SWOT Analysis of Different PAYT Concepts2012

HELLENIC REPUBLIC
SCHOOL OF
ENGINEERING
LABORATORY OF HEAT TRANSFER AND

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
ARISTOTLE
UNIVERSITY
T HESSALONIKI
ENERGY SECTION
EU-LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance

HEC-PAYT
The Development of Pay-As-You-Throw Systems in
Hellas, Estonia and Cyprus
LIFE 07ENV/GR/000271
Deliverable 2.2.3
SWOT analysis of different PAYT concepts
T. Kasampalis, A. Karagiannidis and G. Perkoulidis
Thessaloniki, January 2011
AUT-LHTEE Deliverable 2.2.3
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2
2.
HEC-PAYT ........................................................................................................ 2
3.
SWOT analysis................................................................................................... 3
4.
Data collection ................................................................................................... 4
4.1. Answers in Citizen Info ..................................................................................... 6
4.2. Answers in Questionnaires ................................................................................. 8
5.
Methodology .................................................................................................... 18
6.
Results .............................................................................................................. 19
7.
Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 20
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 21
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 21
Annexes........................................................................................................................ 22
1. Introduction
Household waste is generally defined as waste generated by normal household
activities. Household waste collection systems vary throughout the world, from no
organized collection at all (Mbande, 2003), to the collection of 10 separate recyclable
fractions at the doorstep using multi-compartment vehicles (Dahlen et al., 2007a).
Household waste collection can be divided into property-close (curbside) collection
and collection at drop-off points (bring systems). Containers of different sizes and
shapes are employed at drop-off points. In property-close collection, combinations of
bins, racks, sacks and bags are used, which are sometimes placed outdoors, sometimes
indoors. Source-sorted materials can be collected completely separated or
commingled. Commingled collection can be designed either for manual or mechanical
sorting at so-called material recovery facilities. Optical sorting techniques are
sometimes applied, based on the use of colour-coded bags for specific materials
collected in the same bin. Household hazardous waste (HHW), bulky waste and yard
waste are usually collected separately or taken to supervised recycling centres by
householders. The present study focused on ways of encouraging community
participation in PAYT concept and, in particular, how such participation by
community, public and government sectors can be increased.
2. HEC-PAYT
Solid waste is one of the largest outlays in the urban area and associated with serious
consequences to the living quality and considerable cost burdens for the communities.
Before this background, many countries have already started to make remarkable
efforts to improve the situation regarding the generation and management of these
wastes which has led to significant progress both in terms of policy and legislation
during the past decade. Moreover, an increasing number of countries has started the
transition from the rather unsophisticated one-sided approach mostly reliant on waste
dumping to waste management systems which will better reflect and give effect to the
waste hierarchy, and take the responsibility of the different actors in the consumption
chain into account.
The growing economical and environmental pressure and the need to comply with
European legislation reinforced the demand to enhance sustainability in the area of
municipal waste management based on efforts towards waste reduction and the
principle to redistribute the costs of the waste management system among the waste
generators in form of payments that correspond fairly to the burden with which they
are straining this system (polluter pays principle). The application of variable pricing
mechanisms from municipalities known as Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) is a valid
instrument where both components intertwine.
The approach of PAYT (also known as variable rate pricing, unit pricing,
differentiated tariff system) in waste management is to realise the polluter pays
principle in a fair manner by charging people in accordance to the amount of waste
which they actually generate.
In the traditional schemes for household waste management in Europe people put out
their discard in public containers or into receptacles their dwelling has been assigned
to use for collection. The financing of this service via general taxes or by levying a
fixed recurring fee causes them to bear for the disposal behaviour and waste amount
of the entire community whether or not the individual quantity contributed has been
comparably small and personal recycling efforts were undertaken. From an economic
perspective, this leads to a situation where the people residing in less privileged urban
environments (densely populated city centres and apartment blocks) as well as the
environmentally conscious part of the population including those persons who are
producing comparatively little waste (like, for example, single retired persons) are
subsidising with their payments households in better-off areas and those who are not
concerned about the waste they are generating. It even puts people in a situation
where they must not mind a lot how much they are consuming, what amount of waste
they produce and what impact their behaviour causes to the environment.
3. SWOT analysis
SWOT is an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Every
management plan has its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
Considering these strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOTs), a
project coordinator can deal more effectively with the problems that are likely to
come up, and look at ways and means of converting the threats into opportunities, and
off-setting the weaknesses against the strengths. This analysis could be undertaken for
any idea, organization, person, product, programme or project.
In this project, SWOT analysis was applied to develop a comprehensive, yet thorough
analysis of different PAYT schemes, as these were identified and analyzed in Task
2.1. In other words, this PAYT scheme-based SWOT analysis was performed to
develop a part of a strategic action plan of different PAYT concepts for Greece. It
aimed at identifying the positive and negative factors, as well as internal and external
factors, that might have an impact on the proposed PAYT concept. SWOT analysis of
this project was intended to maximize both strengths and opportunities, minimize the
external threats, and transform the identified weaknesses into strengths and to take
advantage of opportunities along with minimizing both internal weaknesses and
external threats.
SWOT is a tool designed to be used in the preliminary stages of decision-making on
the one hand and as a precursor to strategic management planning on the other. It
should be performed by the individual user and also in groups. The group-wise
analysis is particularly effective in providing factors, major objectives, clarity and,
therefore, focuses to all the discussions about strategy-formulation regarding any
proposed PAYT concept.
In the SWOT analysis, available resources and their potential utilization are studied
from the viewpoint of economic, ecological and social sustainability. However, its
main purpose in the planning process is to obtain decision support that is to be utilized
in the choice of the strategy to be followed. In a decision-theoretic study, a decision is
considered as a choice between two or more alternative measures. Generally, rational
decision-makers choose the alternative that maximizes the utility, determined on the
basis of information available on the decision-alternatives. In decision support,

