Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-26T13:28:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 texto completo.pdf: 2223232 bytes, checksum: 5e71f9287558a54d3cece398bab144ec (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-11-05 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Charging for collection, removal, transport and final destination services is not an easy task, since it should be implemented for a divisible service and the issue is how to measure waste generation. The current charging model, which consists of dividing total costs by number of users, taking into account the built area of the residence and IPTU, is considered unconstitutional. Cities, autarchies and companies responsible for waste management have been trying to find ways to solve this problem by modifying ways and equations for charging. However, few studies in this field were able to provide a practical and fair equation that considers waste production in each residence, which would guarantee the divisibility of the service, i.e. the payment for the amount of solid waste generated. By determining the correlation between waste production and water consumption, this study proposes and analyzes models for charging which enable the financial sustainability of collection, removal, transport and final destination services for urban solid waste produced in Viçosa. The relation between water consumption and solid waste production in each building was determined by regression analysis. Solid waste and water consumption data were obtained for each building (distribution meter), except for large waste producers. The equations were obtained from the regression analysis including factors such as the activity performed at each building; socioeconomic zoning of the municipality and unit cost of the kilogram of collected residue. The proposed models for charging proved to be adequate to promote the economic sustainability of the services once the simulation showed an important increase in service tax revenue. / A cobrança pelos serviços de coleta, remoção, transporte e destinação dos resíduos não constitui uma tarefa de fácil execução, pois deve ser realizada por um serviço divisível, e a questão é como mensurar a geração dos resíduos. A cobrança praticada, dividindo-se os custos pelos usuários, com critérios de área construída da habitação e testada do imóvel em conjunto com o IPTU, é considerada inconstitucional. Cada município, autarquia e empresa responsável pelo gerenciamento vêm buscando formas de solucionar essa problemática, modificando as formas e as fórmulas de cobrança. Porém, poucos estudos nesse campo conseguiram evidenciar uma fórmula prática e justa que conseguisse relacionar a geração de resíduos com cada habitação, garantindo a divisibilidade do serviço, ou seja, o pagamento pela quantidade de resíduos gerada. Neste trabalho, por meio da determinação da correlação entre o consumo de água e a geração de resíduos sólidos domiciliares, propõem-se e analisam-se fórmulas de cobrança que possibilitem a autossustentabilidade financeira dos serviços de coleta, remoção, transporte e destinação dos resíduos no município de Viçosa, MG. A relação entre o consumo de água e a geração de resíduos por economia foi determinada por meio de análise de regressão com dados dos resíduos gerados e dos consumos de água hidrometrada, coletados em campo, sem levar em consideração os grandes geradores. As fórmulas foram elaboradas a partir da equação de relação obtida, incluindo fatores como atividade desempenhada pela economia, zoneamento socioeconômico do município e custo unitário por quilograma de resíduo coletado. Os modelos de cobrança propostos se mostraram adequados para promover a sustentabilidade econômica dos serviços, uma vez que a simulação dos mesmos mostrou um importante aumento na arrecadação pela prestação dos serviços.

La tarification des services publics mis en œuvre par les communes et leurs intercommunalités s’est développée ces dernières années et devrait encore se développer, sous l’effet d’évolutions touchant la matière tarifaire elle-même mais aussi la matière fiscale. Les atouts que présente la redevance se sont considérablement renforcés. Son périmètre théorique n’a cessé de s’élargir, avec d’une part l’essor des services publics locaux rendus et d’autre part l’essor de ce qui peut être économiquement, politiquement et juridiquement tarifé. Par ailleurs, les handicaps peu objectifs ayant longtemps grippé la mobilisation du levier tarifaire sont pour l’essentiel en voie d’être levés. Le nouvel essor de la redevance se fonde aussi sur ses relations avec les deux principaux avatars de l’imposition locale : l’« impôt général », affecté au financement des services publics, et l’« impôt spécial », affecté au financement d’un service public. Comparée à l’impôt général, la redevance fait aujourd’hui preuve d’une plus grande marge de manœuvre mais surtout d’une meilleure prise en compte des capacités contributives. Par ailleurs, la redevance semble bénéficier de l’engouement actuel des décideurs nationaux et locaux pour l’impôt spécial, principale réponse apportée à la critique de l’impôt et au délitement incident du consentement des citoyens. Parce qu’elle en partage la philosophie, à savoir la mise en contribution des usagers potentiels ou effectifs d’un service public, la redevance semble bénéficier d’un réel effet d’entraînement. Si l’essor de la taxation pourrait à long terme être problématique pour la tarification, il en est bien un formidable catalyseur à court terme / Public service pricing grids implemented by the cities and intercommunalities will continue to soar as tax and tariff systems are changing.As far as charging fees are concerned, both utility and current, their merits according to the local deciders are greater than ever. Its scope broadened along with the development of local public services and the evolution of what may be economically, politically and legally charged. Meanwhile, what arbitrary resistances might have slowed down the implementation of pricing grids are starting to fade away.The regained interest in charging fees is also based on complex interactions with both pillars of the local tax system: the “general tax”, financing all the public services, and the “special tax”, financing a specific public service.Compared to the “general tax”, the charging system allows for more leeway and takes better into account contributory capacities.Due to the global defiance of the public towards the legitimacy of the tax system (almost to the point of challenging the consent principle behind it), both national and local deciders tend to lean for more use of “special tax”. The charging fee system is therefore more likely to be accepted as the core ideology behind it is the same: the contribution of citizens who are to benefit (even potentially) from a specific public service. If in the short term the rise of special taxes is a catalyzer for the rise of charging fees, in the long term it could nevertheless become a potential hazard