A SCORECARD FOR MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE STATE OF MADHYA-PRADESH, INDIA

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "A SCORECARD FOR MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE STATE OF MADHYA-PRADESH, INDIA"

Transcription

1 A SCORECARD FOR MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES IN THE STATE OF MADHYA-PRADESH, INDIA AMIT VISHWAKARMA *Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University institute of Technology, R.G.P.V., Bhopal, M.P., India DR. MUKUL KULSHRESTHA ** **Associate Professor, Environmental Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, MANIT-Bhopal, India , Abstract : The present study shows the performance scores of selected 8Wastewater management utilities of urban cities in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. TheScorecard methodology involves assigning weights to indicators in conjunction with their scores on devised scale, and evaluates cluster performance scores by employing a spreadsheet. The objective of the present study was to evolve a framework for assessing the efficiencies of Wastewater management utilities. The present study also reviews the status of Wastewater services of the urban cities in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. The results of the Scorecard methodology shows that various clusters of Wastewater utility of Ujjain city has scores better than the other selected cities like Indore, Itarsi, Pitampur and Vidisha etc., but the overall performance of municipality of metropolitan city Indore has highest scores 91%. Key Words: Benchmarking, Scorecard, Wastewater, Performance Scores. INTRODUCTION Sanitation is a State responsibility under the Indian Constitution. States may give the responsibility to the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) in rural areas or municipalities in urban areas, called Urban Local Bodies (ULB). At the Central level the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation is responsible for Water supply & Sanitation to the urban water sector.however, except for the National Capital Territory of Delhi and other Union Territories, the central Ministries only have an advisory capacity and limited role in funding. Sector policy thus is a prerogative of state governments. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, India, there are 342 local bodies (Municipal Corporations, 14; Municipal Committees or Municipalities, 86; Nagar Panchyats, 237; and Cantonment Boards, 5) responsible for the implementation of the Water & Sanitation services (Census, 2001). According to the National Urban Sanitation Policy (NUSP, 2008) 55 million households lived in urban areas in the year 2001 and the projections indicate that the urban population would have grown to 368 million by This NUSP (2008) gives a statistics that million (7.87 %) urban households do not have access to latrines and defecate in the open (more than 37% of the total human excreta generated in urban India, is unsafely disposed) million (8.13%) urban households use community latrines and 13.4 million households (19.49%) use shared latrines million (18.5%) households do not have access to a drainage network million (39.8%) households are connected to open drains. ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April

2 The effect of poor sanitation is observed that the loss due to diseases caused by poor sanitation for children under 14 years alone in urban areas amounts to ` 500 Crore at 2001 (Planning Commission, 2006). While all the metropolitan cities have a sewerage system, a third of the Class I cities and less than one-fifth of the smaller sized urban centers have a sewerage system. However, the coverage of population by the sewerage system is partial in all these urban centers (CPHEEO, 2005). Table 1.1 shows the status of Sanitation in class I and Class II towns of India. Table 1.1: Status of Wastewater Generation Class I cities/ Class II * towns in Parameters Class I Cities Class II Towns Total Number (as per 2001 census) Population (millions) Wastewater generated (MLD) Wastewater generation (LPCD) Wastewater treated (MLD) Wastewater untreated (MLD) (Source: Planning Commission, 2006) Table 1.2 shows the status of Sanitation in the class I and Class II towns of the Madhya Pradesh, India in Year Table 1.2: Status of Water supply & Sanitation in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India State of India Class of City Population in Year 2008 Madhya Pradesh (Source: CPCB, 2009) Water Supply (MLD) Per Capita water supply (LPCD) Sewage Generation (MLD) Sewage Treatment Capacity (MLD) Class-I city Class-II Towns According to a report WSP (2011), the annual economic impacts of inadequate sanitation amount to US$53.8 billion. Report illustrated facts that India lost US$48 (Rs 2180) on a per capita basis, showing the urgency with which India needs to improve sanitation. The report estimates that comprehensive interventions (use of toilets, hygiene promotion, improved access to safe water, and proper waste management) can save India US$32.6 billion (Rs 1.48 trillion) or US$29 (Rs 1321) per capita. The objective of the present study was to evolve a framework for assessing the performances scores for wastewater management utilities. To measure the performance scores a Scorecard methodology was applied. METHDOLOGY Figure 1 represents the framework for the methodology evolved and adopted. The proposed approach has been exemplified for the case of 8municipalities of Madhya Pradesh, India. ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April

3 Figure 1: Scorecard evaluation methodology The work involves the identification and use of a set of key indicators with their weighted integration to obtain performance scores. The indicators were categorized in terms of three broad clusters are as follows: 1 Operational efficiency (1) Collection efficiency of sewerage network (%) 2 Service efficiency (1) Coverage of sewerages network services (%) (2) Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%) 3 Water quality management (1) Quality of sewage treatment (%) Relative weights (w i ) were assigned to various indicators on the basis of the conducted Delphi study such that indicators were awarded a total weight of 100.Also the indicator value scores (s i ) were obtained on a scale of 0 10 based on the designed scale for each indicator according to the actual data value of the indicator. For every utility, these scale scores were subsequently integrated with the indicator weights to obtain the weighted scores (w i s i ) for each indicator. These scores were then summed up for every cluster to give cluster scores Si, and for all the indicators to give the utility Performance scores (S) for every utility. This methodology was then employed to assess the relative performances of the urban cities in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. Performance Indicators associated with three Clusters 1. Operational efficiency indicates about the smoothly functioning of a utility and effectively operates the work and serves the people effectively. Because of lack of data only one main indicator in this cluster has been classified namely Collection efficiency of sewerage network (%). 2. Service efficiency gives the description of a wastewater utility by covering two main indicators, Coverage of sewerage network services (%) and Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%). These indicators directly influence the consumers and decide their satisfaction levels. 3. Wastewater quality management is includes Quality of sewage treatment (%). This cluster reveals the health consciousness of the utility toward the people of the urban city. Assigning a score to performance Indicators Collection efficiency of sewerage network (%) Collection efficiency in ideal case should be 100%, hence score of 10 is awarded if collection efficiency is 100% and 0 if collection efficiency is nil. Coverage of sewerage network services (%) Coverage of sewerage network services scores 10 for 100% coverage, and score 0 if area covered by service is Nil. Intermediate values calculated by linear interpolation. Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%) Score 10 for 100% efficiency and 0 for nil. Quality of sewage treatment (%) Score between 10 to 100 ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April

