International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) Vol.1, Issue 2 Dec 2011 16-30 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

DECISION MAKING FOR SUSTAINABLE WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT IN CITY,

Mr. S. S. SHASTRI* Research Scholar, College of Engineering, Pune, (, India) [email protected]

Dr. P. M. RAVAL Professor and Guide, College of Engineering, Pune, (Maharashtra, India)

ABSTRACT

Rapid Urbanisation and Industrialisation in developing countries like India has resulted on one side, in economic growth and prosperity of the people whereas on other side, this has also resulted into generation of more and more quantities of wastes, domestic as well as industrial. Although there are relevant norms for the treatment and discharge of pollutants from both, domestic as well as industrial, it is found that the infrastructure provided for curbing these pollutions is very haphazard and inadequate. Conventional methodologies like conventional sewerage systems presently in use are grossly inadequate to manage the generated waste. As a result, untreated domestic waste finds direct access to water systems or lies untreated on the land surface.

Even in big cities like Pune, sewage collection and treatment is not upto the mark. Although Pune Municipal Corporation has developed a Master Plan for collecting ad treating 100% of the sewage by 2015, practically it seems to be impossible, taking into consideration the present haphazard and unplanned growth of the city. Also, no thought is given at the PMC level for developing appropriate decision making system for selection of technologies or options for Sustainable Waste Management. A Research study was carried out for Pune wherein, the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach was applied for arriving at the Sustainable Waster Water Management Option for Pune City. The same is explained in this paper.

KEY WORDS : Sustainable Waste Water Management, MCDM, AHP, Pune

INTRODUCTION: THE STUDY AREA

Pune city is located at 560 m (1,840ft) above mean sea level on the western margin of the Deccan plateau. It is situated on the leeward side of the Sahyadri mountain ranges (the ), which separates it from the Arabian Sea. It is a relatively hilly city, with its tallest hill, Vetal Hill, rising to 800 m (2,600 ft) above mean sea level. Just outside the city, the fort is located at an altitude of 1300 m. The geographical area of the city is 243 sq. km after merger of fringe areas into the corporation limits.

River Mutha is the main river flowing through Pune city, which is the tributary of River Bhima, the major river in Maharashtra, which in turn is the tributary of River Krishna. The river Mutha carries 17 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India partially treated domestic as well as the industrial waste from Pune city which ultimately goes to River Bhima, finally empounding into Ujjani .

WASTE WATER GENERATION AND MANAGEMENT SCENARIO IN PUNE CITY

Pune City has total population of about 35 lakhs and the total water supply is 1050 Million Litres per Day (MLD). Require per capita water supply as per standard Indian norms for A class cities is 135 litres per capita per day (lpcd), where as PMC provides 229 lpcd of water. (Considering about 20% losses which comprise of 16% losses in distribution and 4% losses during treatment).About 80% water supplied to consumers get converted in Sewage in Indian metropolitan cities. According to estimate Pune generates more than 567 million liter sewage per day. This is less than a normal figure of 80% due to non-consumptive use of water which does not get reflected in sewage as well as due to non-metered water supply, making the actual water supply as well wastewater generation a suspect.

COLLECTION OF SEWAGE IN PUNE CITY

For the proper collection of the sewage from different areas of Pune city, PMC has developed the sewage collection system. The details are as follows:

Total sewage collection: 567 MLD. (Domestic 510 MLD and Commercial 57 MLD)

Catchment Area: 199 Sq. km (As per Environmental Status Report 2009-10)

Total No. of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs): 7 working

Total Installed Capacity of STPs: 382 MLD

Total Sewer line: 2200 km

Total Pumping Stations: 10

Installed Capacity of Pumping Stations: 402 MLD.