information is produced on the decision situation, on alternative choices of action and
its consequences etc. A complete decision-model constitutes the basis for the decision
support. The alternatives available, information about the consequences associated
with these alternatives and the preferences among these consequences are the three
criteria for the decision (Bradshaw and Boose, 1990). Each aspect of the information
must be sound so that the best alternatives can be selected. Thus, SWOT is used for
analyzing internal and external environments in order to attain a systematic approach
and support for a decisive situation. If used correctly, it can provide a good basis for
successful strategy formulation.
It was intended that the SWOT analysis could provide a framework for analyzing a
situation and developing suitable strategies and tactics; a basis for assessing core
capabilities and competences; the evidence for, and key to, change and success and
also provide a stimulus to participate in a group experience (Schmoldt and Peterson,
2000). Further utilization of SWOT is usually based on qualitative and quantitative
analysis of internal and external factors, as well as on the capabilities and expertise of
the people involved in the planning process.
A SWOT analysis needs to be flexible. Situations change with the time and an
updated analysis should be made frequently. Furthermore, it can be concluded that
SWOT is neither cumbersome nor time-consuming but is effective because of its
simplicity (Srivastava et al., 2005).
The present investigation attempted to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the
different PAYT concepts, as well as the opportunities and threats in the external
environments for PAYT.
4. Data collection
Main tool for SWOT analysis was the Questionnaire Form (cf. Annex 1), which was
disseminated to individual citizens and stakeholders via electronic form (cf. Photo 1)
and was assessed to effectively micro-manage the specific needs and special
characteristics of the pilot implementation areas.
Out of the 1654 addressed individual citizens and stakeholders, responses were as
follow:
Answered
1457
Not answered
197
Photo 1: First page of the online Questionnaire.
4.1. Answers in Citizen Info