4 Sampled Urban Cities in the State of Madhya Pradesh, India Selection of urban cities to assess the performance depends on availability of data of selected performance indicators. Selection of cities and indicators were limited because of lack of data. Municipality of Indore, Gwalior, Ujjain, Pitampur, Dhar, Vidisha, Sigraouli and Itarsi have been taken for evaluation of performance scores. RESULTS The analysis was performed for a total of 8 municipalities. The data was obtained from the Urban Administration & Development Department, Madhya Pradesh, India. Table 2 shows the data description for 8 municipalities, based on performance indicators such as the Collection efficiency of sewage network (%), Coverage of Sewerage network services (%), Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%) and Quality of sewage treatment (%). Table 2: Data description of 8 Wastewater management utilities Performance Clusters Operational efficiency Service efficiency Quality Management S. N o Performance Indicators / Cities/Towns Collection efficiency of Sewerage Coverage of Sewerage network services (%) Efficiency in redressal of customer Quality of sewage treatment (%) network (%) complaints (%) 1 INDORE GWALIOR UJJAIN VIDISHA DHAR PITAMPUR ITARSI SINGRAOULI (Source: UADD, M.P., 2010) The performance scores were computed for the eightcities using the scorecard methodology. Table 3 exhibits the weights and scale scores for various indicators. Each cluster was evaluated for a maximum possible score of 1000 (weight*scale = 100*10), hence each cluster score S i represents performance out of 1000, while the utility performance score S represents the sum of the cluster scores for the four clusters (Table 4), hence S can have a maximum theoretical value of 3000.Figure 2, plots the performance scores for various utilities. Table 3: Assuming Weights and Scores Performance Clusters Operational Service efficiency Quality efficiency Management Weights (100) (45) (55) (100) S. No Performance Indicators / Cities/Towns Collection efficiency of Sewerage network (%) Coverage of Sewerage network services (%) Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints (%) 1 INDORE GWALIOR UJJAIN VIDISHA DHAR PITAMPUR ITARSI SINGRAOULI Quality of sewage treatment (%) ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April

5 Performance Indicators / Cities/Towns Table 4: Total Performance Scores of various Utilities in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India Operational efficiency Service efficiency Quality Management 1 INDORE GWALIOR UJJAIN VIDISHA DHAR PITAMPUR ITARSI SINGRAOULI Total performance Scores (S) Figure 2: Performance scores for various utilities CONCLUSION The present study is an attempt to evaluate the performance scores of selected Wastewater management utilities of the urban cities/towns in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. This Scorecard shows the performance of the Wastewater utility in terms of selected performance indicators and various clusters and can be used by the decision makers and utility managers to identify the shortcomings and flaws in the operation of the utilities. Such a scorecard methodology is quite simple and effectively used for utilities where data of indicators in scarcity or not available. The results of the Scorecard methodology shows that various clusters of Wastewater utility of Ujjain city has scores better than the other selected cities like Indore, Itarsi, Pitampur and Vidisha etc., but the overall performance of municipality of metropolitan city Indore has highest scores 91%. None of the utility shows a very good performance hence there is a need to do a lot of work to improve the performance scores of utilities. It is evident that Dhar Municipality is the worst performer with a total performance score of (2.87%). The Metropolitan city Indore performs relatively well in the sample with a score of However, even this maximum score comprises 91% of the theoretical maximum score of 3000, indicating that none of the utilities except Indore in the sample performs very well in absolute terms and wastewater managers need to initiate reforms in order to make these utilities more efficient. The Municipality of Gwalior city has scores 71.83% and the Utilities of Ujjain, Vidisha, Pitampur, Gwalior, Itarsi and Singraouli scores were 64.71%, 43.16%, 28.32%, 71.83%, and 47.61% respectively. Operational efficiency of Indore Municipal Corporation shows a better score while Ujjain municipality score lowest one. Gwalior municipality also scores better after Indore municipality. Service efficiency of Ujjain municipality score better than other utilities may be because of coverage of sewerage network is high. Quality management cluster shows that Ujjain municipality performed better in the area of quality of sewage rather than municipality of bigger cities like Indore. ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April

6 REFERENCES [1] Census (2001): Data published by the Office of the Registrar General, India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Available on < [2] CPCB (2009): Status of water supply and wastewater generation and treatment in Class-I cities and Class-II towns of India. Central Pollution Control Board. Available on < [3] CPHEEO (2005): Status of Water Supply, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management in urban Areas. Research study series No. 88, Central public health and environmental engineering organization, Ministry of urban Development Government of India. [4] National Urban Sanitation Policy, Government of India (2008), Available at: [5] Planning Commission (2006): Rural Drinking Water and Sanitation in the Eleventh Plan period. Planning Commission Eleventh Five- Year Plan ( ) Government of India. [6] UADD, MP. (2010 ): Urban Administration & Development Department of Madhya Pradesh, India. [7] WSP (2011): The Economic impacts of inadequate sanitation in India. Available at < accessed on 10/02/2011. ISSN : Vol. 3 No. 4 April