| Annotation |
Today, the Russia legislation in the field of waste management is updating, following the example of most European countries. The federal law «On Production and Consumption Waste» sets the direction towards maximum recycling of waste, reducing waste formation and reducing the class of danger of waste. In the paper the urgency of the transition to a new system of relationships in the field of handling with hazardous wastes, including the introduction of separate waste collection is substantiated. A comparative analysis of implementation costs for three models of waste collection and sorting at the territory of Chita from the moment of containers- purchase before the time of waste transportation to the location: the development of two types of containers at each site (with waste intended for sorting and not intended for sorting); development of four types of containers at each site (for paper, plastic, glass, unsorted waste); joint collection of waste in containers, their sorting at the waste sorting complex. The results are obtained on the costs of separate collection systems organization in the city. The calculations- results show that in a long term the model of two container waste collection has proved to be less expensive in maintenance, and the most costly one the model of four container collection has become. The advantages and disadvantages of each model in the organization of environmental protection infrastructure of a small city are outlined. The rationale for the feasibility of the current implementation of two container waste collection with necessary subsequent sorting at the waste sorting complex is presented. Its main advantages are: absence of unreasonable costs for installing a large number of containers and transporting waste, reduction of load on the waste sorting complex, light way of population readiness for the transition to a separate waste collection. An emphasis is placed on the need to introduce a model of two container waste collection in the territory of a small city, as a preparatory stage for the population and infrastructure for the transition to a four-container waste collection |
| References |
1. Boyarsky E. N. Tverdye bytovye othody (Hard Domestic Waste), 2016, no. 6. pp. 58-59.
2. Baruzdina Yu. M. Tverdye bytovye othody (Hard Domestic Waste), 2016, no. 1. pp. 32-33.
3. Dmitriev Yu. A., Baranova A. F. Regionalnaya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika (Regional economics: Theory and practice), 2015, no. 36. pp. 46-55.
4. Zabortseva T. I. Vostochny vektor Rossii: shans dlya «zelenoy» ekonomiki v prirodno-resursnyh regionah (Eastern vector of Russia: a chance for «green economics» in regions rich in natural resources): mat-ls scient. workshop, 2016, pp. 89-103.
5. Porfiriev B. N. Nauchnye trudy: institut narodnohozyaystvennogo prognozirovaniya RAN (Scientific works: Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences), 2012, no. 10. pp. 9-33.
6. Ofitsialny portal Zabaykalskogo kraya (Official portal of the Transbaikal Region) Available at: http:// www.zabajkal’skijkraj.rf/votes.html (accessed 15.01.2017).
7. Plyaskina N. I., Kharitonova V. N. EKO (ECO), 2016, no. 12. pp. 5-19.
8. Shubov L. Ya., Borisova O. N., Dronkina I. G. Tverdye bytovye othody (Hard Domestic Waste), 2016, no. 3. pp. 26-30.
9. Holl M. Tverdye bytovye othody (Hard Domestic Waste), 2017, no. 1. p. 45.
10. Sharina I. A., Perepechko L. N., Anshakov A. S. EKO (ECO), 2016, no 12. pp. 28-35.
11. Sheveleva O. V. Tverdye bytovye othody (Hard Domestic Waste), 2016, no. 7. pp. 40-43.
12. Bill Westwell, David Lawes, Diep Duong and others. State of Waste Management in Canada (State of Waste Management in Canada), Giroux Environmental Consulting, 2014, P. 135.
13. Yuan F., Li Q.M., Shen L.Y. Waste management (Waste management), 2011, no. 11. pp. 2503—2511.
14. Von Dohren P., Haase D. Ecological indicators (Ecological indicators), 2015, vol 52. pp. 490—497. |
