Tools for Increasing Municipal Waste Separation : Comparison of Taiwan and the Czech Republic

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATION

Tools for increasing municipal waste separation : comparison of Taiwan and the Czech Republic

Bachelor’s thesis

EKATERINA VASILEVA

Supervisor: Ing. Michal Struk, PhD

Fields of study: FF KSC Culture Studies of China and ESF VES Public Economics and Administration

Brno, 2020

TOOLS FOR INCREASING MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATION : COMPARISON OF TAIWAN AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Bibliographic record

Author: Ekaterina Vasileva Faculty of Economics and Administration Masaryk University Department of Public Economics Title of Thesis: Tools for increasing municipal waste separation : comparison of Taiwan and the Czech Republic Degree Programme: FF B-HS Humanities, Bachelor's degree programme Field of Study: FF KSC Culture Studies of China and ESF VES Public Economics and Administration Supervisor: Ing. Michal Struk, PhD Year: 2020 Number of Pages: 76 Keywords: waste separation, recycling, circular economy, waste policies, waste management, Taiwan, Czech Republic

2 TOOLS FOR INCREASING MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATION : COMPARISON OF TAIWAN AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Bibliografický záznam

Autor: Ekaterina Vasileva Ekonomicko-správní fakulta Masarykova univerzita Katedra veřejné ekonomie Název práce: Nástroje pro zvýšení třídění komunálního odpadu: porovnání Taiwanu a České republiky. Studijní program: FF B-HS Humanitní studia, bakalářský studijní program Studijní obor: FF KSC Kulturní studia Číny a ESF VES Veřejná ekonomika a správa Vedoucí práce: Ing. Michal Struk, PhD Rok: 2020 Počet stran: 76 Klíčová slova: třídění odpadů, recyklace, cirkulární ekonomika, odpadové politiky, nakládání s odpady, Taiwan, Česká republika TOOLS FOR INCREASING MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATION : COMPARISON OF TAIWAN AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Abstract

Performance of waste management policy (WMP) to the great extent depends on efficient waste separation at all levels, including households. Therefore, residents’ attitude towards municipal waste separation plays a significant role in the whole process. WMPs can use different tools to motivate people to separate their waste. To better trace the impact of existing policies it is reasonable to investigate residents’ waste separation behaviour under different regulations. This study provides a semi-qualitative research of the sorting behaviour of Taiwan and the Czech Republic residents who had experience both with optional waste sorting in the Czech Republic and mandatory waste separation in Tai- wan.

4 TOOLS FOR INCREASING MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATION : COMPARISON OF TAIWAN AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Anotace

Efektivnost politiky odpadového hospodářství (POH) do značné míry závisí na účin- ném třídění odpadů na všech úrovních, včetně domácností. Proto hraje postoj obyvatel k třídění komunálního odpadu významnou roli v celém procesu odpadového hospodářství. V rámci POH lze využívat různé nástroje k motivaci lidí k třídění jejích odpadů. Aby bylo možné lépe vysledovat dopad stávající POH na třídění odpadu, je vhodné prozkoumat, jak různé politiky ovlivňují chování stejných lidí. Tato studie obsahuje semikvalitativní vý- zkum a zpětnou reflexi chování a postojů obyvatel Taiwanu a České republiky ve vztahu k třídění odpadu, přičemž se jedná o osoby, které mají zkušenosti jak s dobrovolným třídě- ním odpadů v České republice, tak i s povinným tříděním odpadů na Taiwanu.

TOOLS FOR INCREASING MUNICIPAL WASTE SEPARATION : COMPARISON OF TAIWAN AND THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Statutory Declaration

I hereby declare that I have written the submitted Bachelor's Thesis concerning the topic of Tools for increasing municipal waste separation : comparison of Taiwan and the Czech Republic independently. All the sources used for the purpose of finishing this thesis have been adequately referenced and are listed in the Bibliography.

In Brno 7 May 2020 ...... Ekaterina Vasileva

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents

List of figures 11

List of terms and abbreviations 12

Introduction 13

1 Waste management and waste separation 16 1.1 Waste management and its components ...... 16 1.2 Principles of 3R: Reduction, Reuse and Recycle ...... 16 1.3 Recycling and source separation ...... 19 1.4 Motivation for waste separation in existing literature ...... 20

2 Waste management in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan 23 2.1 Waste management in the Czech Republic ...... 23 2.2 Waste management in Taiwan ...... 28 2.3 Summary and comparison of waste management policies in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan ...... 33

3 Qualitative research of citizens’ perception of waste management policies in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan 38 3.1 Design and sample selection ...... 39 3.2 Results ...... 39 3.3 Discussion and suggestions ...... 52

Conclusion 57

References 61

Appendices 67 A.1 Appendix 1 ...... 67 A.2 Appendix 2 ...... 73 A.3 Appendix 3 ...... 74

LIST OF FIGURES

List of figures

Fig.1. Linera material flow model...... 13

Fig.2. Circular economy and material flow model...... 13

Fig.3. Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected European countries in years 2004–2016...... 17

Fig.4. A table for municipal waste generated and recycled in selected countries* in years 2004–2016...... 19

Fig.5. Municipal waste generated and recycled in the Czech Republic, thousands of tonnes...... 24

Fig.6. Walking distance to the nearest site for recyclable waste...... 26

Fig.7. Time accessibility by car to the nearest waste collection centre...... 26

Fig.8. Statistics for waste generation and waste recycling in Brno...... 27

Fig.9. The 4-in-1 Recycling Program ...... 28

Fig.10. Municipal waste generated and recycled in Taiwan, thousands of tonnes...... 30

Fig.11. Statistics for waste generation and waste recycling in Taipei...... 32

Fig.13. Composition of recyclable waste: Czech Republic, 2018...... 35

Fig.12. Composition of recyclable waste: Taiwan, 2018...... 35

Fig.14. Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, % of total waste generated...... 36

Fig.15. Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, kg per capita per day...... 37

11 LIST OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

List of terms and abbreviations

CR – the Czech Republic TW – Taiwan EU – European Union EC – European Commission CE – circular economy WMP – waste management policy WG – waste generation MW – municipal waste MSW – municipal solid waste Waste Act – Act no. 185/2001 Coll., on waste, or the Waste Act, the Czech Repub- lic Waste Plan – Waste management plan of the Czech Republic for the period 2015 – 2024 WDA – Waste Disposal Act, Taiwan

12 INTRODUCTION

Introduction

Wealth and economic growth are often connected with increase in consumption (Tisserant et al., 2017). Product and material consumption alongside with accompanying production process inevitably lead to waste generation (WG). Oxford dictionary defines waste as “materials that are no longer needed and are thrown away”. From this definition, it can be deducted that waste is a mixture of materials that lost their subjective value associated with their anticipated usage (need-ness). These materials, however, may retain inner value (ex. possibility to reuse material for further production) and/or qualities (such as possibility of energy recovery). Therefore, there exists a chance of unnecessary resource losses. Our current production and consumption models are based on a traditional linear material flow model (Korhonen et al., 2018), where products start with virgin (raw) materials and end up being thrown away, as represented in Fig.1. This model naturally lacks sustainability and is believed to be “no longer adequate because of [its] environmental load” (Ghisellini et. al., 2016).

Fig.1. Linera material flow model. Fig.2. Circular economy and material flow model.

extract raw materials raw produce materials

produce recycle consumpt

use

waste collect dump

Based on: Frosch and Gallopoulos, 1989. Based on: Korhonen et al., 2018.

In behalf of sustainability, alternative flow model of circular economy (CE) is gain- ing increasing attention of scholars, policy makers and industries. CE origins in environmental economy and industrial ecology and purports not only to lessen pressure on environment caused by economic growth (Ghisellini et. al., 2016), but also to stimulate new business opportunities (Korhonen et al., 2018). The idea of CE is based on continuous

13 INTRODUCTION growth and emphasizes increase of material throughput (Ghisellini et. al., 2016), as shown on Fig.2. Here, materials are not just disposed, but, if possible, reused or recycled for production of new products (or energy recovery). There still exist particular limitations, such as inevitable loss of some materials due to different factors without their further re-usage. In existing literature, CE is often associated with three hierarchical aims, also known as 3R: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (Tisserant et al., 2017). Although the first two aims are higher in this hierarchy and are linked with less costs and greater efficiency than the letter one (Ghisellini et. al., 2016), worldwide interest in CE is “mainly focused on recycle rather than reuse [and reduce]” (Tisserant et al., 2017), including Europe, where Euro- pean Commission (EC) has introduced Circular Economy Package, in which, among other objectives (such as promotion of industrial symbiosis and encouragement of eco-design), targets for waste recycling are being settled (European Commission, 2018) as a step towards transition to CE. In context of waste recycling and CE, due to relatively high percentage of municipal solid waste (MSW) in total WG, the role of MSW recycling is often emphasized. For example, a global analysis of waste treatment conducted by Tisserant et al. (2017) demonstrates that “in many countries, especially those with higher personal income, MSW contributes with 40% to 50% of total landfilled and recycled waste, respectively”. In the same research au- thors also suggest that since “large fractions of final consumer waste end up in landfill sites” (such as food, paper, plastics, and textile waste), “there is significant unseized potential for closing material cycles”. For achieving that, effective waste management policies (WMP) and involvement of all actors of the society is needed. Governments and multinational organizations may provide required legislation and infrastructure for collecting and recycling of materials, but without working mechanism of source separation of waste by households and firms, costs and recyclable material losses will be higher and the whole process of recycling might not make economic sense. WMP can use different tools to motivate people to be more responsible in their waste separation behaviour and its design varies from region to region reflecting differences in geographical, political and cultural backgrounds. In this work I decided to compare two different WMP that can be described in terms of obligatory as optional and mandatory. Mandatory recycling policies to the great extend base on monetary incentives, such as fees for non-compliance (Kuo and Perrings, 2010). Optional recycling policies recon upon moral obligations of citizens, particularly, their ecological concerns, and often use education as the main tool to promote recycling (Lucas et al., 2008). It can be assumed from the above that individual’s participation in waste management through separation of generated waste may benefit the whole waste management process. Such participation is also essential for further transition to CE. With this

14 INTRODUCTION assumption, this work focuses on engagement of individuals in waste separation and their motivation. With a goal to provide a more complex overview of this problem, this work compares semi-mandatory recycling in Taiwan and optional waste separation in the Czech Republic from the citizens’ point of view. Selection of these regions is based on the essential difference in their WMPs, accessibility of relevant information and sample group. Over the past few decades, Taiwan with its quasi-mandatory recycling succeeded to achieve one of the highest rates of waste recycling in the world. Recycling is optional for households in the Czech Republic, but since the Waste Management Plan of the Czech Re- public for the period 2015-2024 sets the transition to the CE as one of the main objectives (Waste Plan, 2014), it might be useful to compare the Czech Republic’s and Taiwan’s WMP, where particular elements of CE have already been implemented, including citizen’s perception and motivation. Therefore, the main objective of this work is to indicate Taiwan and Czech residents’ subjective attitude towards WMP in both regions and investigate their motivation to separate waste. This work will also provide citizen’s feedback on the WMP and their suggestions on how it can be improved. The first two parts of this thesis provide a theoretical background on waste management and its components generally and narratively in the Czech Republic and in Tai- wan, including their comparison, componential and statistical. The third part is practical and contains data about sample selection, results of the interviews and discussion. This part is based on the results of semi-structured qualitative research method, which investigates participant’s knowledge of the systems and their will- ingness to take active part in recycling through waste separation. It also aims to determine whether economic incentives or moral obligations play the main role in interviewees’ motivation to separate waste and what can inspire them to recycle more, if possible. I expect that the results of this study may provide useful information for future de- bates on possible improvement of existing WMP and on how to inspire more people to take active part in waste separation and recycling.

15 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION

1 Waste management and waste separation

1.1 Waste management and its components

We can understand waste management as a set of activities and legislation related to managing of waste, including prevention, separation, collection, transportation, recovery and disposal of waste, supervision of such operations and the after-care of disposal sites (Waste Act, 2001). From administrative point of view, waste management can be defined by three major parts: waste collection, waste recovery and waste disposal. Waste collection includes gathering, collection of waste, separated or mixed, and waste transportation. Waste recovery includes all subsequent activities related to recovery, reuse or recycling. There are different options for waste disposal, such as depositing in dump, land treatment or deep in- jections, incineration or releasing into water bodies (Waste Act, 2001). Range and diversity of waste management activities depends on geographical, cultural, political and many other factors, so it might differ significantly from region to region. Classical approach to waste management comprised waste collection, transportation and its further storage at landfills or burial. From the end of 20th century the problem of this approach became evident with its harm to environment, human health and unsustainability. In present, many countries, especially those with higher per capita income, look for methods to improve their waste recovery by implementing principles of CE related to waste management, including hierarchy of three principles.

1.2 Principles of 3R: Reduction, Reuse and Recycle

According to the waste hierarchy, three principles of reduction, re-usage and recycling of waste should be addressed by WMP to provide long-term sustainability and har- mony between economic growth and environment (Ghisellini et. al., 2016). The principle of reduction emphasizes the need to minimize WG by the means of more resource-efficient production, minimization of packaging or, generally, more responsible consumption. This principle has the most positive impact on environment and is the most economical way of waste recovery, since lower consumption generates less waste. Considering the reduction principle, WMPs mostly focus on motivating industries to reduce material input. This is not only beneficial for environment, but also for businesses (since fewer input materials often decrease costs), therefore, new strategies are expected to be met with positive reception in a long run. Consumers’ behaviour in context

16 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION of waste reduction is often neglected by policy makers and in Europe it is mostly addressed by the bottom-up rather than the top-down approach. Currently steps towards waste reduction are often taken voluntarily by firms and individuals. However, not every firm will be fond of implementation of changes that target reduction of waste to their process unless they have to do so, since managers are often focused on short-term results and new tech- nology of the process can bring additional costs in short-term, even if it can be covered in long-term perspective. By now, a sufficient global account of WG is still lacking. Tisserant et al. (2017) state that “in high-income countries, industries, services sectors, and households generate 1 to 2 tones of solid waste per capita per year”, where MSW contributes from 40% to 50%. The same study quotes previous researches and suggestions, that there is a decreasing trend in WG and some countries have already reached their peak. Nevertheless, as it is shown on Fig. 3 (and then in following parts on Fig.5 and Fig.10), although there exists a declining trend, however, waste reduction policies do not show rapid results and decrease is rather small and unstable.

Fig.3. Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected European countries in years 2004–2016.

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected European countries* in years 2004 - 2016, kg per capita per day 1.60

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 MW Generated MW Generated by Households MW Recycled

* There were selected 25 countries from Europe, for which the fullest statistics for investigated years were available. The list of countries and full data can be found in Appendix 1. Source: based on data from Eurostat (see Appendix 1).

