Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 555-563
doi:10.4236/jep.2011.25064 Published Online July 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep)
Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different
Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah,
Iraq
Sherien Elagroudy1, Tamer Elkady2, Fikry Ghobrial 1
1Sanitary and Environmental Section, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt; 2Geotechnical En gineering Sec-
tion, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Received March 2nd, 2011; revised April 11th, 2011; accepted May 20th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
Solid Waste Management (SWM) system in Basrah has deteriorated recently to the point that only limited waste
collection is undertaken in certain urban areas and disposal is largely to uncontrolled dump sites. In this study, the
technical, economical, and environmental aspects of three SWM scenarios were investigated aiming to compare the
scenarios and select the most appropriate one for implementation. Scenario 1 was to consider waste disposal into a
sanitary landfill. Scenario 2 added waste transportation to transfer station before disposal to a sanitary landfill.
Scenario 3 considered waste sorting, recycling and composting followed by landfill disposal in an integrated treatment
disposal facility. The current open dumping practice was considered as the baseline scenario. According to economic
analysis, the benefits from the revenues of selling the produced recyclables and compost did not improve the ranking of
scenario 3. However, scenario 3 has gained positive recognition due to the environmental benefits of waste recycling.
Therefore, final recommendations were in favour of scenario 3, which has been approved by the UNICEF, as well.
Currently the recommended scenario is under implementation in Basrah, Iraq.
Keywords: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmental Analysis, Economical Cost, Integrated SWM Plan
1. Introduction and Methods
Solid waste has been produced since the beginning of
civilization. During the earliest periods, solid wastes
were conveniently and unobtrusively disposed of in large
open land spaces, as long as the density of the population
was low. Nowadays, one of the consequences of global
urbanization is an increased amount of solid waste.
About 1.3 × 109 ton of municipal solid waste (MSW) was
generated globally in 19 90 [1], and , at presen t, the annu al
generation is approximately 1.6 × 109 ton.
The state of the economy influences waste generation
[2]. Usually, greater economic prosperity and a larger
urban population results in a larger amount of solid waste
generation [3]. Improper disposal of waste impairs addi-
tional expenditure to fight the spread of communicable
diseases and increase treatment cost to remove pollutants
[4].
Poor MSW disposal and management systems are di-
rect threats to nature and health [5,6]. Environmentally
acceptable management of MSW has become a global
challenge due to limited resources, an exponentially in-
creasing population, rapid urbanization and worldwide
industrialization. These factors are further exacerbated by
inadequate financial resources, and management.
This century has witnessed a changing perspective in
waste management, brought about primarily as an out-
come of the initiation of the environmental movement in
the 1970s. This new perspective holds that waste should
be recovered or disposed of without jeopardizing human
health and without using processes or methods which
could harm the environment [7]. Linked with these eco-
logical issues are concerns arising from the depletion of
natural resources and the need for resources conservation.
Hence, resource recovery is now firmly entrenched as a
component of waste management strategies stimulating
the development of comprehensive treatment and dis-
posal approaches, and at the same time setting integrated
waste management methods.
Integrated MSW disposal systems are not yet imple-
mented in Iraq. The most common disposal methods cur-
rently are open dumping and burning in open spaces even