Citizens sex
Figure 1: Citizens sex

Figure 1 illustrates that the biggest percentage of the respondents were women. As a
result of this, the present report will be more valid; because of the majority that deals
with housekeeping are women.
Citizens age
Figure 2: Citizens age

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of ages of the sample. It can be noticed that the
biggest percentage is constituted from ages <18-30 and 31-45. This means that the
oldest Greeks are not very sensitive towards ecology issues and social mechanisms.
Type of residence
Figure 3: Type of residence

Figure 3 illustrates that the urban morphology of Greece is composed from detached
houses and apartments.
Residence surface area (in m2)
Figure 4: Residence surface area (in m2)

Figure 4 illustrates that the majority of residences in the pilot area has surface area
more than 60 m2.
Number of household members
Figure 5: Number of household members.

Figures 5 illustrates that the majority of household members in Greece is 2 or 4
household members per residence.
4.2. Answers in Questionnaires

Question 1: How important is for you
Figure 6: How important is for you
Figures 6 illustrates that citizens priority in Greece is the protection of the

environment and city sanitation, while around 50% of the respondents are willing to
maintain their way of life, regarding household waste management and to reduce
waste quantities.
This can partially be explained due to ignorance for fair and efficient waste
management methods.
Question 2: Are you familiar with the way municipal sanitation fees are
charged? Do you know how much approximately you pay for municipal
sanitation and waste handling fees?
Figure 7: Are you familiar with the way municipal sanitation fees are charged? Do
you know how much approximately you pay for municipal sanitation and waste
handling fees?
Figure 7 illustrates that only 44% of the respondents are familiar with the way
municipal sanitation fees are charged. Most of respondents are not well informed for
the direct but also indirect methods of payment, instead of the Hellenic financial crisis
and the resulting austerity measures. Furthermore, Figure 7 illustrates that while some
of the respondents are familiar with the way municipal sanitation fees are charged,
they do not know (even approximately) how much they pay for municipal sanitation
and waste handling fees.
Question 3: For you, it is important
As illustrated to Figure 8, the biggest percentage of respondents appears to be
sensitized on recycling issues.
Specifically, the overwhelming majority of respondents are giving high priority in
separate treatment for each stream. This can be partially explained, because most of
the respondents are giving peculiar importance in citys sanitation (cf. Figure 7) and
thus in their personal hygiene.
Figure 8: For you, it is important.

Finally, a fair charging for city sanitation services, i.e. each citizen should pay
appropriately, according to the extent to which he assists in proper waste management
is being asked by respondents.
Question 4: According to which criterion do you take your waste out?
Figure 9: According to which criterion do you take your waste out?
10
Figure 9 illustrates that 81% of the respondents take as criterion the volume (waste
bag is full) to take their waste out. On the other hand, only 31% of the respondents
believe that the biggest criterion to take their waste out is by weight (as waste bag gets
heavy).
Uniformity can be observed in the selection of the period (e.g. each day, every two
days, etc.) as a criterion to take their waste out.
Question 5: How important/effective do you believe it is;
Figure 10: How important/effective do you believe it is;

In Figure 10, it is illustrated that respondents are very interested to have access in
recycling systems and that it seems important for them to have simple and easy-foreveryone use of recycling systems.
On the other hand, 81% of respondents want to be regularly informed on the results
and benefits of sustainable waste management. This result is encouraging because it
shows their willingness to contribute in waste management. Furthermore, respondents
believe that providing rewards (financial or not) for reducing waste quantities will be
very effective.
11
Question 6: How much garbage do you take out each week?

Figure 11 illustrates that most of the households in Greece are taking out 3 or more
bags per week. This can partially be explained due to the increased ecological
awareness (recycling, home composting) of the respondents.
Figure 11: How much garbage do you take out each week?
Question 7: Do you participate in packaging recycling?
Figure 12: Do you participate in packaging recycling?
Question 8: What other materials do you recycle?

