1

This is a preliminary version of the article published in the journal “Resources, Conservation and Recycling”. Please use the following link to find the final version: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344912001747.

Please quote as: SLAVIK, J. – PAVEL, J. 2013. Do the variable charges really increase the

effectiveness and economy of waste management? A case study of the Czech Republic. Resources,

Conservation and Recycling. Vol. 70, No. 1 (2013), 68 – 77.

Do the variable charges really increase the effectiveness and

economy of waste management?

A case study of the Czech Republic

Jan Slavik

Jan Pavel

1. Introduction

The European Union’s most important priorities in the environmental sphere have long included

waste prevention and recycling. It has been a long-term goal of the political representatives to make

the European Union a recycling (or recycling-based) society, built on an environmentally friendly use

of resources and waste recycling (European Commission, 2005). Furthermore, according to the

Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, by 2020 the waste should be managed as a resource which

means higher importance of waste re-use and also energy recovery (European Commission, 2011).

In spite of reservations by some economists (such as EAI, 2005; Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh, 2003), the

EU waste directive 2008/98/EC has included among its instruments for resolving the scarcity issue a

so-called waste hierarchy, which prioritizes waste prevention, recycling and energy recovery over its

simple incineration or landfilling. The question is, nevertheless, how to motivate waste producers to

follow the hierarchy in a situation where waste landfilling remains the most accessible and cheapest

method of waste disposal in many countries (the Czech Republic included). The problem seems to be

the most serious in the case of municipal waste, where the individual motivations are disrupted by

the discord between those who generate municipal waste (especially consumers and business) and

who is responsible for it (municipalities).

Being responsible for the municipal waste, municipalities face a cardinal dilemma: should they yield

to their obligations defined by the waste and packaging legislation that pushes municipalities to

divert from landfilling municipal waste and instead, prefer its recycling, or follow cost and political

rationality and choose the waste treatment that is the most accessible and cheapest? The municipal

2

decision-making dilemma is further aggravated by the facts that (a) municipal waste landfills are

often owned directly by the municipalities, which have an economic interest in their exploitation,

and (b) the degree of municipal waste recycling is largely dependent on the market demand for

secondary raw materials and a number of other factors that the municipalities cannot influence (such

as the price of primary raw materials).

In spite of the above outlined dilemma, municipalities currently have to yield to their obligations

defined by EU directives (and national-level legal standard following their transposition), thus seek

paths to meet their obligations regarding municipal waste. Experience in the USA (Skumatz, 2008),

France (Le Bozec, 2008), and the Netherlands (Beukering et al., 2009) suggests that one of the

possible instruments to control municipal waste treatment are the so-called variable charges as one

type of municipal waste charges (unit-based pricing, variable fees, pay-as-you-throw systems (PAYT)).

This type of charges is progressively replacing fixed, or flat-based fees, which can no longer meet the

requirements made on them by the national government (motivation), the municipalities (cost

efficiency) and consumers (equity).

There is a common awareness about a higher effectiveness of variable charges compared to flat-

based fees. However, the discussion about the effectiveness of variable charges very often lacks the

extension to the question of economy – the impact of variable charges on administrative costs taken

by the public sector and on costs of the municipal waste management system. Is the environmental

effectiveness of variable charges followed also by the economic efficiency?

The primary objective of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness and economy of municipal waste

charges in the Czech Republic and discuss the key factors that influence their effectiveness. Since

municipal waste charges are a component of an overall system of municipal waste treatment, we

have to discuss their role in funding the costs of the municipal waste management systems. It is

within this aspect that there seems to be the decisive criterion in the Czech municipalities’ decision-

making process regarding the choice of one particular municipal waste charge.

The paper will be structured as follows. Section two deals with evaluating experience with charging

schemes abroad, concentrating on identification of selected factors that influence the effectiveness

of such schemes. Section three describes key theoretical and political aspects of the charging policy

in the Czech Republic’s waste management. Section four explains the method chosen for evaluation

of the effectiveness of the municipal waste charges in the Czech Republic. Section five discusses the

results of the survey with respect to identification of the chief factors that determine the outcomes

of the Czech Republic’s waste management system. Section six formulates conclusions and

recommendations.

2. Background

There is no doubt that variable charges are very effective instruments for increasing household

involvement in waste separation and in the reduction of municipal waste disposed in landfills. This

fact is confirmed by many papers in the past (e.g., Fullerton-Kinnaman, 1996; Miranda et al., 1996;

and others); some recent papers summarising the outcomes of various variable charge schemes were

by Beukering et al. (2009), Skumatz (2008), Linderhof et al. (2001), and Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2008).

All the analyses evaluate experience with variable charges depending on what type of charges they

3

are: whether in the form of volume-based pricing or weight-based pricing, or a different pricing

method altogether, and conclude that schemes where the weight, or volume produced by

households (pay-per-bag schemes) is priced are the most effective.

The effect of the economic instruments must not be overrated, though. Despite the convincing

evidence of the environmental effectiveness of variable charges, the enthusiasm over the practical

implementation of this economic instrument has to be moderated somehow, because many other

(chiefly non-monetary) factors influence households’ decisions. Frey-Oberholzer-Gee (1997), and

Frey-Jegen (2001) proved that the effectiveness of the economic instruments may, to a certain

degree, be reduced in consequence of the so-called crowding-out effect. In such a case, we must ask

whether economic instruments should be replaced with non-regulatory instruments at the same

level of effectiveness and efficiency (such as information and education campaigns).

The effectiveness of variable charges has been discussed in the Czech Republic, too, despite the fact

that fixed charges are still the dominant pricing method. Šauer et al. (2008) used a sample of 157

municipalities to demonstrate a significant proportion of waste separation among municipalities that

have a PAYT scheme and those that do not have it. Whereas people in municipalities with PAYT

schemes separated 29 kg/person/year, they only did 18 kg/person/year in the municipalities without

the schemes. Even though the authors admit a positive effect of the variable charges on the

separated amounts, they add that the households’ decisions are much more determined by factors

other than economic. What they see as the chief reasons for that conclusion are the relatively low

price paid by households for waste treatment and the fact that the fee for the service is very often

hidden in the aggregate price paid by households for living in an apartment (Šauer et al., 2008; 2777).