17 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION

Although reduction is considered to be the most beneficial policy for WM, this principle does not show practical results so far. Hence, other measures should be implemented to lessen potential or present harmful results of high WG. This may include reuse and recycle as means of consequences’ diminishing. EC (European Commission, 2008) defines the reuse principle as “any operation by which products or components that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which they were conceived”. Second-hand and electronic or on-line markets can be considered as the examples of reuse on the consumer level. Important part of the reuse principle is collection of used products (or waste) from consumers for further allocation. This is mostly implemented for electronics and hazardous waste. In Japan, for example, it is obligatory for consumers to return some products instead of throwing it away. In the Czech Republic buyers sometimes can get a discount for new products if they bring the old one. It is also possible to return glass bottles for money or discount as a part of deposit-refund system. This principle is considered to be the second-best way for minimization of waste’s impact on environment, since the same material that had once entered the cycle is used multiple times. However not all products by their nature can be reused for consumption or production of new goods. Thus, the third principle should not be neglected. The recycle principle is the most addressed principle of CE. EC (European Commis- sion, 2008) describes it as “any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes.” It does not include energy recovery of organic materials, which is addressed separately from recycling. Ghisellini et. al. (2016) points out that “recycling of waste offers the opportunity to benefit from still usable resources and reduce the quantity of waste that need to be treated in other way and or/disposed of, thus also decreasing the related environmental impact”. This means that recycling is mostly oriented on diminishing the results and material loss of WG. However, there also exists a possibility that people will underestimate or neglect reduction of waste, since, from their perception, if they separate waste it can compensate impact on environment through recycling (ibid.), which is often a false idea. But promotion of recycling also attracts people’s attention to environmental issues, whereas interest in these issues is essential for propagation of waste reduction among general public. The Circular Economy Package, designed by European Council as a plan for transition to CE, sets “a common EU target for recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2035” as one of the main goals. Tisserent et. al (2017) in their study draw the attention to so far com- paratively poor European performance in terms of recycling, where the majority of waste goes to landfills. Nevertheless, a study conducted by Tauš ová et al. (2019) for a sample of 36 European countries also states that “in spite of the growing volume of communal waste, a positive development was recorded in waste recycling”. The performance of countries in Europe differs significantly, from more than 60% of waste recycled in Germany to mere

18 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION

7% in Malta (see Appendix 1) in 2016, however, existing trend of growing percentage of recycled MSW rises hopes for future improvement (see Fig.4).

Fig.4. A table for municipal waste generated and recycled in selected countries* in years 2004–2016.

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Mw generated, 245 241 250 946 251 971 245 843 237 237 234 613 241 866 thousands of tonnes Recycled MW 75 335 82 971 92 892 94 835 98 391 102 811 111 863

Recycled MW, % 30.72 33.06 36.87 38.58 41.47 43.82 46.25 * There were selected 25 countries from Europe, for which the fullest statistics for investigated years were available. The list of countries and full data can be found in Appendix 1. Source: based on data from Eurostat (see Appendix 1).

1.3 Recycling and source separation

In the hierarchy of 3R, recycling has the lowest place and considered to be the cost- liest and less environmentally friendly way of waste recovery, among the three. However, there exist economy of scale, where costs of recycling decrease with quantity of recycled materials. Moreover, this principle can be seen as the easiest for public authorities to control or affect. Therefore, propagation of recycling and engagement of more individuals in it may not only benefit the environment and mitigate waste footprint, but also reduce costs. A process of recycling requires two essential steps on the waste’s way to recovery: collection and source separation. In worldwide practice, there exists a wide spectrum of possible waste collection methods, such as collection by street containers (including separate containers) and com- pactor trucks, kerbside collection, door to door collection and informal collecting centres (Ferronato et. al., 2019). Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. Several studies pointed out that kerbside collection is more appropriate for citizens in terms of convenience, than so called “bring-systems”, and has a positive effect on recycling, and particularly source separation (Bernstad, 2014; Struk, 2017). Other studies emphasize benefits of door-to-door system and its positive impact on waste sorting (Kuo and Perrings, 2010). Another important part of recycling is separation. It might be conducted on place by households, individuals or firms before collecting, or by workers at specialized facilities after collecting. Whereas the second possibility may be beneficial for creation of work- places, the first one decreases costs and reduces impurities in recyclable waste fractions. The common materials for separation are paper, plastic, glass, metals, electronic and hazardous waste and bio-waste, that is organic and biodegradable. The categorization

19 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION of materials for separation depends on existing management routes (Mastellone, 2015). Collection of sorted materials differs from region to region, from providing separated collection for mentioned and other kinds of materials as in Taiwan (Kuo and Perring, 2010), to leaving it to informal sector, for example, in Russia (Tisserant et al., 2017). If considering source separation at place, for the needs of this work, waste separation for further recycling can be divided into two major categories based on obligatory: mandatory and optional. WMP with mandatory separation of waste have legislatively stated obligation for all actors of the society to sort particular kinds of waste; administrative mechanisms of execution, control and punishment for violation are also present (Kuo and Perring, 2010). In contrast, WMP with optional separation provides facilities for waste separation for those who want to participate for any reason. Separation is not obligatory for most of the materials (except hazardous waste), but there may exist recommendations and promotion of desirable behaviour. WMP may use different tools to motivate people to sort waste generated at households. Mandatory recycling policies are to the great extend based on monetary incentives, such as penalties for non-compliance. Optional recycling policies recon upon moral obligations of citizens, particularly, their ecological concerns, or rewards for engaging in source separation, and often use education as the main tool to promote recycling (Lucas et al., 2008).

1.4 Motivation for waste separation in existing literature

Importance of waste separation on a household level had been highlighted in multiple studies and became a starting point for many researches (Folz, 1991; Dhokhikah et al., 2015; De Feo et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019). Since the entire waste management’s ef- fectivity is bonded to households’ and individuals’ recycling behaviour, it is important to understand what motivates people to take active part in source separation. Most importantly, knowledge of citizen’s motivations may help local authorities to design and implement the most sufficient WMP. In regard to motivation to separate waste, researchers distinguish two major groups of influencing factors, that can be named “intrinsic”, or psychological, and “extrinsic”, or situational (terms “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” are further developed in Cecere, et al., 2014). The first group includes individual’s values and knowledge, the former refers to policies, facilities, cultural and social norms (Chen et al., 2019). Individuals’ ecological value in the form of environmental concerns had been proven to be the most important driving force for recycling and, particularly, source separation regardless of presence of other incentives (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; De Feo et al.,

20 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION

2017; Chen et al., 2019). The only way public authorities can address this factor with policies is through spreading of information and education. Many scholars emphasize importance of effective promotion of recycling as an essential part of successful WMP (Dijkgraaf and Gradus, 2004; Boonrod et al., 2015; De Feo et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019; Nastase et al., 2019). Cultural and social factors are considered to have a significant influence on each mentioned above factor (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; Halvorsen, 2012; Huber and Bell, 2014). For example, such factor as attachment to neighbourhood (social role of a neigh- bour and long-term inhabitant) can increases people’s motivation to recycle (Ferrara and Missios, 2012). Normalization of favourable recycling behaviour also have a positive effect on recycling in form of social pressure (Thomas and Sharp, 2013). Moreover, precepted civic duty had proved to be one of the main motivating factors for positive source separation in some regions (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; Halvorsen, 2012; De Feo et al., 2017). Often it is hard for policy makers to aim on cultural and social factors for promoting recycling, but they should always be considered, since there exists a possibility of negative effect (Halvorsen, 2012). However, engagement of people in creation of WMP as a part of their social role may create emotional bond and bring a positive effect on participation in recycling (Folz, 1991). Convenience for users is also often addressed by researchers. Many studies had shown that convenience of source separation plays a significant role in people’s decision whether to separate their waste (Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Ferrara and Missios, 2012; Bern- stad, 2014; Boonrod et al., 2015; De Feo et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019). One of the main factors is time cost. Source separation requires more time; therefore, some scholars stress an importance of compensating it either positively (by rewards or refunds) (Calcott and Walls, 2005; Boonrod et al., 2015), or negatively (by increasing costs of other waste disposal options) (Kuo and Perrings, 2010). Another issue of convenience is accessibility and frequency of collection (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; De Feo et al., 2017). In some cases, high frequency of collection has a negative effect on recycling, especially when mixed waste is picked up more often, than recyclables (Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Ferrara and Missios, 2012). Accessibility of options (containers or drop-off centres) for recyclables also plays a big part in motivation to separate waste, since it may increase time costs significantly. Monetary incentives are one of the most addressed factors in terms of WMP. These incentives include rewards for recycling, refunds for returned materials, unit-prising for generated waste (bag-, weight- or frequency-pricing), mandatory recycling with fees for non-compliance and other. Nevertheless, studies from different countries does not show consistency. In some regions, monetary incentives, either positive or negative, show an increase in source separation (Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Boonrod et al., 2015), whereas in other regions they show no effect (Dijkgraaf and Gradus, 2004; Kuo and Perrings, 2010).

21 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WASTE SEPARATION

It is apparent from the forgoing, that effectiveness of tools for increasing source separation depends on many variables. To address people’s motivation to separate their waste, policy makers should not only consider monetary incentives and convenience for users, but also take into account social and cultural factors, values and knowledge of residents. Therefore, it is important to know citizens’ perception of waste management, so that WMP can be designed with consideration of existing background.

22 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

2 Waste management in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan

2.1 Waste management in the Czech Republic

The Czech Republic is a landlocked country in Central Europe with population of 10.65 mil. people1 with an area of about 79000 km2 (density 134.8/km2). The Czech Re- public is a constitutional republic with parliamentary representative democracy. First legislation for waste-management in the Czech Republic was released in 1991 and, since then, it was modified and redesigned to meet requirements of EU. Now, waste management in the Czech Republic is regulated by Act no. 185/2001 Coll., on waste, or the Waste Act, that was amended in 2014, and Waste management plan of the Czech Republic for the period 2015 – 2024 (Waste Plan). Waste Plan is based on the principles of sustainable development and draws up the mandatory basis for the decision-making in area of waste management. According to the plan, Ministry of Environment is responsible for supreme supervision and procession of legislative standards in waste management, whereas regional governments produce regional waste management plans on the basis of Waste Plan and conduct administrative supervision of municipalities. Czech municipalities, pursuant to Waste Plan and Waste Act, are responsible for dealing with waste produced on their territories and for its management, including securing of collection, transportation, waste treatment and disposal. Financing of waste management is a mandatory expenditure for municipalities. When waste management was first addressed in legislation, costs of waste collection and treatment were included in house fees (Slavik and Pavel, 2012), but the latest addition of Waste Act sets them aside and provide municipalities with a choice between payments for service of gathering, collection, transportation, separation, recovery and disposal of municipal waste, or fees for municipal waste produced within its territory. Municipalities can also inquire subsidies if they provide and secure the service of separated waste disposal and collection2.

1 The Czech Statistical Office. Population of municipalities of the Czech Republic, 1 January 2019. The Czech Statistical Office [online]. 2019. 2 For example, EKO-KOM a.s. organization provides such rewards to the municipalities that fulfil determined requerments. For instance, basic remuneration for securing of waste take-back points accounted for 20 Czk/resident/year in 2019. More information about the remunerations is available at: https://www.ekokom.cz/uploads/attachments/Obce/zmeny%20201812/Priloha_3_Sazebniky_od- men_od_1Q_2019.pdf

23 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Slavik and Pavel (2012) point out that the majority of Czech municipalities charge their citizens with a fixed fee, that neglects amount of generated waste and participation in source separation. Collected fees do not always defray the real expanses, moreover, legislation determines an upper limit of the fee, and since it does not reflect the real costs municipalities have to redistribute their budget to compensate uncovered expenses. Au- thors also warn that such “structuring of the charges precludes the municipalities from cre- ating monetary motivations for households in order to prevent municipal waste generation and separate its reusable components”. Municipalities can choose between different options for waste collection (ex. drop- off centres, large-volume containers, or kerbside collection), “for recyclables, Czech municipalities mostly use drop-off collection” (Rybova, 2019). Separation of waste is not obligatory for households and individuals in Czech Republic, but there exist options for separation of paper, plastic, glass, metal and, in some municipalities, bio-waste (ibid.).

Fig.5. Municipal waste generated and recycled in the Czech Republic, thousands of tonnes.

MW generated and recycled in the Czech Republic, thousands of tonnes

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

MW generated Recycled MW

Source: based on data published by the Czech Statistical Office3

Following European CE Package, Waste Act sets priorities of waste production prevention (reduction principle) and waste recovery (including recycling). However, as it is evident from the Fig. 5 and Appendix 1, generation of MW does not decline, moreover, between years 2004 and 2018 it reached a peak in the last year, showing insufficiency of

3 Generation, recovery and disposal of waste for the period 2018. Prague: The Czech Statistical Office, 2019.

24 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN waste prevention policies. But amount of recovered waste increased from 5,5% to 34,5% in mentioned period of 12 years. Nevertheless, MW disposed at landfills or incinerated without energy recovery still accounts for about two thirds of total waste generated.

2.1.1 Example of waste separation in Brno Brno is the second largest city of the Czech Republic and the capital city of South Moravian Region. Brno covers an area of 230.18 km2 and its population reached 380 681 people in 20184, and the density for a built-up area is about 18136/km2. Brno is a statutory city that consists of 29 administrative districts. The main self-government body is the As- sembly of the City Brno. Waste management in Brno is regulated in accordance with Waste Act and Waste Management Plan of Statute City Brno (current version is for years 2017-2025), that is aiming to fulfil targets stated in Waste Plan and Waste Management Plan of the South Mo- ravian region (for the period of 2016–2025). One of the main settled aims is to increase source separation in order to satisfy the intended objective for recycling in EU countries. As it was stated above, ensuring of waste management is a mandatory expense for Czech municipalities and they can choose the way of its financing by themselves. In Brno, there is an annual fee for waste management, that was first introduced in the year 20025. Its amount is annually determined by the city government, decision is based on the cost of waste management in the previous year (The Statutory City of Brno6, 2019). For example, waste fee for the year 2019 consisted of fixed amount of 140 Czech Crowns and derived amount of 530 Czech Krones, based on real costs of collection and transportation of mixed waste. In the year 2018 the costs accounted for 230,958,932.73 Czech Krones and were divided among 435 467 payers (ibid.). Inhabitants of age under 4 or above 70 and third and following children under 15 are released from this fee (ibid.). Exceptions on whether a payer separates or not are not stipulated. Considering waste collection, there exist two options for disposal of household waste: containers and waste collection centres. Also, pilot kerbside collection is occasionally conducted in some areas as testing studies, usually for bio-waste. Generally, in Brno there are black containers for mixed waste (more than 55,000), coloured containers for recyclable waste (more than 3,500) and 37 waste collection centres, which also accept

4 The Czech Statistical Office. Population of municipalities of the Czech Republic, 1 January 2019. The Czech Statistical Office [online]. 2019. 5 The Statutory city of Brno. Vývoj sazby poplatku od roku 2002. Brno.cz [online]. 2019. 6 Obecně závazná vyhláška č. 16/2019, o místním poplatku za provoz systému shromažďování, sběru, přepravy, třídění, využívání a odstraňování komunálních odpadů. Brno : The Statutory city of Brno, 2019.