Figure 13 illustrates that a small percentage of the respondents report that they do not
recycle at all. Within the remaining sample, the most recycled material is batteries. On
the other hand, recycling of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) is
12
smaller. This can partially be explained because most of WEEE is bulkier and heavier,
and storage places hard to be found. Furthermore, in the category listed as other,
glass, plastic and paper are included.
Figure 13: What other materials do you recycle?
Question 9: Are you familiar with home composting?
Figure 14: Are you familiar with home composting?

Figure 14 illustrates that more than half of the respondents are familiar with home
composting. This can be attributed to the extensive related information campaigns all
over Greece that have been performed over the last years at an increasing rate.
Question 10: If yes, do you practice it?
13
Figure 15: If yes, do you practice it?
Figure 15 illustrates that only 14% of the respondents are practicing home
composting, which leaves a lot of margin for improvement.
Question 11: Do you have knowledge of the implementation of such systems
abroad?
Although the respondents are sensitive to ecological issues and seem to care about
sustainable development in general, Figure 16 indicates that there is insufficient
knowledge of the respondents regarding implementation of PAYT systems abroad.
Figure 16: Do you have knowledge of the implementation of such systems abroad?
If yes, how did you come upon them?
14
Figure 17: If yes, how did you come upon them?

It can be noticed from Figure 17, that the vast majority of respondents has been
informed of the implementation of PAYT systems abroad through news bulletins and
often extensive information campaigns carried out in many municipalities all over
Greece, by themselves as well as NGOs.
Question 12: Do you believe that by paying waste management fees according to
the waste quantities that you generate, you will reduce those quantities?
Figure 18: Do you believe that by paying waste management fees according to the
waste quantities that you generate, you will reduce those quantities?
Figure 18 illustrates the optismism of the respondents regarding the reduction of

waste quantities through PAYT.
Question 13: Do you believe that by paying waste management fees according to
the waste quantities you generate you will be able to monitor the fee you pay?
15
Figure 19: Do you believe that by paying waste management fees according to the
waste quantities you generate you will be able to monitor the fee you pay?
Figure 19 illustrates that 80% of the respondents agree that by paying waste
management fees according to the waste quantities will be able to monitor the fee they
pay.
Question 14: How important is for you
Figure 20: How important is for you

Figure 20 illustrates that 73% of respondents believe that there is a chance of creating
new jobs, due to the development of recycling, reuse and composting enterprises
This can partially be explained by the Hellenic financial crisis and the resulting
austerity measures and willingness for jobs.
Question 15: In order to select the most appropriate Pay As You Throw scheme
for your municipality (in case something like this is decided), we would like your
16
opinion regarding the following 4 systems. Please rank them up from the easiest
for you to use down to the most difficult one
Figure 21: Ranking of the 4 systems.

Figure 21 illustrates that the Bin system appears to be considered easier for
respondents. On the other hand, card system appears to be considered relatively
difficult for all the respondents. Furthermore, the bag system appears to be considered
relatively easy for all the respondents, while the bin weighing system appears to be
considered as the relatively most difficult to be selected for an implementation pilot
area in Greece.
Question 16: If one of the above mentioned systems was to be implemented in
your area, which one would you prefer?
Figure 22 illustrates that the most appropriate PAYT scheme for Greece is the (No1)
Bin system, in which each family should have its own locked bin, for which they will
be solely responsible.
Figure 22: If one of the above mentioned systems was to be implemented in your
area, which one would you prefer?
17
5. Methodology
The methodology for SWOT analysis (Pesonen et al., 2001) that was adopted in the
present study included the following step:
a) Identification of relevant factors of the external and internal environments by a
baseline survey using an activity worksheet (see Table 1) and questionnaires
which were disseminated to individual citizens and stakeholders and were
assessed to effectively micro-manage the specific needs and special
characteristics of the pilot implementation areas (cf. Chapter 4).
Table 1: Activity worksheet for SWOT analysis.
Factors
Questions
Strengths
What are the advantages?
What can PAYT do as well?
What are the factors supporting PAYT?
Weaknesses
What could be improved?
What is not done properly?
What should be avoided?
What obstacles prevent progress?
Which elements need strengthening?
Where are the complaints coming from?
Are there any real weak links in the chain?
Opportunities
Where are the good chances facing the programme?
What are the interesting trends?
What benefits may occur?
What changes in usual practices and available technology on both a
broad and narrow scale may occur?
What changes in Government Policy related to Municipal Solid
Waste Management may be possible?
What changes in socio-economic patterns, PAYT practices, lifestyle, and economic standards of project beneficiaries may occur?
18