Similar research was undertaken by Skumatz (2008; 2782), who worked with a sample of more than

1.000 municipalities. She concluded that “PAYT programs decrease residential MSW disposal by

about 17 % (wt), with about 8 – 11 % being diverted directly to recycling (5-6%) and yard waste

programs (4-5 %), and another 6 % decreased by source reduction efforts”. An interesting aspect is

how households decide consciously how and where to prevent waste generation. Skumatz (2008)

gives examples of such behaviour as buying in bulk, buying items with less packaging, donations of

reusable goods to charities, etc. Similar household behaviour in response to variable charges were

reported by Linderhof et al. (2001; 368), referring to PME Consultancy (1994) and stating the

following chief methods of waste prevention: “choosing products with less packaging when shopping,

using permanent shopping bags rather than plastic bags, using cotton diapers or diaper services

rather than using disposable diapers, drying up disposable diapers before putting them into the waste

bin, composting, and bringing glass, paper, textiles, and tins to the special containers”.

Naturally, papers can be identified within the literature that see the effectiveness of these charges

sceptically. According to them, variable charges elicit aversive household behaviour, which generates

societal costs of eliminating that behaviour higher than the societal utility from introducing the

variable charges. The aversive household behaviour may assume the form of illegal dumping (fly-

tipping, illicit waste dumping), combustion in household fireplaces (illicit burning), and deposition in

collection bins in the vicinity.

However, aversive behaviour is not the only aspect of variable charging that is given as the chief

barrier to further expansion of these systems. Another frequently given argument questioning

variable charging is that it is not a system suitable for all population density and type of housing. The

4

Dutch experience indicates that promoting variable charges is more difficult in moderately, very

strongly and strongly urbanised municipalities (Beukering et al. 2009). Puig-Ventosa (2008) also

document that variable charges (PAYT-schemes) are typical of areas with low population densities.

The type of housing (family houses, or block-of-flats) also influence the effectiveness of municipal

waste charges. As Miranda et al. (1996) stated, using variable charges in multi-unit housing

complexes is difficult when in comparison with single-family residences. Hogg et al. (2002) explained

this difficulty by high occupant density, anonymity of tenants, or the very frequent changes of

tenants. The proper solution of this problem lies in special technical equipment which is able to

eliminate the anonymity of residents (more in Hogg et al., 2002).

Concerns about PAYT programs are summarized by Skumatz (2008; 2783), proving that many of the

concerns relating to the variable charging schemes are in conflict with reality. Even Linderhof et al.

(2001; 368) admits that variable charges may cause “adverse behavioural effects”, stating that

“about 4-5 % of the waste is brought to neighbouring municipalities, to employers, or to relatives and

friends, who live in municipalities without weigh-based pricing”. On the other hand, Linderhof et al.

(2001) quotes the example of Oostzaan to prove that the aversive household behaviour problem

need not occur with efficient monitoring and a system of fines for illicit dumping. Dijkgraaf and

Gradus (2004) add that taking waste to neighbouring municipalities due to the variable charges is

relatively insignificant in the Netherlands.

What is more, Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2008) show that the effect of variable charges may be

overrated, chiefly due to the so-called environmental activism effect. The authors say that

municipalities that introduce variable charge schemes have produced 6 % less waste even before the

introduction. According to the authors, that proves that the data on variable charge effectiveness

needs to be purged of the environmental activism effect.

According to Batllevell and Hanf (2008), aversive household behaviour and, thence, lower

effectiveness of variable charges may result from the households not regarding such charges as fair

(equitable). The “fairness” does not only derive from the equity of costs, or the fact that everyone

pays the same for a unit of waste, but also the equity of opportunity, or that everyone has the same

infrastructures available. The perception of the equity of costs may be threatened by differing

population structures, because even though collecting municipal waste in less densely populated

areas is costlier than in densely populated ones, the costs are evenly spread among the population

irrespective of the area in which they live. As Batllevell and Hanf (2008) document, the households

regard such a situation as unfair, because the distribution of incomes across the area is uneven as

well and the high-income groups mostly live in less densely populated areas.

Even though variable charges are an important factor influencing household decisions on waste

handling methods, the household behaviour is affected by many additional factors that are not

related to price motivation. Since the decision making process is characterised as a trade-off

between perceived quantities of positive and negative attributes of alternatives, social psychology or

economics are the possible scientific background of this analysis – choice theory in psychology and

demand theory in economics (Ewing, 2001; 735). If positive attributes (e.g., good feeling from

recycling, or awareness of environmental benefits of recycling) exceed the negative attributes (e.g.,

time and work efforts, perceived inconvenience, financial cost) from participation in a recycling

5

scheme, increasing public participation should be expected. Therefore, the knowledge of positive and

negative factors influencing recycling behaviour is a baseline for the analysis.

A substantial body of research into recycling behaviour (e.g., Schultz–Oskamp, 1996; Knussen-Yule,

2008; Knussen et al., 2004; Tonglet et al., 2004) is based on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,

1991) which belongs among the most powerful theoretical frameworks in social psychology1.

According to this theory, the main predictor for the behaviour is the intention to act, which is

determined by individual attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived

behavioural control. As Ajzen (1991) stated, the attitude towards a behaviour (e.g., recycling) is the

degree to which performance of the behaviour is positively or negatively valued. Ewing (2001; 737)

adds that in recycling, an individual’s perceived costs and benefits are weighted by the subjective

importance attached to the perceived costs and benefits (inconvenience, fiscal cost and

environmental benefits in this case). However the analysis of planned behaviour or the role of

subjective norms of behaviour is beyond our intention so for further discussion about the role of

subjective norms on recycling behaviour, see the work of Schultz and Oskamp (1996), McDonald and

Oates (2003), Noehammer and Byer (1997), Schultz et al. (1995), Knussen et al. (2004), Knussen-Yule

(2008) or Barr (2007).

3. The charge system in the Czech Republic

How relevant are the aforementioned monetary and non-monetary household decision factors

relating to waste recycling in the Czech Republic? What type of charges do the Czech Republic’s

municipalities employ? What role do the charges play in the municipal practice? The answers to

these questions pose the fundamental framework for the subsequent analysis of effectiveness of the

various municipal waste charges within the Czech Republic.

The characteristic feature of the Czech Republic’s charging system is that municipalities only started

to pay for waste systemically after 1989 in connection to the changing political and social

arrangements. Until then, the price for removal of ash and rubbish was included in the payments for

using a flat defined as a fixed amount. The first Waste Act, passed in 1991, did not regulate the ways

of charging municipal waste, though. Only the 1997 act defined a payment based on a contractual

(factually guided) price. However, this method of municipal waste charging required a substantial

amount of administrative work from the municipalities in connection with making the contracts

between the municipalities and the natural persons, and also additional problems with recovering

unpaid charges, which then had to take the judicial path.

