Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 611–630 | Cite as

Municipal solid waste management, source-separated waste and stakeholder’s attitude: a Contingent Valuation Study

  • Prasenjit Sarkhel
  • Sarmila Banerjee


Recognition of the social costs associated with traditional practices of urban waste management in India led to the formulation of Municipal Waste Management and Handling rules (2000). However, compliance with the proposed collection and disposal involves higher commitment in terms of both time and money on the part of the residents, local bodies as well as the state and central government. In this context, information about the value of the environmental improvements conferred upon the city dwellers would be important from the planner’s perspective. Given the non-market characteristic of waste disposal services, we infer about beneficiaries’ perceived demand for the proposed service by means of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Survey conducted in the Bally Municipality in the district of Howrah, West Bengal. We estimate the average WTP by controlling for anchoring bias and use the annualized value of cost to examine the feasibility of the proposed system.


Contingent Valuation Survey Non-market Valuation Solid Waste Management Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Recursive Probit 



The Contingent Valuation Study reported in this paper was funded by University Grants Commission, India. We are grateful to Dr. Arup Mallik (former Professor, Calcutta University) for useful suggestions regarding programme viability part of the study and Dr. Zakir Husain (Associate Professor, Institute of Development Studies, Kolkata) for comments on questionnaire design. The cordial help of Bally Municipality officials during field visits is gratefully acknowledged. For assistance in survey work, we thank Saikat Mitra, Susmita Paul, Subrata Majumder and Buddhadev Saren. The usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Alberini, A. (1995). Optimal designs for discrete choice Contingent Valuation surveys: Single-bound, double-bound and bivariate models. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28(3), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altaf, M. A., & Deshazo, J. R. (1996). Household demand for improved solid waste management: A case study of Gujranwala, Pakistan. World Development, 24(5), 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P. B. (1999). Waste management in Madras revisited. Environment and Urbanization, 11(2), 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asnani, P. U. (2004). United States Asia Environmental Partnership Report, United states Agency for International Development, Center for Environmental Planning and Technology, Ahmedabad.Google Scholar
  5. Banerjee, S., Sarkhel, P. (2008). Estimation of average willingness to pay from double bounded dichotomous choice data: Does the “Follow Up” matter?” Calcutta University, mimeo.Google Scholar
  6. Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. (1988). The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bhoyar, R. V., Titus, S. K., Bhide, A. D., & Khanna, P. (1996). Municipal and solid waste management in India. Indian Association of Environmental Management, 23, 53–64.Google Scholar
  8. Buckley, R. M., Singh, M., Kalarickal, J. (2007). Strategizing slum improvement in India: A method to monitor and refocus slum development programs. Global Urban Development, 3(1).
  9. Burra, S., Patel, S., Kerr, T. (2003). Community-designed, built and managed toilet blocks in Indian cities. Environment & Urbanization, 15(2), 26.Google Scholar
  10. Cameron, T., & Quiggin, J. (1994). Estimation using contingent valuation data from dichotomous choice with follow up questionnaire. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 27, 218–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caplan, A. J., Grijalva, T. C., & Jakus, P. M. (2002). Waste not or want not? A contingent ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options. Ecological Economics, 43(2–3), 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, R. T., & Groves, T. (2007). Incentive and informational properties of preference questions. Environment and Resource Economics, 37, 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M. (2005). “Contingent valuation”. In K.G. Maler and J.R. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics. North Holland, Ch 17, 822–920.Google Scholar
  14. Fontaa, W. M., Eme Ichokua, H., Ogujiubac, K. K., & Chukwuc, J. O. (2007). Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste management facility: Evidence from Enugu State, Nigeria. Journal of African Economies, 17(2), 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta, S., Mohan, K., Prasad, R., Gupta, S., & Kansal, A. (1998). Solid waste management in India: Options and opportunities. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 24(2), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources, The Econometrics of Non Market Valuation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Hanrahan, D., Srivastava, S. & Ramkrishna, A. S. (2006). Improving management of municipal solid waste in India: Overview and challenges. World Bank.Google Scholar
  18. Herriges, J. A., & Shogren, J. F. (1996). Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong, S., Adams, R. M., & Love, H. A. (1993). An economic analysis of household recycling of solid wastes: The case of Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 25(2), 136–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoornweg, D., Thomas, L. & Otten L. (1999). Composting and it’s applicability in developing countries. Urban Waste Management Working Paper Series, No. 8, World Bank.Google Scholar
  21. India Infrastructure Report (2006). Oxford University Press, 320 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Jin, J., Wanga, Z., & Ran, S. (2006). Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao. Ecological Economics, 57(3), 430–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kannien, B. J. (1993). Optimal experimental design for double bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics, 69(2), 138–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kumar, S., Bhattacharyya, J. K., Vaidya, A. N., Chakrabarti, T., Devotta, S., & Akolkar, A. B. (2009). Assessment of the status of municipal solid waste management in metro cities, state capitals, class I cities, and class II towns in India: An insight. Waste Management, 29(2009), 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lauria, D. T., Whittington, D., Choe, K., Turingan, C., Abiad, V. (1999). “Household Demand for Improved Sanitation Services: A Case Study of Calamba, the Phillipines”. In I. J. Bateman and K. G. Willis (Eds.) Valuing environmental preferences; theory and practice of contingent valuation method in the US, EU and developing countries OUP (pp. 540–81).Google Scholar
  26. Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The CVM Approach. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  27. Nema, A. K. (2004). Collection and transport of municipal solid waste. In Training program on solid waste management. Delhi, India: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. NIUA, National Institute of Urban Affairs, Upgrading Municipal Services: Norms and Financial Implications, Vols. 1–2. NIUA Research Study Series No. 38 (New Delhi), February 1989. 118_X 1:X23 pp. (vol 1) A1:A6:B1:B104;C1:C79;D1;D7;E1:E1, pp. (vol 2).Google Scholar
  29. OECD factbook. (2008). Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics (pp. 294).
  30. Shah, E. & Sambaraju, K. (1997). ‘Technical and economic analysis of composting enterprises in Bangalore—India’ UWEP Case-Study Report.
  31. Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., & Trivedi, R. C. (2008). Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities—A review. Waste Management, 28, 459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Vaishya, R., & Gupta, R. (2007). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Allahabad, India. Waste Management, 27(4), 490–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shekdar, A. V. (1999). Municipal solid waste management—the Indian experience. Journal of Indian Association for Environmental Management, 27, 100–108.Google Scholar
  34. Singhal, S., & Pandey, S. (2001). Solid waste management in India: Status and future directions. TERI Information Monitor on Environment and Science, 6(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  35. Whitehead, J. C. (2002). Incentive compatibility and starting point bias in iterative valuation questions. Land Economics, 78, 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitehead, J. C., & Blomquist, G. C. (2006). The use of contingent valuation in benefit—cost analysis. In A. Alberini, D. Bjornstad, & J. R. Kahn (Eds.), Handbook of Contingent Valuation. Northampton, MA: Edaward Elgar.Google Scholar
  37. Zhu, D., Asnani, P. U., Zurbrugg, C., Anapolsky, S., Mani, S. (2009). Improving municipal solid waste management in India: A source book for Policy makers and practitioners. The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsLalbaba CollegeHowrahIndia
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsCalcutta UniversityKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations