DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this study entitled "An Assessment of Suitable Landfill Site Selection
for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Case Study on Urlabari Municipality City"
is based on my original research work. Related works on the topic by other researchers have
been duly acknowledged. I owe all the liabilities relating to the accuracy and authenticity
of the data and any other information included hereunder.

Signature:

Name of the Student: Himanshu Dev

P.U. Registration Number: 2020-1-06-0147

Date: July 2023

I
 RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that this thesis entitled “An Assessment of Suitable Landfill Site Selection
for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Case Study on Urlabari Municipality City"
prepared and submitted by Himanshu Dev in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the
degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Construction Management awarded by Pokhara
University, has been completed under my supervision. I recommend the same for acceptance
by Pokhara University.

Signature:

Name of the supervisor: Associate Prof. Rajib Pokharel, Ph.D.

Organization: Pokhara University

Date: July 2023

Signature:

Name of the co-supervisor: Assistant Prof. Jangbahdur Prasad Yadav

Organization: Madan Bhandari Memorial Academy Nepal

Date: July 2023

II
 CERTIFICATE

This thesis entitled "An Assessment of Suitable Landfill Site Selection for Municipal
Solid Waste Management: A Case Study on Urlabari Municipality City," prepared and
submitted by Himanshu Dev has been examined by us and is accepted for the award of the
degree of Master of Science (M.Sc.) in Construction Management by Pokhara University.

Santosh Kumar Shrestha ……………… ………………

External Examiner Signature Date

Dr. Rajib Pokharel .……………… …….………...

Supervisor Signature Date

Ass. professor Jangbahdur Prasad Yadav ……………… .………………

Co-supervisor Signature Date

Professor, Binod Aryal, Ph.D. ..……………… ………………..

Research Director Signature Date
Madan Bhandari Memorial Academy NEPAL

III
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to start by expressing my profound gratitude to my supervisor Associate Prof.

Rajib Pokharel, Ph.D., Reader of School of Engineering, Pokhara University and co-
supervisor Assistant Prof. Jang Bahadur Prasad Yadav of Madan Bhandari Memorial
Academy Nepal, for their essential advice, constant support, and enlightening criticism
during the entire study process. This study has been greatly influenced by their advice and
support.

I want to express my sincere gratitude to the teaching members of the School of Engineering
at Madan Bhandari Memorial Academy for their thorough academic program and for giving
me the tools and resources, I needed to complete my study.

Additionally, I want to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support and
patience while I navigated the highs and lows of this academic journey.

Finally, I want to express my gratitude to all the authors and researchers whose work I
quoted and used as references in this thesis. I would like to conclude by expressing my
sincere gratitude to everyone who contributed in some way to the completion of this thesis.
I genuinely appreciate all of your help, advice, and encouragement. I am confident that this
research will make a valuable contribution to the field.

Signature:

Name of Student: Himanshu Dev

P.U. Registration Number: 2020-1-06-0147

Date: July 2023

IV
 ABSTRACT

Urlabari Municipality, a city with an area of 74.62 sq. km located in Morang district, also
considered the second largest city in the district is a vibrant and rapidly growing
municipality. Solid waste is currently being dumped openly at the banks of the Bakraa River
without any precautions, posing a severe threat to the environment and public health. This
research focuses on the selection of suitable landfill sites and their sustainability based on
financial analysis.

Wastes are classified qualitatively based on their physical properties, while quantitatively
based on their quantity. This study created a specific parameter by the literature review and
then a questionnaire, designed from Kobo Tool Box and verified by experts is used to survey
about the problems and attitude of public and administration towards solid waste. The
relative importance weights of factors are estimated using the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) in (GIS) environment to evaluate the suitability of the study region for landfill.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) is used for data analysis. This study
shows that the total production of organic waste in Urlabari municipality is 8.02 tons/day
and that of inorganic waste is 4.71 tons/day. This requires the total area of 1446.32 m2 of
landfill site including the infrastructure facilities. The research concludes that five suitable
site are available for solid waste landfill in various wards in Urlabari municipality. The
financial analysis shows that the payback period of the project is 1.13 years. The benefit to
cost ratio is determined to be 0.57, which is considered too low for any project because we
only calculated the benefits generated from waste collection cost and selling inorganic
wastes, however if we calculate the revenue from recycling the organic waste benefits could
exceed the operational cost of the project.

This research provides a suitable landfill site for the wastes produced in the Urlabari
municipality, which minimizes the negative environment impact. The study recommends a
chance of waste management’s plant establishment for production of biomass gas and
fertilizers plants which helps increase the benefits from the project to make it more feasible.

Keywords: Solid Waste, Landfill, Quality, Geographic Information System, Analytical

Hierarchy Process, Financial Analysis, Payback period

V
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page
Declaration ..........................................................................................................................I
Recommendation............................................................................................................... II
Certificate ......................................................................................................................... III
Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................IV
Abstracts ............................................................................................................................ V
List of tables .....................................................................................................................IX
List of figure...................................................................................................................... X
List of abbreviation ........................................................................................................ XII

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background of the study .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Significance of the study .............................................................................................. 4
1.6 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 6

2.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management ........................................................................... 6
2.2 Solid Waste Management Policies in Nepal ................................................................ 6
2.3 Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP) ........................................................................... 7
2.4 Geographical Information system (GIS) .................................................................... 10
2.5 Review on Previous Study on Landfill Site Selection ............................................... 11
2.6 Historical efforts for SWM in Nepal .......................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 18

3.1 Study Area.................................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 19
VI
3.3 Sampling Procedure ................................................................................................... 24
3.4 Samples data............................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Data collection Tools and Technique ......................................................................... 25
3.5.1 Questionnaire Survey .............................................................................................. 25
3.5.2 Observation Checklist ............................................................................................. 26
3.5.3 Primary Data ........................................................................................................... 26
3.5.4 Secondary Data ....................................................................................................... 26
3.5.5 Software Used ......................................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 27

4.1 Solid Wastes in Urlabari Municipality....................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Types of waste......................................................................................................... 27
4.1.2 Sources of solid waste ............................................................................................. 27
4.1.3 Solid Waste Composition........................................................................................ 28
4.1.4 Solid waste management scenario of Urlabari Municipality from Public Eyes ..... 30
4.1.5 Present scenario of solid waste management in Urlabari Municipality .................. 35
4.1.6 Existing Landfill site for solid waste generated from Urlabari Municipality ......... 36
4.1.7 Existing data of Land use in Urlabari municipality ................................................ 37
4.2 DESIGN OF LANDFILL SITE ................................................................................. 42
4.2.1 Population projection: ............................................................................................. 42
4.2.2 Solid waste density: ................................................................................................ 43
4.2.3 Calculation of necessary volume ............................................................................ 43
4.2.4 Location of appropriate landfill site ........................................................................ 46
4.2.5 Possible landfill site ................................................................................................ 53
4.3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 54
4.3.1 Cost Incurred for improved Solid waste management ............................................ 54
4.3.2 Income generated from inorganic wastes ................................................................ 57
4.3.3 Revenue from the public for solid waste management services ............................. 58
4.3.4 Cost-Benefit analysis .............................................................................................. 58

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................. 61

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 61
5.2 Recommendation for further study: ........................................................................... 62

VII
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 64
ANNEX ........................................................................................................................... 68

VIII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2. 1: Historical efforts for swm in nepal 15

Table 3. 1: Fundamental scale of absolute numbers for AHP ............................................ 22

Table 3. 2: Randomness index (ri). ..................................................................................... 23

Table 4. 1: Density of daily cell design and manual sanitary landfill ................................. 43
Table 4. 2: Normalized response matrix of responder ........................................................ 48
Table 4. 3: Consistent check of responder data................................................................... 49
Table 4. 4: Pairwise combination matrix of overall responder data ................................... 50
Table 4. 5: Summary of criteria, sub criteria, ranking and weightage ................................ 51
Table 4. 6: Cost estimate for the landfill site design ........................................................... 54
Table 4. 7: Income calculation from inorganic wastes ....................................................... 57
Table 4. 8: Revenue generated from establishments who pay monthly for swm ............... 58
Table 4. 9: Cost-benefit analysis ......................................................................................... 59

IX
 LIST OF FIGURE

Fig 3.1: Study area location of urlabari municipality ......................................................... 18

Fig 3.2: Research methodology flowchart .......................................................................... 19
Fig 3.3: Location of sample points...................................................................................... 25

Fig 4.1: Pie diagram showing types of solid waste ............................................................. 27

Fig 4.2: Pie diagram showing quantity of solid waste produced based on its sources ....... 28
Fig 4.3: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from household ....... 28
Fig 4.4: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from institutions ...... 29
Fig 4.5: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from commercial
establishments ............................................................................................................. 30
Fig 4.6: Pie diagram showing public response about prevalence of solid waste problem .. 30
Fig 4.7: Pie diagram showing public response about complaining about the problem of
solid waste ................................................................................................................... 31
Fig 4.8: Pie diagram showing public response about initiative taken from personal level
for swm ....................................................................................................................... 32
Fig 4.9: Pie diagram showing public response about current system for swm ................... 32
Fig 4.10: Pie diagram showing public response about the responsibility of swm .............. 33
Fig 4.11: Pie diagram showing public response about selling recyclable waste at
household level............................................................................................................ 34
Fig 4.12: Pie diagram showing public response about their willingness to separate waste at
household level............................................................................................................ 34
Fig 4.13: Pie diagram showing public response about their will to pay for proper swm.... 35
Fig 4.14: Existing landfill site of urlabari municipality ...................................................... 37
Fig 4.15: Ward map of urlabari municipality...................................................................... 38
Fig 4.16: Road network map of urlabari municipality ........................................................ 38
Fig 4. 17: River map of urlabari municipality..................................................................... 39
Fig 4. 18: Forest map of urlabari municipality ................................................................... 39
Fig 4. 19: Paini (canal) map of urlabari municipality ......................................................... 40
Fig 4. 20: Residential area land use map of urlabari municipality...................................... 40
X
Fig 4. 21: Commercial area land use map of urlabari municipality .................................... 41
Fig 4. 22: Agricultural land use map of urlabari municipality............................................ 41
Fig 4. 23: Land use map of urlabari municipality ............................................................... 42
Fig 4. 24: Ground water table data of urlabari municipality ............................................... 45
Fig 4.25: Map showing all suitable landfill site in urlabari municipality ........................... 53

XI
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ADB: Asian Development Bank

AHP: Analytic Hierarchy Process

B/C: Benefit to cost ratio

EMO: Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization

GIS: Geographic Information System

GPS: Global Positioning System

MAUT: Multi-attribute Utility Theory

MCDM: Multi-Criteria Decision Making

MCE: Multi Criteria Evaluation

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

MSWM: Municipal Solid Waste Management

PPP: Public Private Partnership

P.V: Present Value

RWMP: Regional Waste Management Project

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SWM: Solid Waste Management

UM: Urlabari Municipality

XII
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Solid waste management is the process of collecting and treating solid wastes. The term
"solid waste" is introduced recently in order to distinguish between the current
comprehensive idea of waste management and the earlier emphasis on solid wastes and
other household wastes. Non-gaseous garbage is now typically considered solid waste.
Various industrial, commercial, and agricultural activities produce wastes, which are not
liquids. In its present state, solid waste is any garbage that has a solid form. It could be as
small as a piece of paper or even larger in volume.