25 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN recyclables, that do not belong to containers7. Usually, several black containers and one or two containers for paper, plastic and, in some cases, other recyclables are placed outside of the high-rise buildings and are intended for house inhabitants’ joint use. Drop-off sites for other recyclables are not that frequent, but usually are still close to the buildings. On the other hand, family houses typically have individual container for mixed waste and drop-off sites are further away. Collection of garbage from containers is provided by a company, that is owned by Brno City – SAKO Brno. Frequency of containers’ emptying depends on the district and, generally, is 1 or 2 times per week for mixed waste and from biweekly to 3 times per week for recyclables, depending on the type of waste and containers’ location and the approximate population it serves, as with more population bins tend to get filled sooner (the schedule can be found on the SAKO’s website8). Residents can report overfilled recyclable waste containers with a mobile application5. Reports and containers’ filling data are further used for regulation of collection frequency. Moreover, citizens can report a lack of containers for recyclables to local administration, that will provide additional containers if necessary5. Fig.7. Time accessibility by car to the nearest waste collection Fig.6. Walking distance to the nearest site for recyclable waste. centre.

< 0.5 min < 1 min < 2 min > 2 min < 3 min < 5 min < 10 min > 10 min

Source: Office of the Deputy for Smart City, Brno City Municipality9

7 Office of the Deputy for Smart City, Brno City Municipality. Mestobrno.maps.arcgis.com: Waste management in Brno [online]. Brno City Municipality: 2017. 8 Sako.cz 9 Office of the Deputy for Smart City, Brno City Municipality. Mestobrno.maps.arcgis.com: Waste management in Brno [online]. Brno City Municipality: 2017.

26 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Available options for source separation depend on whether a citizen uses containers or brings recyclables to collection centres. With containers people can separate paper, plastic packaging, beverage cartons and aluminium cans, clear and stained glass, textile, clothes, WEEE waste and, during vegetative seasons, bio-waste10. Plastic and paper containers are more frequent and are often situated nearby containers for mixed waste if speaking of high-rise buildings, whereas containers for glass and textile are rarer and are usually used by more people. Their location can be found on the online map. Alongside with listed types of waste, collection centres also accept bulky waste, bio-waste of plant origin from gardens and households, vegetable oil, WEEE and metals11. Accessibility of containers for recyclables and waste collection centres is shown in Fig.6 and Fig.7 respectively. The following table shows evolution of waste generated and waste separated in Brno in the years 2009–2017. Waste generation dropped in the year 2012 but started growing again in the year 2016. Possible partial explanation for mentioned decrease in recycling might be a pilot-program for waste composting, promoted by the city starting the year 2011 (Environmental department of the Brno City Municipality, 2018). This program was designed to encourage reduction of waste generation and consisted in distribu- tion of composters for a half-price. Regarding recycling, the difference between the years is not that significant.

Fig.8. Statistics for waste generation and waste recycling in Brno. Volume of waste Volume of waste WR per capita per day, Waste recycled, % of Year WG per capita per day, kg generated, tonnes recycled, tonnes kg total waste generated 2009 109 495 0.81 37 276 0.28 34,04% 2010 109 959 0.81 38 429 0.28 34,95% 2011 104 123 0.74 33 820 0.24 32,48% 2012 96 816 0.70 28 234 0.20 29,16% 2013 96 547 0.70 29 025 0.21 30,06% 2014 94 649 0.69 27 783 0.21 29,35% 2015 95 279 0.69 28 595 0.21 30,01% 2016 98 802 0.72 31 294 0.23 31,67% 2017 101 141 0.73 33 702 0.24 33,32%

Source: Based on data published by the Environmental department of the Brno City Municipality12

10 SAKO Brno, a.s.. Jak správně třídit. Sako.cz [online]. 2018. https://www.sako.cz/pro-brnaky/cz/791/jak- spravne-tridit/ 11 SAKO Brno, a.s.. Ostatní vytříděný odpad. Sako.cz [online]. 2018. https://www.sako.cz/pro-brnaky/cz/696/ostatni-vytrideny-odpad 12 Environmental department of the Brno City Municipality: Ž ivotní prostředí | Brno 2010–2011, Ž ivotní prostředí | Brno 2014–2015 and Ž ivotní prostředí | Brno 2016–2017.

27 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

2.2 Waste management in Taiwan

Taiwan is a high density (about 650/km2) island located in East Asia with population of 23.6 mil. people13 and area of about 36000 km2. The political status of Taiwan is controversial, but de facto, Taiwan’s government is constitutional and democratic. High density and island nature brought attention to ecological concerns and problem of lacking land for landfills in early 1970s, so that Taiwan first introduced the “Waste Disposal Act” (WDA) in 1973. Until 1997 waste management was mainly focused on fight against illegal waste dumping and transition of waste disposal from landfill to incinerators. In the year 1997, recycling and waste minimization were first addressed, and the Resource Recycling Four-in-One Program was promoted. As a result, recycling rates increased significantly (Su et al., 2009). The 4-in-1 Recycling Program consists of four components, as shown on Fig.9.

Fig.9. The 4-in-1 Recycling Program

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency14.

According to the 4-in-1 Recycling Program14, “Community Residents” are considered to be the foundation of recycling program. It states that residents must separate their recyclable, non-recyclable, and organic wastes. Moreover, this part of the program encour- ages engagement of volunteers, who help with source separation and monitoring on the

13 Statistical Bureau. Latest indicators. National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. 14 Workshop Materials on WEEE Management in Taiwan [online]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2012.

28 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN spot and conduct recycling education programs. “Recycling Industries” are included in recycling program as buyers of waste materials for further recovery. “Local authorities” are in charge of waste management, its collection and further treatment. “Recycling fund” is addressed as the main part of the program. It is based on an “extended producer responsibility” concept, meaning that manufacturers and importers of new products should pay fees to recycling fund, derived from quantity of items they bring to the market. Collected money are then allocated to finance waste recycling, education, research and promotion programs, including grants and benefits. Now, on the central level, waste management in Taiwan is regulated by WDA, that was amended several times to meet new requirements. The latest version of WDA was introduced in 2017. According to this act, central competent authority determinate standards, including mandatory recycling, introduced in 2006 (Kuo and Perring, 2010). Municipal governments are en- forcement authorities of waste management and are responsible for planning and establishing WMP on their territories, including transport, separation, storage, recycling, clearance and disposal. Fees for collection, clearance and disposal of general waste are determined by central authority, municipalities may modify additional fees with approval of central competent authority (Waste Disposal Act, 1974). Manufacturers also pay fees for waste management; those fees are distributed to Recycling Management Fund and cover some parts of expenditures on WMP. There also exists a penalty for non-compliance with mandatory recycling. MSW in Taiwan is typically collected by two types of garbage trucks (one collects recyclable waste, other collects general mixed waste). The frequency of collection is five days a week. Melody (usually, classical music) is played by trucks to notify people about their arrival. That is a door-to-door system, where inhabitants bring their garbage to the trucks by themselves. During collection, trucks’ drivers may control compliance to mandatory recycling and charge for mixing recyclable waste with general garbage. (Kuo and Per- ring, 2010) In different municipalities, there are options for source separation and recycling of paper, metal, glass, PET bottles, plastic, kitchen garbage and bulk waste (Kuo and Perring, 2010; Su et al., 2019; Tsai, 2019). Source separation is mandatory for households in a number of cities. People can hand over their recyclable waste to collectors or ask for assistance with disposal. Sampling inspection for resource garbage, kitchen waste and general garbage can be conducted by inspectors. Non-compliance is fined according to WDA (Kuo and Perring, 2010). Taiwan’s law does not address CE directly and mainly focuses only on one of 3R principles – recycling; but reduction is also promoted through different programs. Fig. 6 shows, that WG in Taiwan was rather steady, but rocketed up in the year 2018, adding more than 2,5 thousand tonnes in two years. In contrast, recycling continues to grow in

29 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN quantity. It also increased from 41% in 2008 to 60% in 2017 (Tsai, 2019), showing a drop to 56% in 2018 (Fig.10). Year 2018 shows a decrease in WMP efficiency, both for WG and percentage of recycling. It is hard to say now what were the reasons for such a change, since no major studies were conducted yet. Nevertheless, from the beginning of 2010s, still more waste is recycled than disposed at landfills or incinerated (see Fig.10).

Fig.10. Municipal waste generated and recycled in Taiwan, thousands of tonnes.

MW generated and recycled in Taiwan, thousands of tonnes 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

MW generated Recycled MW

Source: based on statistical data, provided by Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, Taiwan.15

2.2.1 Example of waste separation in Taipei Taipei is the capital city of Taiwan and is located in its northern part. Its area is 271,8 km2, and in the year 2018 its population accounted for 2 668 572 people, meaning that population density is about 9818/km2. Taipei is a special municipality, that is further divided into 12 districts. Taipei’s self-government body is Taipei’s City Government. Waste management in Taipei, including recycling, is regulated by WDA and acts released by Taipei City’s Government. Financing of waste management in Taipei is based on an ideal of “polluter pays” and, alongside with financing from Recycling Fund, is realized through Trash Per-bag Fee Collection policy.

15 Solid Waste Statistics. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C (Taiwan) [online]. 2020.

30 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

This policy was first implemented in the year 2000 and implies usage of special trash bags for general waste (Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of Taipei City Government, 2019). Selling, quantity and price of these bags is regulated by the city’s government. These bags have a special logo on them and are different in colour and size. Different colours are for different districts; and the price of the bags is based on its volume capacity and is derived from costs of waste collection in the previous year (ibid.). For example, a pack of 20 bags of 33 litres (capacity of each bag is 6.9 kg) costs 237 Taiwanese Dollars (NTD)16 or 7.37 Euro. The approximate cost of 1 kg is 1.74 NTD or 0.054 Euro. In the year 2018 one resident approximately generated 0.77 kg of waste per day, 0.47 kg of it was recyclable waste which disposal is free, therefore, annually one individual generated about 109.5 kg of mixed waste and paid for it approximately 190.53 NTD or 5.89 Euro. Trash Per-bag Fee Collection policy was implemented to encourage people to reduce mixed waste generation and promote waste separation by charging only mixed garbage according to its weight (Taipei City Government, 2020). Mixed garbage can be dis- carded only in these bags, whereas recycling is free, and recyclables can be brought to the collectors by any means. If someone violates this rule, inspectors can take their photo and post them online to shame non-compliers; the photos will be delated after the penalty is paid (ibid.). According to WDA, a fine for violation is between 1,200–6,000 NTD (about 37– 183 Euro) and the whole process of inspection should be filmed to serve as a proof of non- compliance. Moreover, illegal dumping is also liable to this fine and the government provides a cash reward to those who report illegal dumping in amount of 600–3,000 NTD (18– 91 Euro). Collection of the waste is realized by two types of trucks, one for general waste and the other is for recyclables and bio-waste. These trucks follow specified route within the settled timetable. They announce their arriving by playing special song and stop at certain points to collect the garbage. Timetables and routes can be followed in a mobile application. People should bring their waste to the trucks by themselves, whereas truck drivers and volunteers may control compliance to the rules and punish violators right away (Kuo and Perring, 2010). Community buildings also provide an additional service for waste disposal that is included in the house fee. Residents can bring their waste to a specified place on the building’s territory at any time and it will be further transported to the garbage trucks by the paid worker. The collection frequency is 5 times a week; trucks for general waste and food waste arrive at each of these days, whereas trucks for different types of recyclables alternate within these days (see Appendix 2).

16: Sizes and Prices of Designated Garbage Bags in Taipei City. Department of Environmental Protection, Taipei City Government [online]. 2020. Available at: https://english.dep.gov.taipei/News_Con- tent.aspx?n=E56771B61602F277&sms=DFFA119D1FD5602C&s=A84013B75DC58F3C

31 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Fig.11. Statistics for waste generation and waste recycling in Taipei. Volume of waste WG per capita Volume of waste recycled, WR per capita Waste recycled, % of total Year generated, tonnes per day, kg tonnes per day, kg waste generated 1996 1 509 597 1.58 - - - 2001 1 049 394 1.09 55 082 0.06 5.25 2006 957 721 0.99 342 089 0.36 35.72

2009 842 374 0.89 371 210 0.39 44.07 2010 928 878 0.97 453 021 0.47 48.77 2011 959 025 0.99 477 590 0.49 49.80 2012 843 699 0.86 478 629 0.49 56.73 2013 830 676 0.85 466 450 0.48 56.15 2014 840 555 0.85 473 933 0.48 56.38 2015 857 431 0.87 484 911 0.49 56.55 2016 783 268 0.79 456 832 0.46 58.32 2017 755 026 0.77 468 299 0.48 62.02 2018 750 645 0.77 459 035 0.47 61.15 Source: based on data published by Taipei City government17 The main categories for sorting are resource garbage, kitchen waste and general garbage. For resource garbage there exist options for recycling of PET bottles, aluminium, metal, glass, plastic containers, clean plastic bag, plastic foam packaging paper, dry cells, electronic products and appliances, IT products, fluorescent lamps, old clothes and some other (see Appendix 2). In case of disposal of bulky waste, one should inform cleaning team beforehand. Kitchen waste is divided into two categories: raw food and cooked food, each should be disposed separately. Raw food will be further composed, whereas cooked food will be adopted for pigs’ feeding (see Appendix 2). Taipei City Government listed promotion of the recycling of kitchen waste among the main priorities of waste management in Taipei18. It should help in fulfilling the ultimate goal of “Zero Landfill, Total Recycling”. As it is evident from the table above (see Fig. 11), implementation of per-bag fee policy helped to decrease garbage generation per capita per day for about 30% from year 2001 to 2018. Recycling rates show even more significant change. In the year 2001 only 5,25% of waste was recycled, whereas in the year 2018 recycling has reached 61,15% of total waste generated. These positive results suggest that WMP in Taipei with its mixture of tools, including fees, penalties, door-by-door collection and recycling promotion is com- paratively successful.

17 Short Report on Important Statistics of Taipei City. Taipei: Department of Budget, Accounting and Statis- tics, Taipei City Government, 2020. 18 Municipal Waste Management (Waste Treatment Division). Department of Environmental Protection Tai- pei City Government [online]. 2020.