Criticism of this charging method led to changes, which resulted in a new Waste Act in 2001. With

the effect from 1.1.2003 municipalities may employ one of the following types of municipal waste

charges2:

- fee for the accumulation, collection, transportation, sorting, recovery and disposal of

municipal waste from natural persons on the basis of an agreement;

1 As Tonglet et al. (2004) illustrates by reference to other authors, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) has been successfully applied in the past in various areas such as leisure choice, driving rule violation, investment decisions, and dishonest action.

2 More information on these types of municipal waste charges can be found in Šauer et al. (2008).

6

- fee for municipal waste; and

- local fee for operation of a system of accumulation, collection, shipment, sorting, recovery and

disposal of municipal waste.

The basic difference between municipal waste charges is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Available methods of charging schemes and their advantages and drawbacks

Charge type Advantages Drawbacks

Charge pursuant to § 10b of Act no. 565/1990 Coll. on Local Fees (local fee)

Clearly defined payer (no need to prove that the payer generates waste). Impossibility of shun the payment duty may lead to reduced incidence of illicit dumps.

Permanent residence address as the criterion for defining the payer is often formal and frequently does not reflect the true situation.

Charge pursuant to § 17a of Act no. 185/2001 Coll. on Waste (municipal waste fee)

No upper limit defined for the charge. Part of the administrative work can be shifted to the charge payer (property owner).

The payer has to be proven to generate a certain quantity of municipal waste.

Charge pursuant to § 17, Para 5, of Act no. 185/2001 Coll. on Waste (contractual price)

Accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

Co-operation of the other contractual party required. Recovery via civil court proceedings.

Source: adapted from Vedral (2002).

Among the above municipal waste charge types, the contractual fee and the local fee are variable

charges at least in principle, because the variability of the charges is often only bound to the number

of household members. Only 15 % of the municipal waste charges in the Czech Republic reflect the

number of collection containers or frequency of collection in the charge amount. Conversely, about

80 % of the country’s municipalities employ a local fee that is a fixed fee (IEEP, 2009)3. Variable

charging is prevented from spreading mostly by the advantages that are usually attributed to fixed

fees: ease of administration, few dodgers, predictability, or stability of revenue.

As is obvious from the above data, the overwhelming majority of municipalities prefer charging by

fixed fees. However, the structuring of the charges precludes the municipalities from creating

monetary motivations for households in order to prevent municipal waste generation and separate

its reusable components. Moreover, a concern about the impacts on municipal elections precludes

them from setting the charge amount so that it generates sufficient funds for the local budget in the

waste management bracket (in the reality municipalities have to cover on average 30 % of the waste

management costs with its own resources) (IEEP, 2009). The municipal waste charge setting in the

Czech Republic thus does not comply with the recommendation of Beukering et al. (2009; 2893),

namely “to set the price that is to be charged equal to the long-run marginal cost of providing the

service”.

The fixed fees in the Czech Republic therefore do not fulfil the basic functions of the charging in the

municipal system: the fiscal and motivational and thus informative functions – the households lack

3 The data correspond with the data published by EKO-KOM (2009), the difference is negligible and results from rounding.

7

the information on the scarcity of capacity for waste landfilling or incineration, which leads to an

overproduction of municipal waste, thus negative externalities in relation to waste treatment45. The

charges in the Czech Republic thus utterly fail as an effort for a consistent application of the polluter

pays principle, whereby “citizens pay the costs that their part of responsibility in the chain of

consumption generates” (Batllevell and Hanf, 2008; 2793). The consistent application of the polluter-

pays principle in charging schemes was also highlighted by Dunne et al. (2008).

What is more, the potential effectiveness of the charging schemes in the Czech Republic (thus, the

fulfilment of the fiscal function) is further reduced by the households’ lack of knowledge of the

charge amount. A survey done in 2008 showed that only 38 % of the households had an accurate

knowledge of the charge amount. More awareness of the charge amount was among people who

live in single-family houses (41 %), while housing estate residents showed a lower degree of

awareness (32 %). Another 19 % of households did not know at all how much they were paying for

their waste; 22 % knew only approximately how much they were paying; and 21 % had an idea of

how much they were paying. Poor people and people over 60 years of age watched their waste

charges the most (IEEP, 2009).

The survey, conducted by the recovery organisation EKO-KOM also looked at how the actual

municipal waste fee differed from what the households saw as adequate and most acceptable. The

survey results indicate that 44 % of households see the current charge amount as lower than they

would be willing to accept. Less than 30 % of households see the current charge amount as

disproportional (higher than they are willing to accept). The households mostly related the charge

with the payment for emptying the mixed waste bins and cleaning around the bins. Only 9 % of the

households also mentioned separation bin emptying or recycling yard operation (Vrbová, 2008).

The lack of clarity concerning the purpose of the municipal waste charges within the Czech Republic’s

waste policy is also evident from the strategic papers and legal standards. Should the charges be an

economic instrument the way both the Czech legal system and the Czech Republic’s 2003 Waste

Management Plan, as well as the OECD (2004) see them, and should they thus primarily perform a

motivational function, or are the charges rather a price for the services that municipalities provide in

municipal waste treatment, and should they therefore primarily fulfil the fiscal function? This double

position, however, ultimately results in the charges fulfilling neither the motivational nor the fiscal

function, not to mention an informative one.

OECD (2004; 35) shares the concern that municipal waste charges world-wide do not fulfil their

function entirely well, stating that “the charges are generally not high enough to cover local

authorities’ waste management costs and do not include the external costs and the charges do not

create any incentive for citizens to reduce their own waste generation or to recycle”. The fact that the

charges exclude external costs is the chief reason why the charges fail to perform an informative

function.

4 While charges are the price for services provided in their fiscal function, and their main objective is thus to cover the costs of providing that service, the motivational function generates mechanisms for motivating households to a certain desirable behaviour. The informative function means that the charge amount and its development over time in dependence on external factors informs the households on the scarcity of the service provided: e.g., the scarcity of available landfilling or incineration capacity in waste management.

5 If there is a political will even the fixed fees could in principle achieve the fiscal function, not the motivational, or informative. The fixed fees are not able to fulfil these functions in any case (we thank the anonymous reviewer for this remark).

