The EU has embarked on a resource efficiency trajectory in order to solve resource scarcity and general sustainability issues. The conversion of food waste into fuel is considered resource efficient as it makes use of resources that would otherwise be discarded. On the other hand, the food sector affects the environment substantially as it is inherently resource intensive and excessive. The purpose of the study was to assess how resource efficient the food waste substrate (feedstock for energy production) is from a life-cycle perspective. The study also aimed to determine if associated Swedish incentives and current market signals promote resource efficiency in Sweden. The food waste substrate has a complex life-cycle and current analyses neglect crucial life-cycle impacts. This makes resource efficiency difficult to determine in absolute terms. The first resource efficiency principle, that promotes the use of fewer inputs, becomes questionable as the food waste substrate has twice as many input stages in comparison to the food crop substrate. The second principle, stating that the food waste substrate should contribute to a low-carbon economy, also falls short due to a calculation method that neglects crucial emission stages. Due to the absent life-cycle perspective, crucial environmental impacts associated with food production are neglected. This affects the achievement of the Swedish Generation Goal and environmental quality objectives. The study concludes that the food waste substrate should undergo a thorough life-cycle analysis. Furthermore, it should be compared to other biofuel options in order to determine degree of resource efficiency. Only then can an appropriate set of EU and national policy measures be instated to safeguard scarce resources and promote a sustainable agriculture and energy sector.

Atliekų valdymo problema šiandien aktuali daugeliui ES valstybių, įgyvendinančių ES atliekų valdymo politiką. LR dar tik žengia pirmuosius žingsnius, pertvarkydama atliekų valdymo sistemą. Atliekų tvarkymas įstatymuose apibrėžiamas priemonė, bet ne kaip nuoseklus valdymo procesas. Tai sukelia nesusipratimų valdžios struktūrose. Didžiausia atsakomybė tenka savivaldybėms, jos įgyvendina atliekų tvarkymą tiesiogiai, o valdymo klausimus turinčios spręsti valdžios institucijos, dubliuodamos viena kitos veiklą, nepriima radikalių sprendimų, kurie šiandien jau būtini. Tvirtas požiūris į šią problemą ir raginimas kurti atliekų deginimą buvo išsakytas ir pačios prezidentės Dalios Grybauskaitės 2009 m. rugsėjo 2d, Kaune vykusiame susitikime su Kauno miesto savivaldybės vadovais, raginusios greitu metu imtis veiklos, kadangi žinoma, jog LR yra remiama ES, yra ir įsipareigojusi ES. Išanalizuotos direktyvos, įstatymai, planai, ataskaitos įgalina teigti, kad būtinas valdančių struktūrų greitas sprendimų priėmimas ir tikslų įgyvendinimas, apibrėžiant įstatymuose tiksliau institucijų pareigas ir užduotis, imantis sukauptų atliekų gyvavimo ciklo pratęsimo, įvertinant LR valstybės piliečių sąmoningumą atliekų tvarkyme (diegiamos naujovės įsitvirtina negreitai, o atliekos kaupiasi sparčiai). / Waste management problem in today's relevant for many EU countries to comply with EU waste management policy. Republic of Lithuania yet just takes its first steps in restructuring of the waste management system. Waste management legislation is defined as a tool rather than as a management process. This leads to misunderstandings inside power structures. The main responsibility lies with the municipalities, they implement waste management directly, and the authorities having to address governance issues, duplicating each other's activities does not accept radical solutions, which today are essential. Robust approach to this problem and call for the incineration of waste has been expressed by president Dalia Grybauskaite on 2009 September 2nd at a meeting with Kaunas municipality heads, she called in short time to take action, since it is known that RL is supported by the EU, is committed to the EU. Analyzed directives, laws, plans, reports allows to assert that the rapid decision-making and implementation of the objectives is necessary for managing structures, defining duties and tasks of the authorities more precisely, through the extension of the life cycle of the waste generated, taking the RL state citizens' awareness of waste management (innovation far from gaining ground, and waste builds up quickly).

