The impact assessment of different fee systems on the municipal waste management effectiveness
The impact assessment of different fee systems on the municipal waste management effectivenessPDF
Authors: Anna Báreková and Elena Kondrlová
Volume/Issue: Volume 21: Issue 1
Published online: 24 Aug 2018
The most widespread monetary motivation in the municipal waste management is a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) or unit-based pricing scheme when fees are directly based on the volume of waste produced by a household. This approach forces the households to carry the full social costs of their waste disposal decisions, inducing more efficient choices. Volume-based schemes usually require households to purchase waste bags or stickers (tokens) that they can attach to their waste containers. The aim of our research was to assess the waste management system in the municipality of Dolný Ohaj, where different payment systems for municipal solid waste (MSW) charges were introduced during the monitored period (2012-2016). While a lump sum had been used in the municipality up to the end of 2014, a volume-based scheme in a form of the token system was introduced and applied in the municipality from the beginning of 2015 onwards. The main focus was to analyse the waste management of the municipality during the studied period 2012-2016 with the emphasis on municipal solid waste fees, the generation of MSW and residual fraction, municipal waste management revenues and expenditures as well as evaluation of economic results. The production of MSW in kilograms per person had decreasing tendency during the monitored period. The highest MSW production was observed in 2012 (262.68 kg.capita-1.year-1) and the lowest in 2016 (175.85 kg.capita-1.year-1). During the monitored period, also the amount of landfilled residual waste was decreasing. In 2016, the lowest quantity of landfilled MSW (237,150 kg) was recorded. The municipality reached noticeably better economic results in waste management during the period under the volume-based waste collection scheme.
Keywords: municipal solid waste, waste management, municipal solid waste fees, Dolný Ohaj municipality
ADAMCOVÁ D. - VAVERKOVÁ M.D. - STEJSKAL B. - BŘOUŠKOVÁ E. 2016. Household Solid Waste Composition Focusing on Hazardous Waste. In Pol. J. Environ. Stud. vol. 25 2016 no. 2 pp. 487-493.
Annual reports on MSW at Dolný Ohaj municipality in 2012-2016.
DIJKGRAAF E. - GRADUS R.H.J.M. 2004. Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of the Netherlands. In Resour. Energy Econ. vol. 26 2004 pp. 353-371.
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.
European Commission. 2013. Final Report : Support to Member States in improving waste management based on assessment of Member States’ performance.
LEE S. - PAIK H.S. 2011. Korean household waste management and recycling behavior. In Build. Environ. vol. 46 2011 pp. 1159-1166.
PARK S. - LAH T.J. 2015. Analyzing the success of the volumebased waste fee system in South Korea. In Waste Management vol. 43 2015 pp. 533-538.
REICHENBACH J. 2008. Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe - A review of pilot research and implementation studies. In Waste Management vol. 28 2008 no. 12 pp. 2809-2814.
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste (SEC (2011) 70 final 19.1.2011).
SKUMATZ L.A. - FREEMAN D.J. 2006. Pay As You Throw (PAYT) in the US: 2006 Update and Analyses. Prepared for U.S. EPA by Skumatz Economic Research Associates Superior CO.
VAN BEUKERING P.J.H. - BARTELINGS H. - LINDERHOF V.G.M. - OOSTERHUIS F.H. 2009. Effectiveness of unit-based pricing of waste in the Netherlands: Applying a general equilibrium model. In Waste Management vol. 29 2009 pp. 2892-2901.