8

However, the absence of the motivational function of the waste charges in most of the country’s

municipalities has no effect on the performance of the Czech system of separate collection of

municipal waste (e.g. paper, plastics, glass, and cardboard). Not only has the separate collection been

growing since 2002 (about 24 kg/person in 2002; 56 kg/person in 2008), but the reuse and recycling

of packaging waste has also been rising (71 % in 2009) (EKO-KOM, 2010). It seems, therefore, that

besides the monetary factors influencing municipal waste recycling, the household decision-making

is also influenced by other (non-monetary) factors such as education and awareness raising,

situational variables (e.g., distance to collection bins vs. the acceptable distance, and numbers of

collection bins)6.

In light of the above outlined contradictions in the roles of the municipal waste charging schemes

within the Czech Republic’s waste management system, there is a debate on reconsidering the

charging policy and unifying the various charge forms in a single one. Besides the effectiveness of the

various charge types, the ease and efficiency of their administration plays a key role in this debate.

The quantitative survey conducted by the team of authors of the present paper in 2010 is a

significant contribution to this debate.

4. Methodological framework for evaluating charging instruments

As was mentioned, waste charges can be imposed in three different forms. However, each of them

may have a different effect on the household behaviour with respect to its structuring, e.g.,

concerning the amounts and structure of waste generated and emergence of illicit dumps, or the

ease of administration of the system. One has to have a basic methodological framework in order to

assess the effectiveness of each of the forms and compare them. The present analysis chose two of

three main criteria of the method presented in OECD (1996), focusing on evaluating effectiveness

and economy of municipal waste charges.

The objective of the analysis of environmental effectiveness is to identify the impact of choosing the

various types of municipal waste collection charging on its quantity and structure (the separated-

mixed ratio). The objective of the analysis of economy is the system administration costs. These are

the costs that the public sector (the municipality in this case) has to expend on the system

management.

Analysing the economy and environmental effectiveness requires summing up the advantages and

disadvantages of each of the waste charges, which also suggests the starting hypothesis for the

analysis. First of all, we can assume that the local fee and the municipal waste fee will be associated

with less administrative costs than the contractual pricing. The reason is the unified (fixed) charge

amount and the easier collection and recovery. The lowest administrative costs of all can be assumed

to be for the municipal waste fee, where part of the administrative work is shifted to the property

owner, which is especially significant in blocks of flats. As it concerns the environmental effectiveness

6 This footnote is not relevant for the paperAt the end of 2009, households in the Czech Republic had

available 189 thousand bins for separate collection of waste, most of them being for plastics and glass. This has resulted in a continuous propagation of the collection network towards the population, thus reducing the distance to the collection clusters. An opinion poll conducted by Markent showed that the collection distance was 115 metres on average, noting that the average acceptable distance that the households were willing to take to reach the collection points was 177 metres (Markent, 2009).

9

expressed as reduction in the waste production, the contractual pricing can be expected to have the

strongest incentive.

5. Hypothesis testing data and results

5.1 Economy

The analysis of the economy of the various charging schemes is based on a comparison of the

administrative costs in the various systems. The administrative costs were calculated for a selected

sample of municipalities using the recalculated employee method. This method is typically used for

analysing administrative costs of various tax, fee and expenditure instruments.

The essence of the method is to determine the number of recalculated employees who are involved

in administrating the charges, including their wage requirements. Then we calculate the relevant

portion of the wage costs related to administrating the waste charges. After which we then added to

that the amounts of other non-wage costs, such as software or training costs. The result is the

identification of the absolute amount of the administrative costs7.

The necessary information was collected in 2009 using a questionnaire survey based on random

selection related to the 2008 situation. We managed to collect data from 100 municipalities in total

(total amount of municipalities in the Czech Republic is 6 254), but some of them were incomplete

(the municipality was not able to express the number of relevant staff) and thus were not allowed to

enter the analysis. In addition, some of the data indicated remote observation (outliers) and also had

to be excluded for that reason. For this reason the Hadi (1999) method was used.

The resulting set used in the analysis contained information on 72 municipalities, most of which

(76.5%) employ a local fee as the charge for waste collection. The representation of the other

charging schemes in the sample is much less: 12.5 % for the municipal waste fee and 11 % for the

contractual price. In reality, the local fees and contractual prices are more frequent (81 %, or 16.3 %

respectively) than in our sample.8 The largest portion of the administrative costs comprises the

employees’ wages; the amount of the other costs, such as software and training costs, proved to be

negligible.

In 2008, the average per-capita amount of revenue from the charges was CZK 414 (EUR 16.63), and

the average per-capita amount of the administrative costs was CZK 49.19 (EUR 1.99). The relative

amount of the administrative costs, expressed as the cost-revenue ratio, is thus around 11.9 %. That

is relatively a lot when compared with the average relative administrative costs of the Czech

Republic’s tax collection system in 2006 which were around 1.2 % (Pavel and Vitek, 2010). The waste

charges are therefore relatively expensive in terms of their economy.

The question that the econometric analysis asks is whether the administrative costs differ if different

charging schemes are chosen, and whether economies of scale can be identified in the system

management. The aforementioned question was handled using a regression analysis, which chose

7 Methodologically speaking, it would be appropriate to add the relevant portion of the overhead costs.

However, that is very difficult due to the unavailability of the required data. The presented amounts of administrative costs are therefore slightly undervalued.

8 Based on the data presented by EKO-KOM, which have information about more than 94.5 % of Czech

municipalities.

10

the per-capita administrative costs as the dependent variable, and the municipality size (expressed as

the number of houses or number of inhabitants) and the charging scheme (using dummy variables)

as the explanatory variables. Because, in terms of explanatory power, the semi-logarithmic (Lin-Log)

model brought better results of the model (R2), the data on the number of houses and population

have been used in logarithmic form.

The table below shows the characteristics of the data used.

Table 2: Summary statistics of the non-binary variables (72 observations)

Variable Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation

Per-capita administrative cost (CZK)

49.19 37.36 10.22 156.87 33.90

Log (no. of houses)

2.93 2.96 2.02 3.73 0.39

Log (Population)

3.70 3.72 2.61 4.92 0.48

Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis conducted. We used White and Breusch–Pagan

tests for heteroscedasticity which has been confirmed. For this reason we have used for estimation

of regression coefficients the method of heteroscedasticity correction (HC), which includes a three-

step adjusted estimate of coefficients: 1) standard OLS of the examined model, 2) regression using

logarithms of squared residue from the standard OLS model, and 3) weighted least squares where

weights are represented by reciprocal estimates of variance deviations. For testing normality of

residuals was used chi-square goodness-of-fit test and the result of it rejects the hypothesis that the

residuals don´t have normal distribution.

