Pay-as-You-Throw (PAYT) for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Greece: On Public Opinion and Acceptance

Abstract

As municipal solid waste increases on a global scale, local and national governments strive for the implementation of efficient waste management systems in urban settings. The importance of the optimization of waste management lies with the fact that it constitutes a key step towards energy and material independence as well as the development of sustainable societies. In order for municipalities to fall in line with European legislations and strategies (i.e., European Green Deal, Waste Framework Directive, Sustainable Development Goals, etc.), they need to choose strategic, targeted schemes for adequate waste management, taking into account the area profile under investigation (i.e., population, demographic, public opinion, etc.). The present study investigates the level of knowledge of citizens regarding a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system in Greece. The aim of the investigation is to elucidate the attitude towards PAYT implementation within a socioeconomic context. A survey was conducted using an online questionnaire in 2021 while the results show valuable insight on the degree of public acceptance and understanding. At the same time, shortcomings (e.g., communication about the implementation from government and local authorities to citizens) have been pinpointed.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, municipal waste generation has increased drastically on a global scale with no signs of deceleration. Yearly, humanity produces millions of tons of waste due to several factors, including population growth, economic growth, urbanization, and consumption of raw materials [1]. According to Statista [2], by 2050 solid waste generation will have reached almost 3.4 billion metric tons, which accounts for a 70% increase.

In this regard, the European Union (EU) has implemented several strategies and directives to limit this future catastrophe [3]. The combination of the European Green Deal (EGD) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN) aims at the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and carbon neutrality by 2050 [4,5,6]. Simultaneously, the UN urges world leaders and governments to fulfil the 17 SDGs, including responsible production and consumption (SDG12) and the creation of sustainable cities and communities (SDG11). At the same time, other strategies like the circular economy action plan of the EU aim to reduce the effect of human activity on all three sustainability pillars (environment, economy, and society) [7,8].

Circular economy constitutes a key element in the easy transition to a green and sustainable society and zero waste communities [9]. Its goal is closing the loop of linear production and the sustainable development of different establishments in a community (i.e., businesses, cities, countries) [8,10,11]. The implementation of a circular economy is based on technological, cultural, and economic advancements of circularity, for instance, the adoption of “R” strategies (i.e., reuse, refuse, recycle, refurbish, etc.), public acceptance, and change in consumer and throw away behavior along with economic prosperity and inclusivity [7,12,13,14].

Consequently, the issue of municipal waste management constitutes one of the most imminent environmental problems of today’s generation. The efficiency of waste management schemes is a key element to a transition towards a sustainable society with minimal burden to the environment [15]. Municipalities, governments, and all authority figures must find an efficient management system according to their area profile to achieve the highest level of viable waste management. Leaders have to set ambitious targets using the tools (i.e., legislations, directives, strategies, etc.) provided by the EU, while simultaneously implementing local and national policies to increase citizen participation to achieve these goals [16,17].

There are several technologies and methods when dealing with municipal waste (i.e., incineration, recycling, recovery, landfilling, pasture filling in underground salt mines, etc.), all capable of reducing the accumulation of municipal solid waste [18,19]. Final disposal options such as landfilling contribute significantly to climate change [3,20,21], pollute water resources, and deteriorate natural landscapes. According to Statista [2], in 2019 Apex Regional Landfill in Las Vegas was considered the largest dump site in the world, covering an area of 2200 acres (50 million tons of waste) and a projected lifetime of 250 years. Furthermore, illegal dumping sites are present all across Europe. In 2021, 9000 illegal dumping sites were reported in Albania alone, followed by Slovakia (8334) and Romania (7173) [22]. Landfilling, however, is still the method of choice for municipal waste in Greece [23]. The amendment of the Waste Landfill Directive that recently came into force [24] underlines the overt differences found between member states; as noted in point (45) of the directive, “Large differences exist among Member States with respect to their waste management performance, particularly as regards recycling of municipal waste”. Furthermore, member states such as Greece that have not been able to reach the set reuse and recycling targets should on the one hand be allowed to extend the future deadlines for meeting these targets; but, on the other hand, they should also outline an implementation plan, based on detailed criteria.

The concept of recycling is not new for Greek society, and it is facilitated through the “blue bin” scheme which is run jointly by the Central Union of Greek Municipalities and the Hellenic Recovery Recycling Corporation [25]. Citizens may drop recyclable waste such as paper, tin, aluminium, plastic, and glass in a sturdy blue bin, without the need for prior separation [26]. Other bins specialized for recyclable waste (bins for glass or for paper only) have emerged in some municipalities with mixed results. The concept of separate biodegradable waste collection (the municipal “brown bin”) has only been tried in pilot studies [27,28,29].