Factors
Questions
Threats
What obstacles do PAYT face?
Are the required support and necessary facilities for PAYT
available?
Is the changing technology threatening PAYT?
Do the stakeholders show their interest and willingness for
supporting PAYT?
The internal analysis was a comprehensive evaluation of the internal environments,

i.e., strengths and weaknesses, while the external analysis included the opportunities
and threats that might arise when changes occur in the external environments during
the implementation of a PAYT scheme. When both the abovementioned analyses had
been completed, a SWOT profile was generated for the purpose of setting goals, local
priorities and strategy formulations, as well as for their subsequent implementation.
6. Results
SWOT analysis (cf. Table 2) was performed taking into consideration the encouraging
of community participation in PAYT concepts and, in particular, how such
participation by community, public and government sectors can be increased.
The results from the aforementioned SWOT analysis proved that a PAYT concept
provides a lot of strengths and opportunities, but may face critical risks. The rather
long list of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats is still to be confirmed
during the implementation of a PAYT scheme. Likewise, most of the mentioned
opportunities already presented in table 2 should be taken into account and utilised
during the PAYT pilot application in the municipality of Elefsina. Additional
parameters (like regional development policies and urban growth in relation to
increased recycling) need to be converted as competitive advantages through a
transparent and credible information process.
As far as the weaknesses and threats of PAYT concepts are concerned, some actions
can be proposed in order to resolve and mitigate them: Pilot application in the
municipality of Elefsina should be provided, in order to identify the reliability of the
proposed scheme and to also identify potential ways and methods of reducing the
investment and operation costs and even optimising the overall process. At the same
time, the Hellenic state should motivate municipalities and other stakeholders to
convince public to support PAYT schemes in general. Community awareness and
support is a key to the ultimate success of PAYT concepts. Without public support, a
PAYT scheme has fewer chances of being accepted. After all, the citizens make the
concept work by following the rules. Comments should be solicited from the public to
help identify misperceptions about the scheme and reasons for opposition, and to
inform scheme planners of current public opinion. Public meetings and forums are
19
also important for providing an additional avenue for residents to voice their concerns
and raise issues.
Table 2: SWOT analysis of PAYT concepts on Hellenic Local Authorities.

Internal
Strengths
Weaknesses
1. Direct day-to-day contact with waste
producers
2. Monitoring efficiency and awareness
raising potential
3. Increasing procurement capacities
4. Youths are more energetic, enthusiastic
and productive human resources in the
community for good MSWM through
active community participation
5. Involvement of housewives, senior
citizens and students to support the
programme.
6. Fair allocation of costs to the users
7. Increased recycling and waste reduction
8. Ensuring transparency of waste
management costs.
9. Improved environmental quality
10. Encouraging home composting.
1. Political influence at local level

2. Public apathy and communitys nonwillingness to cooperate and participate
3. Usually people wait for the governments
action
4. Limited environmental awareness,
education and attitudes among the society
5. Lack of information, education and
communication resource materials for
human resource development (awareness
and training) of sanitary workers and
community people
6. Increased costs (both investment and
operational).
7. Encouraging waste tourism (i.e. waste
moved to neighbouring communities).
8. Encouraging illegal waste dumping.
9. Increased amounts of contaminants in
recyclables.
External
Opportunities
1. Funding schemes (national, EU, private

sector)
2. Outreach potential to civilians and hosted
businesses
3. Establishment of MSWM
microenterprises that can be an
alternative employment opportunity for
youths involved in the programme
4. Regulation of new rules and acts, and a
new ordinance to be enacted for
promoting PAYT schemes
Threats
1. Business as usual mentality