In many Nepalese municipalities, managing solid trash has been given a low priority,
primarily because other public services are more in demand. Due to a lack of baseline SWM
data and data pertaining to the functional components of SWM, local bodies are having
trouble creating management plans. When creating and putting into practice proper waste
management strategies that incorporate resource recovery using appropriate techniques, it
is crucial to be aware of the quantity and composition of MSW. Due to the enormous effects
on the economics, ecology, environment, and public health, the choice of landfill site is a
significant problem in urban planning. (Sener, Süzen and Doyuran, 2006). As sanitary land
filling is unavoidable part for municipal solid waste management system, suitable selection
of landfill site is judicious (Ekmekçioĝlu, Kaya and Kahraman, 2010). In the majority of
less developed nations, the conventional ways of managing solid waste, which involve
landfilling trash without using any appropriate techniques, are still popular. In fact, landfills
are a common and crucial component of waste management systems. (Salmon Mahini and
Gholamalifard, 2006)

With the enactment of local self-governance act in 1999, municipalities are the responsible
authorities for the management of solid waste generated in the municipalities. Most of the
municipalities are opting for open dumping near riverbanks or on open areas. Though the
government of Nepal is promoting the concept of 3R, solid waste disposal to landfill is
considered an important and most likely SWM strategy (Thapa and Murayama, 2008).

1
(Kumar and Hassan, 2013)states that selection of a suitable landfill site for Solid Waste
Management (SWM) forms an important component of urban planning. The problem of
SWM has assumed significant proportion for the municipal authorities in the wake of rapid
industrialization, urbanization and resultant pressure on existing resources.

(Basnet, 2015) described the selection of landfill site is a serious issue in urban planning
process attributable to colossal impacts on the economy, ecology, environment and public
health and for solving problem of landfill site selection process, combination of Geographic
Information System (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) is a powerful tool admired
globally. Urlabari being a municipality city still employs poor and environmentally
degrading practice of open dumping the waste and waste is dumped on the banks of Bakraa
River, in Ward No 4 of UM. The limited space for dumping, the waste in the landfill is often
burnt to reduce the volume and make room for dumping of more waste in UM.

According to (Maharjan and Lohani, 2020), the present status of waste management in
almost all municipalities is open dumping and landfilling without any treatment. It decreases
the life of landfill site. The municipalities need short- and long-term planning to manage
waste in actual sense. Traditional waste management methods were unable to keep up with
rising urbanization, increased population densities, changing waste composition, and rising
amounts of solid waste.

One of Nepal's most pressing environmental issues in urban areas is solid waste
management. Previously, neither its creation nor its disposal had ever received a single
thought from anyone. The tremendous urbanization and infrastructure development that
were taking place were very much on people's minds. People kept working on improving
and speeding up their lives one after the other. They have no time to worry about trivial
matters at this velocity of action. As a result, effective trash management was disregarded,
which caused problems for everyone. It has now become a national issue as well. Every
nation in the world has experienced this issue at some point. Particularly, emerging nations
experience these issue more than wealthy nations do.

2
Solid waste management is now of utmost significance. Solid waste management is a critical
issue in developing nations like Nepal. The right use of various resources, an improvement
in the economy, and the education of the populace are all necessary. There are numerous
methods for managing solid waste. The easiest method of managing solid waste is to reduce
it. Other methods include making compost, hygienic land filling, and burial.

Saaty developed the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which uses pairwise comparisons
in a matrix table to determine the weight of a particular attribute within a multi-criteria
assessment. Every criterion can be given attention that is much more effective because it is
based on a hierarchy. The GIS-based MCA methodology, which combines GPS and remote
sensing data, is a commonly used method for effective management and planning of urban
area usage. Based on the information currently available, AHP may establish the criteria for
determining field use suitability in an organized manner. The criteria can then be unified
using straightforward mathematical calculations. This makes humanities study easier by
removing the need for challenging mathematical computations and reducing the number of
steps needed to determine actual values of a criterion.

Solid waste management has grown to be a significant issue because of the population
boom, industrialization, and urbanization. The Urlabari municipality has implemented an
integrated solid waste management strategy that is effective, economical, and ecologically
responsible with the greatest amount of community involvement in order to improve SWM.
In the rapidly expanding city of Urlabari, in the Morang district, there will be a significant
issue with solid waste disposal. This study will investigate the methods used to manage solid
waste in the Urlabari municipality.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The temporary dumping site of Urlabari Municipality is on bank of Bakraa River, which is
about 300m of Bakraa Bridge and is 100 m from nearest human settlement. In addition, the
article claim due to less area of dumping site, the waste are frequently burnt polluting the
environment. Also during the flood in Terai the waste are moved in the residential area
harming human settlement. Lack of system for recycling/reutilizing, including technology

3
development has caused havoc in UM. Despite being one of the large municipalities in
Morang, dumping waste in open and Bakraa River turning into dump yards and states
problem of not having proper and permanent landfill site in UM. Lack of system for
recycling/reutilizing, including technology development has caused havoc in UM.

1.3 Research Questions

 What is the quality of waste and what quantity of the wastes are produced in Urlabari
Municipality.
 What are the process involved that can lead to a decision of selecting a proper landfill
site in Urlabari municipality?
 What is the possibility to create an opportunity to recycle the waste to finance the
return on investment?

1.4 Research Objectives

The general objectives of this study is determining suitable landfill site and financial
analysis of solid waste management for the landfill site.

The specific objectives of this study were as following:

 Determine the present scenario of waste management.

 Identification of suitable landfill site.
 Perform financial analysis of the waste management.

1.5 Significance of the study

The project will be intended to assessment on finding a suitable location for landfill and
further recommend the necessary step to Urlabari Municipality city and other concerned
authorities for the improving waste management.

1.6 Limitation of the Study

As with most researches, this thesis brings along limitations as well. The limitations of study
may arise in:

4
 There is no any standard code for landfill site selection in Nepal.
 The study does not consider the solid waste mixed in sewage system.
 The study does not take the sample of waste generated from construction site.
 No calculation of the income, which is generated through organic waste
management.
 Only financial Analysis is done but Economic Analysis is not carried out.

5
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Municipal Solid Waste Management

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a collection of useless items that are produced throughout
the course of daily life. With rising community living standards, increased urbanization, and
changes in purchasing habits, the MSW generation grows (Guerrero, Maas and Hogland,
2013). Nepal, like other emerging nations, is not immune to this issue. Municipalities are
the responsible authorities for the management of solid waste in accordance with the Local
Self-Governance Act (1999), which was passed (Bijay and Ajay Kumar, 2011). Since then,
they have been managing the garbage produced by the individual towns using the resources
at their disposal. Also, the improper treatment of MSW harms human health and affects the
urban environment (Joshi and Ahmed, 2016). One of the biggest issues in many Nepalese
urban areas is solid waste management (SWM). In places with high population densities,
such as Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Biratnagar, Pokhara, etc., effective solid waste management
is a significant concern (Asian Development Bank, 2013). Additionally, different social,
religious, cultural, and traditional ways of living have made it challenging Nepal to practice
SWM in an environmentally beneficial manner. There were 524,000 tons of household trash
produced year and 1,435 tons daily in Nepal. Solid waste production might range from 0.3
kg to 1.0 kilogram each day. According to the (Asian Development Bank, 2013) 66% of
municipal household garbage is made up of organic waste, 12% of which is plastic, 9% of
which is paper, 3% of which is metal, and 5% of which is other. Surprisingly, the
Kathmandu Valley's major urban centers produce the municipal garbage, at a rate of roughly
620 tons per day. The federal laws and policies in Nepal provide a foundation for
establishing local rules and regulations as well as for creating and putting into place the
MSW management system. According to Nepal's 2015 constitution, federalism has changed
the burden to the local levels.

2.2 Solid Waste Management Policies in Nepal

To transfer the duties of solid waste management, various acts were enacted over time.
These acts, though, were never fully implemented. Due to a lack of awareness, technical
proficiency, and priority given to the waste by the relevant authorities, among other factors,
there are currently numerous flaws in the legal requirements relating to SWM in Nepal. Due

6
to the country's rapid urbanization and population increase after the 1980s, SWM problems
have become more acute in Nepal. With this, the government began developing and putting
into practice SWM policies to deal with the challenges and related issues, particularly in
metropolitan areas. Among the acts and policies to Solid Waste Management, the 2011 Solid
Waste Management Act and the 1996 National Policy on SWM are particularly relevant
(Asian Development Bank, 2013). The various policies regarding SWM are given below:
 Solid Waste (Management and Resource Mobilization) Act, 1987
 Municipality Act, 1992
 Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1997
 Local Self Governance Act, 1999
 Solid Waste Management Act, 2011
 Constitution of Nepal, 2015
 Local Government Operation Act 2017
 Environmental Protection Act, 2019

2.3 Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP)

The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) "evaluates via pair-wise evaluations and relies
on expert views" to detect high gearing ratios (Saaty and Tran, 2007). AHP is one of the
often employed methods in multi-criteria judging procedures (Vaidya and Kumar, 2006).
Researchers and decision-makers use it because it is a simple and effective tool (Forman
and Gass, 2001). In reality, the hierarchical nature of the AHP technique makes it simple to
combine the parts into a whole by measuring and synthesizing a variety of factors that are
involved in a challenging decision-making process.

(Chaudhary et al., 2016) AHP enables the use of an expert-driven, systematic decision-
making process that entails six steps: (i) problem definition; (ii) hierarchy construction and
development of the problem into component factors related to the problem's objectives and
outcomes; (iii) specification of numerical values using pair-wise comparison scales; (iv)
calculation of normalized principal Eigen vectors, maximum Eigen value, consistency
index, consistency ratio, and random consistency index for each criterion; and (v) revision
of the procedure if there are inconsistencies in the decision-making process.

7
There were more works on MCDM (Multi-Criteria Decision Making) and MAUT (Multi-
attribute Utility Theory), according to reports from 1992 to 2006. The huge increase of
papers on AHP and EMO—Evolutionary Multi-objective Optimization—has had a
significant impact on this strategy. Therefore, architectural complexity, assessment, and
integration serve as the three main functions of the Analytic Hierarchy Process technique
(Forman and Gass, 2001). Saaty contends that in order to handle the complexity of the
process, all the different aspects that have an impact on policy should be identified and
arranged in a hierarchy of "relatively uniform sets of components" for the initial assignment
(Forman and Gass, 2001).

