Aayog. 2021. Waste-wise Cities: Best Practices in Municipal Solid Waste Management. 
New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. 
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-12/Waste-Wise-Cities.pdf  

Pune Municipal Corporation. n.d. “City Overview.” https://pmc.gov.in/en/city-
overview. 

__. 2024. “Biogas Initiative - Solution to Food Waste With the Bonus of Eco-
Fuel.” Pune Municipal Corporation, July 5. https://www.pmc.gov.in/en/biogas-
initiative.  

Pushkara, S. V. 2022. “Opinion: Why Cities Find It Difficult to Replicate Indore's 
Waste Processing Model.” Citizen Matters, October 13. 
https://citizenmatters.in/waste-processing-management-urban-local-bodies-
indore-swacch-survekshan/.  

Raju, P. N., and M. Sreenivasulu. n.d. “Constraints and Challenges in MSW 
Management at Tirumala Hills.” Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanams. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.009
https://ss2022.sbmurban.org/#/dashboard
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2007312
https://ss2023.sbmurban.org/#/dashboard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa11zCrroVk
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90837
https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2021-12/Waste-Wise-Cities.pdf
https://pmc.gov.in/en/city-overview
https://pmc.gov.in/en/city-overview
https://www.pmc.gov.in/en/biogas-initiative
https://www.pmc.gov.in/en/biogas-initiative
https://citizenmatters.in/waste-processing-management-urban-local-bodies-indore-swacch-survekshan/
https://citizenmatters.in/waste-processing-management-urban-local-bodies-indore-swacch-survekshan/


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [76] 

Rao, S. Kameswar. 2019. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in Visakhapatnam City, 
India.” International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology 8 (6): 3604-7. 
https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.F9357.088619. 

Rao, Umamaheshwar. 2021. “Waste Management: Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal 
Corporation Focus on Secretariats.” Times of India, August 28. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/waste-mgmt-gvmc-focus-on-
secretariats/articleshow/85698434.cms 

__. 2022. “Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Mulls Tax-based Garbage 
User Fee.” Times of India, August 8. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/gvmc-mulls-tax-based-
garbage-user-fee/articleshow/93418957.cms. 

Singh, K. P. 2023. “Swachh Survekshan Ranking List 2022: List of Cleanest Cities in 
India.” Sarkari List, March 21. https://sarkarilist.in/swachh-survekshan-ranking-list/. 

Singh, Richa. 2021. “Towards Circular Economy: What to Do With Legacy Waste in 
India.” Down To Earth, March 3. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/towards-circular-economy-what-to-do-
with-legacy-waste-in-india-75746. 

Singh, Satpal. 2020. “Solid Waste Management in Urban India: Imperatives for 
Improvement.” ORF Occasional Paper No. 283. Observer Research Foundation. 

Swachh Bharat Mission Urban 2. 2022. Towards Lakshya Zero Dumpsite - Collection of Case 
Studies. New Delhi: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. 
https://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/sbm_knowledge_center/GIZ_CaseStu
dy_Legacy_Waste_Remediation.pdf  

Stafford, William H. 2020. “WtE Best Practices and Perspectives in Africa.” In 
Municipal Solid Waste Energy Conversion in Developing Countries. Elsevier. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813419-1.00006-1. 

Swachh Bharat Urban. 2018. “Tirupati - Best in Solid Waste Management (1-3 lakh).” 
YouTube, July 9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubPeQItQz-0. 

The Hans India. 2018. “Tirupati Ranked as India's Best in Solid Waste Disposal.” The 
Hans India, May 18. https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-
Pradesh/2018-05-17/Tirupati-ranked-as-Indias-best-in-solid-waste-disposal/382132.  

The Hindu. 2022. “Waste-to-energy Plant Starts Functioning in Vizag.” The Hindu, 
March 22. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/waste-to-energy-
plant-starts-functioning-in-vizag/article65249551.ece. 

The World Bank. 2022. “Trends in Solid Waste Management.” The World Bank, 
February 22. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-
waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html.  

Thevar, Steffy. 2022. “Pune: Properties With Vermicompost Pits Increase 22% Over 
5.” Times of India, August 4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/pune-
properties-with-vermicompost-pits-increase-22-over-5-
years/articleshow/93334851.cms.  

Venkiteela, Lokesh Kumar. 2020. “Status and Challenges of Solid Waste Management 
in Tirupati City.” Materials Today: Proceedings 33: 470-4. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.044. 

https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.F9357.088619
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/waste-mgmt-gvmc-focus-on-secretariats/articleshow/85698434.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/vijayawada/waste-mgmt-gvmc-focus-on-secretariats/articleshow/85698434.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/gvmc-mulls-tax-based-garbage-user-fee/articleshow/93418957.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/gvmc-mulls-tax-based-garbage-user-fee/articleshow/93418957.cms
https://sarkarilist.in/swachh-survekshan-ranking-list/
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/towards-circular-economy-what-to-do-with-legacy-waste-in-india-75746
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/waste/towards-circular-economy-what-to-do-with-legacy-waste-in-india-75746
https://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/sbm_knowledge_center/GIZ_CaseStudy_Legacy_Waste_Remediation.pdf
https://sbmurban.org/storage/app/media/pdf/sbm_knowledge_center/GIZ_CaseStudy_Legacy_Waste_Remediation.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813419-1.00006-1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubPeQItQz-0
https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2018-05-17/Tirupati-ranked-as-Indias-best-in-solid-waste-disposal/382132
https://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Andhra-Pradesh/2018-05-17/Tirupati-ranked-as-Indias-best-in-solid-waste-disposal/382132
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/waste-to-energy-plant-starts-functioning-in-vizag/article65249551.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/waste-to-energy-plant-starts-functioning-in-vizag/article65249551.ece
https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html
https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/pune-properties-with-vermicompost-pits-increase-22-over-5-years/articleshow/93334851.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/pune-properties-with-vermicompost-pits-increase-22-over-5-years/articleshow/93334851.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/pune-properties-with-vermicompost-pits-increase-22-over-5-years/articleshow/93334851.cms
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.044