32 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

2.3 Summary and comparison of waste management policies in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan

WMP in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan have both common characteristics and tangible differences. The latter might originate in significantly different nature of the regions, historical and cultural backgrounds and dissimilar needs of the policies. It might appear that comparison of these WMP is incongruous, nevertheless, precisely the essential differences of the policies can provide a new perspective on available tools for increasing efficiency of WM and recycling rates. First legislation for WM in Taiwan was released in 1973, but only in the year 1997 it addressed recycling and in 2000 it rendered source separation to be mandatory. In the Czech Republic, Waste Act was first published in 1991, but recycling policies are mostly regulated by EU directives and Plans for Waste Management for certain periods. Source separation is voluntary here. In both regions, design and execution of WMP is under municipalities’ jurisdiction. Local governments are responsible for waste generated within their cadastral territory and should secure waste collection, transportation and disposal in conformity with supe- rior laws and directives. Financing of WM is significantly different in considered regions. It is a mandatory expense for Czech municipalities, and they should choose the way of financing by themselves. Mostly, there are flat fees for waste collection, that do not reflect amount of generated waste and whether an individual separate it or not. In Taiwan, financing of WM is a more complex issue. It is based on a “polluter pays” principle. Alongside with fixed fees and penalties for non-compliance with mandatory recycling, there also exists the Recycling Fund, which is composed of fees collected from manufacturers and importers. The biggest difference here is in distinguishing of mixed garbage disposal and source separation. In Taiwan, it is more expansive to dispose general garbage than recyclable, whereas in the Czech municipalities, there is mostly no difference. In the year 2018, for example, disposal of mixed waste in Taiwan would cost to the resident approximately 5.89 Euro, whereas in the Czech Republic one would pay 24.78 Euro. The huge difference in annual payment for waste collection can be investigated in following researches. Collection of municipal waste is also designed and conducted by municipalities, both in Taiwan and in the Czech Republic. The most common way of waste collection in Taiwan is a so-called door-to-door system, where trucks for mixed and for recyclables and bio-waste come to collect people’s garbage and citizens have to bring their garbage to these trucks by themselves at scheduled time. This helps to ease control for non-compliance to mandatory recycling with a possibility to give penalties to violators or to shame them

33 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN publicly. Also, with a help of volunteers, possibility of improper disposal of recyclables is diminished. In the Czech municipalities, the most common way of households’ waste collection is a drop-off collection. People bring their garbage to containers for mixed or recyclable waste at any time. It is then collected at once on scheduled time. There is no control here, and wrong type of waste might end up in an inappropriate container. Therefore, afterwards source separation can be more complex and more expansive. Also, there exist collection centres for additional types of recyclables. Control over proper source separation and time-costliness for citizens are the major differences here. Whereas in Taiwan people should be present at home at specified time to dispose their garbage, in the Czech Republic it is possible to throw the garbage away at any time. However, in Taiwan it is possible to dump any recyclables at one place, whereas in the Czech Republic some recyclables are accepted only at collection centres and bringing them there might be time consuming. In terms of control over mixing of waste and proper source separation, there are hardly any mechanisms for that in the Czech Republic, but in Taiwan a special attention is paid to it with emphasis on the role of volunteers. Options for source separation are almost equal in both regions. The only difference here is separation of kitchen waste. In Taiwan food is separated onto two categories: cooked and raw food. It is further treated differently, either by composting and usage in agriculture, or by adopting it for animal feed. In the Czech Republic it is not that significant and only some kinds of food are collected together with other biodegradable waste. This difference is reflected in composition of recyclable waste in these regions. As it is illus- trated on the Fig. 12 and Fig. 13. (see below), paper is the most common type of source separated waste fraction. However, collected food waste accounts for about 1/3 of recyclable waste in Taiwan, whereas in the Czech Republic this type of waste is hardly collected anywhere. Another major difference of discussed WMPs’ approach to recycling is emphasis on importance of individuals and households in the process of WM in Taiwan. It is promoted through the 4-in-1 Recycling Program, that has already engaged people and non-commer- cial organisations to take active part in supporting source separation through volunteering.

34 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Fig.13. Composition of recyclable waste: Taiwan, 2018. Fig.12. Composition of recyclable waste: Czech Republic, 2018.

Source: based on data from Environmental Protection Agency19 Source: based on data from Czech Statistical Office20

If considering statistics, the percentage of recycled waste has a growing trendline in both countries, showing almost equal increase of about 30% from 2004 to 2018 (Fig.14. below). Nevertheless, a gap between Taiwan’s and the Czech Republic’s numbers is still significant. On the average, the gap is about 28% for the covered period, or 25% among the years 2015 and 2018. In the last considered year, recycling in the Czech Republic was close to Taiwan’s performance of twelve years ago. These numbers demonstrate existing difference in the levels of waste management in both regions, suggesting Taiwan’s WMP to be more advanced. Generation of recyclable waste per capita per day would be a more illustrative statistics regarding source separation (see Fig.15. below). Here, generation of general waste is eliminated, and we can more precisely trace dynamics for separation of recyclables from mixed waste. As it is evident from the data, production of recyclable waste increases in both regions, however, excluding a period of stagnation from the year 2010 to 201521, separation of waste grows significantly faster in Taiwan than in the Czech Republic. For example, it took the Czech Republic twice as much time as Taiwan to develop from 0.22 kg to 0.33 kg waste recycled per capita per day. Moreover, for the last considered decade (2011 – 2018), there was generated 2.44 times more recyclable waste in Taiwan, that in the Czech

19 Solid Waste Statistics. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. 20 Generation, recovery and disposal of waste for the period 2018. Prague: The Czech Statistical Office, 2019. 21 A rapid increase in source separation from the year 2015 can potentially be a result of political protests and president elections in 2016 and following changes in executive branch of the government. However, no major studies are available on this issue.

35 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Republic. However, these data do not reflect if the garbage was separated by households before collection, or afterwards at the special facilities. Therefore, participation of citizens can be lower in both countries. To summarize, Taiwan’s waste management is more complex than waste management in the Czech Republic. In contrast to the Czech Republic, Taiwan vocally emphasizes importance of engagement of the citizens in source separation and promotes recycling of kitchen waste. WMP there is designed to implement the rule of “polluter pays” principle, whereas in the Czech Republic source separation is voluntary and monetary incentives here are not significant. Statistics for waste recycling reflect the difference in the levels of these WMPs. The gap between the results and growth deceleration suggest a room for improvement. Therefore, different tools used by two policies can provide policy makers with new approach to source separation and recycling as a way to sustainability.

Fig.14. Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, % of total waste generated.

Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, % of total waste generated

60.22 58.00 54.36 54.99 55.59 55.23 55.68 52.20 48.82 45.48 41.80 38.70 35.41 33.60 34.10 34.50 29.42 29.70 25.40 24.01 23.20 24.20

15.80 17.00 12.40 10.10 10.40 7.40 5.50 6.20

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

TW CR

Source: based on data from Environmental Protection Agency of Taiwan22 and Eurostat database23

22 Solid Waste Statistics. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. 23 Eurostat: Municipal waste by waste management operations and Generation of waste by economic activity.

36 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN

Fig.15. Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, kg per capita per day.

Recycling rate of municipal waste in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan, kg per capita per day

0.63

0.55 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.37 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.05

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

TW CR

Source: based on data from Environmental Protection Agency of Taiwan24 and Eurostat database25

24 Solid Waste Statistics. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. 25 Eurostat: Recycling rate of municipal waste, % of total waste generated; Generation of waste by economic activity.

37 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN 3 Qualitative research of citizens’ perception of waste management policies in the Czech Republic and in Taiwan

Recycling is a complex process that combines different disciplines and involves many people, directly and indirectly. This method of waste treatment is considered to be beneficial for sustainable development and is addressed the most by the policy makers when considering hierarchical principles of 3R. However, engagement of all the involved parties is essential for enhancing efficiency of the process. For example, if recyclables and mixed waste are disposed together it can result in complicity of further source separation and loss of potentially reusable or recoverable materials. Hence, source separation before waste collection may benefit the whole procedure, lower its costs and prevent unnecessary losses. Since households produce waste on a daily basis, their involvement in the process can significantly influence recycling rates. Although households do not recycle by themselves, they can participate in the process by separating their waste before disposal. To realize engagement of households, local authorities should ensure sufficient waste management policy. However, since waste separation might bring additional costs (such as time consumption or securing of additional space for different types of waste, these costs are often not noticeable subjectively), accessibility of the option for separate waste disposal will not solely force people to engage in the process of recycling, wherein the citizen’s perception of WMP can affect their decision whether to separate their waste. Therefore, consideration of people’s attitude towards WMP may enhance effectiveness of used tools for increasing municipal waste separation. Existing studies of municipal waste separation often emphasize importance of household’s participation. Numerous researches, both quantitative and qualitative, were conducted in different countries to examine this issue. Since environmental, cultural, legislative and political backgrounds are different all over the world, only a limited number of these researches’ results are applicable to other countries. Furthermore, these studies often focus on residents of a particular region, who have experience with one WMP and do not evaluate it in comparison to other policies. However, effect of WMPs on people’s behaviour can be better traced through their experience with different rules and regulations. Therefore, analysis of citizen’s waste separation behaviour under varying policies in different regions may provide useful information about the impact of existing regulations. Selection of the qualitative research method for the study of this kind has at least two major benefits. First of all, a number of potential respondents is restricted, since not many

38 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN people have experience with living in both countries for ample time to adapt to the policies. This can limit quantitative research with insufficient participation. Secondly, qualitative research can provide data about people’s attitude towards the policies and examine the patterns of their behaviour that cannot be measured quantitively, for example, the reasons behind their actions. It will also give people an opportunity to provide a feedback on existing regulations and subjectively accentuate their advantages and disadvantages. However, the qualitative research also has its limitations. Since the number of participants is rather small, results of qualitative research cannot be generalized as long as the qualitative sample cannot be representative enough. Nevertheless, results of a qualitative research can provide a foundation for following studies.

3.1 Design and sample selection

The qualitative research method of semi-structured interview was selected to investigate citizen’s perception of WMPs in Taiwan and in the Czech Republic in order to evaluate their motives and effects of existing policies on their source separation behaviour. This research is based on existing studies and focuses on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for waste separation. Since citizens of both the Czech Republic and Taiwan were engaged in this study, supporting questionnaire with questions both in English and in the mother tongue of the respondents (Mandarin Chinese for respondents from Taiwan and Czech for respondents from the Czech Republic) was designed to eliminate undesirable impact of linguistic barriers. Questions were divided into the following sections: basic facts about the respondents, their values and knowledge, social factors, perception of waste separation in terms of convenience, perception of monetary incentives and existing policies. Discussed questions can be found in the Appendix 3. The main criteria for the sample selection was permanent residence in one of the regions and staying in another region for at least two months, so that the respondent would have had time to become accustomed to its regulations. The respondents answered questions listed in the Appendix 3, additional issues were also discussed with a number of them.

3.2 Results

A total number of 21 people participated in the research, 10 of which are Taiwanese and 11 of which are Czech. To maintain anonymity, respondents from Taiwan are

39 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN referenced as T(n), where “n” is a sequential number assigned to each participant; Czech respondents are referenced as C(n) respectively. With exception of two respondents the sample was homogenous with the following common characteristics: the respondents fall under age category of 21-35 years, have bachelor or master’s degree, they spent from 3 months to 1 year in another region and sort waste both in Taiwan and in the Czech Republic. One Taiwanese respondent (T1) falls under the age category of 36-45 years old, has a Doctor degree and has been living in the Czech Republic for 7 years already. One Czech respondent (C11) is undergraduate and does not normally sort waste although he did sort while in Taiwan. These two respondents tended to have more distinct answers than others and hence are often stressed out in the following analysis of the results. This sample is of a small number of respondents; therefore, it cannot be representative by its nature. Moreover, the fact that all the respondents except one indicate positive waste separation behaviour should not be misleading. Since participation in a qualitative research is time-consuming, it can hardly convince people who are not interested in the discussed issue to participate. Hence, positive attitude towards waste separation should not be considered to be informational. Nevertheless, generalization of the results is not a target of this research, it only aims on providing initial exploration of the researched topic and reveal the possibilities for the following studies. To build a more holistic understanding of respondents’ attitude towards existing policies, their intrinsic and extrinsic incentives in regard to waste separation were examined. The following subsections provide a separative analysis of the categories that were mentioned above.

3.2.1 Values and knowledge Concerning the intrinsic motivations, respondent’s environmental values and knowledge of waste separation and recycling were examined. As it has been mentioned above, numerous studies had proved individuals’ environmental values and knowledge of the issue to be the most important motivation for source separation (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; De Feo et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019). Ecological concerns trigger positive waste sorting behaviour regardless of presence of other incentives, such as convenience or monetary policies (ibid.). Hence people’s values can provide important basis for analysis of their attitudes towards existing policies and their behaviour. The results shown significant difference between the Taiwanese and the Czech respondents. The main distinction here is in the obtaining of the knowledge about recycling and source separation. Another uncommon point results from the first one and lies in

40 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN people’s perception of recycling’s importance in terms of environmental protection and the place of households’ waste separation in it. Education on waste separation appeared to be very distinct in the two regions. All the Taiwanese respondents were taught about waste separation with emphasis on ecological issues at schools, many were taught by families as well. Starting from primary school, there were lessons about waste separation and its importance. Also, engaging activities were promoted, for example, students took turns in taking responsibility for sorting of waste. Some schools also took additional actions to motivate students to separate their waste. The respondents claim that, because of the impact of their schools, waste separation has become a habit for them. For example: T4: Starting from primary school, there are lessons about recycling and waste. Students take turns to take out trash and recycle waste and separate it to corresponding bins. I find it interesting and important.

T8: In the middle school and university I used to attend, the school also paid much attention to waste separation. It promoted the knowledge of waste classification, that was not particularly interesting, but because my family also does waste separation, I used to it. In addition, in my middle school, there were monitors near the trash cans, if you throw the trash wrongly, you may be caught and punished.

On the other hand, almost nobody from the Czech respondents acquired enough information about recycling and separation in the school. Some had lessons about it in the primary school, but it was not that emphasized, and the respondents remember almost nothing from those lessons. The only common activity related to recycling was competition in gathering of paper, plastic and glass. Moreover, some respondents were not taught about waste separation at all. This suggests that inclusion of this topic in the program of learning depends on the school or on the teachers and is often neglected. Also, only few of the Czech respondents were taught by family members. Many have found their way to waste separation by themselves. For example: C3: I came to that by myself, at home we sorted only the minimum. We had coloured containers at school, but unfortunately nobody talked about them.

C10: I 100% learned about sorting waste in primary school already. But it wasn't a popular topic at that time, so I didn't pay attention to it. I started sorting only in the high school.

41 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN This difference shows the gap in education on this topic, that also leads to significant distinctions in the Taiwanese and the Czech respondents’ perception of household waste separation’s significance. Whereas all the respondents consider environmental protection to be an important issue, their view of recycling is not that uniform. Although all the Taiwanese respondents do not know the regulations and what hap- pens with waste after they dispose it, everyone consider separation of their garbage to be important and beneficial for the environment. They also pointed out its importance in terms of sustainability. For example: T2: I think the classification of waste is very important, because it will greatly improve the efficiency of material reuse, and it can also reduce the space required for waste stocking, or reduce the toxic gas dioxin generated by incinerator combustion, etc.