A possible solution for efficiently handling municipal waste is the implementation of pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) systems. PAYT strategies are becoming increasingly relevant in the area of municipal solid waste flow management. They consider the amount of waste produced per agent (i.e., citizen, business, etc.) and adequate economic responsibilities are charged [15]. This scheme, which applies the pivotal environmental principal of “the polluter pays”, is actively encouraged by the EU [30]. According to Elia et al. (2015) [31], PAYT makes use of the general principles of waste management systems, which is to reduce (by reducing waste produced at source and reuse) and recycle (increase recycling rates to avoid landfilling). PAYT systems have been applied in many jurisdictions around the world (7100 in the US alone) and have resulted in an effective waste and cost reduction. In the EU, PAYT systems developed in the early 1900s, while Dresden was the first city to establish electronic identification and pricing [31,32]. PAYT schemes have seldom been applied in Greece, and only on a pilot scale [27,33]. As a result, stricter rules on landfilled waste quantities are now enforced in Greece, and waste management is focused beyond mere landfilling. In July 2021, the Greek Parliament voted in favor of an integrated municipal waste management plan, which will actively cut end-of-life waste. More specifically, in Article 37 of Law 4819/2021 [34], the following are laid out: PAYT schemes will become the staple pricing model for municipal waste; from 1st January 2023 and onwards, municipalities of a population between 20,000 and 100,000 should apply PAYT for biodegradable waste from food establishments; municipalities of a population of 10,000 should apply PAYT from hotels; municipalities of more than 100,000 should apply PAYT schemes; and, finally, from 1st January 2028, municipalities of a population between 20,000 and 100,000 should apply PAYT schemes.

It is probable that this radical change of charging municipal tax has not been properly communicated to the local authorities nor to the citizens who will be obliged to alter their long-term everyday habits. This is a major shortcoming due to the fact that as waste management is becoming more complex because of the increased accumulation of urban solid waste, the everyday life of citizens is increasingly affected by governmental decisions [35,36]. Therefore, the education of citizens regarding sustainable development is one of the most powerful tools for authorities, as critical, collective intervention for urban communities is necessary to achieve any given goal [37,38]. Therefore, waste prevention activities (such as PAYT systems) should be clearly communicated to the community to prepare them for the upcoming changes in their everyday habits and should focus on individual waste streams to increase their awareness of individual responsibility regarding the sustainability of the community [38].

As such, the present research aspires to investigate the level of citizens’ knowledge of the concept of PAYT for municipal waste and to elucidate their attitude towards the implementation of this scheme, within the socioeconomic context of Greece in 2020–2021, when this survey took place. The results may give a valuable insight into the degree of public acceptance and public understanding in Mediterranean and Balkan societies where PAYT is still not the norm [39,40,41,42]. The novelty of the study is the fact that even if such research is common around the globe, very little research has been performed regarding waste management schemes and PAYT in Greece. Lack of research slows down the environmental progression of urban settings, thus not allowing the country to move towards the goals and legislations of the EU.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire Set-Up and Distribution

A questionnaire was made using Google Forms and it was distributed through the portals of the Open University of Cyprus (OUC). It was available within the COVID-19 pandemic in the early autumn of 2021. A total of 135 full responses were achieved. In brief, the questionnaire comprised four parts besides the initial General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) statement and a brief description of the PAYT scheme: (a) a demographic data part, (b) rating and acceptance of PAYT systems, (c) municipal authorities’ responsibilities, and (d) fellow residents’ responsibilities. Most questions on parts b–d demanded answers on a 5-point Likert scale, with point 1 representing complete disagreement with the declaration and a point 5 representing complete agreement.

The target audience was invited to participate in a survey. The survey was designed and conducted according to Greek and Cypriot legislation and institutional requirements. All participants gave informed consent for their participation in the survey and publication of their answers, while they were all informed about the goal and scope of the study. The participants could terminate their participation at any given time, while the survey was anonymous.

The questionnaire was based on the research by Kevrekidou (2016) [43], who included the three basic scenarios for PAYT in her presentation:

• Pay per bag: every household should buy specialized bags from predetermined selling points in the community. The household should use these bags to throw away the rubbish they did not recycle.
• Smart bins: the rubbish bins become “smart”: they open only with the aid of a pre-paid card, and fees are subtracted from the card according to the weight of the rubbish bag thrown.
• Household-owned bins: the rubbish bin belongs to the house or the block of flats only. The weight of the total rubbish is calculated during waste collection, and fees are equally allocated to the residents.