世界各國面對垃圾量隨時間而逐漸上升的情形，原本皆視為必然趨勢，因此不斷地提供垃圾服務的供給來滿足家戶需求，以求達到均衡，這可說是「需求創造供給」。但是，一旦供給不足，在缺乏價格機能調節下，均衡將不復存在，於是降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策始被提出並被採行。另有一些研究則是瞭解人對環境的認知、態度與行為之間的關連性，許多研究發現其間關係為對環境知識瞭解愈詳細並傾向於新生態典範者，其行為表現就愈環保且較有積極的垃圾減量的行為，此為除了實施降低家戶對垃圾服務需求政策外另可同時進行的方向。 台灣目前已採用隨水量徵收垃圾清除處理費來反應各縣市政府在處理垃圾時的成本，不過因為此收費方式不是依垃圾量的多寡來收取，且家戶通常在繳交水費時無特別察覺到此筆費用，因此不會有付了清除費的感受，所以台灣近年來有幾個都市採行了減少家戶對垃圾服務需求方面的政策。此類政策大多分為兩種，一為行政命令式的強制回收；另一則是隨垃圾量收取垃圾費。台中市自民國88年7月1日首先實施「強制垃圾分類」，台北市則於民國89年7月1日實施「垃圾費隨袋徵收」制度，而今年1月1日，高雄市也採行了與台中市相同的政策，藉此來提高資源回收量、降低垃圾量。 本研究以一代表性家戶追求最大化效用，但受限於居住地的垃圾管理政策之條件，用比較靜態方式來分析在「無任何降低家戶對垃圾服務需求的政策」、「強制垃圾分類」、「垃圾費隨袋徵收」相異制度下，對家戶的垃圾源頭減量行為及垃圾丟棄量、非法傾倒量、資源回收量的影響。結果只有「隨袋徵收」具源頭減量效果，但是非法傾倒量也最多。若家戶只能以非法傾倒或合法丟棄兩種方式來處理垃圾時，那麼台中市、高雄市不會有非法傾倒的情形，但是台北市一定會有。而如果家戶只能在非法傾倒、從事回收間做抉擇，則台中市、高雄市會比台北市願意多做分類工作。至於若只有合法丟棄與回收間兩種可能性時，則要視其分類不完善的預期罰金與垃圾袋費用孰高來決定兩種制度下何者的回收量較高。 實證分析則得到對環境及垃圾管理認知、態度與日常環保行為愈正向者，其家戶會多花點兒心力於垃圾分類且垃圾量也較少。實施「強制垃圾分類」與「隨袋徵收」的地區，回收時間有顯著性地增加。但是對於減少垃圾容量，「隨袋徵收」才有顯著性的效果。本研究純粹探討制度不同對家戶減量行為的效果，而無分析不同政策的成本面，因此，環保單位應就欲達目的擇一適合的垃圾管理政策。 / The amount of household solid waste that is constantly rising with time has been an inevitable trend. In order to reach the equilibrium, the governments all over the world initially supply the solid waste disposal services freely to fulfill the demand. However, once the cost of supply has grown to such an extent that supply falls short, the equilibrium will be impossible to reach. Thus, many governments have changed the policy of providing free disposal service and developed alternative approaches to lower household’s demand for the service. In the meantime, some researches have studied the links between human perceptions, value, attitude and behavior toward the environment. Much of the research points to the fact that, the more detailed knowledge of the environment people hold, the more of New Environment Paradigm (NEP) they are, the more likely they are to actively reduce their waste and promote green behavior. This is one other route we can take to reduce household demand of solid waste services. The waste disposal fee is charged according to the amount of water used by the household to cover the cost of waste collection and disposal in Taiwan. However, this charge scheme doesn’t relate the fee paid by a household to the amount of waste the household discard, and most households are thereby indifferent to the payment of waste fee. In recent years, several cities have undertaken alternative policy schemes to reduce the household demands for waste disposal service. These schemes mainly come in two ways：one is to charge fees according to the quantity of waste generated; the other is to enforce the mandatory recycling law. Since July 1st, 1999, Tai-Chung City has required households to separate the waste into recyclable and disposable while Taipei City had chosen the latter fashion - waste fee per bag since July 1st, 2000. Kaohsiung City, on the other hand, has performed the same scheme as Tai-Chung City beginning January 1st, 2001. This study first develops a theoretical model of household disposal decision under different waste management policies：“no policy”, “required waste separation and recycling”, and “fee per-bag”. The household can choose among various options, including waste reduction, recycling, regular garbage collection and illegal dumping (or burning). The model shows that the “fee per-bag” is the only effective solution to source reduction; however, it induces the most illegal garbage dumping among the three schemes. In fact, the incidents of illegal dumping did not take place in Tai-Chung or Kaohsiung cities but was found in Taipei City. When households can only choose between recycling and illegal dumping, then Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung city dwellers are more likely to do more separation and recycling work than Taipei’s. As for when only regular garbage collection and waste separation and recycling are available as in Tai-Chung and Kaohsiung cities, the households’ likelihood to recycle depends on the expected fines of incomplete separation. Empirical result shows that when people have more knowledge about the environment and waste management policy, greener attitude towards environment, they tend to put more effort into waste separation and recycling, and their waste generated will be less than other households. The time people spend to separate waste increases significantly in those areas that apply “required waste separation” and “fee per-bag” programs. “Fee per-bag” has resulted in the largest decreases in the volume of the garbage.