Abstract:This paper deals with the environmentally important issue regarding how best to motivate citizens to reduce their individual waste production. The paper discusses the pros and cons of the various financial incentives incorporated into the waste charging mechanism, pay-as-you-throw (PAYT). Pay-as-you-throw breaks with the tradition of paying for waste services through general blanket taxes or levies in the form of flat rates in that households are required to pay individually adjusted fees in the same way as water and electricity bills are calculated on an individual consumption basis. This difference is achieved through the interplay of three principal components which mark the technical implementation of PAYT: identification as a vehicle to attain accountability, measurement of the generated waste and/or corresponding services, and unit pricing as the basis for individual charges proportional to the extent of the obtained services. However, any motivating factor for inducing citizens to dispose of their recyclable discards and residual waste must be supported by a well developed collection infrastructure, good media information and an appropriate, transparent charging policy. Of particular importance is the use of a multi-tiered charge model, i.e., the charging of a fixed minimum fee plus certain variable components payable in respect of the service structure. The introduction of a basic charge, albeit reducing the intensity of the incentives created by the PAYT system, ensures that certain fixed costs for the provision of waste services will be covered independently from the actual waste developments and, at the same time, minimises the temptation to attempt to bypass the system. Such an arrangement for the waste charges neither contradicts the principle of pay-as-you-throw nor does it impair the waste diversion for which it is implemented. Waste statistics and figures representing the waste charging situation in Germany indicate that there is a relatively good correlation between the level of recycling and the amount of perceived financial motivation provided by PAYT. Waste stream developments in areas using such charging schemes generally suggest that the reduction goals are being achieved. Single figures on decreasing quantities of collected residual waste, however, say little about the actual efficiency of differentiated waste charging models and deliver little in the way of reasoned explanation as to why the diffusion of variable rate pricing is progressing painstakingly slowly. To evaluate the success, feasibility and problems of PAYT schemes, one needs to consider the various ways for technically implementing this approach in practice, and must take a broader look into the wide spectrum of available waste services and into more factors that influence their efficiency and acceptance. Urban structure settings assume a particular importance here as do the specific goals of social policy which, among others, are reflected in the charging mechanisms applied. Practical experience, however, shows that solutions can be found which allow most of the concerns and area specifics to be accommodated and waste streams to be influenced in the desired way. Aside from this, positive effects as to waste collection efficiency can also be achieved, which contribute towards long-term environmental improvements and countervail the incremental costs of implementing PAYT.

Assessing determinants and readiness for willingness-to-pay (WTP) for unit-based pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) waste tariff structures: A case study of Kathmandu, Nepal

Public acceptability and its determinants of unit pricing for municipal solid waste disposal: Evidence from a household survey in Beijing

Factors influencing source separation intention and willingness to pay for improving waste management in Bangkok, Thailand

Sharing economic responsibility: Assessing end user's willingness to support E-waste reverse logistics for circular economy

From traditional to modern fee systems

Positive Research of Pay-as-you-throw Policy Effects

Sustainable financing for municipal solid waste management in Nepal

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Rural Areas and Small Counties: an Economic Analysis Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate Willingness to Pay for Yunnan, China

Mitigating water pollution: tourists' willingness to pay for eco-friendly toilets in the Sagarmatha National Park, Mt. Everest area, Nepal

Exploring Residents’ Attitudes and Willingness to Pay for Solid Waste Management in Macau

Uncovering Residents’ Behaviors, Attitudes, and WTP for Recycling E-Waste: a Case Study of Zhuhai City, China

Public satisfaction and willingness to pay (WTP) for better solid waste management services in rural area of Kelantan, Malaysia

Assessing stakeholders' risk perception in public-private partnerships for waste-to-energy projects: A case study of Nepal

Consumer willingness to pay for plastic bags levy and willingness to accept eco-friendly alternatives in Botswana

The influence of organizational and economic methods of household waste management on the volumes and structure of its formation: the experience of the Netherlands

Promoting solid waste management and disposal through contingent valuation method: A review

Impact of Charging and Reward-Penalty Policies on Household Recycling: A Case Study in China.

The Carrot or the Stick: Individual Adaption Against Varying Institutional Arrangements

Disparity of Willingness-to-Pay and Ought-to-Pay for Construction Waste in Hong Kong: A Conceptual Model

Differences and determinants for polluted area, urban and rural residents' willingness to hand over and pay for waste mobile phone recycling: Evidence from China

Research on households’ willingness to pay for the options of price calculation of household solid waste management services in Hanoi