2. Fines for non-compliance on waste and
contaminated site management
3. PAYT failure leading to increased
littering
4. Urban: High cost of transfer
5. Rural: High cost of disposal
6. Improper recycling behaviour
7. Improper grey recycling
8. Strikes
9. Vandals
10. Disinterested citizens
Concluding, the final step in the process of building local support for unit-based
pricing is to address the public's concerns and misperceptions. Provide PAYT scheme
specifics and offer information on waste reduction and recycling. If residents believe
the pricing structure is arbitrary and are unaware of ways to reduce their costs, the
program is likely to fail.
7. Conclusions
It was confirmed that the SWOT analysis was an excellent tool to explore the
possibilities and ways for initiating and successfully implementing and monitoring a
20
PAYT scheme. In this investigation, the SWOT analysis looked at the success
potential of different scenarios through a systematic approach of introspection into
both positive and negative concerns of a PAYT concept through community
participation. The most appropriate PAYT scheme for Greece is the No1 Bin system,
in where each family should have its own locked bin, for which they will be solely
responsible.
It is difficult to say whether citizens with weight-based billing have disposed of waste
outside the ordinary collection system, or adapted their lifestyle so as to produce less
waste. Some of the observed differences might be explained by differences in ways of
measuring and reporting amounts of waste. The importance of reliable waste
generation and composition data in further research regarding the role of monetary
incentives in recycling should not be underestimated. Further development is required
to improve and standardize methods of measuring waste flows. Consistently
determined key indicators describing the local outcome of recycling efforts would
facilitate the evaluation of waste management policies.
Abbreviations
HHW
MSWM
WEEE
Household hazardous waste

PAYT Pay As You Throw
Municipal
Solid
Waste SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats
Management
Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment
Bibliography
1. Bilitewski, B., 2008. From traditional to modern fee system. Waste
Management 28 (12), 27602766.
2. Bradshaw, J.M., Boose, J.H., 1990. Decision analysis techniques for
knowledge acquisition: combining information and preferences using Aquinas
and Axotl SWOT. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies 32, 121
186.
3. Dahlen, L., Vukicevic, S., Meijer, J.-E., Lagerkvist, A., 2007a. Comparison of
different collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden. Waste
Management 27 (10), 12981305.
4. Mbande, C., 2003. Appropriate approach in measuring waste generation,
composition and density in developing areas. Journal of the South African
Institution of Civil Engineering 45 (3), 210.
5. Pesonen, M., Kurttila, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., Heinonen, P., 2001.
Assessing the priorities using SWOT among resource management strategies
at the Finnish forest and park service. Forest Science 47 (4), 534541.
6. Schmoldt, D.L., Peterson, D., 2000. Analytical group decision making in
natural resources: methodology and application. Forest Science 46, 6275.
7. Srivastava, P.K., Kulshreshtha, K., Mohanty, C.S., Pushpangadan, P., Singh,
A., 2005. Stakeholder-based SWOT analysis for successful municipal solid
waste management in Lucknow, India. Waste Management 25, 531537.
21
Annexes
I. Questionnaire form for online survey
22
I. Questionnaire form for online survey