Although the PMC has made huge investment in the treatment of sewage, there are lacunas in the waste water management. The main could be summerised as follows:

1. 100% sewage which is generated within the city is not getting collected. Hence the untreated sewage finds its way into the river course directly through many non point sources. This unaccounted for sewage makes the overall figure of sewage generation less than 80% of the water supplied. (Refer Photograph No. 1 below)

2. In some cases, the treatment plant receives more water than the design flow. Hence, more than 50% raw sewage goes directly to the river. The treated waste from the STP gets mixed with this surplus flow and just carries out the dilution. But all the efforts taken in treatment are lost. (Refer Photograph No. 2 below)

3. There is a big lapse between waste water generation and collection & treatment. The city population is growing by leaps and bounds whereas the collection, conveyance and treatment Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 18

facilities are much less than required, making the entire waste water management unsustainable in the city. As per the Environmental Status Report of PMC (year 2009-10), the annual rate of growth for Pune City is estimated to be 5%. However, the infrastructure required for managing the wastewater that will be generated due to such a rapid increase in the population is not in accordance with the rate of population growth of the city

It is imperative from the above discussions that, the waste management policy of PMC requires a paradigm shift. An attempt is made through the on-going research to apply MCDM tool to arrive at sustainable wastewater management for a city like Pune. Wastewater management strategies are compared using sustainability- criteria that comprise of economic, environmental, socio-cultural and technical aspects. In order to develop sustainable strategies for managing domestic wastewaters, the methodology is validated in an evaluation situation using a case study based upon qualitative analysis for residential development.

Sewage Projects - Master Plan in Pune City

Considering the likely increase in the area under the jurisdiction of PMC (430 sq.km) and a rapid rise in population, the project plan for water supply and sewerage services was revised and completed in the year 2005.

PMC has constructed 5 sewage treatment plants (STPs) along with the STP at Naidu Hospital at (Bhairoba Nala), , Tanajiwadi and Bopodi. The total 567 MLD of sewage is generated in PMC limit, out of that 305 MLD (i.e. 53%) is treated by the 5 STPs and the treated effluent is discharged into Mula Mutha Rivers. For the treatment of the remaining 262 MLD sewage generated, 5 more STPs are proposed:

1. In the premises of the existing Naidu STP (115 MLD)

2. At Viththalwadi near Rajaram Bridge (32 MLD). Work on these two plants is completed.

3. At (30 MLD)

4. At (40 MLD)

5. At Mundhwa (45 MLD) - Commissioned recently .

Master Plan

Table 1 : Details of Sewage Treatment Plants in Pune

Sr. Dr. Naidu Kharadi Baner Description Bopodi Tanajiwadi Erandwane Viththalwadi Bhairoba Mundhwa No. Hospital (Proposed) (Proposed)

1 Capacity of 18 MLD 17 MLD 50 MLD 32 MLD 115 MLD 130 MLD 45 MLD 40 MLD 30 MLD plant

2 Bio tower Modified Sequential Activated Activated Sequential Treatment Extended followed by Activated Batch Sludge Sludge Batch NA NA facility aeration diffused Sludge Reactor Process Process Reactor aeration Process

3 Year of May 2003 April 2004 Dec. 2004 July 2008 1981 July 2003 2009 NA NA commissioning 19 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

4 1.5 Total Area 0.72 hectare 0.8 hectare NA 4.6 hectare 8 hectare NA NA NA hectare

5 Catchment area 15 sq.km 18 sq.km 26 sq km 14 sq km 37 sq km 82 sq km 23 sq km NA NA

6 Cost in crores (INR) / Cost in 5.69 / $ 6.75 / $ 11.12 / $ 37.54 / $ NA NA 32 /$ 6.4 M NA NA $Million 1.14 M 1.35 M 2.24 M 7.508 M (Approx.)

7 Power consumption 2300 4050 11000 NA 15700 NA NA NA NA KWH

8 Population in 1.25 lakh 1.33 lakh 3.70 lakh 2.2 lakh 6.66 lakh 9.62 lakh 2.8 lakh NA NA catchment area NA: DATA NOT AVAILABLE; CONVERSION TO Rs. BASED ON A RATE OF 1$ = Rs. 50

As seen from the above Table, it is seen that the PMC is spending a huge amount on Construction as well as O&M of the STPs. However, it is found that due to non-point sources, the River Water Quality is much below than that required for the intended use of the river downstream of Pune City.