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq 556
in big cities, such as Basrah. Generally, the low-lying
areas and outskirts of the towns and cities are used for
this purpose. These practices have negative impacts on
the environment and are socially unacceptable.
Several waste management and disposal methods are
being used in various parts of the world and the most
prominent of these are: open dumping, sanitary landfill-
ing, composting, and recycling. Sanitary landfilling is a
controlled engineered operation, designed and operated
according to acceptable standards. It may be defined as a
controlled method of disposing of refuse onto or into
land while minimizing nuisances or hazards to public
health or safety. The operation is carried out without en-
vironmental damage and in areas already spoiled or in
need of restoration .
In contrast to a sanitary landfill, composting of refuse
is an aerobic method of decomposing solid waste. Many
types of microorganisms already present in the waste
biostabilize the organic matter in the waste and produce a
soil conditioner as a result of the process. The potential
benefits of composting organic wastes are improved or-
ganic waste handling; reduced odor, fly, and other vector
problems; and reduced weed seeds and pathogens. Com-
posting organic materials reduces risk of leachate and
other contaminants from polluting water resources. Land
applied compost improves soil fertility, and water hold-
ing capacity. It is also free of offensive odors and can be
stored for exten ded periods. These qualities make it suit-
able for use on farms or for sale.
Solid wastes contain significant amounts of recycla-
bles like paper, plastics, glass and metals which, if they
are recycled, and reused, would reduce the volu me of the
wastes to be collected and at the same time would yield
significant salvage and resale income, and will help to
save valuable natural resources and turn wastes into use-
ful products.
Many studies have been reported on strategies to achi-
eve municipal solid waste management [8-10]. A funda-
mental difficulty in planning a MSW management sys-
tem is the need to simultaneou sly account for conflicting
objectives. Planners must develop the best practicable
and environmentally sustainable waste management stra-
tegies, which can be very difficult. The different objec-
tives are not all related to economic costs, and must
therefore be considered in a proper multi-objective
framework. Generally speaking, the objectives are partly
economic and partly environmental. This paper presents
an approach that explicitly considers at least three as-
pects: financial affordability, environmental effectiveness
and social acceptability. In Iraq, as in other developing
countries, environmental considerations are not a priority
in many decisions. The perception of managers is that it
would be expensive if environmentally responsive me-
thods are applied. Furthermore, existing environmental
legislations do not have specific beneficial targets and
are in the early stage of reform.
Methodologies for analyzing waste management sys-
tems or strategies include material flow analysis (MFA)
[11], cost-benefit analysis (CBA) [12] and life cycle ana-
lysis (LCA) [13]. In th is study, different scenar ios for the
management of solid waste management in Basrah City
were considered and compared using (CBA) approach.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Assessment of Current Solid Waste
Management Scenarios in Basrah
As part of this study, the current situation of the solid
waste management in Basrah Governorate was assessed
from the standpoints of waste generation, Solid Waste
Management (SWM) facilities, equipment, personnel,
recycling practices, and the overall institutional frame-
work, including private sector participation.
More than 90% of MSW generated in Iraq is directly
disposed on land in an unsatisfactory manner. The prob-
lem is already acute in cities and towns as disposal facili-
ties have not been able to keep pace with the quantity of
wastes generated. It is common to find large heaps of
garbage lying in a disorganized manner in every nook
and corner in large cities. Basrah, one of Iraq’s largest
metropolitan cities, like other large cities faces similar
problems of poor solid waste management. The objective
of this paper is to analyze some o f the strengths and de fi-
ciencies in the current MSW management system in
Basrah City, propose different SWM scenarios and per-
form a cost benefit analysis to select the most economi-
cally feasible scenario.
Estimates of urban solid waste generation rates and
composition in Basrah Governorate were obtained from
published reports on Solid waste management in Basrah
City [14] and discussion with solid waste management
officials. As verification, the reported waste generation
rates were compared to that reported in the technical lit-
erature for low income and Middle Eastern countries.
Current estimate of solid waste generation rates in
2008 for Basrah City was estimated to be 0.85 kg/cap ita/
day. Future waste generation rates for basrah in the short,
medium, and long terms are provided in Table 1. These
rates have been estimated based on typical growth rates
of solid waste generation reported for Middle Eastern
Countries [15]. Adopting this growth rate, the waste ge-
neration rates, in the short, medium, and long term over
the time horizon of the integrated solid waste manage-
ment master plan (ISWMMP) are shown in Table 1. Us-
ing the generation rates given in Table 1, the amount of
daily generated waste for Basrah City for the short, me-
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq557
Table 1. Waste generation rates for short, medium, long
term.
Short Term Medium term Long term
Waste Generation Rate
(Kg/capita/day) (2009 - 2014) (2015 - 2019) (2020 - 2029)
Basrah City 0.85 - 1.02 1.02 -1.18 1.18 - 1.58
Considered Figure avg. 0.90 avg. 1.10 avg. 1.30
Average Annual
Generation Rate (ton/year ) 280,176 405,600 589,680
dium and long term is calculated.
Information regarding solid waste stream composition
was obtained from field sampling data as provided in
Table 2. Based on Table 2, the percentage of Basrah
City municipal solid waste stream consistin g of materials
which are considered to be recyclable or compostable is
significant. Findings based on field data estimate recy-
clable or compostable material to be about 84%. Al-
though there is no data on waste composition for com-
mercial and small to medium-sized industrial waste, it is
anticipated that this waste will significantly co ntribute to
the recyclable portion. This large percentage of recy-
clable/compostable material in the waste stream provides
optimism that large-scale recycling and composting will
be feasible and significantly reduce the volume of solid
waste transferred to landfill.
Information regarding solid waste management prac-
tices in Basrah City, including inventory of sanitation
equipment and vehicles, were based on data provided by
relevant authorities and field verified using question-
naires. A brief description of current solid waste mana-
gement operations are provided hereinafter.
Collection and transfer of so lid waste in Basrah City is
the responsibility of th e municip ality. Cu rrent so lid waste
management (SWM) operations in Basrah city rely on
the stationary container system (common bins) and a fleet
of mechanical equipment and vehicles that are owned by
the municipalities. For this system, residents place their
waste in bins that are located at central points throug hout
the city. Current deficiency in the number of bins distrib-
uted throughout the urban areas has resulted in waste
filling the bins and accumulating around on streets. In
addition to the formal sector, the informal sector plays a
minor role in the collection and tran sfer of waste in some
areas of the city of high income level. Waste is collected
from household and they are transferred to open areas
where they are manually recover salvageable material,
that is then sold.
At the time of the study, no transfer stations were
available in Basrah City. However, Basrah City has allo-
cated land for which permits for the construction of two
transfer stations at the southwestern and eastern bounda-
ries of the Basrah City has been obtained. Furthermore,
Table 2. Composition of MSW as percentage of weight in
Basrah city [14].
Waste ComponentsAverage (%)Waste Components Average (%)
Organic waste 66.6 Rubber 0.7
Plastic 6.4 Textile 2.7
Incombustible 9.4 Combustible 1.8
Paper 3.7 Glass 5.2
Metal 3.5
no formal solid waste treatment and processing facilities
was identified for Basrah City.
Basrah city had a designated waste disposal area lo-
cated outside the urban limits of the city. However, this
site was not built, operated, or managed to any accept-
able standards and generally classified as open dumpsite.
Assessment of the current solid waste management
(SWM) situation in Basrah City revealed the following
features:
 Waste collection, transport, and disposal systems op-
erate at reduced capacities due to civil unrest, looting
of SWM facilities and equipment, lack of mainte-
nance, and insufficient numbers of qualified SWM
managers, supervisors, and specialist personnel. Re-
sults include substantial waste accumulations around
public waste containers and in streets and public ar-
eas.
 There are no sanitary landfills and most o f the dump-
sites in Basrah City are at the limits of their capacity
to accept wastes.
 There is an informal recycling economy, although its
size is difficult to estimate. Materials are provided by
informal waste collectors who engage in door-to-door
collection from higher-income neighborhoods and
sort the dry wastes. Small enterprises buy these mate-
rials, perform some levels of processing, and sell them
to end-users.
 Composting of urban wet wastes does not appear to
be practiced.
2.2. Integrated Solid Waste Management Master
Plan
In an attempt to improve public and env ironmental h ealth
in Basrah City provisions were taken for the develop-
ment of an integrated solid waste management Master
Plan (ISWMMP). This plan will be implemented for a
time horizon of 20 years divided into three terms; Short
Term (2009-2014), Medium Term (2015-2019), and
Long Term (2020-2029). Construction and organization
of SWM activities will be implemented in phases, with
specific activities and geographic areas receiving im-
proved service over the three periods of the Master Plan.
As part of this ISWMMP, different scenarios for the