The scenarios were not modified and taken as presented for the questionnaires. The questionnaire was short (5 pages) and concise. The explanation of the three PAYT scenarios preceded the actual questions, and creative commons photos were used to assist the visualization of the three systems. The respondents had to fill in all questions to proceed, except for question 5 on total household income.

2.2. Descriptive Statistics and Statistical Analysis

Graphs and figures for descriptive statistics were created with the Office365 Excel software of Microsoft, USA. Questionnaire responses were transferred and coded into SPSS27 [44]. A chi-square test of independence was performed between several categorical variables on the results of question 9— “Rate options 1, 2 and 3 regarding their possible efficiency in Greece with 1st the most efficient^, 2nd the medium efficient an^d 3rd the least efficient out of the three”—to check for underlying relationship.

3. Results

The following graphs and figures depict the results of the questionnaire. Some demographic data were collected to understand the background of the sample, and they are presented in

Table 1. Demographic data of the respondents.

	Frequency	Percentage	Cumulative Percentage
Sex
male	64	47.4	47.4
female	71	52.6	100
Age
20–28	35	25.9	25.9
29–37	45	33.3	59.3
38–45	35	25.9	85.2
46–54	13	9.6	94.8
55–63	7	5.2	100
Highest degree
MSc/PhD	70	51.9	51.9
Bachelor	51	37.8	89.6
post-elementary	5	3.7	93.3
elementary	9	6.7	100
Occupation
civil servant	41	30.4	30.4
company employee	64	47.4	77.8
self-employed	19	14.1	91.9
no occupation	11	8.1	100
Total household income in Euros (after tax)
<25,000	52	38.5	38.5
25,000–50,000	46	34.1	72.6
50,000–100,000	19	7.4	80
>100,000	4	3.0	83.0

and in Figure 1.

Figure 2 comprises answers to questions belonging to parts b and c of the questionnaire and, more specifically, questions regarding the necessity of a PAYT system, the ability of the municipality to apply a PAYT system, and how a campaign may help the successful application of a PAYT system. The answers to the question “Should we replace the current waste collection system (green bin and recyclables’ bins) with the PAYT system?” were unequivocally positive. The respondents were not however so assured on the ability of the municipal authorities to apply a PAYT system, with approximately 30% being neutral and 30% being positive on its possible success. Most respondents agreed that a carefully planned campaign for the citizens would help the success of a PAYT system. Both a campaign focusing on the financial benefits for the citizens and a campaign focusing on the beneficial effects on the environment were deemed helpful (48.9% and 51.9%, respectively), while a campaign on the financial benefits was also considered extremely helpful (17.8%).

Since PAYT is mainly a financial tool, it was relevant to ask whether punitive measures (for citizens who did not follow the rules or who dumped waste illegally) would help the successful application of a PAYT system. The results for these questions are shown in Figure 3. Generally, respondents understood the necessity of fines in order for citizens to comply with the scheme (41.5% and 43% agreed or strongly agreed respectively), while 41.5% of respondents agreed that non-compliant citizens should be denounced to the local authorities. In any case, they are not sure if they will undertake this responsibility; approximately 29% would not denounce them, 31% are neutral, and 39% would denounce them. It would be easier for them to reprimand in person these citizens since a high percentage (42.2% and 28.1%) agrees or strongly agrees with reprimanding, respectively.

Furthermore, the respondents were asked to rank the three options of PAYT (pay-per-bag, “clever” bins, and household-owned bins), and as such six different combinations were available. Their depiction is shown in Figure 4, where the “clever” bin option is collectively regarded as the most efficient, and the pay-per-bag option is considered quite inferior to the other two options. A χ² test of independence was performed between this relative ranking and a few distinct groups (i.e., sex, age, highest degree, occupation, and income). No differences were noted between the tested groups (data not shown); χ² comparisons between the nominal variables of parts b, c, and d were not appropriate because in most cases the requisite of 80% of cells with a count of more than five was not met.