T8: There are also economic aspects. After recycling, the waste can be reused to make more products. In addition to improving the economy, it also helps environmental protection.

A number of the Czech respondents also do not have information about the following waste treatment; however, they do not consider recycling to be environmentally beneficial. Although everyone believes that protection of environment is important, many do not consider separation of waste by individuals to be beneficial and shift responsibility for their waste on producing factories. Some also claim that separation of waste is not important because it is not treated efficiently afterwards. This persuasion is also common among those who did not acquire any additional information on waste separation and recycling at all. Even people who separate waste show lack of trust in the afterwards process: C3: It feels that waste separation is one of the little things I can do, and it costs nothing but a little time! I consider it to be effective in terms of environmental protection, but unfortunately, I know that even if we sort waste, so much waste still goes to landfills! I am a big supporter of incinerators, because from the ecological point of view this is the best choice! Nothing will lie around anywhere, minimal amounts will end up in rivers, soil and air.

C7: I do not consider waste sorting by individuals as an important step. [I think waste separation] is useless. Recycling of plastic even harms. A much greater impact would be the sorting by companies and especially the higher restrictions in China. 80%, or a similarly high number, of non-

42 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN recycled waste comes from businesses and factories. [Waste separation] is not currently important for individuals.

C11: In my point of view, sorting waste is insignificant by itself. In order to protect the environment, steps must be taken mainly by the factories and the companies that are burdening the environment the most, so that sorting itself has at least some importance.

These responses suggest that there exists a lack of information about household waste’s impact on the environment and about the process and benefits of recycling among the Czech respondents. The particular danger of the knowledge gap here is delegation of the responsibility for waste generation on the producers of the products and underestimation of individuals’ role in the process of waste recovery. The lack of trust in the afterwards process’s efficiency can also influence their decision whether to separate waste and to what extent. If one does not consider his or her actions to be important or beneficial, there will naturally exist a tendency to neglect it and do nothing or the minimum only.

3.2.2 Social factors Another important factor that can influence people’s behaviour is social background. Some studies emphasize a positive impact of favourable behaviour’s normalization in society on the final rates (Ferrara and Missios, 2012; Thomas and Sharp, 2013). An existing attitude towards waste separation can also have its negative effects (Halvorsen, 2012). Therefore, this factor is also important for understanding of people’s waste separation behaviour. The research has shown a significant difference here too. Whereas all the Taiwan- ese consider waste separation to be a common practice that is beneficial for the society and everyone except the respondent T1 think of it as of a civil duty, opinions varied among the Czech respondents. Majority consider it to be an activity for minority or think that waste separation is only becoming common. Everyone except 3 respondents consider it beneficial for the society and want it to become a civil duty in the future. These responses show that waste separation is still becoming a norm in the Czech Republic, whereas in Tai- wan it is a common practice already. To determine how other people’s actions influence respondents’ sorting behaviour, the respondents were asked about people in their surrounding and their perception of the social pressure in terms of waste separation. Every respondent claimed that majority of people in their surroundings separate waste and it sometimes influences their behaviour. For the majority it plays rather motivational role in their waste separation behaviour as

43 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN an encouragement to separate waste more carefully. However, some are demotivated because of the other people: T4: Most people do garbage sorting, but in Czech school dorms, almost nobody sorts waste, which makes me feel like a fool. Sometimes I don’t want to do the sorting carefully.

C8: Most people sort waste, it is good to know that others are doing it, but sometimes there is no more space to put waste because of overfilled containers.

Moreover, social pressure in terms of environmental issues demotivates some Czech respondents from separation of waste, since there are mainstream tendencies and they do not want to follow suit or would rather avoid this topic: C5: I feel that the "social pressure" exists a little. There is a trend of shop- ping without packaging, recycling everything and minimizing flying. I try not to be fooled by it and I go my way.

C11: Definitely [there exists the social pressure]. Everyone around me sorts waste. When I say my opinion [why I do not sort waste], the replies are not nice. So, I do not talk to anyone about this topic now.

Taiwanese respondents, on contrary, do not think it is a social pressure but practice that should be performed naturally by everyone. For example: T8: I don’t think it’s related to social pressure. It’s not that society forces me to do garbage sorting, but I think it’s an obligation to do garbage sorting.

Since sorting of waste has already become a norm in Taiwan, its perception by society is positive and do not create pressure. On the contrary, separation is only becoming common in the Czech Republic, therefore the impact of society on people’s decision whether to separate is still present.

3.2.3 Convenience Many studies claim convenience of waste disposal and separation to be an influen- tial factor in people’s sorting behaviour (Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Ferrara and Missios, 2012; Bernstad, 2014; Boonrod et al., 2015; De Feo et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2019). Time- consumption, frequency of collection and availability of options for separated waste

44 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN disposal are often named among the important factors that can affect people’s behaviour both positively and negatively (Calcott and Walls, 2005; Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Ferrara and Missios, 2012). Hence, residents’ subjective perception of the WMP’s convenience should not be neglected. Taiwan’s and the Czech Republic’s WMPs differ significantly in terms of collection of waste and its convenience. Therefore, the respondents were questioned about their perception of this issue in both regions. First of all, the waste collection process was examined. In Taiwan, people have to bring their recyclables to the garbage trucks by themselves at a certain time. Some resi- dences have a community service and people can bring their waste at any time to a special place from where it will be taken to the garbage trucks by paid people. Also, dormitories have this service included in the accommodation fee. Among the Taiwanese half of the respondents consider this system to be convenient as long as they are used to it, but some would prefer the system that exists in community buildings. Also, half of the respondents consider it to be comfortable enough, but do not like the timetable, since it is not always possible to be at home at the settled time. This can even cause people to dispose their waste by the means of public bins: T5: Someone might be late home and miss the truck. For example, my friend who lives in a studio and needs to wait for garbage truck by her own. She always arrives home around 11pm and barely catches it. So, the best way for her is to use small plastic bag and throw her waste to metro garbage bins. I think it would cost a lot to deal with such garbage.

Considering the Czech respondents, many did not have experience with this system since their dormitory provided garbage containers and disposed waste for them. Only 3 of the respondents considered it to be convenient, others do not like the timetable, inconvenience of which has also served as an incentive to leave their waste in unspecified places or violate waste separation: C9: I think it’s all right, it comes almost every day and roommates will help to take it if needed or I will leave it on the corner and a random person will throw it away.

The Czech system of waste collection, on the contrary, appeared to be convenient to all the respondents. However, some Taiwanese respondents showed concerns about ir- responsible generation and disposal of waste caused by it: T4: It's convenient but then sometimes people don't realize how much waste they make and can dump waste with less responsibility.

45 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN Also, a lack of information about waste separation on the containers in English was emphasized by the majority of the Taiwanese respondents. The only problem with this system, pointed out by the Czech respondents, are occasionally overfilled containers: C11: Of course, it's more convenient for people because they don't have to control time. However, for example, my parents have containers in front of the house. People always leave their waste next to the containers when they are full (which is almost constantly) and then waste flies all around ... and it stinks.

Alongside with collection of waste, availability of options for different waste categories was also investigated. All the respondents warmly welcomed the extended categorization of waste for separated disposal in Taiwan and possibility to dispose any kind of waste at the same place. Moreover, majority of the respondents had no problems with the Czech system, where some recyclables are needed to be brought to another places, sometimes distant from their homes. However, the respondents’ replies also showed a strong tendency to sort only those recyclables that can be disposed near to their houses: plastic, paper and sometimes glass. If considering possibility of separate disposal of kitchen waste (like in Taiwan), majority of the Czech respondents would rather prefer home composting, however, more frequently placed containers for bio-waste are also welcomed: C5: We have almost all containers at home. I never had to go to the collection centre. The only thing I miss is the bio-waste bin. That is why I do not classify it.

Apart from the mentioned aspects, interviewees were also asked about time-consumption and provision of additional space for different types of waste in their houses. Nobody except one respondent who does not normally separate waste had any inconven- iences with it. All the other respondents pointed out that as soon as it becomes a habit, they do not even notice any additional effort. Therefore, both Taiwanese and Czech systems are considered to be convenient, but with a remark that timetables of garbage trucks in Taiwan could have been more user- friendly and containers for different recyclables in the Czech Republic could have been placed more frequently. Also, overfilling of containers was pointed out as a negative aspect.

3.2.4 Monetary incentives and existing policies Monetary incentives are sometimes introduced by the local authorities as a tool for increasing waste separation. There are two types of such incentives: positive and negative.

46 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN Positive monetary incentives reward desirable behaviour by the means of different benefits. Negative incentives punish unwelcomed behaviour with penalties. Some studies determine the positive impact of monetary incentives on the waste separation behaviour (Kuo and Perrings, 2010; Boonrod et al., 2015), whereas the absence of any effect is also present (Dijkgraaf and Gradus, 2004; Kuo and Perrings, 2010). Although the results of previous researches are not congruent, these factors are still important for holistic view of people’s driving forces in terms of their waste separation behaviour. To draw an overlook of the respondents’ perception of monetary incentives, their view of benefits and penalties in regard to waste separation was explored. The results have shown diametrically opposite perception of these incentives among the Taiwanese and the Czech respondents. Whereas the Taiwanese consider monetary benefits for waste separation to be unnecessary, since it should be a norm and does not deserve to be rewarded, the Czech welcome such positive incentives and assume them to be motivational: T8: No [it shouldn’t be rewarded], I think it has something to do with personal morality, it just must be done.

C5: I like the idea of discounting the price of garbage collection if the house orders a bio-waste bin.

On the other hand, penalties for over-generation of mixed waste and failing to separate waste are commended by the Taiwanese respondents and denied by the Czech respondents: C8: I see no reason why it [over-generation of waste] should be penalized.

Furthermore, there is a significant difference in the perception of a “polluter pays” principle, that might also affect people’s attitude towards monetary incentives’ rightful- ness. According to this principle, the party responsible for producing pollution should be responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment. All the Taiwanese respondents agree with this principle and its implementation to waste production. At the same time, majority of the Czech respondents agree with it, with the reservation that it should be implemented to factories, not individuals, and only 3 of the Czech respondents allow for the possibility of this principle to be applied to individuals as well: C10: I agree for those who provide the product. I can't influence the amount of waste I produce and how many packages the product is packed in.

C11: If we are talking about the big pollution from the factories and not that someone uses a plastic straw, then yes [I agree with this principle].

47 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN This might suggest that the Taiwanese respondents see household waste generation as a way of environmental pollution, whereas majority of the Czech respondents do not consider waste generation to be a pollution or something they have direct impact on. Even those who separate their waste do not see themselves as a polluter and shift the responsibility for generation of waste on factories that produce goods. Turning to existing policies and its incentives, the research particularly emphasized mandatory recycling in Taiwan and penalties for non-compliance. Compulsory sorting was criticized only by one Taiwanese respondent, who has been living in the Czech Republic for 7 years already, others consider it to be beneficial: T5: I think sometimes legal action is a necessary way to force people to follow rules.

Majority of the Czech respondents did not know about it since they lived in the dormitories. Other Czech respondents think that this system is working efficiently in Taiwan, but it cannot be implemented in their country: C10: I think it's about how each country sets it up. In Taiwan, it seems to me that there are generally great penalties for everything. In the Czech Republic it would not succeed.

However, the process of inspection, where the whole procedure should be filmed, and the pictures of violators are posted online to publicly shame them, was severely criticized by both sides. The main issue here is violation of people’s privacy, that should not be acceptable. Whereas some Taiwanese still consider this method to be acceptable, the Czech respondents mainly think that it is a part of Taiwanese culture, so it can work there, but do not see it to be applicable elsewhere apart from Asian countries. Considering the penalties for non-compliance, nobody named it as their main incentive. Both Taiwanese and Czech respondents think that it might motivate some people, but they would have continued separation of waste anyway. Also, almost all the respondents claim that they have never violated compulsory sorting and, hence, did not have to pay the penalty. However, a respondent from Taiwan who lives in a community building had experience with the penalty for non-compliance issued to the whole community: T2: When I was in Taiwan, a community management committee helped the residents of the whole apartment building to take out the garbage. There were other residents who had thrown recyclables into the general garbage, so the whole community was issued a persuasion ticket.

48 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN Among the Czech respondents, almost everyone acquired help with recycling, so they did not even have an opportunity to do sorting, but one respondent who does not normally sort waste has violated the rules anyway: C11: A couple of times because of my inability to get with truck for plastic I was forced to just throw it into a mixed waste. I was not punished, but I got scolded from a random Taiwanese passer-by.

In regard to payments for waste collection and treatment, Taipei’s system was welcomed by all the interviewees. The Taiwanese respondents see special bags, that are used it Taipei for disposal of mixed waste, as an easy way to collect the fee and motivation to decrease generation of mixed waste and. Czech respondents also consider it to be a fair method. For example: T2: Since you have to pay to buy garbage bags, the family will try to reduce the use of garbage bags as much as possible. I think this incentive is very good.

T5: It is hard to collect some environmental taxes from everyone. In general, every house needs to pay some cleaning fee for government. And this is the way to get it.

C11: Probably fair? The price of mixed waste bags is not that great. Since Taiwan promotes waste sorting, it makes sense.

The Czech flat fee for waste collection did not acquire similarly uniform responds. The Taiwanese think that a flat fee is rather demotivational, since it does not reflect amount of waste generated and sorted. Only few consider it to be acceptable since they have a habit of sorting and it will not affect their behaviour anyway. And only 4 of 10 respondents will welcome similar fee since it is less troublesome. Some examples are: T1: I think it's okay. This rule does not encourage me to sort garbage, but I will do it spontaneously.

T2: If there is no need to sort waste (like in student dorms), I think I will not want to classify over time.

Among the Czech respondents some did not solve this fee at all and hence knew nothing about it. However, majority consider this fee to be fair and convenient, and only 3 respondents say that this flat fee is demotivational in terms of waste separation:

49 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN C1: I do not see why sorting of waste should reduce the cost of its treatment. Therefore, the fee should be universal.

C8: This is fair because it assumes that everyone is sorting, or at least should sort.

This again shows the difference in the Taiwanese’s and the Czech’s perception of waste generation and waste separation, where the first consider it to be a civil duty and the former think of it as a voluntary action that should not punish the usual way of waste disposal. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the Czech respondents would welcome an opportunity to pay fee for waste collection and treatment that reflects whether the waste is sorted. Some also prefer fees based on an amount of waste generated: C6: I believe this will rise awareness how to behave in better way regarding waste reduction.

C11: I never had to solve this problem. But I think that the amount of the fee should reflect the amount of waste generated.

