Privatization of solid waste managementAmong the main environmental policies that have triggered lively debates among stakeholders and the general public, there is that of the privatization of solid waste management. solid waste management in various cities across the United States. Private companies have been involved in waste collection and management for many years, not only in the United States, but also in the United Kingdom and other countries. The debate focuses on whether privatization of municipal solid waste (MSW) management would reduce costs and improve the quality of services. Those who oppose the idea of ​​privatizing the management of MSW have put forward all sorts of explanations to characterize this idea as counterproductive. However, most of these opposing arguments have overlooked the many benefits that would accrue from privatizing MSW management. The benefits come not only in terms of reducing costs and improving the quality of service, but also in terms of creating a competitive market where contractors must bid for opportunities to serve the community in the field of solid waste collection (Jacobsohn, 2001). When municipalities struggle with large budget deficits and declining revenues, among the most viable services to privatize is solid waste collection, disposal and recycling (solid waste study shows that privatization reduces costs, increases efficiency and enhances security, 2011). Privatization of solid waste management is justified on the basis of five main benefits. First, because private companies are able to spread investments, purchases, and environmental protection costs across multiple facilities and contracts, they can realize savings. Their economies of scale allow them to achieve these savings in addition to ...... middle of paper ...... in light of economies of scale. Therefore, the idea is to ensure that the amount of MSW in all subregions is as close as possible (Lin & Kao, 2008). In a scenario where two sub-regions have an equal amount of MSW, contractors will consider the length of the road and opt for it. whose road length is shorter. This creates another parameter called Route Density Index (RDI) which is obtained by the formula; RDI=W/L where L is the total length of the road and W is the amount of MSW in a sub-region. Therefore, a high RDI would imply a subregion with a short total road length and a large amount of MSW. Therefore, its collection of MSW would have a lower cost than a subregion with a low RDI. Differences in RDI should be compensated by the application of different price structures. Overall, MSW collection districting promotes the competitive bidding market in communities (Lin & Kao, 2008).