4. Discussion

4.1. Sample Characteristics

A survey of Greek citizens was performed via an online questionnaire in the early autumn of 2021. Few respondents answered all the questions (which was a requisite for the validity of the questionnaire), which makes the interpretation of the results quite difficult. Nevertheless, this is one of the few surveys performed on a Greek population regarding the PAYT scheme, even though its application is imminent. Specifically, the population investigated (200 residences) were the students, faculty, and guests of the Open University of Cyprus who are currently permanent residents of Greece, as the university offers online courses (135 respondents). The demographic results were compared to the Greek census of 2021, wherever available [45]. There was a slight over-representation of female respondents (52.6% in relation to 51.4% in the census). According to relevant research, women were more concerned about environmental problems than men [46,47], and this may render them more interested in waste management problems [48]. Nevertheless, no gender-based differences were noted at χ² test. There was also an over-representation of younger ages (26% versus the 2011 census of 8% for the age gap of 20–28) [49]. In addition, the following were noted: 33% versus the 2011 census value of 13.5% for 29–37, 35% versus the census value of 11% for 38–45, 9.5% versus the census value of 11% for 46–54, and only 5% for ages 55–65 versus the census value of 11% [49]. The respondents were also of higher education with an extremely high over-representation of MSc and PhD degree holders, while the national average was only 1.8% in 2011 [49]. This was, however, expected because of the medium of the dissemination which was the University portal; as a result, people studying and working in academia responded to the questionnaire. The household size, which may directly affect the waste production of the household, is depicted in Figure 1.

In relation to the Greek census of 2011 [49], fewer respondents were included that used to live alone or as a couple (13% versus 25% of the census and 18% versus 29.5% of the census). Larger households were present in the survey with members of more than five in some cases. Some of the respondents (49%) were staying in houses that were not part of a block of flats. In general, semi-detached or terraced houses belonging to a group of similar residential buildings are not considered flats in Greece; this nomenclature was also retained in the 2011 census [49], where the “semi-detached houses” were not considered flats. The rest of the respondents (51%) stayed in block of flats (in relation to 45% of the 2011 census). It is evident that the sample investigated is not representative of the Greek population since it shows a slight over-representation of females, young people, and people of higher financial and educational status [46,50,51,52]. Especially for the latter, it was shown that that people with education of up to high school level may recycle less compared to more educated individuals in the city of Xanthi in Northern Greece. As such, it may be useful to depict a snapshot of a subgroup with higher environmental sensitivities, as a best-case scenario.

4.2. Attitudes about Implementation and Success of a PAYT System

In general, the respondents were considered ready to encompass the big change of switching to a generation-based charge system for waste management instead of the current one, which charges according to the house size (m²), with almost 80% answering positively to the question “Should we replace the current waste collection system (green bin and recyclables’ bins) with the PAYT system?”. Urban waste management in Greece still suffers from many drawbacks; in most cases there is a lack of long-term sustainable waste management planning, while the country has been referred to the EU Court of Justice due to the presence of illegal landfills [53]. Biowaste separation from main municipal waste is still not an established practice [29,54] even though the Waste Framework Directive’s goals on reduction of landfilled biowaste should be met. It is therefore possible that (some subgroups of) Greek citizens are ready for a radical change. They may also believe that their household waste production is rather small and that they are actively involved in recycling, so this system will eventually be beneficial to them [55].

However, they are less certain about the putative success of this change. While around 35% and 30% of the respondents believe that fellow-citizens and local authorities will rise to the challenge, respectively, another 46% and 32% are neutral, respectively, while more than 9.5% believe that the local authorities are not able to properly apply PAYT. The distrust of local government was also shown in the study of Drimili et al., (2020) [55] where the citizens of Athens believed that their city was quite dirty, that the local government was mainly responsible for the situation, and that their fellow citizens were also to blame. Regarding the contribution of a social campaign towards the success of the PAYT implementation, the respondents agreed that it would be of benefit. It may thus be inferred that they still feel underinformed on PAYT and on waste management progress in general.

Environmental education is nowadays part of the Greek elementary school curriculum [38,56]; however, the transfer of this knowledge to older individuals is lagging. Furthermore, teachers have reported that the inflexibility of school schedules prevents any hands-on development of meaningful environmental education programs [57]. The responsibility of social innovation to tackle environmental and sustainability challenges relies deeply upon environmental education. Eco-awareness among members of the community can create sensitivity around the topic and affect the decisions of small social groups. The aim of environmental education is the development of critical thinking and the establishment of personal responsibility [38,58]. It must be inclusive without limitations for members of different social groups (i.e., age, gender, occupation, etc.), as it is a lifelong process that concerns everybody. Therefore, the integration of sustainable education in school environments and curriculums has the potential to cultivate the necessary social awareness and behavior needed on behalf of the citizens for such systems (PAYT) to work efficiently [59]. It can boost a positive attitude towards such implementations and simultaneously strengthen the communication between citizens and authority figures. Still, there are obstacles to the public acceptance of environmental education importance (i.e., the establishment of environmental education centers), which vary according to existing recycling behavior, demographic, the economy, and other concerns [13,35].