The result of the model shows, that a statistically significant effect of the choice of various charging

schemes on the amount of administrative costs was not proven. In other words, the costliness of the

various charging schemes is identical on average for all of the three possible modifications, although

their calculation and recovery methods differ. The model indicates that only one factor affects the

amount of administrative costs and it is the size of municipality measured by the logarithm of

number of houses. The per-capita administrative costs decrease with increasing number of houses.

This proves the existence of economies of scale: larger municipalities have lower per-capita

administrative costs on average9.

Table 3: Model – dependent variable: per-capita administrative costs, used HC method

9 Of course it is necessary to take into account when presenting the results that the model is estimated in a

relatively small sample of municipalities.

Dependent variable

const 203.75 (27.0052)***

Log (no. of houses) -51.78 *** (8,54778)

F test (p-value) 6.19e-08

Adj R2 0.34

Durbin-Watson statistic

1.73

11

Notes: *** significant at the 99% significance level; ** 95% significance level; * 90% significance level; standard deviations in brackets.

5.2 Environmental effectiveness

In the environmental effectiveness analysis, we focus on finding factors that affect the waste

producers’ – households’ – behaviour; we do this from two angles. The first is a static analysis related

to explaining the amounts of waste produced and the share of separated waste in total waste. The

other one is “dynamic”, analysing changes in the behaviour from 2005 to 2008.

The analysis draws on data on the charging methods and amounts of waste (including its

classification into separated and residual) obtained via the recovery organisation EKO-KOM. The

analysed set contains (after the elimination of outliers) data for 4,001 municipalities, which

guarantees a very high descriptive quality of the analyses (As we have mentioned above, the total

amount of municipalities in the Czech Republic is 6 254). Among those municipalities, 81 % levy local

fees, 2.7 % levy municipal waste fees, and the remaining 16.3 % employ contractual prices (EKO-

KOM, 2009).

5.2.1 Static analysis

As mentioned above, the objective of the analysis is to test the hypothesis about the effect of the

various charging schemes on the amounts and structure of waste produced (per capita). The

explanatory variables include the living standard (measured by the % of average GDP per capita in

the Czech Republic), municipality size (as logarithm of population count), expenditures on awareness

?contains the basic descriptive statistics.

Table 4: Summary statistics of the non-binary variables (4001 observations)

Variable Mean Median Minimum Maximum Std. Deviation

Waste amount per capita in

2005 (kg) 224.39 217.54 22.91 648.48 100.34

Waste amount per capita in

2008 (kg) 266.69 252.96 47.35 693.78 93.30

Share of separated

waste in total waste in 2005

0.13 0.10 0.00 0.91 0.10

No. of observations 72

12

Share of separated

waste in total waste in 2008

0.12 0.11 0.01 0.91 0.07

GDP per capita

87.39 85.2 70.4 94.3 6.14

Log (Population)

2.76 2.71 1.34 6.07 0.53

Expenditures on awareness

raising campaigns

(CZK)

6.68 0 0 937.42 37.33

Next table presents results from two regression models, which estimated the factors affecting the

waste amount per capita in 2005 and 2008. Because of heteroscedasticity problem, which was

identified by the White and Breusch–Pagan tests, we have used the method of heteroscedasticity

correction (HC), which has been described above. However, test of normality of residues (chi-square

goodness-of-fit test) revealed that this assumption is not met. Nevertheless, in the case of existence

of large samples we can tolerate the failure of this assumption; since it is assumed asymptotic

normality of residues (see more in Wooldridge 2009). To verify the presented model we have used

the LDA (Least absolute deviations) method, which is not sensitive on the non-fulfilment of the

assumption of normality of residuals. The values of estimated regression coefficients are very close.

Table 5: Model - dependent variable: waste amount per capita

Notes: *** significant at the 99% significance level; ** 95% significance level; * 90% significance level; standard deviations in brackets.

Waste amount per capita in 2005 (kg) Waste amount per capita in 2008 (kg)

HC LAD HC LAD

Dependent variable

const 50.49** (21.35)

62.41 *** (23.79)

160.25*** (18.97)

171.95 *** (23.53)

GDP per capita 1.92 *** (0.22)

1.79 *** (0.26)

2.07*** (0.19)

1.81 *** (0.24)

Log (Population) 21.79*** (2.70)

17.99 *** (2.75)

-7.89*** (2.02)

-7.86 *** (2.91)

Share of separated waste in total waste in 2005

-395.65*** (15.32)

-391.36 *** (19.37)

Share of separated waste in total waste in 2008

-440.98 (16.94)

-420.86 *** (22.14)

Contractual Price - 20.67 *** (3.95)

-25.37 *** (5.49)

-26.54*** (3.33)

-25.43 *** (5.11)

F test (p-value) 2.1e-164 3.4e-194

Adj R2 0.17 0.20

Durbin-Watson statistic

1.96 1.88

Observations 4001 4001

13

In both analyzed years the amount of waste per capita is positively influenced by the GDP per

capita and a negatively influenced by the share of separated waste (if people separate

more, then less waste is produced) and as well as by the existence of the contractual price. By

comparing these two years, only the influence of the size of municipality is different. While in 2005

an increase in the size of the village volume of waste was growing, in 2008 the relationship was the

opposite.

Next table presents the results of regression models, where the dependent variable is the share of

separated waste. Because of the same problems with heteroscedasticity and assumption of

normality of residues, we have used the same methods for estimation (HC and LDA) as in the

previous analysis. Presented results confirm the positive influence of contractual price on the

structure of waste. As in the previous model we can see the change in the influence of the size of

municipality (in 2005 positive relationship, in 2008 negative).

14

Table 6: Model - Dependent variable: share of separated waste in total waste in %

Notes: *** significant at the 99% significance level; ** 95% significance level; * 90% significance level; standard deviations in brackets.

5.2.2 “Dynamic” analysis

The other domain subjected to the analysis is the effect of the various waste charging instruments on

the changing amounts and structure of waste produced by households. The years 2005 and 2008 are

compared with respect to this change, so the dependent variables are the relative change in the

amount of waste per capita between 2005 and 200810 and the relative change of the share of

separated waste in total waste between 2005 and 200811. The following two years were chosen,

because only in these two years, is there a large enough sample of data available from municipalities.

The period from 2005 to 2008 is also in the Czech Republic, characterized by a massive economic

boom, so the behaviour of households and municipalities is not negatively affected by the economic

crisis that came to the Czech Republic in 2009. The results of our analyses are presented in the

following table. Again as in previous cases, we have used HC and LDA methods because of

heteroscedasticity and the normality of residues problems.