#
Citizen Info
Municipality
Date of interview
Telephone No.
Sex
Male:
Age (not required*)
<18-30:
Name (not required*)
Type of residence
Residence surface area (in m2)
Number of household members
11
Name of interviewer
Female:
31-45:
46-65:
>65:
Appartment:
Detached house:
We ask for the exact surface area. If they
refuse or dont know exactly, we ask for the
number of functional rooms and estimate the
area.
*We ask for this after the end of the interview
QUESTIONS
#
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
6
Question
Priorities
How important is for you
Protecting the environment
City sanitation
Maintaining your way of life, regarding household waste
management
Reducing waste quantities
Are you familiar with the way municipal sanitation fees are
charged?
Do you know how much approximately you pay for municipal
sanitation and waste handling fees? (you can find it in your
energy service bill)
For you, it is important
Timely collection of household waste
Source separation of waste and separate treatment for each
stream (paper, plastic, glass, biowaste, metals, etc.)
Low charging for city sanitation services
Fair charging for city sanitation services, i.e. each citizen
should pay appropriately, according to the extent to which he
assists in proper waste management.
According to what criterion do you take your waste out?
Volume (waste bag is full)
Weight (waste bag gets heavy)
Periodically (e.g. each day, every two days, etc.)
Citizens approach to waste management
How important/effective do you believe it is;
Answer
1-5
NO
YES
Other
NO
YES
Other
Most/Least
important
Rank 1 - 3
Most least
important
23

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
For every citizen to have access in recycling systems

To have simple and easy for everyone to use recycling
systems
To be regularly informed on the results and benefits of
sustainable waste management
To provide rewards (financial or not) for reducing waste
quantities
How much garbage do you take out each week?
(approximation)
Do you participate in packaging recycling?
What other materials do you recycle?
10
Are you familiar with home composting?
11
If yes, do you practice it?
12
Pay As You Throw Systems

(Provide information about PAYT systems)
Do you have knowledge of the implementation of such
systems abroad?
If yes, how did you come upon them?
13
14
15
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
16
Do you believe that by paying waste management fees

according to the waste quantities you generate you will reduce
those quantities?
Do you believe that by paying waste management fees
according to the waste quantities you generate you will be
able to monitor the fee you pay?
Rank the following benefits
1 bag
2 bags
3 bags
.. bags
Always
or
Frequently
Rarely or never
I dont recycle
anything
WEEE
Batteries
Other
NO
YES
Other
NO
YES
NO
YES
Personal
experience
News bulletin
Friends
NO
YES
NO
YES
Other
Most/Least
importance
Cleaner city (due to better waste management)

Lower municipal sanitation and waste management fees, due
to reduced waste management cost (from less quantities)
Less waste quantities, which leads to removing burden from
the environment and less landfills.,
Fairness in the way municipal sanitation fees are charged, i.e.
each citizen is charged according to his assistance in tackling
the waste problem.
Chance of creating new jobs, due to the development of
recycling, reusing and composting enterprises.
In order to select the most appropriate Pay As You Throw
scheme for your municipality (in case something like this is
24
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
17
decided), we would like your opinion regarding the following 4

systems. Please rank them from the easiest for you to use to
the most difficult one. (1 for the easiest, 4 for the most difficult)
No1) Bin: Each family should have its own locked bin, for
which they will be solely responsible.
No2) Card: Each family should have a charging card, where
they will insert credits which will allow the family to dispose
specific weight or volume of waste in a common bin.
No3) Bag: Each family should buy special bags from stores
which will then use to dispose its waste.
No4) Bin weighing: Leave the bins as they are now and
assign the fees to the families who share each bin according
to the weight of the waste.
If one of the above mentioned systems was to be
implemented in your area, which one would you prefer?
Difficulty factor
1 2 3 4
Difficulty factor
1 2 3 4
Difficulty factor
1 2 3 4
Difficulty factor
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
5. Leave everything
as it is.
25

SWOT Analysis of Different PAYT Concepts2012

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SWOT Analysis of Different PAYT Concepts2012

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

HELLENIC REPUBLIC

LABORATORY OF HEAT TRANSFER AND

EU-LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance

T. Kasampalis, A. Karagiannidis and G. Perkoulidis

Thessaloniki, January 2011

AUT-LHTEE Deliverable 2.2.3