To conduct the evaluation on an interval data, those elements in pairings are taken into
consideration. The value of each element in the triangle will be calculated using a procedure
where each element is evaluated in respect to its parent component. To calculate the weight
(priorities) throughout the structure (parent factor), the significance of each element at each
tier can be divided by the significance of an element that relates to it. Since AHP contains
the word "analytic" in its title and divides the conceptual object into its constituent pieces
as well as having the ability to examine and evaluate the quantity of qualities in tiers, it is
noteworthy 16 (Forman and Gass, 2001). This article looks at how the AHP technique is
applied in practice, particularly in terms of how the criteria are developed and evaluated.
Numerous research have been conducted on the AHP methodology, some of which focused
on certain aspects of the technique. For this strategy, a detailed analysis of the literature on
real-world applications of AHP will be carried out. To make an informed decision, the
decision-maker must comprehend and describe the following: the problem, the necessity
and purpose of the option, the standards and substandard for evaluating alternatives, the
various courses of action, and the stakeholders and groups involved (Saaty and Tran, 2007).
There is no way to quantify mysterious criteria so that they may be used as a benchmark for
comparing alternatives. These requirements and prerequisites may be pertinent or
unimportant. Prioritizing the criteria is a difficult task so that the alternatives' priorities can
be weighed and all the criteria can be added together to provide the proper overall rating of
the alternatives (Saaty and Tran, 2007). This method consists of mainly six stages:

8
 Specify the issue and determine what information is required. Out of all those judged
relevant or challenging enough for analysis, the topic to be investigated is chosen. This
choice could be challenging in and of itself, necessitating careful consideration. When
identifying and selecting an issue, it is essential to articulate openly the underlying
assumptions and point of view.
 Establish the pyramid of decision-making. It was decided to build this structure "from
the top with the decision's purpose, then the objectives from a broad perspective, via
the intermediate levels (criteria), to the lowest level, which is typically a collection of
choices." Abstractly, we can arrive at a related issue that requires either a top-down
approach (from criterion to alternatives) or even a bottom-up approach (from the
alternatives to the criteria), depending on the main objective. It is crucial to build a
model in a way that makes it possible to pinpoint the options and standards that are
genuinely important. For the decision makers' primary concerns to be taken into
account, the decision hierarchy must be both broad and condensed. The decision-
makers must in this step eliminate the options that are deemed unrealistic or do not
meet the standards that are actually relevant.
 Create matrices to do numerous pairwise comparisons. The number of similarities
between each element in a higher level and each element in the level beneath it is
17. As a result, a different matrix needs to be built for each higher-level criterion. The
comparison is made using a scale to show "how many times more important or
dominant one element is over another element with respect to the criterion or property
with respect to which they are compared (Saaty and Tran, 2007).
 The verbal scale method of measuring both quantitative and qualitative qualities. The
scale ranges from "equal" (number 1) to "totally more significant than." The value is
present in the cell that meets the matrix's preferred requirement, whereas the other cell
includes the value inverted (1 / value). The repeated nature of these pairwise
comparisons helps to increase the analysis' accuracy and to comprehend a problem's
basic components. The strength of this strategy is that it may produce a pyramid that
illustrates the relative weights of each component of an issue, whether they are
countable or not.
 The relative weights of the items to each level can be calculated using the steps below:
I) add the column values to the matrix to normalize it; (II) To assess the relative
relevance of the parameter, add the line values to the resulting matrix; (III) calculate
the Eigen values of the matrix and compare them to the consistency of a random

9
 sample given the size of the matrix to ascertain the consistency of the matrix. When
there is a problem with consistency, the accountable party should examine the results
to improve them; (IV) Compute equal scores for each choice for each criterion that is
included in a unified framework using the specified precedence; (V) add the results of
each option to arrive at the result. Each requirement should be completed right after
previous portions. The best choice is the one that has the peak score (priority)
 Making decisions is vetted and balanced. If the results of the AHP application are not
in line with expectations, this phase is crucial for determining whether a review of the
previous process is necessary. It is essential to prevent differences between the model
and expectations. To incorporate the benefits or requirements that were not initially
considered or recognized, this design should be changed as necessary.
 Documenting the decision. For the decision-making process to be correctly
documented, all the justifications for how and why the decision was made must be
documented. These recordings can be used to reflect on and defend decisions in the
future, allowing for ongoing improvement.

2.4 Geographical Information system (GIS)

The GIS (Geographic Information System) is a tool that makes organizing for program
development initiatives easier while making factual judgments. Planning for waste
management requires taking into account a number of aspects, which can be assisted by
GIS. The goal of a Geographic Information System (GIS) is to enable users to gather,
organize, analyze, and retrieve massive volumes of geographically referenced data and
associated attribute data from a variety of sources.

Waste management involves a lot of planning as well. Effective planning would support
proper management policies. There are a number of issues that require decisions while
taking into account all pertinent considerations. Often, the credibility of the judgment is
determined by the ranking and weighting of these elements. It would take a lot of time and
effort to analyze many factors using manual approaches. Additionally, there is a chance that
errors will occur when combining geographic and non-spatial data. However, when work is
done in layers with a geographic information system (GIS), there are fewer opportunities

10
for confusion or inaccuracy, and the system is strong enough to coordinate between spatial
and non-spatial data (Shaikh, 2006).

GIS is a useful decision-support tool for waste management planning. According to a study
on landfill site selection in Malaysia, the goal of the study was to test the effectiveness of
the Geographic Information System (GIS) as a tool to assist in decision-making by using
some well-established government guidelines. (Lunkapis et al., 2002). It is obvious that
many factors must be taken into account when making judgments, making it challenging to
select the ideal tools for compiling data, knowledge, and facts. Thanks to emerging
information technology trends, geo-information systems (GIS) are at the forefront of
scientific developments in industrial settings. The positioning and layout of a large facility
serve to satisfy a number of conflicting objectives and requirements. In order to fulfill tasks
like selecting an industrial location, we need to construct multiple maps, each with a
different theme. An organization's decision-making processes are aided by a geographic
information system (GIS), a collection of processes that offer input data, retrieval and
storage charting, and geographic evaluation for both spatial and attribute data.

2.5 Review on Previous Study on Landfill Site Selection

(Pokhrel and Viraraghavan, 2005) Unlawful solid trash disposal on riverbanks has become
a widespread practice, posing major risks to the environment and public health. This study's
main objective was to assess Nepal's solid waste management system in light of available
data. According to the data, organic materials account for 70% of the solid waste produced
in Nepal. The easiest approach to dispose of solid waste is to compost it and use it as
fertilizer for the soil. This will lengthen the landfill's life and decrease the amount of solid
wastes that needs to be hauled there.

(Adhikari, 2011) found that 46.877 tons of waste was produced daily and the management
practiced showed that 80% sell the non-degradable waste and 33.67% know about proper
waste management. It lacks in describing the proper area for dumping of waste along with
the study of current scenarios of landfill condition.

11
(Asian Development Bank, 2013) The research included 3233 households, 627 institutions,
and 62 commercial sectors in the 58 municipalities of Nepal that were surveyed using a
questionnaire. The study discovered that 1435 tons of waste were produced every day and
concluded that solid waste management's management, which typically lacks an appropriate
technical approach, human resource, and planning, was a weak point. The study also
discussed policy management for effective waste management. A small sample size was
used in the study, and trash creation was only sampled once. Furthermore, data that are more
accurate would have been provided by a single wise municipality research.

(Kumar and Hassan, 2013) carried out study on North West district of Delhi. The study was
carried with selection of possible site using GIS and further AHP was used for pairwise
comparison. The study did not involve the factor like industrial area and the flood plain.

(Kassim, 2013) A baseline survey was undertaken to learn more about the solid waste
management scenario in Hetauda Municipality. The study examines the status of solid waste
management in the Hetauda Municipality. The recommendations made are to increase the
frequency of waste collection practices, discourage throwing trash in a nearby open field if
possible, have community composting facilities in each ward, or at the very least, establish
a sufficient number of composting plants, and provide waste collection containers and
certificates to each ward.

(Guerrero, Maas and Hogland, 2013)The goal of this study was to identify the stakeholders'
involvement in the waste management process and assess the system-influencing aspects in
more than 30 urban locations across 22 developing nations on four continents. In order to
evaluate the stakeholders and the factors influencing the effectiveness of waste management
in the cities, the study uses a variety of approaches. Scientific literature, already-existing
data bases, observations made while visiting metropolitan areas, organized interviews with
relevant professionals, exercises given to workshop participants, and a questionnaire sent to
stakeholders were all used to gather data. Statistical methods are applied to get conclusions,
descriptive and inferential. The study's findings include an extensive list of pertinent
stakeholders.

12
(Khan and Samadder, 2014) this study presents , a method based on Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) modeling in order to establish a set of requirements that must
be taken into account for the proposed MSW disposal site in the city. A set of screening
criteria and an effective graphical representation are used in conjunction with GIS to provide
objective zone exclusion for the investigation. The land usage was portrayed using
supervised classification in accordance with SWM. The siting process takes account of
Geology, water resources, land use, sensitive sites, air quality, and groundwater quality.

(Basnet, 2015) outlined the difficulties the Sisdole site has with garbage handling.
Furthermore, it claims that just the valley generated 700 metric tons of solid wastes per day.
Bhaktapur was identified as a potential dumpsite after the study used the various criterion
technique and GIS to find the right landfill site. Ground water was not performed or taken
into consideration in the study. Additionally, the study did not account for other factors like
industrial zones, flood plains, or airports.

(Dangi, Schoenberger and Boland, 2015) The study discovered three examples of Nepali
assistance recipients buying heavy equipment that was ineffective for SWM aid. There is
proof that the transactions in these aid packages are less transparent and have been more
donor-driven. The Nepali government's readiness to accept aid without taking true need or
ability to pay into account is undoubtedly a factor in the country's ongoing failures. SWM
initiatives have failed due to issues with resource allocation, managerial priorities, internal
capability assessments, project duration, the formation of parallel national organizations,
capacity building, and addressing environmental issues. SWM in Kathmandu faces
challenges since there are not any regulations or practices in place to channel help for
effective local solutions, wasting the effort.

(Maharjan and Lohani, 2020) outlines the different acts relating to the management of solid
waste. The Local Self-Governance Act of 1999, the Solid Waste Management Act of 2011,
the Constitution of Nepal of 2015, and the Criminal Act of 2017 were all discussed in detail.
According to the study, PPP has prospects for cost- and operational-effectiveness.

13
Additionally, academia could play a supportive role in the creation and revision of policies,
strategies, and guidelines, as well as in bolstering the capacity of concerns at all levels.
Instead of describing a technological approach, the paper discussed SWM policy.
Additionally, the research did not discuss the necessity of a permanent landfill.

(Kumar and Agrawal, 2020) The current paper is a comprehensive review that outlines the
state of SWM now, pinpoints pertinent problems, and offers workable MSWM solutions for
the Indian setting. The unorganized informal trash industry, social taboos, citizen attitudes,
inadequate potential tactics, poorly planned fiscal strategies, and poorly implemented
government regulations all contribute to the unsorted solid waste at the source. Because of
the discussion in this review paper, it is urgently necessary to establish proper treatment and
recycling strategies in accordance with the composition of solid waste in India. Through a
variety of scientific treatment procedures that are currently available, it is necessary to
emphasize the suitable implications of the potential solutions for MSW at the centralized
and decentralized levels. Municipalities are therefore required to concentrate on establishing
prospective prospects and achieving long-term MSWM sustainability for Indian cities, as
well as including the informal sector and commercial agencies.

(Bharadwaj, Rai and Nepal, 2020) looked at the possibilities of making money to pay for
MSW management in Nepali municipalities using plastic garbage, which is a component of
MSW. The study's findings indicate that when collection efficiency reaches 66.7%, plastic
material recovery might create revenue that is equal to 1.38 times the cost of managing
plastic trash. The expenses of managing plastic garbage might be reduced by an additional
1% by improving recovery rates and collection efficiency, respectively. To fully
comprehend the potential for sustainable funding of MSW management and minimizing
environmental harm in underdeveloped nations like Nepal, this plastic recovery-revenue
exercise might be expanded to other commodities such as paper and metal.

(Regmi, Ghimire and Shrestha, 2022) The primary result of this study was the need for
monitoring and management of potential sources of toxic heavy metals in MSW that may
pollute surrounding waterbodies through runoff and infiltration of leachate created by the

14
disposal site. Additionally, the paper advised to make sure that the MSW is intensely
segregated before being disposed of.

(Regmi, Ghimire and Shrestha, 2022) The study demonstrates the buildup of heavy metals
in the soil at the MSW disposal site. For site S1, the heavy metal concentrations are ranked
as Zn > Cu > Pb > Ni > Cr > Cd, and for sites S2 and S3, Zn > Cu > Pb > Ni > Cd > Cr.
Strong relationships between nitrogen, phosphorus, lead, cadmium, chromium, zinc, and
copper are shown by PCA analysis, indicating their similar source of pollution. The local
authority is urged to separate goods associated with heavy metals at the source throughout
the process of solid waste management prior to ultimate disposal because the PER of the
analyzed sites is in the very high to low category. It is advised that future studies investigate
any potential heavy metal contamination of surrounding water bodies.