The analysis presented in Table 7 shows, that the municipalities with contractual prices have a lower

growth rate of waste per capita and a higher increase in the share of separated waste. The next

explanatory variable, which is statistically significant, is the waste amount per capita in 2005. The

negative coefficient in the first model (dependent variable is relative change in the amount of waste

per capita between 2005 and 2008) indicates that the municipalities with higher per capita waste

10

Calculated as waste amount per capita in 2008 divided by waste amount per capita in 2005. 11

Calculated as share of separated waste in total waste in 2008 divided by Share of separated waste in total waste in 2005.

Share of separated waste in total waste in 2005

Share of separated waste in total waste in 2008

HC LAD HC LAD

Dependent variable

const 0.1443 *** (0.0084)

0.1644 *** (0.0081)

0.1836 *** (0.0058) 0.1582 *** (0.0034)

Log (Population)

0.0139 *** (0.0027)

0.0057 *** (0.0022)

-0.0057 *** (0.0016)

Waste per capita in 2005

-0.0003 *** (1.35717e-05)

-0.0003 *** (1.30883e-05)

Waste per capita in 2008

-0.0002 *** (9.76736e-06)

-0.0002 *** (1.18108e-05)

Contractual price

0.0159 *** (0.0045)

0.0105 *** (0.0039)

0.02705 *** (0.0034)

0.0234 *** (0.0034)

F test (p-value)

7,06e-93 1.8e-114

Adj R2 0.10 0.12

Durbin-Watson statistic

1.93 1.97

Observations 4001 4001

15

production in 2005 show lower growth rate of its volume. In the second model, where the

dependent variable is relative change of share of separated waste in total waste between 2005 and

2008, is the influence positive. It means that the municipalities with higher waste production per

capita increase the share of separated waste faster.

Effect of the size of municipality and economic development on the rate of waste growth is unclear,

because the two methods, which have been used, indicate a different direction of regression

coefficient. However, a clear negative influence of these variables can be identified in the second

model. It means that greater and more developed municipalities increase the share of separated

waste slowly.

The analysis also tested the effect of other factors, such as the scale of awareness raising campaigns,

municipality size, etc. Nevertheless, no statistically significant effect on the explained variable was

proven in any of these cases.

Table 7: Model – dependent variables: Relative change in the amount of waste per capita between 2005 and 2008 and Relative change of share of separated waste in total waste between 2005 and

2008

Notes: *** significant at the 99% significance level; ** 95% significance level; * 90% significance level; standard deviations in brackets.

Summary of regression analyzes

The results of the analyses conducted bring numerous interesting findings. The first is that the

administrative costs of all of the three charging schemes do not differ, or the analysis presented in

Table 3 does not confirm the assumption of greater administrative requirements of the contractual

price. Another important conclusion is the greater environmental effectiveness of the contractual

price. This method of charging for waste has positive impact on the waste amount per capita, share

Relative change in the amount of waste per capita between 2005 and 2008

Relative change of share of separated waste in total waste between 2005 and 2008

HC LAD HC LAD

Dependent variable

const 1.5734 *** (0.0752)

1.4892 *** (0.0843)

1.8227 *** (0.1256)

1.9119 *** (0.1759)

Waste per capita in 2005

-0.0023 *** (7.77252e-05)

-0.0023 *** (0.0001)

0.0006 *** (9.70158e-05)

0.0006 *** (0.0001)

Share in 2005 -3.5488 *** (0.0872)

-3.3046 *** (0.1231)

GDP per capita 0.0041 *** (0.0008)

-0.0023 *** (0.0001)

-0.0027 ** (0.0013)

-0.0050 ** (0.0019)

Log (Population) -0.0739*** (0.0077)

0.0056 *** (0.0008)

-0.0467 *** (0.0135)

-0.0394 *** (0.0157)

Contractual Price

-0.0928 *** (0.0137)

-0.0857 *** (0.0119)

0.2513 *** (0.0243)

0.2424 *** (0.0307)

F test (p-value) 4,8e-197 0.000

Adj R2 0.20 0.35

Observations 4001 4001

16

of separated waste in total waste as well as contributing to the reduction of the waste growth and to

the increase of the share of separate waste.

The contractual price therefore seems to be an important incentive for the general improvement in

the volume and structure of the waste. On the other hand, this reading must not be overestimated

as it may be the result of concurrent activities of more “environmentally” oriented municipalities,

which would confirm the conclusions of Dijkgraaf and Gradus (2008) on environmental activism. Such

municipalities may try not only to influence their population by employing contractual prices, but

also create better conditions for waste sorting. However, such potential concurrence can be neither

identified nor disproved based on the existing data, and the presented results can thus always be

read with respect to the limitations arising essentially from the incomplete induction.

6. Discussion

The analysis of effectiveness of municipal waste charges in the Czech Republic has demonstrated a

relatively higher effectiveness of variable charges. However, this conclusion must not be overrated.

Instead, attention ought to be turned to additional forms of motivation, which may make a

significant contribution to improving the Czech Republic’s municipal waste management system,

such as waste separation per capita. At the same time, room needs to be given to what is the impact

of greater waste separation on the costs of the municipal waste management systems at the

municipal level.

The available analyses indicates that one of the arguments in favour of variable charges is the savings

of costs due to better separation of municipal waste and the decreasing amounts of the waste that is

landfilled (e.g., Karagiannidis et al., 2008, Reschovsky and Stone, 1994, or Beukering et al., 2008).

Unfortunately this statement should be questionable in the environment of falling prices of the

secondary raw materials, or in countries, where landfilling is the cheapest waste treatment method

due to the low levels of landfill taxes, or a poor level of landfill regulation.

An explanation of the increase in waste separation per capita even in the non-motivating air of fixed

fees was provided by the IEEP (2009) analysis, which took a sample of 1753 municipalities (5 088 380

people) to show that waste separation per capita is most affected by the charge amount. Based on

data on local fee (i.e., fixed fee) amounts and waste separation per capita, the authors of this study

came to the result that the average waste separation per capita in comparable municipal size

categories is about 22 % greater on average than in municipalities with lower fees (less then CZK

150). The difference was even greater in 2006: the waste separation per capita was 87 % greater in

municipalities with fees over CZK 400. IEEP (2009) analysis concludes that the performance of waste

separation is better in municipalities with a higher fee for the inhabitants (irrespective of the charge

type). The waste separation per capita depends more on local conditions, organisation and technical

waste collection arrangements. Naturally, the role that informing the population plays is not a

negligible one. Municipalities with greater fees also have higher waste management expenditures. In

practice, this mostly means that such municipalities operate better collection systems that are more

17

easily accessible to the inhabitants (denser collection network, sufficient frequency of collection,

etc.).