4.3. Attitudes about Punitive Measures for the Success of a PAYT System

The respondents were made aware that PAYT is a financial tool, and they were questioned whether fines would help the implementation of the scheme. They unequivocally agreed (around 85%) that imposing fines for non-compliance would be necessary. The application of financial penalties was found to be acceptable, in the form of taxation, in the study on recycling by Keramitsoglou and Tsagarakis (2013) [60] or in the form of a fine in the study of Drimili et al. (2020) [55].

The imposition of financial penalties has been effective in the reduction in domestic waste, while a reward–penalty mechanism was highly effective in the context of the municipal solid waste supply chain [61]. Reward–penalty mechanisms have been studied in the past, indicating a great success among citizens [62,63]. At the same time, many researchers use game theory to explain the impact of such policies and promote the development of reward systems for public environmental education [17,64,65,66,67,68]. Mu and Zhang (2021) [67] investigated China’s Newest Waste Classification Recycling Project (NWCRP), implemented in 2019 in the city of Shanghai. A reward–penalty policy was proposed to be implemented and the results indicated that the sorting rate and profit of the system increased with increasing reward–penalty intensity. Still, the authors illustrated their concerns that the consideration of citizen’s environmental awareness is a huge key factor when it comes to the implementation of policies and the formulation of reward–penalty schemes [67].

Especially for a scheme such as PAYT, which will be applied to the whole community, any non-participation or delinquent behavior (i.e., illegal dumping, intentional missing of waste streams, public littering) undermines the collective effort and is punishable. The respondents however, even though they agreed that non-compliance should be denounced they were not willing to undertake this task. They would however reprimand the rogue behavior, which is still more than Athens citizens would do (36.2%) when they see public littering [55]. As shown in previous research, many parts of the Greek society are still closely knit and this affects waste management behavioral and sense of personal responsibility [69].

4.4. Preference over Distinct PAYT Schemes

Three main PAYT schemes were presented in the questionnaire (the pay per bag, the smart bin, and the household-owned bin), and respondents were asked to rate them according to their possible success. These options roughly correspond to the sack-based schemes, weight-based schemes, and frequency-based schemes respectively described in Magrini et al. (2020) [70]. The researchers reached conclusions similar to our survey regarding the 1st position, which was the weight-based scheme. This can be realized through the smart bin option, where the consumer places his/her municipal waste and is charged according to the weight of the waste. The said smart bin is accessible only to specific residents and nobody else, as explained in our questionnaire. Pay per bag and household-owned bins performed similarly in Magrini et al. (2020) [70]; however, in our questionnaire household-owned bins fared better than the pay per bag system. This may be correlated to the fact that the respondents have little faith in the municipal authorities [55], which may still accept non-labeled bags, so the best solution is to have more personal control over the selected method. For matters of equity, other parameters besides citizens’ preference or ease of application should also be considered when deciding on the actual PAYT scheme; for poor neighborhoods, schemes based on weight, such as the smart bin, are of little use if there are no concomitant composting facilities for food debris. For poor citizens under certain social criteria, offering a certain number of free bags or stickers may help, but this is only relevant for a pay per bag system [71]. As such, designing an effective scheme of variable pricing for municipal waste collection is not only a technical challenge but much more. Still, there is a dire need for holistic implementation of the PAYT scheme before the 2025 threshold to ensure substantial progress regarding the targets of the EU. If implementation of such schemes delays past 2025, the 2030 and 2050 markers of the EGD (decrease of GHGs emissions, carbon neutrality, etc.) will be very difficult to tackle. Limitations of the proposed solutions include citizens engagement and social acceptance as well as balance between application, implementation, and cost in regards to the existing model of waste management.

5. Conclusions

Through the study, the implications and benefits of PAYT systems in Greece have been identified. There is a big opportunity to shift social awareness and behavior in the country as many of the respondents support the implementation of such waste management systems. Still, there needs to be a synergy between design, communication, and implementation of PAYT schemes. Governments and local authorities need to prepare their communities for the upcoming change to ensure a smooth transition towards sustainability and a circular economy. As a result, creating an efficient system of dynamic pricing for municipal waste collection is far more difficult than just a technical challenge. However, to ensure significant progress toward the EU’s targets, the PAYT scheme must be fully implemented by the 2025 cutoff. The 2030 and 2050 markers of the EGD (reduction of GHG emissions, carbon neutrality, etc.) will be very difficult to achieve if implementation of such plans is delayed past 2025. Lack of citizen engagement and societal acceptance, as well as a balance between application, implementation, and cost in relation to the current waste management paradigm, are the generally typical drawbacks and flaws of such initiatives. Therefore, education is responsible for the integration of environmental awareness and community responsibility, and is one of the most important pillars for the success of similar incentives.