(Nepal, no date) Increased waste generation will be caused by rising consumption and
production in all economic sectors, as well as population growth, settlements, urbanization,
industrialization, etc. While adhering to the national framework of waste management plans
and policies, local governments must play a crucial role in the development and
implementation of specialized waste management operations. The assessment also
highlights the necessity for creating trash treatment facilities, finding suitable landfill
locations, and establishing waste transfer facilities with the room and capacity to manage
garbage over the medium and long term. Likewise, creating efficient waste handling
processes, and creating robust institutional structures serve to address the issues of solid
waste management.

2.6 Historical efforts for SWM in Nepal

Table 2. 1: Historical efforts for SWM in Nepal

1970 First "Sanitation Office" was established.

1971 First international aid to solve problems due to solid waste was consulted.

15
1980s GTZ project initiated for solid waste management.

1981- Trial Phase of the GTZ project with the acting phase throughout the decade.
1983

1984 The construction of the Gokarna Landfill Site.

1986 Gokarna Opened for the final disposal of Solid waste.

1987 Solid Waste Management Act and Regulation (The Act authorized Solid
Waste Management and Resource Mobilization Centre (SWMRMC) as a
central body to reorganize waste management in KTM Valley. GTZ and
SWMRMC started:

 Communal container collection system.

 Teku and Composting.
 Management of waste at the Gokarna landfill site.

1990 Final Phase of the GTZ project.

1992 The compost Plant at Teku closed; the first leachate pond at Gokarna was
covered with waste.

1994- The Gokarna landfill site was temporarily closed; waste was dumped along the
1995 Bishnumati River riverbanks; KMC was responsible for the site management.

1996 A new leachate pond was constructed at Gokarna Landfill Site; a Solid waste
management policy was formulated.

1997 Environment Protection Act (2053 BS).

1998 Environment Protection Rules (2054 BS).

1999 Local Self Governance Act was rolled out which transferred the responsibility
of the management of waste to the Municipality; the Cooperation with JICA
started.

2000 The second leachate pond was covered with waste; the Gokarna landfill site was
permanently closed; waste started to be dumped along the Bagmati River.

2003 The riverbanks of the Bagmati River is used for the final disposal of solid waste.

2005

16
  Clean Kathmandu Valley (CKV) project about the study and capacity building
of local authorities with the support of the Government of Japan started.

 Opening of the Sisdole landfill site.

2011 Enacted Solid Waste Management Act 2011 (2068 BS)

2012 As per the Government of Nepal (Allocation of Business) Rules (2012),

 The Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MOFALD) is

responsible for formulating, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating policies,
plans and programs relating to sewerage and sanitation.

 The Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD) is responsible for sanitation and

drainage.

 The SWMTSC is also responsible for providing technical support to manage

solid waste.

2013 Solid Waste Management Rules (2070 BS) was published

17
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area

The study area is Urlabari municipality.

Fig 3.1: Study area location of Urlabari Municipality

Geographically, Urlabari is a city and municipality in Morang District in the Koshi Province
of south- eastern Nepal. It is also considered the second largest city in the district. Its
elevation is approximately 106 - 164m from the sea level. Urlabari is a flourishing and
expanding municipality. It was announced a municipality in 2073 BS, merging Rajghat and
a few wards of Madhumalla VDC with the then Urlabari municipality.

Miklajung Village Development borders Urlabari in the north, Damak Municipality in the
east, Pathari Shanishchare Municipality and Letang Municipality in the west, and
Ratuwamai municipality in the south. It is located 60 km eastern part of the metropolitan
city Biratnagar.

18
3.2 Methodology

Fig 3.2: Research methodology flowchart

19
1. Desk study, Literature review, Defining objective :
A thorough analysis of the existing literature, reports, and other sources of information
is the first stage in solid waste management research to gain understanding and lay the
groundwork for more study. The study's goals are clearly stated and include examining
solid waste management’s policy frameworks, exploring waste management techniques,
and evaluating environmental implications. The next stage is to identify pertinent
materials, such as academic articles, reports, case studies, industry publications, and
legal documents pertaining to solid waste management. Then, to compile pertinent
material, search engines, library catalogs, specialized waste management databases, and
academic databases are used. The specified search parameters are utilized to perform
extensive searches. The desk study is widely accepted, including the sources reviewed,
the key findings, and any new theoretical paradigms or difficulties with the research.
The research will use this material as a guide, and it will add to the body of knowledge
about solid waste management.

2. Questionnaire preparation and survey :

Following the literature research and expert consultation, the eight criteria were
selected. The criterion weight questionnaires for a 16 expert AHP survey were then
developed. Professors, government employees in the construction management
department, and consultants involved in the design and monitoring of solid waste
management were the experts chosen for this study. Questionnaires were prepared in
online site “kobo toolbox” and sent out to respondents via email or other forms of social
media.

3. Site visit, Survey and data collection:

The next step will be the data collection through field visit, surveys, etc. The sample
will be taken from sets of Households, Banks, Schools, Colleges, Factories, Tourist
centers, Hotels and restaurants, Holy places like temples, mosque, gumba, also
Government offices, non-government offices. Out of the sample taken from each of the
mentioned set, a dustbin of same size will be located in each point to gather the solid
waste from respective points for 7 days. This will help us identify the types of wastes
generated from the sample points to generate an idea of the total quantity of solid waste
is produced on Urlabari Municipality.

20
4. Waste categorization and quantity calculation:
Waste categorization entails dividing waste items into various classes according to their
characteristics, make up, and potential effects on the environment. This stage aids in
choosing the proper management, treatment, and disposal procedures for various waste
kinds. The categories will be such as organic and inorganic, or categories based on
sources like household, institution and commercial establishments. Determining the
volume of garbage produced is essential for proper waste management. This aids in the
infrastructure planning for garbage collection, transportation, and treatment. Measuring
and sampling waste to determine the amount of waste produced. Depending on the kind
of trash, this will require weighing and volume measurements.

5. GIS mapping:
The limitations will be defined based on the standard code during this step. We can
exclude the region in the buffer zone using constraint mapping. For each criterion
chosen based on professional guidance, a constraint mapping will be created. For
example, a road network buffer or constraint map will be created to identify areas around
main and minor roads where landfill placement would be inappropriate. Similarly, a
river limitation map with a danger zone will show areas that are unsuitable for landfills.
In order to properly exclude the surrounding areas based on these criteria when
searching for a suitable location, the mapping of land use, slope, forest area, and
residential area was all done in GIS.

6. Landfill site area calculation:

Once the quantity of the wastes produced in Urlabari municipality is determined, landfill
site area will be calculated. The population projection for the next year will also
determine the projection in the waste production. With the calculated volume of total
solid waste produced, we will determine the required area for landfill site.

7. Relative weightage calculation by AHP

The Analytic Hierarchy Process, or AHP for short, is a well-known method for figuring
out the weights to be used in multi-criteria decision-making. This arbitrary method of
calculating weights for qualitative and quantitative data is often used. Actually, it is
based on a discussion with a professional. Participants are required to provide a score
using the Saaty 1 to 9 scale and the pair-wise evaluation process. In order to demonstrate

21
 how much more one criterion influences the other, two criteria are compared using the
expert's viewpoint. If two criteria have equal effect or importance, they must each
receive a score of 1, and if one criterion significantly influences another, it must receive
a score of 9. Following the normalizing of each value by dividing the actual value by
the total of the column values, the weights of each criterion are determined using the
arithmetic mean approach. After weights are established, consistency ratio (CR) must
be calculated to assess the level of consistency of any expert's conclusions. (Saaty and
Tran, 2007) has provided an index to help identify whether the comparison matrix is
consistent or not.

Table 3. 1: Fundamental scale of absolute numbers for AHP

Description
Rating scale
Equal value
1
Weak
2
Moderate Value
3
Moderate plus
4
Strong value
5
Strong plus
6
Very strong
7
Very, very strong
8
Extreme value
9

Source (Saaty and Tran, 2007)

The Consistency CR value calculation formula is,

𝐶𝐼
𝐶𝑅 = ∗ 100
𝑅𝐼

Where, RI is the randomized inconsistency index of a completely random pair-wise

similarity measure of order 1 to 10 and CR is the consistency ratio of a consistency index

22
 ratio. The following formula is employed to estimate CI in the consistency ratio (CR)
formula.

(𝜇 − 𝑛)
𝐶𝐼 =
(𝑛 − 1)

The consistency index, μ, tells us how consistent the matrix is. If μ is less than 10%,
then the matrix is considered consistent and can be used in the analysis. However, if μ
is greater than 10%, then it is an indication that the judgment may be inconsistent and
the factor analysis may be required for the study.

Table 3. 2: Randomness index (RI).

Order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.58 1.59
Source: (Saaty and Tran, 2007)

8. Financial Analysis:
The financial analysis involves identifying and measuring the various costs associated
with solid waste management as the first step. Infrastructure capital expenditures,
operational costs, personnel costs, equipment maintenance costs, fuel prices, landfill
fees, and administrative overhead are a few examples of these charges.

The possible revenue sources in solid waste management are taken into account in
financial analysis. These can include user fees, tipping charges levied against trash
producers, proceeds from recycling and resource recovery initiatives, and profits from
the sale of salvaged goods or waste-derived energy. A cost-benefit analysis can be used
to ascertain whether the advantages of a waste management system exceed the
disadvantages. The process of financial modeling entails the development of
mathematical estimates and models to determine future costs and revenues for waste
management.

23
3.3 Sampling Procedure

The sample size for the study was determined by using an online application called

Raosoft. (http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html)

Fig 3. 3: Calculation of sample online using Raosoft

3.4 Samples data

The survey was done on the sample points that is considered important in the municipality.
The location of the sample points was determined using GPS (Global Positioning System).
The diagram below shows the location of the sample points that were recorded to take
survey about the quality and the quantity of the wastes produced.

24
 Fig 3.4: Location of sample points

3.5 Data collection Tools and Technique

3.5.1 Questionnaire Survey

A set of semi-structured questions was created in order to collect trustworthy and accurate
data from the field using interview questionnaires. The respondents completed the surveys
after being provided them. The essential information was gathered by asking questions to
respondents who were unable to finish the questionnaire and entering their answers. The
participants' opinions of the waste management situation in the study area and its current
state were the subjects of the poll's questions. The poll asked questions about the existing
management of solid waste, public awareness; difficulties encountered, and proposed
solutions.

25
3.5.2 Observation Checklist

I often visited the study region during the data collection period, and the essential
information was gathered by observation. I looked at the street and the side of the landfill
where solid debris was strewn everywhere. The observation checklist was also used to
acquire the necessary data.

3.5.3 Primary Data

A handful of households, institutions, commercial establishments, etc. were selected as

representatives from all the wards according to the sample size and the survey was carried
out. The representatives were asked to collect the wastes produced and the composition of
organic and inorganic wastes were taken daily for a week. This helped us in narrowing down
the types and quantities of waste generated in each sector. The data collected from the
survey was scaled up to a larger scale. Additionally, the current landfill site was inspected
and mapped using GIS software, and the current system of solid waste management was
observed through a field visit.

3.5.4 Secondary Data

Secondary data are used in literature review and that are collected through library study method
and books, article, journal, previous thesis are used as the main sources of secondary data.