As per the public notice issued by the Government of Maharashtra Pollution Department, dated 09/08/2008, the rivers are classified based on their designated use as follows (refer Table 2):

Table 2 : Siting Criteria for Industries With Respect to Classes of River

Any type of industries Only green & orange No Development zone for (Red, Orange, Green ) Classes category of industries with any type of industries with pollution control pollution control devices. devices A-I 3 Km on the either side of From 3 Km to 8 Km from Beyond 8 Km from river river river (H.F.L.) on either (H.F.L.) on either side. side A-II 1 Km on the either side of From 1 Km to 2 Km from Beyond 2 Km from river river. (H.F.L.) on either side (H.F.L.) on either side. A-III 1/2 Km on the either side From 1/2 Km to 1 Km Beyond 1 Km from river of river from river (H.F.L.) on (H.F.L.) on either side. either side A-IV 1/2 Km on the either side From 1/2 to 1 Km from Beyond 1 Km from river of river river (H.F.L.) on either (HFL.) High Flood Line side on either side.

Depending upon the category of the river as above, the designated use of river is classified as follows (Refer Table 3): Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 20

Table 3 : Designated Best Uses of River Class

Sr. no. Classification Designated Best Uses

Drinking water without conventional treatment but after disinfection. I A-I Point from where the river originates up to first designated notified dam/weir. Drinking water source with conventional treatment followed by II A-II disinfection. River stretch below first designated/notified dam / weir up to A-III/A-IV Class of waters.

III A-III Fish and Wild Life Propagation

IV A-IV Agriculture, Industrial cooling and process.

It is to be specially noted that with respect to the above norms, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has categorized the various stretches of River Mutha and the same are depicted in Table 4 below.

Table 4 : Categorisation of Various Stretches of River Mutha From Origin to Confluence Point

Sr. Stretch of Name of River No. A-I Class A-II Class A-IV Class

1 Origin to Viththalwadi weir Khadakwasla to to confluence dam Vithalwadi weir With

Thus, it is imperative from the above discussions that, inspite of all efforts taken by PMC, with the current waste management practices, it is not possible to achieve sustainable waste water management in cities like Pune. Hence, there is a need for paradigm shift in the waste management strategy. Hence, through this research, an approach of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is tried for arriving at Sustainable Waste Water Management Option for Pune city. In order to arrive at a sustainable waste water management option, a decision support tool based on MCDM is developed. This will help to identify the most sustainable option amongst the several feasible options for wastewater management Step I is the formulation of goals, step II is the formulation of Alternatives, Step III is the formulation of criteria to assess how the goals are reached and step IV is the calculation of the best alternative with some kind of software programme.

The MCDM will calculate for each feasible alternative, the total score of all criteria on the basis of their individual weighting as given by the experts. 21 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Literature Review pertaining to use of MCDM in Environmental Engineering reveals that Environmental Decisions are often complex and multi-faceted and involve many different stakeholders with different priorities or objectives. This exactly resembles the type of problem that behavioural decision research has shown and that is that humans are poorly equipped to solve unaided problems. Most people when confronted with such problems will attempt to use intuitive or heuristic approaches to simplify the complexity until the problem seems more manageable. IN the process, important information may be lost, opposing points of view may be discarded and elements of uncertainty may be ignored. It is also mentioned that the tendency of environmental issues to involve shared resources and broad constituencies means that the group decisions are often necessary. 2

The AHP is a common method used in MCDM; It structures an objective hierarchically and guides the analyst through a sequence of pair-wise comparison judgements. AHP is an approach of decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into a hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of those criteria, comparing alternatives for each criterion and determining an overall ranking of the alternatives. It is one of the well-known methods of Multicriteria analysis and has been performed in many different cases.

The review of current available reveals that MCDM is not a very common tool in India, which is used for Decision Making, especially in Wastewater Management. Hence, this Research Work is an attempt to apply the MCDM tool for waste water management in Indian context, especially in Urban Conglomerates.

The current wastewater management practices in India have proved out to be unsustainable. With rapid urbanization and industrialization, the wastewater management is ever burgeoning problem in India. Even today, the wastewater management especially the sewage management in India is normally based mainly on economic aspects and then to some extent on technical and environmental aspects. Normally, all the stake holders are not involved in the decision making process. Hence this research is an attempt to apply the principles of MCDM in arriving at sustainable wastewater management in urban areas in India. The research is focused on applying MCDM principles to the urban area by considering case study of Pune city. Various stakeholders, right from policy makers, technical experts and persons with social work background are involved in the current research work.