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq 558
management of solid waste management in Basrah City
were considered and compared using Cost-Benefit
Analysis approach (CBA). Overall targets for the SWM
organization in Basrah City in the short, medium, and
long term are summarized in Table 3.
2.3. Devel op ment of Scenarios
In this study, the scenarios sh own in Figure 1 have been
developed (Figure 1) for the management of solid waste
generated in Basrah City through out the 20 years time
horizon. The current solid waste operation of waste col-
lection and disposal in open dumping was included as the
baseline scenario (Scenario 0) for comparison. All sce-
narios use the same method, equipment, and human labor
for waste collection and transportation. The other three
scenarios are:
Scenario 1:
Waste is collected using collection bins, transported in
trucks and then disposed in a landfill that is located in-
side the boundaries of Basrah City. No transfer station
stations were considered in this case.
Scenario 2:
Landfill site allocated for waste disposal is located
outside the limits of Basrah City and at a distance of ap-
proximately 40 km from the City center. A transfer station
(TS) is constructed where waste is unloaded from small
Table 3. Targets for SWM organization in Basrah city over
ISWMMP time horizon.
Short Term Medium Term Long Term
Restore an efficient and
operational waste collectio n
system in Basrah City to
achieve a target collection
rate not less than 80%.
Increase collection
efficiency to not
less than 85%
Increase collection
efficiency to not less
than 90%
Initiate sanitary disposal in
Basrah City
Construction and operation of an
integrated treatment, disposal facility
for Basrah City (ITDF)
Figure 1. Scenarios considered during study.
collection vehicles and then reloaded onto larger, long-
distance transport vehicles for shipment to landfill.
Scenario 3:
Waste collected from Basrah city is transported via TS
to integrated treatment and disposal facility (ITDF). The
facility is designed to receive municipal solid waste,
where recyclable materials are separated manually and
made ready for either bale & sell, or recycled in new
plants in the future phases of the project for reuse in safe
industries.
A graphical illustration of the proposed scenarios is
shown in Figure 1. Waste material flow inventory for
each of the proposed solid waste management scenarios
in the short, medium, long term is pro vided in Table 4.
2.4. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost estimates for the SWM scenarios include capital
costs and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The
capital cost is the sum of civil works cost and mechanical
equipment cost. Operation cost is represented by the an-
nual expenditure for power, fuel, and labor. Maintenance
cost is taken as a percentage of the capital cost.
The objective of cost estimates in this study is mainly
to serve the cost benefit analysis and recommendations
that will follow. The capital as well as O&M costs are
determined as a function of the yearly MSW generation.
Estimated capital and O&M costs up to year 2029 are
carried out for all considered SWM scenarios on spread-
sheets in response to short term, medium term and long
term needs. A comparative life cycle costing (LCC) an-
alysis has been applied to identify the least cost scenario.
The analysis of alternative Master Plan scenarios has
considered economical, environmental and social aspects
to the greatest extent possible.
Minimum cost is one of the criteria to select the most
economical scenario. However, environmental impacts
and benefits may divert the recommendations towards
sustainability, which is currently more desired by socie-
ties seeking long term environmental benefits and con-
serving natural air, water and soil resources.
The LCC analysis has been conducted based on the
following assumptions:
1) An infinite horizon is assumed. This time frame is
used in order to account for the different service times of
the facilities and/or equipment.
2) Capital and O&M costs are discounted at a constant
interest rate of 10%.
3) Basically the total cost of a SWM scenario on an in-
finite horizon consists of 1) the total discounted capital
cost and 2) the total discounted O&M cost.
The total present worth capital cost assuming
replacement of units every year is given by:

