..................................................

1
.................................................IV
..................................................X
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.....................................
.................................
.......................
.................................

1
1
4
5
8

............. 9
....................... 9
.....................16

 .......22
.....................................31
.......................32
...................32
.....................35
...........................40

.......................48

...................48
...................55
.............74

...........................80

.................................80
.................................83
.............................87
............114
..................114
..........................120
..................130
................130
....................140
..............152
..................152
................160
..................................169
................................169
....................................177
............................179
............................................180
A

...................................185
B..........................203
................................................207

2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4

..............10
..........12
................13
....................14

()..............15
2-5 ..........................17
2-6 ....................18
2-7 ()..18
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3

..............23
....................24
..............................28
......................28
..................29
..........................38
................39
....................50
..................51
..53

4-4
4-5
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4

......................62
......................62
................................82
............87
......87
85 ..89
85 ()..90
5-5 84 ..91
5-6 ....................91
5-7 ......................92

 5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15
5-16

()..92
()............93
()............93
()..94
()..94
..............95
......96
..........97
..................97

5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21

()......97
..........98
................98
........................99
......................99

5-22
().............................100
5-23
().............................101
5-24
5-25
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-29
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33

.......102
.....103
...104
()..104
...105
.....105
.........106
.............107
..107
..108

5-34
()............................109
5-35
()............................110
5-36 ..............111
5-37 ()..112
5-38 ()..112
5-39
()............................113
5-40

 6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
7-1

()............................113
..........................121
..........................122
............124
....................125
......127
..128
........................129
....134

7-2 ............135
7-3 ......................140
7-4
..................................141
7-5 ..142
7-6
7-7
7-8
7-9

....142
..143
........144
....................145

7-10
7-11
7-12
7-13
7-14
7-15
7-16
8-1
8-2
8-3

84 ()()............145
(84 )..146
84 ()().147
..148
..149
..150
..........150
(can).........163
(bag).........164
(tag or sticker)..165

9-1 ............................175

7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6

........207
..............208
..210
................211
......212
................213

7-7 ......214

 7-8 ....215

1-1 ....................................7
2-1 ()...........10
7-1 ........................151

100

(1)(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1990

74.8%

12.3%

2,421
3,406 41% 2,772 /
14%

(1)(2)

(3)


A Study of Fee-Charging Techniques of General solid Waste Disposal

As the economy continues to develop,people in Taiwan are demanding a better

living environment. A side effect of the rapid economic growth, however, is the
tremendous amount of gengral solid waste created. With the amount of waste multiplies,
the treatment costs of solid waste have increased too rapidly for the limited fiscal
budget,
and the quality of weast-cleaning services cannot meet the needs of the general
public.
Therefore, the concept of payment-by-user has been adopted by many countries,
including Taiwan.
The waste fee is generally calculated as a percentage of the household's eater
fee.
If the household does not purchase waterfrom the Water Company,it is chargeed a fixed
amount. This fee-charging technique cannot guarantee that the fee will over the cost,
nor is it equitable since heavier user do not necessarily pay the highiest fee. It
also does
not give people economic incentive to reduce waste.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to design reasonable and feasible techniques
to collect water fee. This should ensure that the following goals can be
attained:(1)to
cover the cost of weter treatment,(2)to creat an equitable fee system,(3)to creat
incenttives to reduce the amount of water,(4)to facilitate the collecting of fees.
This study includesnice chapters.The general situation of managing soild waste
and the problems with the present waste-fee-charging technique in Taiwan are
discussed
in chapter 2; Chapter 3discusses the economic theory for collecting waste fee from
household; Chapter 4 examines the stenrgh and weakness of the waste-fee-charging
tdchniques practiced in other countries; Chapter 5 analyzes the degree of acceptance

of
various charge techniques by the Taiean's general public; Chapter 6 estimates the
household's demand for waste-cleaning services. Chapter 7 calculates the supply cost
of
waste-cleaning servies; Chapter 8 suggests three different fee-charging techniques
and
discuesses the administrative structure and regulation needed to facilitate the
techniques.
At the end, chapter 9 concludes.
From the empirical estimation result of the demand model for waste-cleaning
services, it shows that the quanity of waste produced by household is positively
related
too the numbers of household members, the dwelling area, and family income. Also,
the wateer use (or water fee) and electricity use (or electricity fee) are positively
signficant. We can thus conclude that the waste amount produced by a household are
affected by multiple factors, and any waste-fee-charging technique which fails to
consider all related factors will be lack of incentives for waste reductioin.
Three fee-charging techniques of general solid waste disposal are suggested in
this
study:(1)charging waste fee accordingto the amount of water used by the household,
(2)charging waste fee according to the average waste amount in the household's
residential area, (3)charging waste fee according to waste bags or stickers purchased
by
the household.
This study also suggests that let local governments(people), which are
responsible
for implementing the waste-fee-charging program, decide their own techniques, and
the
EPA only acts as the program's supersible for making rregulation, writing
program guidleiines, evaluation local governments'performances, and so on.

