The ecological consciousness of residents of Kielce on the treatment of municipal waste

The ecological consciousness of residents of Kielce on the treatment of municipal waste

 

In this study attempts were made to determine the ecological consciousness of residents of Kielce on the treatment of municipal waste and an evolution of consciousness based on survey. This problem was taken due to changing regulations so called environmental legislations and waste and eu directives. This rule in the proximal or distant future will force the society for radical change in attitudes to the natural environment, including waste of disposal. This survey is to determine the ecological consciousness on waste of medium-sized towns inhabitants and evolution of this awareness with a view of introducing new junk system that under the amended act maintaining cleanliness in the municipality on 1 July 2012 should apply in all municipalities no later than 1 July 2013.

Evaluation of the implementation of agri-environmental projects supported by European Union funds on chosen counties of Mazowieckie voivodeship

Evaluation of the implementation of agri-environmental projects supported by European Union funds on chosen counties of Mazowieckie voivodeship

 

The main goal of this paper is evaluation of agri-environmental projects supported by EU funds on Radom County and Lipsko County (Mazowieckie voivodeship).
The scope of research included farms in the area of the analysed districts, which implemented various packages under the Rural Development Programme 2007–2013. Within this range were tested farms, which in 2008–2010 implemented the agri-environmental programs, based on data from: The Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA) – Local Office in Radom and Lipsko, The County Office of Radom, The County Office of Lipsko and the Mazovian Agricultural Advisory Centre in Radom.
The most popular operation carried out by farmers were packages: “Organic farming” and “Protection of water and soil”. The share of subsidies in a farm income was 46,7–63,4%.
Despite of large set of 9 packages, farmers rarely used other than two above-mentioned. The reason is extremely complicated formal procedures and low subsidies obtained.