To summarize, perception of monetary incentives and existing policies probably stems from people’s perception of household waste separation’s importance and place in the society. The Taiwanese respondents consider waste separation to be a norm, because they see generation of waste by individuals to be a pollution to environment. Therefore, they welcome penalties in regard to it and also prefer fees for waste collection to be based on the amount of waste generation and its separation since it rises people’s awareness of this issue. On the other hand, the Czech respondents do not think that generation of waste by households falls under “polluter pays” principle and shift the responsibility for it on the producing factories. Hence, they prefer positive incentives that reward extra efforts of waste separation and do not consider penalties to be acceptable. However, majority will welcome progressive fees, since they think it can lower their expenses.

3.2.5 Summary finally, the respondents were also asked what they themselves consider to be their essential motivation in regard to waste separation. The vast majority of the Taiwanese respondents named habit to be their main incentive and, to some extent, ecological concerns. The Czech respondents mainly named a good feeling of helping the environment to be their main driving force. However, they also pointed out that availability of different containers

50 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN for recyclables in the near distance can improve their sorting behaviour, since the majority separate only those kinds of waste they have nearby containers for. The habit of waste separation was developed in the Taiwanese respondents with the direct involvement of educational institutions, starting from primary schools or, in some cases, kindergartens. They were taught about ecological issues and importance of waste separation. This approach helped to make waste separation to become a social norm and a civil duty. Subsequently, convenience of waste separation, monetary incentives and existing WMP do not play significant role in the Taiwan residents’ decision whether to separate their waste. However, many believe that listed incentives are still needed to motivate those who have not disciplined a habit of waste separation yet. Also, it helps to maintain awareness in terms of waste generation. The educational aspect of the Czech respondents is less advanced to the extent that many do not consider waste separation by individuals to be important. Generation of mixed waste is also not considered to be influenceable by the majority of the respondents and the responsibility for it is shifted to the producers. Also, there exists a lack of trust in the process of recycling, which negatively effects respondents’ separation behaviour, so that they do the minimum only. Therefore, positive monetary incentives are highly welcomed by many Czech respondents, since they think such behaviour deserves a reward. Waste collection fee that is based on whether the household separates their waste is also welcomed as one of the implementations of this kind of rewards. The distinction between the Taiwanese’ and the Czechs’ attitude towards different incentives most probably results from the difference in values attached to the waste separation. Therefore, respondents’ sorting behaviour changed only modestly under the different policies. The Taiwanese respondents continued sorting in accordance with the existing circumstances but separated their waste less carefully since there were no available containers for many types of recyclables. The Czech respondents also continued their sorting, but more thoroughly, since there existed more suitable conditions (more options for recyclables with no additional distance for its disposal). However, respondent C11 had to adapt to the Taiwanese policy, since at spot in- spections during disposal of waste left him no choice. Nevertheless, violation of sorting rules was still present. Moreover, respondent T1 also attaches less value to the waste separation than other Taiwanese respondents and sorts paper and plastic only. The possible reasons for that are changes in values as a result of prolonged staying in different cultural and social background, or a result of older age category, where environmental education was yet less emphasized. Even though the changes in behaviour were not immense, however enhancement of the sorting behaviour under the Taiwanese policy and its weakening under the Czech system suggests the ways of its improvement.

51 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN 3.3 Discussion and suggestions

The results of the conducted research revealed advantages and disadvantages of two policies from the citizen’s perception and, jointly with the theoretical framework, they can serve as a basis for suggestions on design and implementation of the possible tools for increasing waste separation by households. Since the results for both policies propose different approaches, it will be beneficial to discuss both regions’ MWPs separately.

3.3.1 WMP in Taiwan Importance of the waste separation by households is highly emphasized in Taiwan, therefore, positive sorting behaviour became a norm there. The design of its WMP also helps to maintain citizens’ awareness of the waste generation and sorting issues. The implemented tools and WMP as a whole were praised both by the Taiwanese and the Czech respondents. However, two problems were mentioned: implementation of public shaming as a penalty for violation of waste separation and unsuitability of timetables. Since compliance to the compulsory waste separation should be monitored, the law orders to film the whole process of control and settles uploading of the pictures of violators online as a method of punishment for non-compliance. Majority of the respondents criticized this method for violation of privacy and its unnecessity. Moreover, nobody claimed penalties to be their main motivation for sorting and its absence will not demotivate them from separation of their waste. Therefore, necessity of public shaming here can be further questioned and investigated. The results of this research, however, suggest its excessive- ness. On the other hand, timetables of garbage trucks are essential for security of the whole process. Nevertheless, a number of respondents pointed out its inconvenience and demotivational aspect. Not everyone can ensure their presence at home at the settled time, therefore, it can force people to find other ways to dispose their waste. The respondents by themselves suggested the system that exists at the community buildings to be a possible solution. However, it can bring additional costs in the form of payment for the service. Moreover, as it was mentioned by the respondent who lives in a community building, if one of the residents violates compulsory separation, all the residents get a ticket, since it is impossible to find the violator. It can serve as an “perverse” incentive for certain people not to do their sorting responsibly. Therefore, this solution should be carefully examined beforehand if considered to be implemented. Another possible solution for this problem is adjustment of the timetables. The majority of the concerns in regard to the garbage trucks’ arriving were expressed over impos- sibility to be present early in the evening. Therefore, alternation of evening and morning

52 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN waste collection during the week can be considered. If there are concerns that the music played by the trucks to announce their arrival can be disturbing at the early morning, the melody does not have to be played, but the trucks then should follow the timetable strictly. Necessity of this measure in different districts can be examined through quantitative research of the most suitable hours for the residents and altering collection can be tested as a pilot implementation in the district, where people would welcome it the most. The additional costs, if present, should not be inordinate, since no additional trucks would be required. However, this adjustment of the timetables might help to decrease expenses on treatment of waste disposed by the means of public garbage bins, for example. To conclude, households in Taiwan value recycling and are willing to participate in it by sorting of their waste. Rules and regulations implemented by the local authorities can help them to accomplish separated disposal of recyclables. But since waste separation is already considered to be a norm in Taiwan, necessity of some tools that could have been important in the past can be readdressed. For example, public shaming appears to bring no additional motivation in terms of sorting. However, minor changes that are targeted on the convenience of waste disposal can help to increase waste separation. Mainly, adjustment of the garbage trucks’ timetable can help to eliminate demotivational aspects in regard to waste separation. These modifications, however, should be further examined.

3.3.2 WMP in the Czech Republic Regarding the WMP in the Czech Republic, the results of the research showed possibility for improvement in several aspects, including both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Most importantly, the research revealed a lack of education about recycling and waste separation that results in underestimation of household waste separation’s importance and delegation of a major share of the responsibility for waste disposal consequences on the producing factories. Also, a distrust in the effectiveness of waste separation was expressed. Considering convenience of the system, the problems that were mentioned by the respondents the most frequently are overfilled containers and an absence of containers for recyclables in the near distance. Moreover, there exists a knowledge gap on the existing WMP. For example, a number of the respondents were not aware of the possibility to report overfilling of the garbage containers and had no information about the municipal waste treatment fee since they did not directly pay it by themselves. Regarding information about the rules of sorting, an absence of instructions in English was often mentioned by the Taiwanese respondents as a barrier for their waste separation. To resolve the mentioned problems and enhance municipal waste separation, Czech local authorities can target convenience of the process for the households or an

53 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN educational aspect that also includes environmental values. The former target can be ful- filled gradually, but its results can be lasting, since proper education can help to increase citizens’ trust in the system and develop a habit of waste sorting. However, if the prompt results are needed, it would be also sufficient to address convenience of the system. If people value recycling and consider waste separation by households to be an important part of the whole process, then it would not be a problem for them to extent their sorting even under the existing conditions. In that case, additional efforts needed to bring different recyclables to distant places or to call for a truck if container is overfilled would not appear to be excessive. Therefore, a quantitative research on people’s intrinsic incentives in terms of waste separation and further adjustments of the system can be highly beneficial. It can help to reveal all the existing gaps and aim further educational programs on it. Institutions, such as kindergartens, schools and universities, can help to spread the information about recycling and waste separation by paying more attention to it in their educational programs. Also, engaging activities can bring an additional value. Apart from the institutions, information on the issue can be spread with a help of volunteers as it is practiced in Taiwan. For example, their contacts can be left at each house community in case if any help with sorting is needed. However, a help from local authorities with organization of such volunteer community will be required. All these measures can help to enhance people’s trust and awareness of the issue, but their implementation is time-demand- ing and require further research. Nevertheless, the promised benefit can cover the costs, primarily in long-term and as a way to sustainability. The most easily achievable steps in terms of the knowledge of waste separation would be minor changes and promotion campaigns. Signs on the containers for recyclables can be modified to be clearer and more informative. Also, English translation of descrip- tions of recyclable categories can be added in places where foreigners live, especially university dormitories. Moreover, information that targets importance of the households’ waste separation and description of the process and existing system can be distributed to the households by the means of media, monthly local newspapers or notifications placed in each living building. Other prompt actions, that can help to enhance waste sorting, aim at convenience of the separated disposal for households. It includes more frequently placed containers for different types of recyclables to lower citizens’ time-consumption and increased frequency of waste collection to avoid overfilling. Listed instant actions will require additional expenses, that can be particularly high if targeting convenience. Since the collected fees do not cover even the existing costs of waste management, new methods of financing can be considered.

54 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN One of the possible ways to cover the costs is establishment of the Recycling Fund that will cover expenses of waste management, similarly to Taiwan. Similar organization, EKO-KOM, already exists in the Czech Republic, however its design and functioning are slightly different. This organization helps firms to secure packaging take-back that is mandatory according to the legislation, however not further regulated. Unlike Recycling Fund, it is not mandatory for companies (they can provide take-back by other means) and con- siders only packaging, not products. Redesign of the existing legislation and its expansion can be addressed in order to secure more sufficient financing of the waste management activities. Since a number of the Czech respondents expressed an opinion that the producing factories should be responsible for the waste generated by households, the fund, where manufacturers and importers pay the waste fee based on the quantity of the goods placed to the market, can be warmly welcomed by the public. Even though the buyers will remain to be the final payers since the products’ price will automatically include the price of its after-disposal treatment. Also, such system will require rewards for waste separation so that it can be considered a deposit-refund system for the recyclable materials. However, the possibility of inflation and its intensity should be considered and further carefully investigated. Another option, that was mentioned during the interviews, is a fee based on whether households sort their waste. Since the vast majority prefer positive monetary incentives, implementation of this fee can be better achieved through discounts or rewards. However, the fee’s size should also be increased so that it can provide reduction without losses. One possible solution how to allot the discounts for waste separation is the system that already exists in some Czech municipalities, where people who sort their waste with assigned to their houses containers pay for waste collection once in two weeks instead of once in a week. One of the respondents who have experience with this system claimed it to be motivational for his sorting behaviour. Compensations for waste separation can be also provided, for example, as a discount for those who bring their recyclables to the collection centres. Factures for waste handed to the waste collection centres can serve as an evidence of a discount claim based on its volume. This can not only help to implement these discounts, but also to ensure the conformity of recyclable waste to the categories, since it can be monitored by the waste collection centre’s employees. To summarise, if the Czech municipalities want to enhance households waste separation rates, the main issue they should target is residents’ knowledge of the importance of households’ participation. It can help to qualitatively increase residents’ engagement and create a long-lasting benefit in terms of sustainability. Convenience and user-

55 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH OF CITIZENS’ PERCEPTION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND IN TAIWAN friendliness of the process for households can be also improved. However, since it will require additional expenses, financing of the waste management should be also re-addressed. All the mentioned changes can help to increase recycling rates and fulfil the objectives that were placed both by the Czech Republic and the EU.

56 CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Worldwide economic growth and rise in consumption resulted in increased waste generation. Unsustainability of the existing linear model of material flow is highlighted more regularly both by researchers and policy makers. Hence, the model of circular economy gathers wider attention. One of its most addressed and promoted principles is recycling, which is considered to be an important step for enhancing sustainability of both environment and economy. Waste separation by households plays important role in waste recycling. It helps to increase efficiency of the process by reducing its costs and preventing unnecessary material loses. Therefore, many countries emphasize its importance and implement policies to increase individuals’ participation in the process of recycling through waste separation. Implemented tools depend on numerous factors, including cultural, social and economic backgrounds, geography and political regimes. Some countries implement mandatory waste separation and mainly rely on monetary incentives and penalties for non-compliance. Voluntary recycling in other countries focuses on promotion of waste separation as a main tool for increasing participation. Taiwan is showing impressive results in waste recycling rates. Waste separation is mandatory there and a package of policies is implemented there to secure and promote separated waste disposal. These policies include 4-in-1 Recycling Program, that involves all the players (individuals, firms and local authorities) in the process of recycling’s provision. Separated waste is collected by the means of door-to-door collection provided by garbage trucks. Also, monetary incentives in the form of penalties for non-compliance and Trash Per-bag Fee Collection policy. Alongside with collected fees, recycling is financed with a help of Recycling Fund. Starting from the year 2011, recycling rates in Taiwan ex- ceed 50% of total waste generated. Performance of Taipei, for example, is even more impressive, and the rat of waste recycled there is higher than 60%. On the other hand, source separation in the Czech Republic is optional. Municipalities provide collection of sorted waste, mainly by the means of drop-off sites. They also secure financing of waste management activities including recycling through fees and payments, subsidies can also be inquired. Source separation is promoted in the Czech Republic through certain programs in order to fulfil settled recycling goals. Recycling rate has a growing trendline and it has exceeded 30% of total waste generated in the year 2016. An attitude of the residents of these two regions towards the existing WMPs was investigated in the presented study by the means of semi-qualitative research method. Particu- larly, people’s waste separation behaviour under different policies was analysed.