(private exteernality)

84 11

80 7 31
(80) 9 1

(1)

(2)
100%

(3) 76%
390
(4)

86 7

1.1

600

10

84

84
23,857 871
(83 ) 2.53% 74 13,233
76.8% 74 0.74
84 1.14 54.05% 2-1
5% 81 84
83 1.79%
84 2-2
100% 95%

1.53

 1.33 0.87 0.66

9 2

79% 49
45% 49%
2-3

50%
32.2% 23% 40%
56% 48% 18.3%
4

2-4

84 20,760.4
79.24% 3,914.3 14.94%
5.811% 2-5

2-6
67.6% 3.3% 71% 29%

73 9 20 1902
80 11 14 80 35654
,
84 7 28 84 27727

91

95%
70%

83 107 20
85 2 6
43 17 66 2-7

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

6.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)
(2)

2-8 84

2-9
2-9 1,584

2000 2400
2400
2700 1000

24.4% 45%
40%
20%

266 9,591
1,700
,

(1)(2)
(3)

2-11

2-2

2-2

2-10 2-11

2-12

2-12

1.5

 3.68 4.92

1,000~1,500
2,710
6.8% 49.8%


Tintenberg, 1994Bernstein,1993
product charge

deposit systems

user charge

solid-waste-intensity

Miedema(1983)

78
82

disposal tax

Efaw Lanen(1979) 1,194

441 36.93 580 48.58

3-2

1989

(1)(user charge)(2)
(product charge(3)(deposid systems)

1989

(1)
(2)
(3)

1989

1991

shiftability
corner solution


Schreiner, D.G.MuncriefB.Davis(1973)

Hardy,W.E.JrC.L.Grissom(1976)

Chilton,Kenneth(1991)

(1)
(2)(3)(4)

Municipal Solid Waste Task Force 1989 2

(1)

(EPA)
(2)

Dobbs,Ian M.(1991)

(refundable deposit)

Gottinger,H.W.(1991)

BostonMunich Nuremberg/Furth

Tellus Institute(1991)

(disposaal fee)

(1)(2)

(3)

Census Brueau Product Code

Bernstein,Janis D.(1993)

Jenkins,Robin R.(1993)

1980

Morris,G.E.M.Jr.H.Duncan(1994)

( 78 )

83 6 10

80 7 31
(80) 9 1

83 6 10

9.0
83 7 1 (86 4 )
4-1

11
7.7 0.2

83 3 1 86 4 4-2

(1)
(2)
(3)

(1)
(2)
(3)

(83) 22565 33515

40

(1)8020
(2)4654
( 4-3)

4-3

1.
2. 100%

 100%

3.

4. 76% 390

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.

1990

1993

(1)

(2)

1992 3,236

(1)(flat rate)

(2)(varible rate)

single rate
(muti-tier rate)
(block-pricing)(3)(mixed rate)

3,236 1,134 35%

56.1% 24.7%
17%
633 29%
1,992 39.6% 580
26.2%

63%24.5
62.2% 64.2%
30%8%

307 580
1,950 2,300

1993 10

35% 1980

10%27% 50%


1980

pay by the bag

4-4
300
5 100 30% 4-5
1994 4 12
8 33 1995
1 1 232

10%
99%

1,950 37% 53,546

33,841 40% 8,196
11,452 1994 1.37kg 1995
1.05kg 2001
1994 70%

1995 7 150

70
(1) 170 420 (2) 170350
840 (3) 350700
2,100 (4) 700 1,00 2,800 (5)
1,000 1,000 2,800

51

(unit-based pricing)
8 11

1.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

1995
Brisbaneg 30.00 /Sydney
$28.00 /Melbourne 22.00 /Adelaide
12.00 / Sydney (the
Waverely and Woollahra Councils) 49.90
7.2


112drch 22 328drch
65 164drch 33

(flat rate)(variable raye)

(weight-based)
(volume-based)
(mixed rate)

(unit
price)

(illegal diversion)

(volume-based)(weight-based)

Seattle, Washington
Forming Minneapolis Daram
Columbia Milwaukee

(San Jose,
Colifornia) 61%

25%50% 28% Miranda, et al (1996) 21

30
Tompkins County
39%

(commercial dumpstre)

Mendham Township MT.Pleasant

1996 12 10
1996
12 14 19
1997 1 2

20-74

190 81 10

600

1200 12
348 114 138 600 697
228 275 1200

20-74

256

20-74

5-1
5 5

1996 12 10 9 12

1.