3.5.5 Software Used

The following software are in this thesis:

a) Arc GIS: It is used to generate factor map, Constraint map, network analysis etc.
b) Super Decision V2.10: It is used to calculate the criteria weightage and find out the
suitable alternative.
c) Google Earth: It is used to study the area closely in order to get better picture.
d) Microsoft Word and Excel: It is used in report writing, table generation and data
analysis.

26
 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Solid Wastes in Urlabari Municipality

According to our survey, the respondents managed their waste through the alley waste
collection system. The municipal vehicle collected waste once a week from the specified
location.

4.1.1 Types of waste

The survey revealed that the solid wastes in Urlabari municipality comprises of 63% organic
waste and 37% inorganic waste.

Types of Solid wastes

37%

63%

Organic waste Inorganic waste

Fig 4.1: Pie diagram showing types of solid waste

4.1.2 Sources of solid waste

The sources was divided into 3 broad categories namely Household waste, Institution waste
and commercial establishment waste. According to the survey, household produces the most
solid waste that is 76% whereas commercial establishments produces 22% and institutions
produces 2% of the total solid waste.

27
 Sources of solid waste

2%
22%

76%

Household Commercial Institutional

Fig 4.2: Pie diagram showing quantity of solid waste produced based on its sources

4.1.3 Solid Waste Composition

Household wastes
The data revealed that the household wastes generates 71% organic waste and the remaining
inorganic waste constitutes 13% plastics, 9% paper and paper products, 2% metal, 1% glass,
1% textile, 1% rubber and leathers and 2% others.

Composition of household wastes Organic

2% 1% 1% 2%
1%
Plastics

9% Paper and
paper products
Glass
13%
Metal

Textile
71%
Rubber and
leather
Others

Fig 4.3: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from household

28
Institution wastes

The data revealed that the household wastes generates 35% organic waste and the remaining
inorganic waste constitutes 19% plastics, 38% paper and paper products, 2% metal, 1%
glass, 1% textile, 1% rubber and leathers and 3% others.

Composition of Institutional waste

Organic
1% 1%
1%
3% Plastics
Metals
35%
Paper and Paper
products
38% Rubber and leather
Glass
Textile
19%
Others
2%

Fig 4.4: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from institutions

Commercial establishments

The data revealed that the household wastes generates 39% organic waste and the remaining
inorganic waste constitutes 21% plastics, 18% paper and paper products, 4% metal, 6%
glass, 3% textile, 3% rubber and leathers and 6% others.

29
 Composition of commercial waste

3%
6% Organic
3% 4%
Glass
39% Plastic
Paper and paper products
18%
Rubber and leather
Metal
Textile
21% 6% Others

Fig 4.5: Pie diagram showing composition of solid waste produced from commercial
establishments

4.1.4 Solid waste management scenario of Urlabari Municipality from Public Eyes

Prevalence of SWM problem

The survey concluded that 82% respondent believes that the problem of SWM is prevalent
in Urlabari Municipality whereas 18% respondents believes it’s not prevalent problem.

Prevalence of SWM problem

18%

82%

Yes No

Fig 4.6: Pie diagram showing public response about prevalence of solid waste problem

30
Complaining about the problem of SWM

The data revealed that 78% of the respondent complains about the problem of SWM
whereas 22% of the respondent does not complain about it.

Complaining About The problem of SWM

22%

78%

Yes No

Fig 4.7: Pie diagram showing public response about complaining about the problem of
solid waste

Initiative taken from personal level for SWM

The survey revealed that only 11% of the respondent took initiative for SWM whereas 89%
respondent took no such initiative. Participation of local people in SWM activities of UM
is very low. This behavior might be one of the cases that municipality is not taking this
serious steps towards proper management of solid waste in Urlabari municipality.

31
 Initiative taken from personal level for SWM

11%

89%

Yes No

Fig 4.8: Pie diagram showing public response about initiative taken from personal level
for SWM

System of Solid waste management

There are possible three ways of clearing solid waste used by people of Urlabari. Among
the Surveyed respondent 65% of respondent passes to municipal vehicle, which arrives,
once a week to them, while 19% respondent do composting and burning and the rest 16%
disposes the solid waste in open.

System of SWM of UM

16%
Passing to Municipal
vehicle
Composting and burning
19%

65% Open disposal

Fig 4.9: Pie diagram showing public response about current system for SWM

32
SWM responsibility

Respondent were asked who is responsible for Solid waste management in Urlabari
Municipality. Here, 65% of the respondent believes it is the sole duty of Municipality office
to manage the solid waste of Urlabari. In addition, 15% of the respondents believes the
employee of the solid waste department are responsible while 8% of the respondent says it
is also the responsibility of the community. 4% of the respondent believes it is a self-duty
to participate in the management of solid waste, whereas only 8% of the respondent believes
it is a collective duty of whole Urlabari to be involved in Urlabari municipality.

SWM responsibility of UM

4%
8%

8% Municipality
Employee
Community
15%
Self
65%
All

Fig 4.10: Pie diagram showing public response about the responsibility of SWM

Selling recyclable waste at household level

Questionnaire included a question asking to the respondent if they sell their recyclable waste
at household level. Among the respondent, 62% of them sells their recyclable waste whereas
the remaining 38% does not sell the solid wastes.

33
 Selling recyclable waste at Household Level

38%

62%

Yes No

Fig 4.11: Pie diagram showing public response about selling recyclable waste at
household level

Willingness to separate waste at Household level

The respondents were asked if they were willing to separate the waste according to the
composition for better management of solid waste. Among the questioned respondent, 72%
of them were willing to separate organic waste and inorganic waste from their household
whereas 28% of the respondent rejected to the process of separation of solid waste at
household level.

Willingness to separate waste at Household level

28%

72%

Yes No

Fig 4.12: Pie diagram showing public response about their willingness to separate waste at
household level

34
Willingness to pay for proper SWM

According to the survey, it was discovered that 62% respondent are willing to pay extra
amount of money to improve the management of solid waste. Although, 12% people denied
paying more for betterment the remaining 26% of the respondent were neutral on this.

Willingness to pay for proper SWM of UM

26%

12% 62%

Yes No Neutral

Fig 4.13: Pie diagram showing public response about their will to pay for proper SWM

4.1.5 Present scenario of solid waste management in Urlabari Municipality

Frequency of Waste Collection in Study Area

In my study, there is no fixed time of collecting waste. According to the survey result, every
household responded that the municipal waste collects the house only once a week.

Production of waste
According to my survey,

 The total household waste production per day = 9.64 ton/day

 The total institution waste production per day = 0.27 ton/day

 The total commercial waste production per day = 2.83 ton/day

35
Production of waste by weight
According to the census 2078, the population of Urlabari Municipality is 71562. The
generation rate is taken as 178.03 gm/capita/day (as per my survey); the total solid wastes
generated can be calculated as follows.

W=rate*population

W=178.03*71562 = 12,740,182.86 gm/day = 12740.18286 kg/day = 12.74 ton/day

Hence, the total weight of solid waste produced in Urlabari Municipality is 12.74 ton/day.

Also, since the waste of Urlabari is divided as 63% organic and 37% inorganic.

Therefore, the total weight of organic waste produced is 63% of 12.74 = 8.0262 ton/day =
7281.24 kg/day.

The total weight of inorganic waste produced is 37% of 12.74 = 4.7138 ton/day
= 4276.28 kg/day.

4.1.6 Existing Landfill site for solid waste generated from Urlabari Municipality

The current landfill site exists in the on the boarder of ward no four and five of Urlabari
municipality. The site is located on the banks of Bakhra river of Urlabari that is why the
existing dumping site is futile. The practice is that the waste are collected and brought here
by means of waste trucks. The waste are then dumped in a small depth pit and later filled
with the sand. There is no appropriate system for waste management, no plans to separate
organic and other waste. There is no financial assessment about the wastes that could be
recycled to have return on investment.

36
 Fig 4.14: Existing landfill site of Urlabari Municipality

4.1.7 Existing data of Land use in Urlabari municipality

In order to identify a suitable landfill site for solid waste, it is essential to know about the
infrastructure of Urlabari. Therefore, the data was taken in accordance of land use plan of
Urlabari municipality. Here are the required data about the river network, road network,
commercial area, forest area, etc.

Ward Map

37
 Fig 4.15: Ward Map of Urlabari Municipality

Road Network map

Fig 4.16: Road network Map of Urlabari Municipality

38
River Map

Fig 4. 17: River Map of Urlabari Municipality

Forest map

Fig 4. 18: Forest Map of Urlabari Municipality

39
Paini (Canal) network map

Fig 4. 19: Paini (Canal) Map of Urlabari Municipality

Residential area land use map

Fig 4. 20: Residential area land use Map of Urlabari Municipality

40
Commercial Area Land use map

Fig 4. 21: Commercial area land use Map of Urlabari Municipality

Agriculture area land use map

Fig 4. 22: Agricultural land use Map of Urlabari Municipality

41
Complete land use map of Urlabari Municipality

Fig 4. 23: Land use Map of Urlabari Municipality

4.2 DESIGN OF LANDFILL SITE

4.2.1 Population projection:

To determine how much municipal solid waste needs to be disposed of daily and annually
for the duration of the sanitary landfill's usable life, it is crucial to protect the community's
future population for at least the next five to ten years.

The population growth is estimated by following mathematical method:

𝑃𝑓 = 𝑃0 (1 + 𝑟)𝑛

Where Po = Present population

r = Rate of population growth

n = number of projected years

42
 4.2.2 Solid waste density:

Density is an important factor in determining the dimensions of landfill site and volume of
the landfill. The density can be estimated as

Table 4. 1: Density of daily cell design and manual sanitary landfill

Design Density (kg/m3)

 Daily cell 400-500

(waste recently compacted annually)

 Volume of the fill 500-600

(waste stabilized in the manual landfill)

Source (Jaramillo, 2003)

These densities, which are attained through homogeneous compaction and in proportion to
how stable the fill is, have an impact on the site's stability and usability.

4.2.3 Calculation of necessary volume

The following factors determine the sanitary landfill's spatial needs:

 The total amount of MSW produced.

 The coverage of collection (The critical design condition is to receive 100% of the
waste produced)
 The density of the stabilized Municipal Solid waste in the manual sanitary landfill.
 The amount of cover material (20-25%) in the compacted volume of MSW.

Volume of Solid waste

The volume of MSW to be disposed daily is calculated as (Jaramillo, 2003):
𝐷𝑆𝑝
𝑉𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 = 𝐷
𝑚𝑠𝑤

𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 = 𝑉𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 ∗ 365

43
Where,

Vdaily = Volume of MSW to be disposed of in one day (m3/day)

Vannual = Volume of MSW in one year (m3/year)

DSp = Quantity of MSW produced (kg/day) = 7281.24 kg/day {from 4.3.3, weight of
organic waste}

Dmsw = Density of the recently compacted MSW (400-500 kg/m3) and of the stabilized
landfill (500 kg/m3)

7281.24
So, 𝑉𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 = = 14.56𝑚3/𝑑𝑎𝑦
500

𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 = 𝑉𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦 ∗ 365 = 14.56 ∗ 365 = 5315.30 𝑚3

Volume of the cover material

The volume of the cover material of the landfill site where the municipal solid waste are
disposed is generally equivalent to 20-25% of the recently compacted wastes.

