| | Household and municipal waste: Comparability of data in EEA |
| | 0,73 | | MB | member countries |
| | 69 | | stron |
| | 1824 | | ID | European Environment Agency |
| | 2000 | | rok |
| | Contents |
| | Executive summary.4 |
| | 1. Introduction .6 |
| | 1.1. Background. 6 |
| | 1.2. Purpose of the report . 8 |
| | 2. Methodology .9 |
| | 2.1. Definitions. 9 |
| | 2.1.1. Municipal waste 9 |
| | 2.1.2. Household waste 11 |
| | 2.1.3. Conclusions 11 |
| | 2.2. ETC/W survey 12 |
| | 2.2.1. Questionnaire design . 12 |
| | 2.2.2. The relationship between the ETC/W questionnaire and the OECD/Eurostat questionnaire 15 |
| | 2.2.3. Information on methodologies for data collection 16 |
| | 2.2.4. Time schedule for the survey . 16 |
| | 3. Results .18 |
| | 3.1. General conclusions about data comparability 18 |
| | 3.1.1. Overview of the information reported by countries surveyed. 18 |
| | 3.1.2. Waste categories that can be compared . 21 |
| | 3.2. Comparable data sets for the EEA member countries. 28 |
| | 3.2.1. Harmonised dataset for ‘daily household and commercial waste’ 28 |
| | 3.2.2. The quantity of bagged waste is declining in many countries. 31 |
| | 3.2.3. How useful is the category ‘daily household and commercial waste’ . 32 |
| | 3.3. The member countries’ method for collection of data on household and municipal waste 33 |
| | 3.3.1. General conclusions on method for data collection 33 |
| | 3.3.2. Other data collection initiatives . 36 |
| | 4. Conclusions37 |
| | Annex 1. Member countries reported data to the ETC/W.39 |
| | Annex 2. Footnotes explaining the ETC/W adjusted waste figures.57 |
| | Annex 3. Definitions of waste terms used in the ETC/W survey 62 |
| | Annex 4. Questions on method for data collection of household and municipal waste.66 |
| | References 68 |