USE OF MCDM AND AHP FOR ARRIVING AT SUSTAINABLE WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT OPTION IN PUNE CITY.

In spite of huge investments made in waste water treatment, unless a goal of 100% collection, conveyance and treatment for domestic sewage is not achieved, the sustainability in wastewater management is impossible. Also, the current decision making process is mainly based on economic aspects to a great extent and on technical aspects to a smaller extent. Hence, an approach of MCDM was applied for arriving at Sustainable Wastewater Management Option for Pune city. Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 22

Scenario Development plays an important role in using MCDM approach for any problem under consideration. The scenarios developed are selected keeping in view the possibility of actual practical implementation of the same. The scenarios chosen are the outcome of the brain storming session with the experts selected for evaluation. Four possible alternatives for wastewater management were considered. These were finalized taking into consideration various possible criteria and sub-criteria. The same are presented in the Table 5 below:

Table 5 : Details of Criteria and Sub Criteria Used for Evaluation

GOAL: ARRIVING AT SUSTAINABLE WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT OPTION FOR PUNE CITY BASED ON M C D M

Main Criteria Sub Criteria

ECONOMIC i. CAPITAL COST ii. AV. O & M COST iii. RISK OF LOSS IN INVESTMENT iv. COST TO UPGRADE FOR ADVANCED TREATMENT v. COST PER HOUSEHOLD vi. END USERS’ ABILITY TO PAY FOR SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL i. USE OF MATERIAL ii. NATURAL RESOURCES iii. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT iv. IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY v. SECONDARY IMPACT

SOCIO - CULTURAL i. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING, AWARENESS ii. PARTICIPATION & RESPONSIBILITY iii. HEALTH IMPACT iv. ACCEPTABILITY TO STAKE HOLDERS v. EQUITY & SOCIAL COHESION

TECHNICAL i. PERFORMANCE OF SYSTEM ii. FLEXIBILITY & ADAPTABILITY iii. SYSTEM DURABILITY iv. SYSTEM RELIABILUTY v. EASE OF MANAGEMENT

SCENARION DEVELOPMENT FOR CURRENT RESEARCH WORK

Various alternatives are possible for wastewater management. The alternatives considered here are evolved through the discussions with the expert panel comprising of expert from various fields of Environmental Engineering as well as from Social Sciences background. The alternatives arrived at are finalized taking into consideration various aspects, such as Economical Aspects, Technical Aspects (Availability and Reliability of Technology, O&M Cost.), Social Acceptance etc. The same are briefed below: 23 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

A. Recycle and reuse within / outside the polluters boundary.

Recycle and reuse of Wastewater for irrigation is a common practice in developing countries. It also helps in the water scarce regions. As per the agreement between the Pune Municipal Corporation and the Water Resources Department (WRD) of Government of Maharashtra, Pune receives 11.5 TMC of water annually and it is supposed to give back a 6.5 TMC of water back to the WRD. In Pune, treated wastewater is used either in agriculture or directly discharged in Mula Mutha river. From 130 MLD

Bhairoba STP only 45 MLD treated wastewater goes for the irrigation purpose through a canal system known as Sade Satara Nali canal.

In spite of ill effects of untreated wastewater on human health and the environment, the treated wastewater is highly reliable, nutrient rich and can be used for agriculture. It will provide a year-round income, employment to local people along with food security to the urban and peri-urban local people. While the problems associated with wastewater reuse and recycle in Pune arise from its lack of treatment and the will power of PMC.

Besides this, PMC has 83 gardens in Pune city and the total area of all these gardens is about 268.2 acres. The treated waste water can be used for these gardens. The treated waste water can also be used for fire fighting. PMC has 10 fire stations in Pune city with total water storage capacity of 7.75 lacks liters. These fire stations can also use the treated waste water.

B. Reducing water consumption / reduced dependency on fresh water.

Reducing water consumption leads to reduced sewage generation in the city. It has a direct impact on quantity of sewage. PMC provide more than 220 lit/day per capita, resulting in 800 MLD sewage generations. Reduced water consumption eliminates the load of sewage, and ultimately helps to minimize the river pollution. To minimize dependency on fresh water Rain water harvesting and use of ground water are the better options. This will also make the common citizen to be an integral part of the water and wastewater management system of the city. Thus, the participatory approach like this will help the PMC for better wastewater management within the city.