𝑉𝑐.𝑚 = 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 ∗ 0.20 = 5315.30 ∗ 0.20 = 1063.061 m3/year

Volume of the sanitary landfill

From the values obtained from 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, the volume of the sanitary landfill for the
first year can be calculated. The volume of sanitary landfill is given as:

𝑉𝑆𝐿 = 𝑉𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 + 𝑉𝑐.𝑚 = 5315.30 + 1063.061 = 6,378.36 m3/year

Area of sanitary landfill

The estimated area of the sanitary landfill is calculated as:

𝑉𝑆𝐿
𝐴𝑆𝐿 =
𝐻𝐿𝑆

Here, HLS is the mean height or depth of the sanitary landfill (m). This height should be 3m
or above from the water table of the area.

44
The water table data of Urlabari Municipality is as given:

Fig 4. 24: Ground water table data of Urlabari Municipality

From the study of ground water table, it is clear that the minimum depth of ground water
level is 25meters. The height of the landfill is taken as 5m, since the minimum criteria of
the bed of landfill pit that should be above 3 meters above the ground water table is fulfilled.

So, required area of the landfill site;

𝑉𝑆𝐿 6378.36
𝐴𝑆𝐿 = = = 1,275.672 m2
𝐻𝐿𝑆 5

Therefore, the required area of the landfill site is 1275.672 m2, which is equal to 3.77 Katha
(Local Measurement unit).

45
The single site will be too big for dumping the solid waste. Therefore, we create at least
three chambers for sanitary landfill. So the area of a single chamber pit will be 1275.672/3
= 425.224 m2 which is equal to 1.26 Katha (Local Measurement unit).

As per (Asefa, Damtew and Barasa, 2021) it described about the infrastructure facilities
criteria and using the required area criteria, taking 1.15 times the calculated area for the
infrastructure facilities around the landfill site.

Hence, Total area required = 1.15 * 1275.672 = 1,446.32 m2= 4.27 Katha (Local
Measurement unit)

4.2.4 Location of appropriate landfill site

Criteria for evaluation of appropriate landfill site

Literature on multiple criterion decision making, such as AHP and the evaluation criteria
for choosing a landfill site, was compiled from peer-reviewed journals, books, articles,
websites, and other sources. Following a thorough examination of the literature and advice
from specialists, criteria for the following evaluation of the landfill site were found:

1. Land Use: This parameter comprises areas with roofed structures, natural vegetation,
agricultural land, settlements, and water bodies. Land use is crucial since choosing a
landfill for waste disposal is a delicate process. Likewise, for land use Grassland, crops,
riverbeds, waterbodies, and built-up areas were taken into account and graded based on
a scale of 1 to 5, which defined the suitable condition. Built-up area was given a value
of one, while the grassland was given a value of five. (Dolui and Sarkar, 2021)

2. Soil Type: This element determines the type of soil that is present in the landfill region,
as well as the soil profile and the permitted bearing capacity of the landfill site's likely
placement. The size of the soil grain has a direct impact on the rate of water infiltration.
Humic Acrosol and Dystric Fluvisol are thus the two types of soil that is investigated in

46
 this study. Humic Acrosol is made up of 46% sand, 30% silt, and 24% clay, whereas
Dystric Fluvisol is made up of 81% sand, 11% silt, and 8% clay. The author has therefore
designated Acrosol as being more important than Fluvisol because it tends to have a
lower production capacity. (Yadav et al., 2022)

3. Residential Area: The residential area is a crucial and delicate aspect in every
municipality or urban setting. The landfill region produced significant amounts of
environmental pollution and health issues that had an impact on the local population.
Therefore, choosing a dump location should take into account the distance from
residential areas. The location was chosen since it is remote from residential areas due
to potential bio risks from the landfill site. The buffer zone must be at least 100 meters
wide, and the map was reclassified to meet the requirements for distances more than 400
meters. Rankings ranged from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most appropriate and 1 being
deemed inappropriate. (Dolui and Sarkar, 2021)

4. Groundwater: An essential factor in choosing a landfill site is the state of the

groundwater in order to research contaminants that drain from waste sites. Since 33 was
the prospective index value based on the data presented, the region was categorized as
being in good to poor condition and given the value 5 and. The GWPI value ranged from
0.121 to 0.319, with a poor score of 0.121-0.187 and a high score of 0.54-0.319,
respectively. (Yadav et al., 2022)

5. Slope: A landform's slope reveals information about the area's surface runoff
characteristics, flow rate, water content of the soil, and propensity for erosion. For the
proposed landfill site, a gradual slope is preferred over a steep slope in order to control
the spread of waste material. (Dolui and Sarkar, 2021) (Yadav et al., 2022)

6. Land Value: Land value and dump site have a symbiotic relationship. In this instance,
the analysis considers the monetary value of the land. According to statistics from a
large metropolis, the area with the lowest value is assigned a value of 5, and the area
with the highest value is assigned a value of 1.

7. Distance from River: According to Nepalese law, it is forbidden to dump solid waste
close to water bodies; hence, a landfill site's suitability is directly correlated with its

47
 distance from rivers. Therefore, another factor in choosing a landfill location is the
distance from a river. This research normally has a barrier of 50m - 500m, where 50 m
is believed to be unsuitable with a value of 1 and above 500 m with a value of five. The
distance of 100-500m should be kept from the river region. (Dolui and Sarkar, 2021)
(Mitra and Roy, 2022)

8. Distance from Road: Connectivity is a key aspect in the transportation of garbage from
urban areas to outside roads, and proximity to roads is preferable than connectivity
distance from roads. 60-90 m from the roadside is highly suitable, but 0-30 m is not. In
order to evaluate the distance from the road, this study used a barrier of 200 meters.
(Dolui and Sarkar, 2021)

Calculation of weightage
The weights and scores of each parameter used to assess a landfill's suitability have been
defined using the AHP technique. The consensus of the experts determines the relative
importance of each criterion to the others. In order to assess or identify unsuitable and
possible landfill sites, the scores and weights of each criterion were calculated manually
using excel and the super decision application and then entered into a raster calculator. For
the Pairwise comparison, all of the respondent's data was additionally compiled in excel in
matrix form. To assess the consistency of each answer, calculations were made using Excel
and the decision-making program Super Decision V2.10. The responses were accepted if
the consistency ratio was less than 0.1.

The sample response matrix was normalized by dividing each element by respective column
sum. Criteria weights was calculated by averaging entries of rows in the normalized matrix.
The vector obtained is also called normalized principal Eigen vector or priority vector.

The sample calculation is given below:

Table 4. 2: Normalized Response matrix of responder

48
 Normalized response matrix and criteria weight

LU ST RA GW SL LV DRI DRO Weight

LU 0.115 0.084 0.116 0.127 0.156 0.187 0.095 0.14 0.13

ST 0.231 0.167 0.116 0.127 0.219 0.187 0.189 0.233 0.184

RA 0.115 0.167 0.116 0.064 0.125 0.133 0.189 0.28 0.15

GW 0.231 0.334 0.464 0.255 0.156 0.187 0.189 0.14 0.241

SL 0.024 0.024 0.029 0.051 0.031 0.013 0.047 0.012 0.028

LV 0.016 0.024 0.023 0.036 0.0625 0.027 0.038 0.0093 0.029

DRI 0.231 0.167 0.116 0.255 0.125 0.133 0.189 0.14 0.17

DRO 0.038 0.033 0.019 0.084 0.125 0.133 0.063 0.047 0.068

Where, LU= Land use, ST= Soil Type, RA= Residential Area, GW= Groundwater,
SL=Slope, LV= Land Value, DRI= Distance from River & DRO= Distance from Road

After the normalized response matrix further, the criteria weight was calculated using excel
and further verified using the super decision software.

Table 4. 3: Consistent check of responder data

𝞴max= (A*W)/W 8.682374

Consistency Index, CI= (𝞴max-n)/(n-1) 0.0971

Consistency Ratio, CR=CI/RI 0.068

Randomness Index RI 1.42

49
Following is the pairwise combination table of overall responder and weightage table:

Table 4. 4: Pairwise combination matrix of overall responder data

LU ST RA GW SL LV DRI DRO

LU 1 0.896 0.43 0.67 4.15 3.31 0.26 2.13

ST 1 1.16 0.76 3.51 5.55 1.41 4.31

RA 1 0.52 4.09 5.06 0.49 4.77

GW 1 5.36 5.93 0.87 3.9

SL 1 0.91 0.26 0.44

LV 1 0.22 0.22

DRI 1 4.15

DRO 1

Where, LU= Land use, ST= Soil Type, RA= Residential Area, GW= Groundwater,
SL=Slope, LV= Land Value, DRI= Distance from River & DRO= Distance from Road

The weight calculation presented here is for a single respondent. Other responder data were
further examined using the Super decision, and it was determined that the constituency was
genuine. Following the geometric mean calculation and consistency check of all responder
data, a pairwise matrix of all responder data was generated. Once more, we used the Super
Decision software to calculate the weights of each criterion, and the consistency ratio was
found to be 0.04674, which is less than 0.1 and falls within the acceptable range.

50
 Table 4. 5: Summary of criteria, sub criteria, ranking and weightage

Criteria Weightage Parameter Ranking Suitability Remarks

Distance 0.21976 0-50m 1 Unsuitable (Dolui and

from River Sarkar,
50-150m 2 Less
2021)
suitable
150-250m 3
Moolavallil,
Suitable
250-50m 4 S.M. (2015)
Moderately
>500m 5
suitable

Highly
suitable

Groundwater 0.20304 Poor(0.121- 5 Highly (Yadav et

0.187) suitable al., 2022)
3
Moderate Suitable
1
(0.188-0.253) Unsuitable
Good(0.254-
0.319)

Soil Type 0.17888 Humic Acrisol 2 Less (Yadav et

suitable al., 2022)
Dystric 4
Fluvisol Moderately
suitable

Residential 0.16261 0-100m 1 Unsuitable (Dolui and

area Sarkar,
10-200m 2 Less
2021)
suitable
200-300m 3
Moolavallil,
Suitable
300-400m 4 S.M. (2015)
Moderately
>400m 5
suitable

Highly
suitable

51
Land Use 0.10789 Water Body 2 Less (Dolui and
suitable Sarkar,
River Bed 3
2021)
Suitable
Crop Land 4
Moolavallil,
Moderately
Grass Land 5 S.M. (2015)
suitable
Built up Area 1
Highly
suitable

Unsuitable

Distance 0.06089 0-30m 1 Unsuitable (Dolui and

from Road Sarkar,
30-60m 5 Highly
2021)
suitable
60-90m 4
Moderately
90-120m 3
suitable
120-200m 2
Suitable

Less
suitable

Slope 0.03578 0.01-0.191 5 Highly (Dolui and

suitable Sarkar,
0.191-1.701 4
2021)(Yadav
Moderately
1.702-13.657 2
et al., 2022)
suitable

Less
Suitable

Land Value 0.03114 High 1 Highly (Yadav et

suitable al., 2022)
Medium 3
and Land
Moderately
Low 5
Revenue
suitable
Office,
Less
Belbari
Suitable

52
4.2.5 Possible landfill site

The suitability maps shows the area in five different location that is feasible for landfill site
selection The first two suitable landfill site is in ward number 1, with area of 233626.25 m2
and 89889 m2. The third suitable landfill site is in ward number 4, 7, 8 located in the
boundary of all these wards with an area of 1037308.4375 m2. The fourth suitable landfill
site is located in ward number 8 with an area of 78434.9140 m2. The last or fifth landfill site
has an area of 1502177.75 m2 fall under both ward number 8 and 9.