57 CONCLUSION

The results had shown a significant difference in the Taiwanese’ and the Czechs’ respondents’ perception of household waste separation’s importance. Whereas the Taiwan- ese respondents consider it to be an essential step in terms of environmental protection, the Czech respondents tend to underestimate its role and shift responsibility on the producing factories. Moreover, there exists a knowledge gap regarding waste separation and recycling among the Czech respondents, that resulted in the lack of trust in the whole process. Also, positive waste separation behaviour is seen by the Taiwanese respondents as a social norm, whereas a number of the Czech respondents admitted it to be an activity for concerned people only. Regarding extrinsic incentives for waste separation that can be directly managed by the local authorities, convenience, monetary incentives and existing regulations were also addressed in the research. The results revealed some problematic aspects in the both regions. For example, inconvenience of garbage trucks’ timetables proved to be a barrier for waste separation and incentive for rules’ violation. In the Czech Republic, on the other hand, absence of containers for different types of recyclables at the near distance resulted in separation of only the present nearby options, particularly plastic and paper. Monetary incentives did not show any significant impact on the respondents’ behaviour. However, waste collection fees that are based on the volume of waste generated and on whether it is separated were warmly welcomed by the majority of the respondents. Also, its importance for maintaining awareness in regard to waste generation was pointed out. Although waste separation in Taiwan is mandatory and its WMP to the great extent relies on the monetary incentives and regulations, the main driving force for positive waste separation behaviour among the Taiwanese respondents was their habit of sorting that resulted from environmental education. Also, their behaviour did not change significantly under the Czech system, proving the habit and ecological values to play more important role than rules and regulations. However, in order to reach the Zero-Waste goal, minor changes can be implemented to make the process of waste separation by households to be more convenient. Particularly, re-addressing of garbage truck’s timetables should be considered. Despite the fact that waste separation in the Czech Republic is optional and, therefore, it depends on the residents’ education and values in regard to waste separation’s importance, a knowledge gap and lack of trust in the recycling benefit among the Czech respondents was revealed. If the local authorities want to increase households’ participation, information about waste separation and recycling should be spread more efficiently through different promotion programs and its enhanced inclusion in the educational system. Also, convenience of the sorted waste disposal for households can be improved, mainly by increasing frequency of containers for recyclables. However, this action will

58 CONCLUSION require additional expenses, therefore redesign of waste management’s financing can be also considered. In conclusion, waste separation by the households plays an important role in the whole process of recycling and it can significantly lower its costs. The local authorities can choose from a vast variety of existing tools for increasing households’ participation, however, implemented tools should correspond with existing conditions and needs in order to be effective. Moreover, residents’ knowledge and values should not be neglected, since they influence people’s behaviour to the great extent. Therefore, these tools should be selected and implemented carefully with due regard for people’s attitude towards waste separation and recycling.

REFERENCES

References

1. Autonomous Regulations on Collection of General Waste Removal and Processing Fees in Taipei. Taipei : Taipei City Government, 2003. Available at: 2. BERNSTAD, Anna. Household food waste separation behaviour and the importance of convenience. Waste Management [online]. 2014, 34(7), 1317-1323. 3. BOONROD, K., S. TOWPRAYOON, S. BONNET and S. TRIPETCHKUL. Enhancing organic waste separation at the source behaviour : A case study of the application of motivation mechanisms in communities in Thailand. Resources, Conservation [online]. 2015, 95, 77-90. 4. CALCOTT, Paul and Margaret WALLS. Waste, recycling, and “Design for Environ- ment”: Roles for markets and policy instruments. Resource and Energy Economics [online]. 2005, 27(4), 287-305. 5. CECERE, Grazia, Susanna MANCINELLI a Massimiliano MAZZANTI. Waste prevention and social preferences: the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Ecological Eco- nomics [online]. 2014, 107, 163-176. 6. CHEN, F., H. CHEN, M. WU, S. LI and R. LONG. Research on the Driving Mechanism of Waste Separation Behaviour : Based on Qualitative Analysis of Chinese Urban Resi- dents. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health [online]. 2019, 16(10). 7. FOLZ, David H.. Recycling Solid Waste: Citizen Participation in the Design of a Coproduced Program. State [online]. 1991, 23(3), 98-102. 8. DE FEO, Giovanni, Anna Rita POLITO, Carmen FERRARA and Ivan ZAMBALLETTI. Evaluating opinions, behaviours and motivations of the users of a MSW separate collection centre in the town of Baronissi, Southern Italy. Waste Management [online]. 2017, 68, 742-751. 9. Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of Taipei City Government. 2018 Taipei City Statistical Yearbook. Taipei: Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics of Taipei City Government, 2019. Available at: 10. DHOKHIKAH, Yeny, Yulinah TRIHADININGRUM and Sony SUNARYO. Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia. Resources, Con- servation [online]. 2015, 102, 153-162.

61 REFERENCES

11. DIJKGRAAF, E. and R.H.J.M. GRADUS. Cost savings in unit-based pricing of household waste: The case of The Netherlands. Resource and Energy Economics [online]. 2004, 26(4), 353-371. 12. EKO-KOM, a.s.. Smluvní odměny obcí. Systém sběru a recyclace obalových odpadů | EKO-KOM [online]. 2020. Available at: 13. European Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. In Official Journal of the European Union : L 312 [online]. European Union, 2008, 51, 99-126. Availa- ble at: 14. European Commission Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. In Official Jour- nal of the European Union : L 150 [online]. European Union, 2018, 61, 109-140. Available at: 15. Eurostat. Municipal waste by waste management operations. European Commis- sion, official website [online]. 2020. Available at: 16. Eurostat. Generation of waste by economic activity. European Commission, official website [online]. 2020. Available at: 17. FERRARA, Ida and Paul MISSIOS. A Cross-Country Study of Household Waste Pre- vention and Recycling: Assessing the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments. Land Economics [online]. 2012, 88(4), 710-744. 18. FERRONATO, Navarro, Marco RAGAZZI, Marcelo Antonio GORRITTY PORTILLO, Edith Gabriela GUISBERT LIZARAZU, Paolo VIOTTI a Vincenzo TORRETTA. How to improve recycling rate in developing big cities: An integrated approach for assessing municipal solid waste collection and treatment scenarios. Environmental Development [online]. 2019, 29, 94-110. 19. FROSCH, Robert, Nicholas GALLOPOULOS. Strategies for Manufacturing. Scientific American [online]. 1989, 261(3), 144. 20. Generation, recovery and disposal of waste for the period 2018. Prague: The Czech Statistical Office, 2019. Available at:

62 REFERENCES

21. GHISELLINI, Patrizia, Catia CIALANI and Sergio ULGIATI. A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production [online]. 2016, 114, 11-32. 22. HALVORSEN, Bente. Effects of norms and policy incentives on household recycling: An international comparison. Resources, Conservation [online]. 2012, 67, 18-26. 23. HUBER, Joel and Jason BELL. Private Recycling Values, Social Norms, and Legal Rules. Revue d'économie politique [online]. 2014, 124(2), 159. 24. KORHONEN, Jouni, Antero HONKASALO and Jyri SEPPÄLÄ. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecological Economics [online]. 2018, 143, 37-46. 25. KUO, Yen-lien and Charles PERRINGS. Wasting Time? Recycling Incentives in Ur- ban Taiwan and Japan. Environmental [online]. 2010, 47(3), 423-437. 26. LUCAS, Karen, Michael BROOKS, Andrew DARNTON, Jake Elster JONES. Promoting pro-environmental behaviour: existing evidence and policy implications. Environmental Science and Policy [online]. 2008, 11(5), 456-466. 27. MASTELLONE, Maria Laura. Waste and Waste Management [eBook]. New York : Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2015. 28. MICHELINI, Gustavo, Renato N. MORAES, Renata N. CUNHA, Janaina M.H. COSTA and Aldo R. OMETTO. From Linear to Circular Economy: PSS Conducting the Transi- tion. Procedia CIRP [online]. 2017, 64, 2-6. 29. Municipal Waste Management (Waste Treatment Division). Department of Envi- ronmental Protection Taipei City Government [online]. 2020. Available at: 30. NASTASE, Carmen, Mihaela STATE and Adrian-liviu SCUTARIU. Municipal waste management in Romania in the context of the EU. A stakeholders’ perspective. Technolog- ical and Economic Development of Economy [online]. 2019, 25(5), 850-876. 31. Obecně̌ závazná́ vyhláška č. 16/2019, o místním poplatku za provoz systému shro- mažďování, sběru, přepravy, třídění, využívání a odstraňování komunálních odpadů. Brno: The Statutory city of Brno, 2019. Available at: 32. Office of the Deputy for Smart City, Brno City Municipality. Mes- tobrno.maps.arcgis.com: Waste management in Brno [online]. Brno City Municipality: 2017. Available at:

63 REFERENCES

33. RYBOVA, Kristyna. Do Sociodemographic Characteristics in Waste Management Matter? Case Study of Recyclable Generation in the Czech Republic. Sustainabil- ity [online]. 2019, 11(7), 2030-2030. 34. SAKO Brno, a.s.. Jak správně třídit. Sako.cz [online]. 2018. Available at: 35. SAKO Brno, a.s.. Ostatní vytříděný odpad. SAKO Brno [online]. 2018. Available at: 36. Short Report on Important Statistics of Taipei City. Taipei: Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Taipei City Government, 2020. Available at: 37. Sizes and Prices of Designated Garbage Bags in Taipei City. Department of Envi- ronmental Protection, Taipei City Government [online]. 2020. Available at: 38. SLAVIK, Jan and Jan PAVEL. Do the variable charges really increase the effectiveness and economy of waste management? A case study of the Czech Republic. Resources, Conservation [online]. 2013, 70, 68-77. 39. Solid Waste Statistics. Environmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. Available at: https://www.epa.gov.tw/ENG/513B0B39D090DE4C 40. Statistical Bureau. Latest indicators. National Statistics, Republic of China (Taiwan) [online]. 2020. Available at: 41. STRUK, Michal. Distance and incentives matter: The separation of recyclable municipal waste. Resources, Conservation [online]. 2017, 122, 155-162. 42. SU, Ming-chien, Chen-pei CHOU a Yi-zih CHEN. A Study of Sustainable Material Management Approach in Taiwan. Water, Air [online]. 2009, 9(5/6), 499-505. 43. TAUŠOVÁ, Marcela, Eva MIHALIKOVÁ, Katarína ČULKOVÁ, Beáta STEHLÍKOVÁ, Peter TAUŠ, Dušan KUDELAS a Ľubomír ŠTRBA. Recycling of Communal Waste: Current State and Future Potential for Sustainable Development in the EU. Sustainability [online]. 2019, 11(10), 2904-2904.

64 REFERENCES

44. The Czech Statistical Office. Population of municipalities of the Czech Republic, 1 January 2019. The Czech Statistical Office [online]. 2019. Available at: 45. The Statutory city of Brno. Vývoj sazby poplatku od roku 2002. Brno – oficiální web statutárního města Brna [online]. 2019. Available at: 46. THOMAS, Christine and Veronica SHARP. Understanding the normalisation of recycling behaviour and its implications for other pro-environmental behaviours: A review of social norms and recycling. Resources, Conservation [online]. 2013, 79, 11-20. 47. TISSERANT, Alexandre, Stefan PAULIUK, Stefano MERCIAI, Jannick SCHMIDT, Ja- cob FRY, Richard WOOD and Arnold TUKKER. Solid Waste and the Circular Economy: A Global Analysis of Waste Treatment and Waste Footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecol- ogy [online]. 2017, 21(3), 628-640. 48. TSAI, Wen-tien. Promoting the Circular Economy via Waste-to-Power (WTP) in Taiwan. Resources [online]. 2019, 8(2), 95-95. 49. Waste disposal Act. Taipei: Environmental Protection Administration, 1974. Amended date: 14 June 2017. English version is available at: 50. Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic for the period 2015-2024 (Waste Plan). Prague: Ministry of the Environment, 2014 Available at: 51. Workshop Materials on WEEE Management in Taiwan [online]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2012. Available at: 52. Zákon č. 185/2001 Sb., o odpadech a o změně některých dalších zákonů (Waste Act). In: Sbírka zákonů. 14 June 2001. English translation is available at: 53. Životní prostředí | Brno 2010–2011. Brno: Environmental Department of the Brno City Municipality, 2012. Available at:

65 REFERENCES

54. Životní prostředí | Brno 2014–2015. Brno: Environmental Department of the Brno City Municipality, 2016. Available at: 55. Životní prostředí | Brno 2016–2017. Brno: Environmental Department of the Brno City Municipality, 2018. Available at:

66 APPENDICES

Appendices

A.1 Appendix 1

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (1/6)

(Municipal waste by waste management operations: Waste generated) Municipal 2004 2006 2008 kg per kg per kg per Waste thousand thousand thousand capita per capita per capita per tones tones tones Generated day day day Belgium 5059 1.33 5115 1.33 5141 1.31 Bulgaria 4619 1.64 4387 1.58 4486 1.64 Czechia 2841 0.76 3039 0.81 3176 0.84 Germany 48434 1.60 46426 1.55 48367 1.61 Estonia 606 1.22 536 1.09 524 1.07 Greece 4782 1.19 4927 1.22 5077 1.25 Spain 25746 1.64 26209 1.62 25317 1.51 France 32444 1.42 33962 1.47 34501 1.47 Italy 31150 1.48 32516 1.53 32461 1.51 Cyprus 498 1.87 521 1.90 573 1.99 Latvia 720 0.87 760 0.94 752 0.94 Lithuania 1260 1.02 1326 1.11 1369 1.17 Luxembourg 311 1.86 323 1.87 341 1.90 Hungary 4592 1.24 4711 1.28 4553 1.24 Malta 250 1.70 253 1.71 276 1.84 Netherlands 9746 1.64 9761 1.64 9868 1.64 Austria 4687 1.57 4933 1.64 4997 1.64 Poland 9759 0.70 12235 0.88 12194 0.87 Portugal 4665 1.22 4898 1.27 5472 1.42 Romania 7483 0.95 8392 1.08 8439 1.12 Slovenia 969 1.33 1036 1.41 1095 1.48 Finland 2453 1.28 2600 1.35 2768 1.42 Sweden 4143 1.26 4461 1.35 4476 1.33 United Kingdom 36121 1.64 35479 1.60 33424 1.48 Norway 1903 1.13 2140 1.26 2324 1.33 Average 9810 1.34 10038 1.38 10079 1.40

APPENDICES

Sources: Eurostat. Municipal waste by waste management operations. European Commission, official website [online]. 2020. Available at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasmun Eurostat. Generation of waste by economic activity. European Commission, official website [online]. 2020. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=ten00106&language=en

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (2/6)

2010 2012 2014 2016 kg per kg per kg per kg per thousand thousand thousand thousand capita capita capita capita tones tones tones tones per day per day per day per day 4972 1.25 4944 1.22 4762 1.16 4746 1.14 4094 1.52 3364 1.26 3192 1.21 2881 1.10 3334 0.87 3233 0.84 3261 0.85 3580 0.93 49237 1.65 49759 1.69 51102 1.73 52133 1.73 406 0.84 371 0.77 470 0.98 494 1.03 5917 1.46 5463 1.35 5315 1.34 5367 1.36 23774 1.40 21896 1.28 20836 1.23 21542 1.27 34609 1.46 34484 1.44 34260 1.42 34766 1.42 32440 1.50 29994 1.38 29652 1.34 30112 1.36 571 1.89 568 1.80 523 1.68 545 1.75 680 0.89 658 0.88 726 1.00 802 1.12 1253 1.11 1330 1.22 1270 1.19 1272 1.21 344 1.86 346 1.78 348 1.72 355 1.66 4033 1.10 3988 1.10 3795 1.05 3721 1.04 249 1.65 248 1.61 257 1.62 270 1.62 9484 1.56 9203 1.50 8894 1.44 8859 1.42 4701 1.54 4883 1.58 4833 1.55 4928 1.54 12032 0.87 12084 0.87 10330 0.75 11654 0.84 5457 1.41 4766 1.24 4710 1.24 4897 1.30 6343 0.86 5044 0.69 4956 0.68 5136 0.71 1004 1.34 744 0.99 892 1.18 943 1.25 2519 1.29 2738 1.38 2630 1.32 2768 1.38 4140 1.21 4324 1.24 4295 1.21 4439 1.22 31955 1.39 30413 1.30 31129 1.32 31710 1.32 2295 1.28 2392 1.30 2175 1.16 3946 2.06 9834 1.33 9489 1.27 9385 1.25 9675 1.31