c
P
e
n
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq 559
Table 4. Waste material flow inventory for proposed SWM scenarios.
Disposal
Scenario Recycling
(ton/year) Composting (ton/year) Dumpsite
(ton/year) Sanitary landfilling (ton/year) Sanitary landfilling via TS (ton/year)
Short Term -- -- 280,176 -- --
Medium Term -- -- 405,600 -- --
0
Long Term -- -- 589,680 -- --
Short Term -- -- 280,176 -- --
Medium Term -- -- -- 405,600 -- 1
Long Term -- -- -- 589,680 --
Short Term -- -- 280,176 -- --
Medium Term -- -- -- -- 405,600 2
Long Term -- -- -- -- 589,680
Short Term -- -- 280,176 -- --
Medium Term 73,414 246,605 -- -- 85,581 3
Long Term 106,732 358,525 -- -- 124,423

1
0
11
1
11
k
e
L
k
cck
n
k
PI
ii





  
 

 






(1)
where;
:
c
P
:iTotal present worth of all capital costs Interest rate (%)
:
k
L
:
The difference between the time of adding new cost
element and the year of estimating the cost

k
ck
I
Initial capital cost of element

brought to its
worth

k
:
e
nExpected life time of equipment, in years
The following input parameters have been used in the
LCC analysis:
Life time of collection equipment = 5years
Life time of cleansing and beautification equipment =
10 years
Life time of transfer equipment = 10 years
Life time of transfer station equipment = 20 years
Life time of treatment facility equipment = 15 years
Life time of disposal facility equipment = 20 years
Similarly, the present wo rth of O&M costs is
given by:

c
OM

1
0
1
11
k
L
kk
ck
OM
OM iii











c
(2)
cc
TPOM

 (3)
2.5. Environmental Assessment of Proposed
Scenarios
Research has revealed that there is no preferred solid
waste management system with respect to environmental
performance. However, the anticipated environmental
impacts depend on several factors such as characteristics
and composition of waste, the efficiency of the waste
collection and processing systems required by different
waste management practices, emissions from waste man-
agement facilities, end use of the materials recovered
from the waste stream, and the availability and proximity
of markets for recovered materials.
A life cycle environmental performance of each pro-
posed ISWM scenarios for Basrah City was performed.
Analysis was performed using the Environmental Analy-
sis Model (EAM) developed by Corporations Supporting
Recycling (CSR) and the Environment and Plastics In-
dustry Council. The EAM model uses a life cycle appro-
ach to evaluate the environmental burdens associated
with waste management elements (i.e., collection, trans-
fer, sorting, recycling, composting, energy recovery, and
landfilling) from the point at which a material is dis-
carded into the waste stream to the point at which it is
either converted into a resource (such as recycled mate-
rial or recovered energy) or, it is finally disposed. Spe-
cific burdens considered by EAM include estimates of
the energy consumed (or produced) and the emissions to
air, water and land associated recycling, composting, en-
ergy from waste and landfilling. The environmental pa-
rameters evaluated by EAM are part of the results of the
Where;
:
k
OM Annual O&M payments starting the year of the
new added element .

k
The total present worth of capital and O&M costs
is obtained by summing Equations (1) and (2) to
yield:

c
T

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq 560
analysis.
Input to the EAM model included waste generation
quantities, waste composition for Basrah City as well as
the anatomy of the proposed solid waste management
scenarios in each term. It should be noted that short term
SWM is identical for all proposed scenarios.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Cost Benefit Analysis
Estimated capital and O&M costs up to year 2029 were
carried out. A comparative life cycle costing (LCC)
analysis has been applied to identify the least cost sce-
nario. The analysis of alternative Master Plan scenarios
has considered economical, environmental and social
aspects to the greatest extent possible. The present worth
of capital and O&M costs for the considered scenarios on
the short, medium, and long terms are given in Table 5.
The economic comparison and least cost ranking of the
considered s cenarios a re p re sented in Table 6.
Scenario 3 is the only scenario that has added value as
benefits from marketing the produced recyclables and
compost in the treatment facility. Therefore, benefits have
been estimated for scenario 3, assuming that the pro-
duced co mpost will be sold at a price of $20 per ton . The
discounted revenues from selling this product have been
subtracted from the present worth (PW) of O&M costs to
obtain the net PW O&M costs, as shown in Table 7.
The benefits from the revenues of selling the produ ced
compost did not improve the ranking of scenario 3 from
the economical point of view. Only 0.4% of total cost
was reduced due to the benefits gained from selling the
recyclables and the compost. However, the environmen-
tal aspects have gained positive recognition of this alter-
native as it is presented hereafter.
3.2. Environmental Assessment of Proposed
Scenarios
The life cycle environmental performance of each pro-
posed scenario was performed using the Environmental
Analysis Model (EAM). Tables 8 and 9 summarize the
inventory of environmental parameters and the life cycle
environmental performance for each proposed solid
waste management scenario in the medium and long term.
Results revealed that Scenario 3 provides the best envi-
ronmental improvement represented by least burdens.
Specifically, Scenario 3 provided performance improve-
ment in 9 out of the 18 environmental burdens.
In conclusion, the net life cycle inventories for pro-
posed solid waste management scenarios indicates that
Scenario 3 provides significant improvement in all envi-
ronmental parameters due to the diversion of waste to
recycling.
Table 5. Present worth of capital and O&M costs for the scenarios (costs are in US$).
Project phases Scenario0 Scenario1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
PW Capital 45074388 50660874 40222219 42701835
PW O&M 62450366 63657544 67299752 70159330 Short Term
Sub-total 10752474 11431848 107521971 112861165
PW Capital 9236518 31192301 31829485 58708009
PW O&M 76238349 78925003 85770546 115734280 Medium Term
Sub-total 85474867 11011734 117600031 174442289
PW Capital 39655477 13862517 85021118 108175402
PW O&M 11939990 12265518 134843634 183910985 Long Term
Sub-total 15905547 26128025 219864752 292086387
Table 6. Economic comparison and least cost ranking of scenarios (costs are in US$).
Scenario PW Total Capital PW Total O&M PW Total Least Cost Ranking
Scenario 0 93966383 258088675 352055058 1
Scenario 1 220478342 265237665 485716007 3
Scenario 2 157072822 287913932 444986754 2
Scenario 3 209585246 369804595 579389841 4
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq561
Table 7. Influence of benefits on total cost of scenario 3 (costs are in US$).
Scenario 3
Short Term Medium Term Long Term
PW Capital 42701835 58708009 108175402
PW O&M 70159330 115734280 183910985
Sub-total PW Capital + O&M 112861165 174442289 292086387
Sub-total Revenues 196902.9 205605.2 597683.9
Sub-total PW Revenues 317114 331129 1550238
Net PW O&M 69842216 115403151 182360747
Sub-total PW Capital+ Net O&M 112544051 174111160 290536149
Total with Benefits 577191360
Total without Benefits 579389841
Table 8 Inventory of environmental parameters for the proposed solid waste management scenarios.
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Parameter Unit
Medium
Term Long Term Medium
Ter
m
Long
Term Medium
Ter
m
Long
Term Medium
Ter
m
Long
Term
Quantity of Waste t*105 4.05 5.896 4.05 5.896 4.05 5.896 4.05 5.896
Energy Consumed GJ*103 3.45 4.54 19.8 28.4 23.3 33.4 127 212.82
- CO2 t*103 0.28 0.37 1.75 2.5 1.99 2.87 11 19
- CH4 t*103 15.7 22.78 15.67 22.8 15.67 22.78 0.46 0.055
-CO2 Equivalents t*103 3.29 4.79 3.32 4.8 3.32 4.83 0.27 0.31
- Nox t 1 1.16 4 5.6 6 8.71 22 35.5
- Sox t 2 2.59 13 19.2 14 19.96 91 152.98
- HC1 t 1 2.06 1 2.1 1 2.08 0 0.2
- Nox t 1 1.16 4 5.6 6 8.71 22 35.5
- PM t*102 1.1 1.59 1.11 1.6 1.11 1.61 0.95 1.37
- VOCs t 49 70.44 51 74.7 52 76.01 29 45.43
Pb in Air Kg 0 0.31 1 1.3 1 1.29 5 8.99
Hg in Air Kg 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.05
Cd in Air Kg 0 0.19 0 0.3 0 0.3 1 0.96
Dioxins (TEQ) in Air G 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.01 0 0
Pb in Water Kg 11 15.4 4 5.3 4 5.38 3 4.62
Hg in Water Kg 0 0.22 0 0.1 0 0.12 0 0.05
Cd in Water Kg 15 22.1 5 7.2 5 7.23 2 3.31
BOD in Water Kg*104 20.2 2.94 3.84 5.6 3.84 5.58 1.71 2.37
Dioxins (TEQ) in Water g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residual Waste t*104 40.5 58.96 40.5 58.96 40.5 58.96 17.5 24.1