The map showing all the suitable sites of landfill around the Urlabari municipality is shown
below:

Fig 4.25: Map showing all suitable landfill site in Urlabari Municipality

53
4.3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

4.3.1 Cost Incurred for improved Solid waste management

Table 4. 6: Cost estimate for the landfill site design

S UNI QUANT AMOUN

ITEM DESCRIPTION RATE REMARKS
N T ITY T

Investment cost
A
Land Acquisition
.
Rate as per
Kat 120,00 7,200,000. the current
1 Land Purchase
ha
5 0.00 market
00
Price
B Storage facility, Office
. building Construction
Earthwork in excavation of cu.
1 121.58 69.54 8,454.67
foundation m

The design drawing of the storage facility is shown in the Appendices

cu.
2 Backfilling in foundation 148.44 391.00 58,040.04
m
Providing and Laying Stone Soling sq. 4226.9 315,030.8
3 74.53

Rate as per the Morang district rate

in foundation m 0 6
Providing and laying machine
cu. 9810.0 280,566.0
4 mixed Plain Cement, nominal mix 28.6
m 0 0
of M15
Providing, mixing, laying and
compacting 75 mm thick with sq.
5 77.62 919.02 71,334.33
(1:2:4 concrete) screeding on m
Terrace
Providing and laying Plum cu. 7330.6 159,955.0
6 21.82
concrete (Boulder mixed concrete) m 6 0
Providing and laying in position
machine mixed and machine
cu. 12721. 2,018,695.
7 vibrated cement concrete of mix 158.68
m 80 22
1:1.5:3 ( M20 grade) for
reinforced cement concrete work
Providing and fixing in position Fe
500 steel reinforcement of various 206,133.7
8 kgs 1452.26 141.94
diameter confirming to relevant IS 8
code in R.C.C. works
Good quality local chimney made
brickwork in 1:4 cement sand cu. 15602. 940,338.5
9 60.27
mortar in foundation and ground m 10 7
floor

54
 Supplying, Transportation, fitting
1 310,971.7
& fixing MS pipe for truss work kg 1431.73 217.20
0 6
with Prime Coat
Providing 3 mm thick U.P.V.C.
1 sq. 2541.6 385,693.8
sheet with clip and screw and 151.75
1 m 4 7
laying
1 Providing and fixing 0.31 mm sq. 1686.6
9.18 15,483.08
2 thick plain colored sheet m 1
Formwork, shuttering, centering
1 sq. 166,572.4
with 19mm thick waterproof ply 426.89 390.20
3 m 8
for column, beam & slab
1 Providing, fixing and coloring iron sq. 5620.4 407,651.9
72.53
4 shutter m 6 6
Cement sand plaster (1:4)work on
1 sq. 181,810.0
building inner and outer surfaces 510.43 356.19
5 m 6
of good finish
Providing and Applying two coat
1 sq. 244,122.6
Plastic Emulsion Paint on internal 548.43 445.13
6 m 5
wall and ceiling surface
1 Supplying and Painting two coat sq.
99.09 408.14 40,442.59
7 weather proof paint m
Aluminum Framed Casement Door
1 sq. 8235.1 911,878.1
one way openable with Anodized 110.73
8 m 5 6
Colour (101x45 x1.0 mm)

1 Supplying and fixing porcelain sq. 3178.4 403,056.7

126.81
9 glazed tiles in Walls (1'x1.5') m 3 1

2 Supplying and fixing porcelain sq. 2838.1 459,551.6

161.92
0 Non-glazed tiles in floors (2'x2') m 4 3

Rate As
C 546000 5,460,000.
Dumping truck No. 1 per market
. 0.00 00
price
20,245,7
Total amount :
83.42
Operation cost
D
Labor cost
.
pers 50000. 600,000.0
1 Project Manager 1
on 00 0
pers 25000. 2,700,000.
2 Supervisor 9
on 00 00
pers 6,156,000.
3 Skilled labor 18 950.00 Rate As per
on 00
Morang
pers 13,122,00
4 Unskilled labor 54 675.00 district rate
on 0.00
E
Collection cost
.

55
 1 driver and
Pers 729,000.0
1 Labor cost 3 675.00 2 loader per
on 0
truck
For
2 Fuel Consumption cost ltr 28 152.21 51,142.56 280km/mon
th
28,818,1
Total amount :
42.56
F
Miscellaneous cost
.
15 percent
Other cost such as equipment cost,
3,036,86 of
1 maintenance and repairs, taxes and LS
7.51 investment
insurances, stationary, electronics
cost

Source (World Bank Institute, 2017)

The estimate of the design of landfill site involves:

1. Investment cost :
Investment cost includes the land acquisition cost, cost of the design of the load
bearing structure facilitated for storing wastes and office administration, and the cost
of buying a dumping truck (World Bank Institute, 2017). The land rent/lease cost is
based on the current market rate as per of the site discovered suitable in the study.
The facility for office administration and storage facility for waste was designed
theoretically considering the area of the total landfill site. The cost of the dumping
truck is the standard rate as per its manufacturing company.

2. Operation cost :
The operation cost includes the human resources for administration and waste
handling required to manage the solid waste system. It also includes cost incurred
during the collection of waste throughout the municipality that is the fuel cost and
the labor that collects and handles the solid waste during collection. The quantity for
fuel is calculated based on average distance travelled while the rates of items is based
on the Morang District Rate.

56
 3. Miscellaneous cost :
These includes other types of cost included in the waste management process such
as equipment cost, maintenance and repairs, taxes and insurances, stationary,
electronics. This cost is taken as 15% of the investment cost.

4.3.2 Income generated from inorganic wastes

Table 4. 7: Income calculation from inorganic wastes

Houehold wastes Institutional waste Commercial Waste

Market
Item Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Total Amount (Rs.)
rate(Rs.)
(kg/day) (Rs.) (kg/day) (Rs.) (kg/day) (Rs.)
Metal 14 174.9 2448.6 4.89 68.46 102.69 1437.66 3954.72
Plastics 9 1136.88 10231.9 46.53 418.77 539.13 4852.17 15502.86
Rubber/leather 12 87.45 1049.4 2.44 29.28 77.01 924.12 2002.8
Glass 5 87.45 437.25 2.45 12.25 154.03 770.15 1219.65
Paper/ Paper
12 787.07 9444.84 93.07 1116.84 462.11 5545.32 16107
products
Total 23612 1645.6 13529.42 38787.03

From the table above, the obtained results are illustrated as:

Total income generated from household’s inorganic waste = Rs. 23,612/day

Total income generated from institution’s inorganic waste = Rs. 1,646/day

Total income generated from commercial establishment’s inorganic waste = Rs. 13,530/day

In a year,

Total income generated from household’s inorganic waste = Rs. 86, 18,380

Total income generated from institution’s inorganic waste = Rs. 6, 00,790

Total income generated from commercial establishment’s inorganic waste = Rs. 4,938,450

Total revenue generated by selling all the wastes is Rs. 14,157,265.95

57
4.3.3 Revenue from the public for solid waste management services

The revenue can be collected by charging the facilities that use the solid waste management
services. The charges for all the given establishments is based on the current collection
charges in Urlabari municipality.

Table 4. 8: Revenue generated from establishments who pay monthly for SWM

Monthly Yearly
Description Number
charge (Rs.) revenue(Rs.)
Household 15,899.00 200.00 3,179,800.00

Public Schools 26.00 300.00 7,800.00

Private Schools 33.00 400.00 13,200.00

Government Offices 19.00 300.00 5,700.00

Non-Government
42.00 400.00 16,800.00
offices
Banks 19.00 300.00 5,700.00

Industries 17.00 500.00 8,500.00

Hospitals/clinic 12.00 400.00 4,800.00

Meat shops 99.00 300.00 29,700.00

Shops 1,428.00 200.00 285,600.00

Hotels/ restaurants 215.00 500.00 107,500.00

Total 3,665,100.00

4.3.4 Payback period

The investment cost incurred (from table 4.6) is Rs. 20,245,783.42

The yearly cash inflow (from table 4.7 & table 4.8) is Rs. 17,848,265.95

The payback period is calculated using the following formula:

58
 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 20,245,783.42
𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 = = = 1.13 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 17,848,265.95

The shorter the payback, the more desirable the investment. Since the payback period is
almost around 9 months, the investment is recovered within a year. Therefore, the
investment is desirable.

4.3.5 Benefit cost ratio

The following table shows the cost of operating or running the waste management system
and the benefits that we can receive through the collection or reselling of the wastes. This
costs and income helps us determine the benefit to cost ratio of the project. The data are
extracted from table 4.6,4.7 & 4.8 into the table below to summarize about the benefits and
cost.

Table 4. 9: Cost-Benefit Analysis

S.
Cost Items Amount Benefit Items Amount
no

Revenue from selling

1 Operation cost 28,818,142.56 14,157,265.95
inorganic waste

Miscellaneous Revenue from monthly

2 2,020550.92 3,691,000.00
item cost waste collection fees

Total 30,838,693.48 Total 17,848,265.95

The benefit to cost ratio is given as:

𝐵⁄ = 𝑃. 𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡

𝐶 𝑃. 𝑉 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡

Where, P.V of the benefit expected from the project :- Rs. 17,848,265.95

P.V of the cost of the project :- Rs. 30,838,693.48

So,

59
 𝐵⁄ = 17,848,265.93 = 0.57
𝐶 30,838,693.48

The result here of the analysis shows that the benefit to cost ratio is 0.57, which exhibit that
the operation cost of the project in a year exceeds the benefit expected from the project. The
project is considered feasible only if the benefit to cost ratio is at least one. Since, this study
only considered the revenue generated by selling the inorganic wastes, further study can be
done to calculate the amount of benefit that can be received from recycling of organic
wastes, which can help benefit exceed the cost of the project ultimately increasing the
benefit to cost ratio to one.

60
 Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

For decades, Solid Waste Management has been a significant issue in the majority of Nepali
municipalities. Based on the different environmental, physical, and socioeconomic criteria,
it is more difficult to select the landfill site than is necessary. Therefore, this research focuses
on determining the condition of waste production and selecting a suitable landfill site using
the concepts of GIS and AHP for the early control of waste management in Urlabari. In
addition, this research conducts financial analysis on the solid waste production and the
financial feasibility of the municipal waste management system.

In conclusion, the case study on Urlabari Municipality City concentrates on selecting a

suitable landfill location and performing a financial analysis of solid waste management.
The study's primary findings included several outcomes.

First, the study determines the current condition of waste production in Urlabari
Municipality. The total waste produced is 12.74 ton/day, among which the organic waste
production is 8.0262 ton/day whereas the inorganic waste production is 4.7138 ton/day. The
sources categorized as household wastes, institution wastes and commercial establishments
produces 9.64 ton/day, 0.27 ton/day and 2.83 ton/day respectively. The second finding of
the research is five suitable landfill sites found after a thorough evaluation of numerous
criteria factors, including environmental, social, and economic issues by Analytical
Hierarchy Process. The suitable location satisfies the requirements for trash disposal,
including sufficient accessibility, distant from natural resources, separation from populated
areas, and room for growth. With this choice, the municipality may manage and dispose of
solid waste efficiently, limiting any harm to the environment and the public. The outcome
of the research offers the price tag for solid waste management in Urlabari Municipality
City. It included both construction expenditures and operating costs. A landfill's
infrastructure, including garbage collection vehicles, waste treatment facilities, and
employee training, requires financial resources to construct and maintain. The study also
looks at revenue sources that may help cover costs and ensure the waste management

61
system's sustainability, like fees for waste collection and recycling/selling programs. The
payback period of the investment cost is 1.13 years, which means that after 1.13 years the
investment cost can be recovered through benefits. The benefit to cost ratio is 0.57, which
exhibit that the operation cost of the project in a year exceeds the benefit expected from the
project. The project is considered feasible only if the benefit to cost ratio is at least one.
Since, this study only considered the revenue generated by selling the inorganic wastes,
further study can be done to calculate the amount of benefit that can be received from
recycling of organic wastes, which can help benefit exceed the cost of the project ultimately
increasing the benefit to cost ratio to one.