C. Status-Quo Current practices to be continued.

As per the Master Plan 2025, PMC will develop a full proof waste water management system. Total generated sewage will be treated in 11 different sewage treatment plants. For this purpose PMC is investing more than 600 cores. PMC has developed a sewage collection system and treatment system. But current wastewater management system is not adequate for the treatment of whole waste water generated in city. This particular option has been considered for evaluation, as it is very difficult that the current wastewater management system in the Pune city will have a paradigm shift in the recent future.

D. Separation of Black Water and Grey Water -Onsite Treatment for Black Water

Grey water is the recycling of waste water that is generated in homes and commercial buildings through the use of water for laundry, dishes, or for bathing. Grey water differs from black water which is Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 24 wastewater used in toilets and designated for sewage systems. whereas, black water means water polluted with food, animal, or human waste.

Grey water can be used for a variety of purposes such as irrigation or toilet flushing and is collected from: Sinks, Showers, Bathtubs, Washing machines, Dishwashers etc. and black water needs to be treated before disposal in any natural stream. Onsite treatment of black water reduces the sewage strength and it becomes easier to treat and recycle than original black water, because of minimum concentration of contaminants.

AHP & MCDM METHODOLOGY

MCDM establishes preferences for evaluating, prioritizing or selecting available alternatives expressed in terms of multi criteria. An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used for analysis. EXPERT CHOICE 11 was used for optimization of the data. An expert panel comprising of eight experts from various aspects of water (such as Government Bodies, Consultants, Academicians, NGOs) were involved in arriving at the decision making.

The AHP is based on the mathematical calculations and it can be explained in simple way. The base of AHP calculation is a matrix and a vector, multiplication of matrix and vector. (For the detailed study of these calculations we should refer Saaty’s book.)

Example: There are four main criteria as A, B, C, and D to be compared. The weightage to each of the criteria is given in scale of 1-9. With this reference we can form a square matrix. If criteria A has a value between 1 to 9, compared with criteria B. then criteria B gets the reciprocal value of criteria A.

The weights are consistent if they are transitive, and calculated from exact measured data. Then find a vector ω of order 4 such that Aω = λω . For such a matrix, ω is said to be an eigenvector (of order 4) and λ is an eigenvalue. For a consistent matrix, λ = n. The difference between λmax and n indicates inconsistency of the judgments. If λmax = n then the judgments are consistent.

Finally, a Consistency Index can be calculated from following equation:

(λmax-n)/(n-1).

There are several methods for calculating the eigenvector. Multiplying together the entries in each row of the matrix and then taking the n th root of that product gives the correct answer. The n th roots are summed and that sum is used to normalize the eigenvector elements to add to 1.00. In the matrix below, the 4 th root for the first row is 0.293 and that is divided by 5.024 to give 0.058 as the first element in the eigenvector. The table 6 below gives a worked example in terms of four attributes to be compared which, we refer to as A, B, C, and D (1) . 25 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

Table 6 : Illustration of AHP and Use of Expert Choice for MCDM

nth root of New vector A B C D product of Eigenvector λmax value values

A 1 1/3 1/9 1/5 0.293 0.058 0.240 4.137

B 3 1 1 1 1.316 0.262 1.116 4.259

C 9 1 1 3 2.279 0.454 1.916 4.22

D 5 1 1/3 1 1.136 0.226 0.928 4.11

Total 5.024 1.000 Mean: 4.18

The eigenvector of the relative importance or value of A, B, C and D is (0.058, 0.262, 0.454, 0.226). Thus, C is the most valuable, B and D are behind, but roughly equal and A is very much less significant. The next stage is to calculate λmax so as to lead to the Consistency Index We first multiply on the right the matrix of judgments by the eigenvector, obtaining a new vector. The calculation for the first row in the matrix is:

1*0.058+1/3*0.262+1/9*0.454+1/5*0.226 = 0.240

Similarly, the remaining three rows give the values of λmax as1.116, 1.916 and 0.928 respectively. This vector of four elements (0.240, 1.116, 1.916, 0.928) is, the product A ω and the AHP theory says that Aω=λmax ω, so we can now get four estimates of λmax by the simple expedient of dividing each component of (0.240, 1.116, 1.916, 0.928) by the corresponding eigenvector element. The calculation is as below,

0.240/0.058=4.137

Together with 4.259, 4.22 and 4.11. The mean of these values is 4.18 and that is our estimate for λmax. If any of the estimates for λmax turns out to be less than n, or 4 in this case, there has been an error in the calculation, which is a useful sanity check.