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq 562
Table 9. Life cycle environmental performance for the proposed solid waste management scenarios.
Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Parameter Unit
Medium
Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term Medium Term Long Term
Energy Consumed GJ*103 3.44 4.53 19.85 28.39 23.3 33.41 –1,118.0 –2,276
- CO2 t*103 0.28 0.37 1.76 2.52 2 2.87 –39.1 –76.47
- CH4 t*103 15.67 22.78 15.67 22.78 15.67 22.79 –0.021 –0.90
-CO2 Equivalents t*103 3.29 4.79 3.32 5 3.33 4.84 –0.91 –1.91
- Nox t 1 1 4.07 6 6.19 8.7 –177.76 –333
- Sox t 1.83 3 13.27 19 13.78 20 –225.9 –410
- HC1 t 1.42 2 1.43 2 1.43 2.1 –2225.79 –3,642
- Nox t 1 1 4.07 6 6.19 8.7 –177.76 –333
- PM t*102 1.09 1.59 1.11 1.61 1.11 1.61 0.27 –0.02
- VOCs t 48.54 70 51.44 75 52.37 76 –70.04 –164
Pb in Air Kg 0.21 0 0.88 1 0.89 1.3 –3.73 –5.3
Hg in Air Kg 0 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 –0.3 –0.6
Cd in Air Kg 0.13 0 0.2 0 0.21 0.3 0.27 0.4
Dioxins (TEQ) in Air G 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0
Pb in Water Kg 10.6 15 3.66 5 3.7 5.4 –36.28 –58
Hg in Water Kg 0.15 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.1 0.09 0.2
Cd in Water Kg 15.22 22 4.97 7 4.97 7.2 1.39 2.1
BOD in Water Kg*104 20.2 29.41 3.84 5.59 3.84 5.59 2.37 4
Dioxins (TEQ) in Wate r g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residual Waste t*104 40.56 58.96 40.56 58.96 40.56 58.96 17.58 24.1
4. Conclusions
In this study, the technical, economical, and environ-
mental aspects of different SWM scenarios were investi-
gated to compare the options available for MSW mana-
gement in Basrah City, Iraq. Three scenarios were com-
pared namely; direct waste disposal into a sanitary land-
fill, waste transportation to transfer station and then to a
sanitary landfill, sorting, recycling and composting fol-
lowed by landfill disposal in an integrated treatment dis-
posal facility. In addition, the current open dumping
practice was included as the baseline scenario.
The benefits from the revenues of selling the produ ced
recyclables and compost did not improve the ranking of
scenario 3 from the economical point of view. However,
the environmental aspects have gained positive recogni-
tion of scenario 3 due to the diversion of waste to recy-
cling. Therefore, final recommendations favour scenario
3 which has been approved by the UNICEF, as well.
Currently the recommended ISWMMP scenario is under
implementation in Basrah , Iraq.
5. Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to thank University of Waterloo, Cana-
da for providing the Integrated Waste Model (IWM).
REFERENCES
[1] D. N. Beede and D. E. Bloom, “The Economics of Muni-
cipal Solid Waste,” World Bank Research Observer, Vol.
10, No. 2, 1995, pp. 113-150. doi:10.1093/wbro/10.2.113
[2] J. Petts and G. Edulijee, “Environmental Impact Assess-
ment for Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities,” John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, 1994.
[3] S. Chattopadhyay, et al., “Municipal Solid Waste Man-
agement in Kolkata, India—A Review,” Waste Manage-
ment, Vol. 29, No. 4, April 2009, pp. 1449-1458.
[4] T. W. Assmuth and T. Strandberg, ”Ground Water Con-
tamination in Finished Landfill,” Water Air and Soil Pol-
lution Journal, Vol. 69, No. 1-2, 1993, pp. 179-199.
doi:10.1007/BF00478358
[5] J. Dotreppe and P. Grisaron, “Industrial and Urban MSW:
Treatment, Destruction and Valorisation,” Publisher, Ce-
bedoc Liège, 198 6 .
[6] L. Y. Mayster and V. Duflon, “Urban Wastes, Nature and
Characterization,” Polytechnic and University Publisher
Press, Lausanne, 1994.
[7] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Theisen and S. Vigil, “Integrated
Solid Waste Management,” McGraw-Hill, New York,

Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq563
1993.
[8] S. Pawan, P. Sikka , R. C. Mahe shwari a nd P. Chatu rvedi,
“Management of Municipal Solid Waste, Bio Energy for
Rural Energization,” Department of Science and Techno-
logy, IIT, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 205-209.
[9] J. A. Salvat o, “Sol id Wa ste Management,” Environmental
Engineering and Sanitation,” 4th Edition, Wiley, Hobo-
ken, 1992, pp. 662-766.
[10] V. Kum, A. Sharp and N. Harnpornchai, “Improving the
Solid Waste Management in Phnom Penh City: A Strate-
gic Approach,” Waste Management Journal, Vol. 25, No.
1, 2005, pp. 101-109.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2004.09.004
[11] P. Brunner and H. Rechberger, “Practical Handbook of
Material Flow Analysis, Series: Advanced Methods in
Resource and Waste Management,” Vol. 1, CRC/Lewis
Publishers, 2003, p. 336.
[12] S. Farrow and M. Toman, “Using Benefit-Cost Analysis
to Improve Environmental Regulations,” Environment,
Vol. 41, No. 2, 1999, pp. 12-21.
[13] R. G. Hunt, “Life Cycle Assessment Considerations of
Solid Waste Management Alternatives for Papers and
Plastics,” Resources Conservation & Recycling, Vol. 14,
No. 3-4, 1995, pp. 225-231.
doi:10.1016/0921-3449(95)00018-E
[14] United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP),
“Solid Waste Management in Southern Governorates of
Iraq,” September 2007.
[15] Regional Solid Waste Management Project in Mashreq
and Maghreb Countries Prepared in collaboration with the
International Consortium (ERM/GTZ/GKW) & the Re-
gional Management Group-ANPE, January 2004.