This research offers insightful information about the value of careful site selection and
budget planning in solid waste management. Urlabari Municipality City can create a
sustainable waste management system that provides correct trash disposal, protects the
environment, and improves the general wellbeing of its citizens by taking into account many
elements and completing a thorough study. The study's conclusions and recommendations
can be a useful resource for communities in a similar situation that are having trouble with
solid waste management.

5.2 Recommendation for further study:

The following recommendations are for additional research on the selection of suitable
landfill locations and a financial analysis of solid waste management in Urlabari
Municipality City:

1. Conduct a research on how much amount of revenue can be generated from the recycling
of organic wastes produced in Urlabari Municipality. The production of biomass and
fertilizers from the organic wastes can benefit us to cover the cost of municipal solid
waste management.

2. Participate in decision-making with the community. A community should be involved

in choosing a landfill location and putting a solid waste management strategy into action.

62
 This will make it more likely that the solution selected will be accepted by those who
will be most impacted by it.

3. Investigate the viability of different garbage disposal techniques. Not all solid trash may
be disposed of in landfills. Anaerobic digestion, composting, and other techniques are
also available. These techniques ought to be looked into as prospective substitutes in
Urlabari because they can be more affordable and environmentally friendly than
landfilling.

Further research on the selection of suitable landfill locations and a financial analysis of
solid waste management in Urlabari Municipality City could also concentrate on the
following topics in addition to these recommendations:

1. The financial gains and expenses of various waste management strategies.

2. The viability of various waste management strategies from a technical standpoint.
3. The effects on the ecosystem and general public health of various waste site locations.

Researchers can contribute to the development of more sustainable and affordable solid
waste management solutions in Urlabari Municipality City by performing additional
research on these subjects.

63
 REFERENCES

Adhikari, R.C. (2011) ‘in Biratnagar sub-metropolitan city’, 7, pp. 21–25.

Asefa, E.M., Damtew, Y.T. and Barasa, K.B. (2021) ‘Landfill Site Selection Using GIS
Based Multicriteria Evaluation Technique in Harar City, Eastern Ethiopia’, Environmental
Health Insights, 15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302211053174.

Asian Development Bank (2013) Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and
Policy Recommendations, Asian Development Bank (ADB). Available at:
http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-
ZGKL200509001593.htm%0Ahttps://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30366/s
olid-waste-management-nepal.pdf.

Basnet, D. (2015) ‘Identification of Landfill Site by Using Geospatial Technology and Multi
Criteria Method- A Case Study of Kathmandu, Bhaktapur and Lalitpur District of Nepal’,
International Journal of Environment, 4(1), pp. 121–129. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.3126/ije.v4i1.12183.

Bharadwaj, B., Rai, R.K. and Nepal, M. (2020) ‘Sustainable financing for municipal solid
waste management in Nepal’, PLoS ONE, 15(8 August). Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231933.

Bijay, T. and Ajay Kumar, K.C. (2011) ‘Solid waste management at landfill sites of Nepal’,
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 4(3), pp. 164–166. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2011/v4i3/29956.

Chaudhary, P. et al. (2016) ‘Application of an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the GIS
interface for suitable fire site selection: A case study from Kathmandu Metropolitan City,
Nepal’, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 53, pp. 60–71. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2015.10.001.

Dangi, M.B., Schoenberger, E. and Boland, J.J. (2015) ‘Foreign aid in waste management:
A case of Kathmandu, Nepal’, Habitat International, 49, pp. 393–402. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.06.010.

Dolui, S. and Sarkar, S. (2021) ‘Identifying potential landfill sites using multicriteria
evaluation modeling and GIS techniques for Kharagpur city of West Bengal, India’,
Environmental Challenges, 5(April), p. 100243. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100243.

64
Ekmekçioĝlu, M., Kaya, T. and Kahraman, C. (2010) ‘Fuzzy multicriteria disposal method
and site selection for municipal solid waste’, Waste Management, 30(8–9), pp. 1729–1736.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.031.

Forman, E. and Gass, S. (2001) ‘The Analytic Hierarchy Process : An Exposition Published
by : INFORMS Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088581 REFERENCES Linked
references are available on JSTOR for this article : You may need to log in to JSTOR to
access the linked references .’, Operational Research, 49(4), pp. 469–486.

Guerrero, L.A., Maas, G. and Hogland, W. (2013) ‘Solid waste management challenges for
cities in developing countries’, Waste Management, 33(1), pp. 220–232. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.008.

Jaramillo, J. (2003) ‘GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION OF MANUAL SANITARY LANDFILLS A solution for the final disposal
of municipal solid wastes in small communities’, p. 299. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/leinny/Downloads/a85640.pdf.

Joshi, R. and Ahmed, S. (2016) ‘Status and challenges of municipal solid waste management
in India: A review’, Cogent Environmental Science, 2(1), pp. 1–18. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1139434.

Kassim, J.K. (2013) ‘International journal of environment’, International Journal of

Environment, 1(1), pp. 9–19. Available at:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.883.2659&rep=rep1&type=pdf
.

Khan, D. and Samadder, S.R. (2014) ‘Application of GIS in Landfill Siting for Municipal
Solid Waste’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Development, 4(1), pp.
37–40. Available at: http://www.ripublication.com/ijerd.htm.

Kumar, A. and Agrawal, A. (2020) ‘Recent trends in solid waste management status,
challenges, and potential for the future Indian cities – A review’, Current Research in
Environmental Sustainability, 2, p. 100011. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100011.

Kumar, S. and Hassan, M.I. (2013) ‘Selection of a Landfill Site for Solid Waste
Management: An Application of AHP and Spatial Analyst Tool’, Journal of the Indian
Society of Remote Sensing, 41(1), pp. 45–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-

65
011-0161-8.

Lunkapis, G.J. et al. (2002) ‘GIS as Decision Support Tool for Landfills Sitting’, Faculty of
Engineering, Master, p. 16.

Maharjan, M.K. and Lohani, S.P. (2020) ‘Municipal Solid Waste Management in Nepal:
Opportunities and Challenges’, Journal of the Institute of Engineering, 15(3), pp. 222–226.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.3126/jie.v15i3.32185.

Mitra, R. and Roy, D. (2022) ‘Delineation of groundwater potential zones through the
integration of remote sensing, geographic information system, and multi-criteria decision-
making technique in the sub-Himalayan foothills region, India’, International Journal of
Energy and Water Resources [Preprint], (January). Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-022-00181-5.

Pokhrel, D. and Viraraghavan, T. (2005) ‘Municipal solid waste management in Nepal:

Practices and challenges’, Waste Management, 25(5), pp. 555–562. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.01.020.

Regmi, T., Ghimire, M. and Shrestha, S.M. (2022) ‘Impact evaluation with potential
ecological risk of dumping sites on soil in Baglung Municipality, Nepal’, Environmental
Challenges, 8(May), p. 100564. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100564.

Saaty, T.L. and Tran, L.T. (2007) ‘On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in
the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7–8), pp. 962–
975. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.022.

Salmon Mahini, A. and Gholamalifard, M. (2006) ‘Siting MSW landfills with a weighted
linear combination methodology in a GIS environment’, International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 3(4), pp. 435–445. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03325953.

Sener, B., Süzen, M.L. and Doyuran, V. (2006) ‘Landfill site selection by using geographic
information systems’, Environmental Geology, 49(3), pp. 376–388. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-005-0075-2.

Shaikh, M.A. (2006) ‘Using GIS in Solid Waste Management Planning: A case study for
Aurangabad, India’, National Category, Master, p. 66.

Thapa, R.B. and Murayama, Y. (2008) ‘City profile : Kathmandu .’, (February).

66
Vaidya, O.S. and Kumar, S. (2006) ‘Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of
applications’, European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), pp. 1–29. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028.

World Bank Institute (2017) ‘Financial Aspects of Solid Waste Management’, (May), pp.
1–20. Available at:
http://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01007/WEB/IMAGES/FINANCIA.PDF.

Yadav, J.P. et al. (2022) ‘Surface Water and Groundwater Recharge Modeling in Sunsari
District using Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model’, 9(August), pp. 12–22. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7066237.

67
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Questionnaire
Appendix B: Site/ Survey Pics
Appendix C: Design/Drawing of the storage facility and office building

68
 Appendix A
Questionnaire

Questionnaire for household

What is the name of the respondent?

Location(ward no.)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
What is the number of the members in your family? What is your education qualification?

School level (SEE) Intermediate Level (+2) Bachelor Masters Uneducated

Higher than masters level
Do you know about Solid waste Management?

Yes No
Do you separate wastes from your houshold?

Yes No
Dominant type of waste from your house

Organic Inorganic
What do you do with your Solid waste?

Pass to municipal vehicle Composting Burning Open disposal Sell

inorganic waste such as metal, plastics,paper,etc? Other
Is there any dumping site near your household?

Yes No
Who do you think is responsible for SWM?

Self Society Municipality Employee involved in SWM All of the above

Any personal initiative towards SWM?

How much do you pay monthly for Solid waste Managament? Are you willing to pay extra
money for better management of solid waste?

Yes No
What are your opinions on making the management of solid waste more efficient?

69
Questionnaire for commercial establishments/ institutions/ industries/ Special waste
Type of establishments

Commercial establishments Institutions Industries Special waste

Location (ward no)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Do you know about solid waste management?

Yes No
Do you separate your wastes?

Yes No
Do you separate your inorganic waste too?

Yes No
Dominant type of waste from your establishment?

Kitchen waste Leftover food item Plastic Meat waste Metals Medical
waste Construction waste Chemicals Paper Industrial waste
What do you do with your solid waste?

Pass to municipal vehicle Composting Burning Open disposal other

Do you sell inorganic wastes such as paper, plastic, metals, etc?

Yes No
Is there any dumping site near your establishments?

Yes No I don`t know

Who do your organization thinks is responsible for SWM?

Self - organization Society Municipality Employee involved in SWM All

of the above
Any initiative taken towards SWM?

How much do you spend monthly on solid waste management?

Are you willing to pay extra money for better management of solid waste?

70
How do you think we can manage SWM to be more efficient in out municipality?

Questionnaire for Municipal Office

Does the Municipality have a separate department to manage SWM?

Yes No
What are the responsibilities of the department towards Solid waste Management?
What type of activities has the Department/section conducted?

Public awareness/education program Training on introducing 3R approach direct

material support for waste segregation others
Are there any special programs for awareness and mitigation of SWM in municipality?

Yes No
Are there any waste minimization/recycle/ energy generation practices?

Yes No

71
 Appendix B
Site/ Survey Pics

Fig B. 1: Existing dumping site where waste are buried and covered with mud

Fig B. 2 Open dumping of waste on the banks of Bakra River

72
 Fig B. 3: haphazard dumping of wastes near Bakra River

Fig B. 4: Sample segregated from household to weight each category of waste

73
 Fig B. 5: Me collecting the GPS of sample point

Fig B. 6: Manpower working in dumping site no safety gears

74
 Fig B. 7 Manpower collecting waste without any safety gears

Fig B. 8: Sample segregated from government office to weight each category of waste

75
 Appendix C
Design/Drawing of the storage facility and office building

Fig C.1 Plan view of Storage facility and office building

76
Fig C.2 Elevation views of the storage facility and office building

77