60

2.

60

3.

56

4.

35

5.

26

1.
2.
3.

1.
2.
3.
4.

1.
2.
3.

1.
2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

4.

1.

2.

3.

600
348 114 138
603 351 138 114
100 5-2
5-3 84

52.5 55.7 55.7

5-4 84 84
20
5-5
5-4 5-5

61 70

30%16%46%
29%33%41%

176 29.2( 5-4) 5-6

95%

5-7 5-8 60% 85%

50%48% 40%
37% 33%
11% 16%( 5-9)

 5-10

5-11 75%
83% 78% 60%
5-12
83% 75% 64%
40%
76%
62%54%
25% 73%
50% 66%
42%35% 25%
5-13

5-14
40
60
30

66
50
20-25

5-15
20 10
20
5-16 75
25

5-17

86.7
51880
90 260
5 100 5% 100500 95
5-19 29
24

45
37 12 5-20
43
2419
5-21

25
1420

 5-22

5-23

5-24

5-25

58

2320
5-26 5-27 18
82 46 1
34% 5% 17 10 11
10 5 20

90

 1 5-28
43
40 12.3
5-29
5
30
5-30 12
46
5-31

70
35 5
307.5
5-32 5-33

5-34


5-35
5-345-35

(1)
(2)
5-35 75
108.5
5-36

5-37 20
54 26
20
20 50

5-38
2946
20
3.6 25-30

59.3 75.4 82.6

82 78 69
68 62 5-395-40
60

(1)
(2) 82.7

(proxy variables)

6-1

6-2
6-1 6-2

1.5

6-3 6-3

1864

WATERFEE1
WATERFEE2 564
175
0.218 0.187

t 6-4

15 10

1989

 59 37 553

6-5

6-5 54.4
5 10 80 8
1520 20

6-6 8.11
7.07
3.87
7 84 6-6

0.03
1.35

6-6

6-7

6-7 0.5 15
100 33
1.15 15 100
76

84

1.

2.

3.

i i i i i i
4.

1.

15
2.

3.

(1)

(2)

4.

5.
(1)

(2)

6.

84
7

(1)
2

5,550
550 67,770
134
1995 16
21,990 1,700 45
1997 7-1
7-2

440
440
1,000 1,200 400 600
500

1.

2.

3.
(1)

(2)

(3)
100
200

4.
15
5.
(1)

(2)
(3)

1995

1.

2.

(1)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
(2)
a.
b.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

(4)
(6)(8)(9),

84

7-3

7-3 28
18 3 7 2,199
1,442 757

7-1
7-2
7-3 7-3
227.6 7-1
301 7-1 86
438.12 7-4

84 7-5

 721.03
1,159.15 1.16

84 3 84
441,158 1,200
84 206,975 570
7-4 75 7-6 7-7
84
1,245 1,060.79 7-7
2,139 442 7-8
84
2,103.48
1,119.61 983.87 7-9

84
7-10 7-10
84 7-11
84

84 2,199
1,159 1,040 2,103
82( 7-3 )

1,159
950 209

2,103 2,608 500

442 2,139 1,697

7-10 3,358
4,302
3,406 84
2-9 84 2,421 985

985 41

7-12

2,772
2,421 351 14

7-13 7-8
20 10
830 1,850

7-14 84
11 5 85 10 31
7-14
891.37
578

 7-15
85 112
84
7-16
3,384
2,834.11 1,274.36
4,046.11
1,932.73
7-1

84
716 7-8
,

4,500

1
2
3

local public goods

18%65% 44%Blume,1992

(1)(2)(3)
(4)

working program

(1)(2)
(3)(4)

8-1

8-2

8-3

pricing structure

1.proportoional linear rate system

2.variable container rate

3.two tiered rate system

4.multi-tiered rate system

(1)(4)
(3)(4)(2)(4)
(3)(1)

billing procedures

1.(direct payment system)

2.(subscription system)

3.(actual set-out system)

service options

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
,

1.

2.

3.start-up cost
ongoing cost
4.
5.
6.

(private
exteralituy)

90

(flat rate)
(varibale rate)(mixed rate)

(unit price)

74.8%

90%
(37%)
(19%)(17%) 12.3%

1.

2.

3.

4.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(5)
9-1

2,421
3,406

985 41 2,772
14%
4,046.11
1,932.73

1991