Another question has to be discussed with regards to municipal waste charges. How the increasing

share of separated waste and shrinking amounts of municipal waste deposited in landfills in

consequence of variable charges affect the expenditures of the whole municipal waste management

system. Admittedly, there is a general assumption concerning the reasons for the existence of

recycling schemes, very aptly worded by Reschovsky and Stone (1994; 120 – 121), who state that

“the logic and appeal of local recycling programs is clear at a purely budgetary level. Reductions in

the quantity of solid waste save collection and disposal costs, hopefully with savings sufficient to

cover the costs of operating the recycling program net of revenues from the sale of recyclable

materials”. Unfortunately that is not the case in the Czech Republic according to previous experience

that shows that:

- the Czech Republic’s system is characterized by the fact that the costs of separate collection

exceed waste disposal costs;

- prices of separated materials have decreased to near zero due to the crisis on the secondary

raw material market, which made the system even less profitable;

- the whole separate collection system would probably collapse without additional subsidies

(e.g., EKO-KOM and their compensation scheme).

Even though impacts of implementation of variable charges on municipal budgets are not among the

main aspects of analyses dedicated to the effectiveness and economy of variable charges, there are

still a few authors who deal with the issue intensely. Šauer et al. (2008) confirms that increasing

amounts of separate waste collected in the Czech Republic will lead to increasing municipal waste

management costs. From this point of view the higher effectiveness of municipal waste charges, the

higher municipal waste separation and higher impact on costs of municipal waste management can

be expected. Beukering et al. (2009) concludes that contrary to general expectations, variable

charging “does not increase the overall cost of waste collection for municipalities”. Skumatz (2008)

arrives at an identical conclusion based on numerous past surveys, stating that “household costs for

monthly garbage service were not significantly higher for PAYT communities compared to non-PAYT

communities”. The author also refers to an earlier work by Frable and Berkshire (1995), who

conclude that “garbage costs stayed the same or decreased for two-thirds of the communities

implementing PAYT”.

Le Bozec (2008; 2789) demonstrates how the effectiveness of variable charging reflects in the system

costliness (cost-profit balance), stating that “if the incentive fee showed its effectiveness on the

balance of waste separation, it is also important to see whether or not this fee is able to satisfy the

requirement for budget balance which consists of an equalization of the service net cost and amount

of fees recovered”. The author follows with financial simulations of what happens with the budget if

separate collection of packaging waste increases, and concludes that: “The simulations (…) show that

the improvement of the performances of packaging waste sorting is accompanied by a reduction in

the amount of the recovered fees, and thus reveals a deficit” (p. 2791). Using a simulation model, the

author demonstrates that increasing separate collection of waste packaging under a two-tier fee

18

(fixed and variable components) leads to a budgetary deficit that can only be resolved by doubling

the fixed fee component. This means that two-tier variable fees result in budgetary imbalance12.

Another author who studies the impact of implementing variable charges on the overall costs of

municipal waste management systems is Karagiannidis et al. (2008). Using the Full Cost Accounting

method, he concludes that a “PAYT scheme will decrease the cost for the authority, as well as for the

citizen, if an anticipated waste reduction occurs”. Contrariwise, Isely and Lowen (2007) conclude their

analysis by saying that “the shift to recycling results in significant financial benefits to the city and a

small decrease in social welfare” (p. 433).

It follows from the results of the analyses conducted that the impacts of variable charges on the

costs of municipal waste management systems are not negligible and deserve due attention. Where

variable charges entail increasing municipal costs, a danger of negative response arises both from

municipalities (resuming landfilling) and consumers (increased municipal costs may be replicated in

waste charges, which will induce aversive behaviour).

7. Conclusions

It is evident from the analysis results that we have proven the hypothesis that the municipal waste

charges in the Czech Republic designed as variable ones are environmentally more effective than

fixed charges. Variable charges thus result in a higher degree of waste separation. At the same time,

it must be admitted that the greater share of waste separation in municipalities employing variable

charges may be caused by environmental activism, or the fact that variable charges are implemented

by environmentally conscious municipalities that have shown a higher degree of waste separation

already when the system is implemented. The indicated results would favour variable waste charges

in case the municipality decides to motivate its population to sort their waste.

However, implementation of variable municipal waste charges in the Czech Republic has come up

against concerns of municipalities that such systems will result in more expensive municipal waste

management systems. Our analysis showed that this assumption was not proven. The costliness of

the various charging schemes is similar on average, although their calculation and recovery methods

differ.

The unpopularity of the implementation of variable charges also rises because of the financial

dependence of the municipal waste management systems on subsidies from the municipality’s other

budgetary sources. Furthermore the municipalities are afraid of further cost increases as a result of

mandatory collection of biodegradable municipal waste in consequence of European regulation.

Variable municipal waste charges thus have a significant motivating potential, not only with regards

to the amounts of sorted reusable municipal waste components, but also regarding the amounts of

waste that is disposed of in landfills. What is more, setting an amount of the charges that reflects the

system costs associated with the waste treatment promises fulfilment of the fiscal function of the

charges and thus, indirectly, their informative function as well. Households would thereby be given

12

Analysis of the charge structure is pursued in great detail by Bilitewski (2008) and Puig-Ventosa (2008) among others. Both authors recommend (for cost reasons among others) dividing the waste charge into two components: a variable one denoting the motivational element, and a fixed one the chief purpose of which is to cover the system costs.

19

information on the scarcity of waste treatment capacities and adjust their consumer behaviour

accordingly.

Acknowledgment

We would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues who were actively involved in the research,

namely Dr. Martina Vrbová (recovery organisation EKO-KOM), Ing. Zdenka Kotoulová (SLEEKO) and

others at the IEEP, Institute for Economic and Environmental Policy at the Prague University of

Economics Faculty of Economics. This project was enabled by support from the Czech Science

Foundation under project P402/10/0126, entitled Economic and Environmental Effects of

Environmental Regulation under Different Market Structures (e.g. packaging waste regulation). The

research in the field of administrative costs was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and

Sports (Registration No 2D06029).

Keywords

Variable charges, fixed fees, effectiveness, economy, administrative costs

20

References

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior: Some unresolved Issues. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec.

50, 179 - 211.