The Consistency Index for a matrix is calculated from

Consistency Index = (λmax-n)/(n-1)

= (4.18-4)/(4-1)

Consistency Index = 0.060

THE INPUT DATA, ANALYSIS, RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

The stakeholders selected belong to the field of wastewater and the details of the stakeholders are specified in Table 7 below. Special care was taken to ensure that experts from all the fields of Engineering and Planning are involved, to remove biasness if any. Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 26

Table 7 : Stakeholders’ Details

Name of Stakeholder Short Designation Details of Qualification &Experience

P - 1 : Dr. A. D. Patwardhan P1 Consultant, Ex. Professor ; 40+ years

P – 2 : Mr. V. M. Ranade P2 Ex. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Maharashtra; 35+ years; Founder Member of Upper Bhima Water Partnership.

P – 3 : Mr. S. V. Tandale P3 Ex. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran; Government of Maharashtra; 35+ years

P – 4 : Mr. S. G. Adivarekar P4 Ex. Executive Engineer; Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran; Government of Maharashtra; 35+ years

P – 5 : Mr. Pandit P5 Consultant & Ex. Executive Engineer; Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran; Government of Maharashtra; 25+ years

P – 6 : Dr. L. K. Lad P6 Academician; 15+ years

P – 7 : Mrs. N. G. Gogate P7 Academician; 15+ years

P – 8 : Mrs. Smita Kulkarni P8 Master of Social Works; 20+ years

They were asked to give pair wise comparison marks (weights) from 1 (equal importance) to 9 (extreme importance than other) for each criterion, at the 1 st level of the model stake holder compared the main criteria with each other with respect to the goal: Sustainable Waste Water Management . E.g. Economic Vs. Technical, Economic Vs. Environmental, etc.

At the further stage, they compared the sub criteria with each other with respect to the main criteria (Economic, Technical, Socio-culture, & Environmental) and at the third level, each scenario was compared with other scenario with respect to all sub criteria. The input data was fed to the EXPERT CHOICE 11 software and was synthesized further for results. According to the estimated importance of each criterion for a particular stake holder, the results for the individual expert are presented in the following Table 8.

27 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

Table 8 : Sustainable Wastewater Management: Synthesis Results for Individual Stake holder

Alternatives boundary. freshwater Status-quo Current outside the polluters Reduce dependency on and Grey water. Onsite practices to be continued. treatment for black water. Separation of Black water Recycle and reuse within / P – 1 0.388 0.199 0.181 0.231

P – 2 0.585 0.127 0.045 0.243

P – 3 0.287 0.313 0.089 0.311

P – 4 0.354 0.281 0.171 0.194

P – 5 0.081 0.157 0.253 0.509

P – 6 0.259 0.447 0.095 0.199

P – 7 0.284 0.325 0.088 0.302

P – 8 0.256 0.434 0.106 0.204

Combined Synthesis 0.323 0.290 0.120 0.268

P: Participating person

Once the model has been constructed and the judgments have been made, outcomes are the scores of each alternative according to each decision maker. Results have shown that the stakeholders valued each criterion very differently. From the above table, it can be concluded that Recycle and reuse (Within / Outside the Polluters’ Boundary) was a leading alternative and was strongly recommended as an option for arriving at Sustainable Wastewater Management in Pune City. This was as per all the criteria that were considered for the analysis.

GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SYNTHESIS RESULTS

The following graphs are the combined graphs which show the relative importance given to each of the main criterion in percentage on the X axis and colored lines show the ranking of the alternative scenario. From this, it clearly understood that the Recycle and Reuse is the best possible outcome for the Sustainable Wastewater Management for Pune City.

Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 28

REFERENCES

1. Environment Status Report, PMC, (2007-2008, 2009-2010)

2. Ahmad Abrishamchi1, et al, Case Study: Application of Multi criteria Decision Making to Urban Water Supply, journal of water resources planning and management ASCE / JULY/AUGUST 2005 DOI:10.1061/ASCE/ISSN 0733-9496,131:4,326. Year 2005.

3. Coyle Geoff, Practical Strategy, AHP, The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), Pearson education limited, 2004

4. Carlos F. Simões Gomes et. Al. Multicriteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil, science Direct, Omega 36 (2008) 395-404. 29 Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Water Management in Pune City, India

5. D. Vagiona & N. Mylopoulos, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Volume 4, No. 4 (2009), 321-331.

6. Environmental Information System: CPCB (2000-2001) Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, Annual Report.

7. Fire Hazards Response and Mitigation Plan, February 2011, Pune Fire Brigade, PMC, Pune.

8. Ghole, V. and Gunale, V. (2005) River quality Maharashtra, CPCB.

9. Government of Maharashtra, Water supply Policy.

10. GR River water quality, Government of Maharashtra, Environment Department, Mmbai.

11. Gregory A. Kiker, etal, Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making. Integrated Environmental Assessment a7 Management – Volume 1, Number 2 – pp. 95 – 108, 2005

12. Guidelines for Reuse of City Effluent in Agriculture (Feb, 2008) Prepared by- Steering Committee, Network for Reuse of City Effluent in Agriculture.

13. Jane Hobson, Sustainable sanitation: experiences in Pune with a municipal-NGO-community, Published by: Sage publications, On behalf of: International Institute for Environment and Development Environment and Urbanization 2000 12: 53 DOI: 10.1177/095624780001200205

14. Keshav, Performance Evaluation of 130 MLD Bhairoba STP, Pune. Project report, M. Tech. BATU, Lonere

15. Mangesh Dange, Performance Evaluation of 50 MLD Erandawane STP, Pune. Project report, M. Tech. BATU, Lonere

16. Mutha river Improvement Project, Executive summary, PMC.

17. Mohsen Pirdashti et al., Multi-Criteria Decision-Making

18. Monthly Activity Report, 130 MLD STP, Bhairoba, Koregaon park, Pune. Month July 2010, August 2010, September 2010.

19. Monthly Activity Report, 45 MLD STP, Mundhwa, Pune. Month July 2010, August 2010, September 2010.

20. Monthly Activity Report, 50 MLD STP, Erandwane, Pune. Month July 2010, August 2010, September 2010.

21. Selection Model with Application to Chemical Engineering Management Decisions., World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49 2009.

22. M. Kholghi, Multi-Criterion Decision-Making Tools for Wastewater Planning Management, J. Agric. Sci. Technol. (2001) Vol. 3: 281-286 Mr. S. S. Shastri and Dr. P. M. Raval 30

23. Mario Regneri, et al., Fuzzy Decision Making for Multi-criteria Optimization in Integrated Wastewater System Management, 6 th International conference on sewer process and Networks., 7-10 th Nov. 2010

24. Pune Municipal Corporation Sewerage Project Report, PMC (2004).

25. Padigala Bhaskar, Mr. S. S. Shastri Performance Evaluation of STPs in Pune, project report, Institute of Environmental Engineering and Research, Pune, Maharashtra, India 2008-09

26. Rao, N. V. V. and Shruti, D. (2000) Performance of sewage treatment plants in Hydrabad- A case study. Poll Ress 21 (2): 191-193.

27. Rinki Soni, Mr. S. S. Shastri Assessing feasibility of sustainable waste water management option for Upper Bhima basin- case study: Pune city, project report Bharati Vidyapeeth Institute of Environmental Engineering and Research, Pune, Maharashtra, India 2009-2010.

28. S. B. Imandoust; S. N. Gadam (Jun, 2007) Are people willing t o pay for river water quality, contingent valuation

29. S. Vigneswaran, M. Sundaravadivel WASTEWATER RECYCLE, REUSE, AND RECLAMATION - Recycle and Reuse of Domestic Wastewater.

30. Simões Gomes, Carlos F. Multi-criteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil, Science Direct, Omega 36 (2008) 395 – 404.

31. Dr. Tirthekar, Mr. P. S. Nirbhawane, Master Plan of sewage treatment and disposal for PMC. Journal of IPHE, India 2009-10.