APPENDICES

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (3/6)

(Generation of waste by waste category: Hazardous and non-hazardous - Total: Household and similar wastes: Households) Municipal 2004 2006 2008 % of total % of total % of total Waste Gen- kg per kg per kg per municipal municipal municipal capita per capita per capita per erated by waste waste waste day day day Households generated generated generated Belgium 35.05 0.46 28.79 0.38 31.67 0.42 Bulgaria 56.93 0.93 66.54 1.05 64.77 1.06 Czechia 87.81 0.67 86.63 0.70 83.99 0.70 Germany 43.95 0.70 35.54 0.55 33.28 0.54 Estonia 28.76 0.35 30.07 0.33 32.40 0.35 Greece 88.30 1.05 82.77 1.01 77.95 0.98 Spain 70.67 1.16 75.22 1.22 78.22 1.18 France 61.08 0.87 60.02 0.88 56.32 0.83 Italy 77.22 1.14 74.04 1.13 70.29 1.06 Cyprus 30.70 0.57 27.73 0.53 16.90 0.34 Latvia 75.47 0.66 99.44 0.93 75.94 0.72 Lithuania 42.36 0.43 65.75 0.73 60.28 0.70 Luxembourg 41.68 0.77 30.95 0.58 41.46 0.79 Hungary 81.72 1.01 60.30 0.77 66.30 0.82 Malta 49.12 0.84 47.31 0.81 46.29 0.85 Netherlands 47.91 0.78 48.28 0.79 47.33 0.78 Austria 34.32 0.54 33.74 0.55 32.67 0.54 Poland 67.97 0.48 54.37 0.48 53.75 0.47 Portugal 93.71 1.14 94.58 1.20 91.51 1.30 Romania 23.50 0.22 19.39 0.21 43.31 0.49 Slovenia 56.91 0.75 52.96 0.75 52.03 0.77 Finland 31.56 0.40 28.26 0.38 38.39 0.55 Sweden 54.45 0.69 52.00 0.70 54.43 0.72 United Kingdom 67.77 1.11 64.83 1.04 63.22 0.93 Norway 48.07 0.54 45.19 0.57 42.71 0.57 Average 55.88 0.73 54.59 0.73 54.22 0.74

APPENDICES

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (4/6)

2010 2012 2014 2016 % of total % of total % of total % of total municipal kg per cap- municipal kg per cap- municipal kg per cap- municipal kg per cap- waste gen- ita per day waste gen- ita per day waste gen- ita per day waste gen- ita per day erated erated erated erated 32.15 0.40 29.66 0.36 39.89 0.46 38.90 0.45 58.32 0.89 56.96 0.72 61.82 0.75 56.19 0.62 80.91 0.70 78.25 0.66 74.31 0.63 70.50 0.65 32.63 0.54 31.34 0.53 30.34 0.52 29.86 0.52 39.89 0.33 45.71 0.35 42.74 0.42 39.10 0.40 77.42 1.13 76.16 1.03 74.18 0.99 76.51 1.04 80.76 1.13 81.20 1.04 81.25 1.00 83.80 1.06 51.92 0.76 51.23 0.74 48.42 0.69 47.60 0.68 65.82 0.99 61.31 0.84 56.20 0.75 50.91 0.69 16.50 0.31 57.53 1.03 52.46 0.88 63.13 1.10 57.56 0.51 93.19 0.82 56.99 0.57 59.02 0.66 60.23 0.67 58.65 0.71 58.96 0.70 52.25 0.63 32.61 0.61 31.90 0.57 31.38 0.54 40.72 0.68 58.40 0.64 54.73 0.60 67.35 0.71 70.71 0.73 46.13 0.76 39.49 0.64 39.15 0.63 41.32 0.67 46.28 0.72 46.08 0.69 44.66 0.64 42.31 0.60 31.94 0.49 33.85 0.54 34.77 0.54 34.22 0.53 69.43 0.60 71.92 0.62 66.36 0.49 63.84 0.54 91.03 1.29 91.39 1.13 90.26 1.12 90.08 1.17 70.10 0.60 74.10 0.51 70.49 0.48 68.20 0.49 50.27 0.67 48.07 0.48 30.93 0.37 27.13 0.34 33.95 0.44 35.18 0.49 28.55 0.38 32.14 0.44 52.01 0.63 53.08 0.66 38.95 0.47 39.82 0.49 51.14 0.71 49.90 0.65 47.38 0.63 47.62 0.63 42.53 0.55 48.64 0.63 46.92 0.54 25.60 0.53 53.20 0.68 55.98 0.68 52.59 0.64 51.66 0.65

APPENDICES

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (5/6)

(Municipal waste by waste management operations: Recycling - material + Recycling - composting and di- gestion) 2004 2006 2008 Municipal % of total % of total % of total Waste municipal kg per cap- municipal kg per cap- municipal kg per cap- Recycled waste gen- ita per day waste gen- ita per day waste gen- ita per day erated erated erated Belgium 53.61 0.71 56.29 0.75 52.71 0.69 Bulgaria 17.20 0.28 19.06 0.30 19.37 0.32 Czechia 5.73 0.04 7.41 0.06 10.46 0.09 Germany 56.39 0.90 62.06 0.96 63.67 1.02 Estonia 24.72 0.30 17.34 0.19 20.15 0.22 Greece 10.09 0.12 12.75 0.16 17.69 0.22 Spain 30.83 0.51 31.19 0.50 39.75 0.60 France 28.90 0.41 30.84 0.45 33.64 0.49 Italy 17.59 0.26 19.32 0.30 23.91 0.36 Cyprus 3.36 0.06 4.18 0.08 7.42 0.15 Latvia 4.40 0.04 4.37 0.04 6.67 0.06 Lithuania 1.88 0.02 1.73 0.02 8.41 0.10 Luxembourg 41.38 0.77 43.78 0.82 45.91 0.87 Hungary 11.89 0.15 10.47 0.13 14.98 0.19 Malta 6.42 0.11 13.62 0.23 3.56 0.07 Netherlands 46.91 0.77 46.73 0.76 48.50 0.80 Austria 57.32 0.90 59.13 0.97 63.17 1.04 Poland 4.69 0.03 6.85 0.06 10.31 0.09 Portugal 13.26 0.16 15.91 0.20 17.37 0.25 Romania 1.15 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.97 0.01 Slovenia 20.41 0.27 15.31 0.22 18.82 0.28 Finland 33.69 0.43 33.60 0.45 34.17 0.49 Sweden 43.82 0.55 47.86 0.64 45.77 0.61 United Kingdom 22.59 0.37 30.36 0.48 36.41 0.54 Norway 36.47 0.41 40.31 0.51 43.53 0.58 Average 23.79 0.34 25.24 0.37 27.49 0.40

APPENDICES

Municipal waste generated and recycled in selected 25 countries in years 2004-2016 (6/6)

2010 2012 2014 2016 % of total % of total % of total % of total kg per kg per kg per kg per municipal municipal municipal municipal capita per capita per capita per capita per waste waste waste waste day day day day generated generated generated generated 54.82 0.68 53.26 0.65 53.88 0.63 53.46 0.61 24.55 0.37 25.22 0.32 23.08 0.28 31.93 0.35 15.72 0.14 23.05 0.19 25.48 0.22 33.63 0.31 62.46 1.03 65.11 1.10 65.61 1.13 67.14 1.16 18.03 0.15 19.29 0.15 31.37 0.31 27.93 0.29 17.11 0.25 16.97 0.23 15.37 0.21 17.27 0.23 29.22 0.41 29.70 0.38 30.80 0.38 33.91 0.43 35.96 0.53 37.57 0.54 39.85 0.56 41.84 0.60 31.08 0.47 38.49 0.53 41.60 0.56 45.67 0.62 10.74 0.20 13.55 0.24 16.78 0.28 17.34 0.30 9.26 0.08 14.55 0.13 26.92 0.27 25.37 0.28 4.95 0.05 23.37 0.28 30.48 0.36 47.97 0.58 46.54 0.87 47.55 0.85 47.76 0.82 48.44 0.81 19.60 0.22 25.37 0.28 30.65 0.32 34.83 0.36 5.32 0.09 9.66 0.16 7.45 0.12 6.91 0.11 49.21 0.77 49.36 0.74 50.85 0.73 53.65 0.76 59.43 0.92 57.86 0.92 56.46 0.87 57.62 0.89 16.46 0.14 11.99 0.10 26.47 0.20 34.53 0.29 18.80 0.27 26.05 0.32 30.46 0.38 31.01 0.40 12.78 0.11 14.74 0.10 13.25 0.09 13.41 0.10 22.45 0.30 41.99 0.42 36.11 0.43 55.36 0.69 32.77 0.42 33.40 0.46 32.57 0.43 42.06 0.58 47.85 0.58 46.92 0.58 49.21 0.60 48.55 0.59 40.28 0.56 42.56 0.55 43.36 0.57 44.10 0.58 42.22 0.54 39.83 0.52 42.08 0.49 38.20 0.79 29.10 0.41 32.30 0.43 34.72 0.45 38.09 0.51

APPENDICES

A.2 Appendix 2

Taipei City timetable for resource, recovery, and classification.

Source: Taipei City timetable for resource, recovery, and classification. Department of Environmental Protec- tion of Taipei City Government [online]. 2019. Available at: https://www.dep.gov.taipei/News_Con- tent.aspx?n=B18D1A1E2787E330&sms=305AECD29BED80F5&s=9E0221C030F70F7

APPENDICES

A.3 Appendix 3

Questionnaire for the semi-structured interview.

Basic facts about the respondents:

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Education 4. City of residence in Taiwan 5. City of staying in the Czech Republic 6. Where do/did you live in Taiwan (apartment, house, dorm)? 7. In Taiwan you live: alone/with family/with other people. 8. For how long did you stay in the Czech Republic/Taiwan? In which city and when? 9. Where do/did you live when you are/were in the Czech Republic (apartment, house, dorm)? 10. In the Czech Republic you live: alone/with family/with other people. 11. Do/did you separate waste, when you are in Taiwan? If so, do/did you do that constantly or occasionally? What kind of waste? 12. Do/did you separate waste, when you are in the Czech Republic? If so, do/did you do that constantly or occasionally? What kind of waste?

Values and knowledge:

13. Do you consider ecology and environment protection important? For what extent? Why? Do you take any actions? 14. Have you been taught about waste separation in family? Kindergarten? Primary school? Secondary school? High school? 15. Have you acquired information on waste separation from any other sources? TV/ advertis- ing/ social media/ friends/ etc. 16. What do you know about waste separation in general? Do you consider it important? 17. What do you know about waste management in the Czech Republic? Any rules, regulations? What materials can be separated and how? 18. What do you know about waste management in Taiwan? Any rules, regulations? What materials can be separated and how? 19. Do you consider waste separation effective in terms of environment protections? Economi- cally?

APPENDICES

Social factors:

20. Do you think waste separation is a common practice already? Or is it still an activity for concerned minority? 21. Do people in your surrounding separate waste? Does it affect you in any way (motivating/demotivating)? How? 22. Do you consider waste separation to be a socially beneficial activity? Is it a civic duty? 23. Do you feel a “social pressure” in regard to environment issues? If so, how does it affect your waste separation behaviour? Perception of waste separation in terms of convenience:

24. In Taipei you have to bring your waste to garbage trucks by yourself at scheduled time. Is it convenient to you? Why? Any room for improvement? 25. In Taipei, you can dispose any kind of waste the same way (ex. you don’t have to bring bulk waste or special kinds of recyclables to any special place, all can be disposed by garbage trucks). Is it convenient to you? Why? Any room for improvement? 26. In Taipei, you have to separate your garbage, therefore, additional space for recyclable waste is needed at your place. Is it convenient to you? Why? Any room for improvement? 27. In Taipei, have you ever got any help with separation or disposal of waste? If so, what kind of help? (question for the Czech residents only) 28. Do you consider waste separation in Taiwan time-consuming for you? Why? Any room for improvement? 29. In general, do you consider waste disposal and sorting in Taipei convenient? Why? Any room for improvement? 30. In the Czech Republic, you should bring your waste to special containers, you can do that at any time. Is it convenient to you? Why? Any room for improvement? 31. In the Czech Republic, you can dispose only some types of recyclables with coloured containers. Sometimes, you have to walk additional distance to some types of containers for recyclables or bring your waste to collection centres. Is it convenient to you? 32. In general, do you consider waste disposal and sorting in the Czech Republic convenient? Why? Any room for improvement? 33. Will you welcome an opportunity to dispose waste at any time in Taiwan (similarly to the Czech Republic)? Why? (question for the Taiwan residents only) 34. Will you welcome an opportunity to dispose any kind of waste at one place (similarly to Tai- wan)? Why? (question for the Czech residents only) 35. Will you welcome an opportunity to sort kitchen waste (similarly to Taiwan)? Why? (question for the Czech residents only)

APPENDICES

Perception of monetary incentives and existing policies:

36. How do you think, should waste separation by households be rewarded? Why? 37. How do you think, should generation of mixed waste by households be penalized? Why? 38. In environmental economy, there exists a so-called “polluter pays” principle. According to this principle, the party responsible for producing pollution should be responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment. What do you think of this principle? Do you agree? Why? 39. In Taiwan, waste separation is mandatory, and if you violate it, you can be penalized. What do you think of it? Is it fair? 40. Does the possibility of penalty motivate you to separate waste? Can you say that it is your main motivation? 41. In Taipei, you have to buy special bags for mixed waste, the cost of the bags is considered to be a fee for waste collection and treatment. On the other hand, disposal of recyclable waste is free. What do you think of that? Is it fair? Why? 42. Have you ever violated mandatory waste separation in Taiwan? Why? If violated, have you been caught? Punished? 43. In Taipei, inspectors can check if you comply with the rules of mandatory recycling. The process of inspection should be filmed and if you violate the rules, your photo will be published online to shame you. It will be delated as soon as you pay the penal 44. Is it ok to publicly shame people for violating the law? Do you have any experience with that? 45. In the Czech Republic, you have to pay settled fee for waste collection and treatment. This fee does not reflect whether you separate waste or not. Do you think it is fair? Is it convenient to you? Does it motivate or demotivate you to separate your waste? 46. Will you welcome an opportunity to pay a flat fee for waste collection and treatment once a year, without any extra expenditures? Why? (question for the Taiwan residents only) 47. Will you welcome an opportunity to pay a fee for waste collection and treatment that is based on amount of waste you produce and whether you separate your waste? Why? (question for the Czech residents only)