an official journal of: published by:
Editor in Chief: RAFFAELLO COSSU


  • Jan Slavík - Institute for Economic and Environmental Policy , Jan Evangelista Purkyne University , Czech Republic - Department of Geography , Jan Evangelista Purkyne University , Czech Republic
  • Kristýna Rybová - Department of Geography , Jan Evangelista Purkyne University , Czech Republic
  • Martin Dolejš - Department of Geography , Jan Evangelista Purkyne University , Czech Republic

DOI 10.31025/2611-4135/2019.13787

Released under CC BY-NC-ND

Copyright: © 2018 CISA Publisher

Editorial History

  • Received: 06 Dec 2018
  • Revised: 17 Jan 2019
  • Accepted: 25 Jan 2019
  • Available online: 31 Mar 2019


The European regulation of biodegradable municipal waste (biowaste) treatment places a significant demand on local biowaste separation systems and consequent treatment (composting, anaerobic digestion). When implementing separate collection systems, there is a public demand for systems based on containers and bags. Based on a case study of the city Ústí nad Labem in the Czech Republic, the authors illustrate the difficulties encountered in the implementation of this kind of system. A series of factors should be paramount in the organization of biowaste separate collection, including the location of containers, the amount of contaminants, and system parameters (e.g. volume of containers, frequency of collection). The results obtained confirm how a precision-targeted information campaign may contribute towards reducing contamination of biowaste container content. Lower amounts of contaminants imply a simplified biowaste treatment (composting) and increased system efficiency. Furthermore, it was observed that the relocation of biowaste containers, or placing of additional containers in the system, resulted in an increase in public involvement as a result of the added convenience of separate collection proximity of containers. The equipment of the chosen city district by additional 55 containers increases the number of address points covered by the system by approx. 149.20% and the number of inhabitants by about 38.14%. However, this added convenience of separate collection is not cost-neutral, with the increased proximity of containers contributing towards a rise in collection costs including transport, and containers. The increase of collection costs ranges between 105.5 and 156.78% in comparison with the current situation.



Amponsah, S.K., Salhi, S. 2004. The investigation of a class of capacitated arc routing problems: the collection of garbage in developing countries. Waste Manag. 24, 711-721.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2004.01.008

Barr, S., Ford, N.J., Gilg, A. 2003. Attitudes towards recycling household waste in Exeter, Devon: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Local Env. 8, 407-421.
DOI 10.1080/13549830306667

Bernard-Beltrán, D., Simó, A., Bovea, M.D. 2014. Attitude towards the incorporation of the selective collection of biomeste in a municipal solid waste management system. A case study. Waste Manag. 34, 2434-2444.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.023

Bernstad, A., la Cour Jansen, J., Aspegren, A. 2013. Door-stepping as a strategy for improved food waste recycling behaviour – Evaluation of full-scale experiment. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 73, 94-103.
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.012

Bernstad, A. 2014. Household food waste separation behaveor and the importance of convenience. Waste Manag. 34, 1317-1323.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.013

Bender, F.A., Bosse, T., Sawodny, O. 2014. An investigation on the fuel savings potential of hybrid hydraulic refuse collection vehicles. Waste Manag. 34, 1577-1583.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.022

Dahlén, L., Vukicevic, S., Meijer, J.-E., Lagerkvist, A. 2007. Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Sweden. Waste Manag. 27, 1298-1305.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.016

Dahlén, L., Lagerkvist, A. 2010. Evaluation of recycling programmes in household waste collection systems. Waste Manage. Res. 28, 577-587.
DOI 10.1177/0734242X09341193

De Feo, G., De Gisi, S. 2010. Public opinion and awareness towards MSW and separate collection programmes: A sociological procedure for selecting areas and citizens with a low level of knowledge. Waste Manag. 30, 958-976.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.02.019

Domina, T., Koch, K. 2002. Convenience and frequency of recycling: Implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs. Environ. Behav. 34, 216-238.
DOI 10.1177/0013916502034002004

EKO-KOM. 2017. The interview with Lukáš Grolmus (the chief of communication department of the recovery organization EKO-KOM) that took place at 23.11.2017

Eksioglu, B., Vural, A.V., Reisman, A. 2009. The vehicle routing problem: A taxonomic review. Comput. Ind. Eng. 57, 1472-1483,

ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute

Faccio, M., Persona, A., Zanin, G. 2011. Waste collection multi objective model with real time traceability data. Waste Manag. 31, 2391-2405.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.005

Fernández-Aracil, P., Ortuno-Padilla, A., Melgarejho-Moreno, J. 2018. Factors related to municipal costs of waste collection service in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 553-560.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.116

Gallardo, A., Bovea, M.D., Colomer, F.J., Prades, M., Carlos, M. 2010. Comparison of different collection systems for sorted household waste in Spain. Waste Manag. 30, 2430-2439.
DOI 0.1016/j.wasman.2010.05.026

Gomes, A.P., Matos, M.A., Carvalho, I.C. 2008. Separate collection of the biodegradable fraction of MSW: An economic assessment. Waste Manag. 28, 1711-1719.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.017

González-Torre, P.L., Adenso-Díaz, B., Ruiz-Torres, A. 2003. Some comparative factors regarding recycling collection systems in regions of the USA and Europe. J. Environ. Manage. 69, 129-138.
DOI 10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00109-9

González-Torre, P.L., Adenso-Díaz, B. 2005. Influence of distance on the motivation and frequency of household recycling. Waste Manag. 25, 15-23.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2004.08.007

Greco, G., Allegrini, M., Del Lungo, C., Savellini, P.G., Gabellini, L. 2015. Drivers of solid waste collection costs. Empirical evidence from Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 364-371.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.011

Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., Tomal, P., Tarabula-Fiertak, M., Nieszporek, K., Read, A.D. 2006. Effects of an educational campaign on public environmental attitudes and behaviour in Poland. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 46, 182-197

Hage, O., Söderholm, P. 2008. An econometric analysis of regional differences in households waste collection: The case of plastic packaging waste in Sweden. Waste Manag. 28, 1720-1731.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.022

Hannan, M.A., Arebey, M., Begum, R.A., Basri, H. 2011. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and communication technologies for solid waste bin and trick monitoring system. Waste Manag. 31, 2406-2413.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.07.022

Johansson, O.M. 2006. The effect of dynamic scheduling and routing in a solid waste management system. Waste Manag. 26, 875-885.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.09.004

Lakhan, C. 2014. Exploring the relationship between municipal promotion and education investments and recycling rate performance in Ontario, Canada. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 92, 222-229.
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.006

Larsen, A.W., Merrild, H., Møller, J., Christensen, T.H. 2010. Waste collection systems for recyclables: an environmental and economic assessment for the municipality of Aarhus (Denmark). Waste Manag. 30, 744-754.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2009.10.021

Marešová, K., Slejška, A. 2006. Výsledky pilotního projektu v Uherském Hradišti sledujícím nakládání s bioodpadem. [online]. [Accessed: 2018-11-22]. Available from:

Mattson Petersen, C.H., Berg, P.E.O. 2004. Use of recycling stations in Borlänge, Sweden - volume weights and attitudes. Waste Manag. 911-918.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2004.04.002

Mes, M., Schutten, M., Rivera, A.P. 2014. Inventory routing for dynamic waste collection. Waste Manag. 34, 1564-1576.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.011

Rada, E.C., Ragazzi, M., Fedrizzi, P. 2013. Web-GIS oriented systems viability for municipal solid waste selective collection optimization in developed and transient economies. Waste Manag. 33, 785-792.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2013.01.002

Revelle, W. 2018. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. Version = 1.8.4

Rodrigues, S., Martinho, G., Pires, A. 2016. Waste collection systems. Part A: a taxonomy. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 374-387.
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.143

Rousta, K., Bolton, K., Lundin, M., Dahlén, L. 2015. Quantitative assessment of distance to collection point and improved sorting information on source separation of household waste. Waste Manag. 40, 22-30.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.005

Saphores, J.D., Nixon, H. 2014. How effective are current household recycling policies? Results from a national survey of U.S. households. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 92, 1-10.
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.08.010

Sidique, S.F., Lupi, F., Joshi, S.V. 2010. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resour Conserv Recy. 54, 163-170.
DOI 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.012

Simonetto, E. O., Borenstein, D. 2007. A decision support system for the operational planning of solid waste collection. Waste Manag. 27,
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2006.06.012

Teixeira, C.A., Avelino, C., Ferreira, F., Bentes, I. 2014. Statistical analysis in MSW collection performance assessment. Waste Manag. 34, 1584-1594.
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.04.007