Barr, S., 2007. Factors Influencing Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: A U.K. Case Study of

Household Waste Management. Environ. Behav. 39, 435 - 473

Batllevell, M., Hanf, K., 2008. The fairness of PAYT systems: Some guidelines for decision-makers.

Waste Manage. 28, 2793-2800

Beukering, van 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. Waste Manage. 29,

2892-2901

Bilitewski, B., 2008. From traditional to modern fee systems. Waste manage. 28, 2760 - 2766

Dijkgraaf, E., Vollebergh, H.R.J., 2003. Burn or Bury? A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal

Methods, Erasmus University Rotterdam and OCFEB, April 2003

Dijkgraaf, E., Gradus, R.H.J.M., 2004. Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case

of the Netherlands. Resour. Energy Econ. 26, pp. 353 - 371

Dunne, L., Convery, F.J., Gallagher, L., 2008. An Investigation into waste charges in Ireland, with

emphasis on public acceptability. Waste Manage. 28, 2826-2834

EAI, 2005. Rethinking the waste hierarchy, Environmental Assessment Institute, March 2005

EKO-KOM. 2009. Data on waste management praxis in the Czech municipalities. Internal statistics.

Not have been published.

EKO-KOM. 2010. Odpady a obce: Nakládání s komunálními odpady.

<http://www.ekokom.cz/assets/odpadove-dny/sbornik-10.pdf>

European Commission, 2005. Taking sustainable use of resources forward: A Thematic Strategy on

the prevention and recycling of waste. Brussels, 21.12.2005. COM(2005) 666 final

European Commission, 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. Brussels, 20.9.2011.

COM(2011) 571 final

Ewing, G., 2001. Altruistic, egoistic, and normative effects on curbside recycling. Environ. Behav. 33,

733 - 764

Frey, B.S., Oberholzer-Gee, F., 1997. The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation

Crowding-Out. Am. Econ. Rev. 87, 746-755

Frey, B.S., Jegen, R., 2001. Motivation Crowding Theory. J. Econ. Surv. 15, 589 – 611

Fullerton, D., Kinnaman, T.C., 1996. Household Responses to Pricing Garbage by the Bag. Am. Econ.

Rev. 86, 971 - 984

Hadi, A. S., 1992. A new measure of overall potential influence in linear regression. Comput. Stat.

Data Anal. 14, 1–27.

21

Hogg, D. (ed.). 2002. Financing and Incentive Schemes for Municipal Waste Management: Case

Studies. Final Report to Directorate General Envivronment, European Commission. Eunomia

Research & Consulting.

IEEP. 2009. Strategie prevence vzniku a třídění využitelných složek komunálního odpadu na obecní

úrovni a formování trhu s vytříděnými surovinami v České republice, Praha: MoE and IEEP, project

VaVSP 2f1/77/07

Isely, P., Lowen, A., 2007. Price and Substitution in Residential Solid Waste. Contemp. Econ. Policy 28,

433 - 443

Karagiannidis, A., Xirogiannopoulou, A., Tchobanoglous, G., 2008. Full cost accounting as a tool for

the financial assessment of Pay-As-You-Throw schemes: A case study for the Panorama municipality,

Greece. Waste Manage. 28, 2801 - 2808

Knussen, CH., Yule, F., McKenzie, J., Wells, M., 2004. An analysis of intentions to recycle household

waste: The roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. J. Environ.

Psychol. 24, 237 - 246

Knussen, CH., Yule, F., 2008. “I’m not in the habit of recycling”: The role of habitual behaviour in the

disposal of household waste. Environ. Behav. 40, 683 - 702

Le Bozec, A., 2008. The implementation of PAYT system under the condition of financial balance in

France. Waste Manage. 28, 2786-2792

Linderhof, V., Kooreman, P., Allers, M., Wiersma, D., 2001. Weight-based pricing in the collection of

household waste: the Oostzaan case. Resour. Energy Econ. 23, 359 – 371

MARKENT, 2009. Systém sběru použitých obalů, Praha: Markent (průzkum trhu & marketing),

závěrečná zpráva z výzkumu

McDonald, S., Oates, C., 2003. Reasons for non-participation in a kerbside recycling scheme. Resour.

Conserv. Recy. 39, 369 - 385

Miranda, M.L., Bauer, S.D., Aldy, J.E., 1996. Unit Pricing Programs for Residential Municipal Solid

Waste: An Assessment of the Literature, Duke University, Durnham

Noehammer, H.C., Byer, P.H., 1997. Effect of design variables on participation in residential curbside

recycling programs. Waste Manage. Res. 15, 407 - 427

OECD, 1996. Evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of economic instruments in environmental

policy, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

OECD, 2004. Addressing the economics of waste, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development, Paris

Pavel, J., Vítek, L. 2010. Environmental Tax Reform: Administrative and Compliance Costs of Energy

Taxes in the Czech Republic, in: Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation. International and

Comparative Perspectives (Volume VIII). Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Puig-Ventosa, I., 2008. Charging systems and PAYT experiences for waste management in Spain.

Waste Manage. 28, 2767-2771

22

Reschovsky, J.D., Stone, S.E., 1994. Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling:

paying for what you throw away. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 13, 120 – 139.

Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S., Mainieri, T., 1995. Who recycles and when?: A review of personal and

situational factors. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 105 – 121.

Schultz, P.W., Oskamp, S., 1996. Effort as a Moderator of the Attitude-Behaviour Relationship:

General Environmental Concern and Recycling. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 59, 375 – 383.

Skumatz, L., 2008. Pay as you throw in the US: Implementation, impacts, and experience. Waste

Manage. 28, 2778 – 2785

Šauer, P., Pařízková, l., Hadrabová, A., 2008. Charging systems for municipal solid waste: Experience

from the Czech Republic. Waste Manage. 28, 2772-2777

Tonglet, M., Phillips, P.S., Read, A.D., 2004. Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to investigate the

determinants of recycling behaviour: a case study from Brixworth, UK. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 41, 191

– 214

Vedral, J., 2002. Několik poznámek k možným formám platby za komunální odpad, [cit. 2009-10-10].

Dostupné z http://spravni.juristic.cz/174304.

Vrbová, M. 2008. Motivace k tříděnému sběru komunálního odpadu a poplatkové systémy, In: IEEP.

2008. Strategie prevence vzniku a třídění využitelných složek komunálního odpadu na obecní úrovni a

formování trhu s vytříděnými surovinami v České republice, Praha: MoE and IEEP, project VaVSP

2f1/77/07

Wooldridge, J. M. 2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, Fourth Edition, South-

Western College Publishing