Abstract: Discharge of urban living wastes is surging in China. Treatments of wastes include burning, burying and dumping, of which the first two prevail. Cost and benefits vary with waste treatments. This paper establishes a function of cost-benefits regarding burning and burying wastes, which is used to calculate the burning and burying costs in 25 cities at different economic levels, and discusses how to select appropriate waste treatments in accordance with their economy. Results show that burying cost is twice higher than burning in most cities, including tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 and below cities. Waste treatment cost in tier 1 cities is higher than tier 2, tier 3 and below. Burying cost is 2 258 RMB/t in tier 1 cities, triple the tier 2 and five times the tier 3 and below. Burning cost is 965 RMB/t in tier 1 cities, triple the tier 2 and four times the tier 3 and below. Among the cost factors, land use cost plays a big role in burying cost, while population density in burning cost. Burning cost is normally lower than burying cost regardless of their economic levels.

Key words: urban living wastes, burning, burying, dumping, cost-benefits analysis

摘要： 我国城市生活垃圾的排放量正在不断增加。目前，我国垃圾处理方式有焚烧、填埋和堆肥3种，其中又以焚烧和填埋为主。由于不同垃圾处理方式的成本、效益不同，垃圾处理方式的选择变得尤为重要。本文建立垃圾焚烧与垃圾填埋的成本-效益核算函数，并计算出25个不同经济发展水平城市的焚烧、填埋成本，探讨不同经济发展水平下各类城市所应着重选择的垃圾处理方式。结果表明：1）从处理方式上看，绝大部分城市的填埋成本都比焚烧成本高，一线、二线、三线及以下城市的填埋成本均为其焚烧成本的2倍左右。从各类别城市上看，一线城市的垃圾处理成本均比二线、三线及以下城市高，一线城市的填埋成本为2 258元/t，是二线城市的3倍左右，三线及以下城市的5倍左右。一线城市的焚烧成本为965元/t，是二线城市的3倍左右，三线及以下城市的4倍左右。2）在本文所选取的成本影响因素中，平均用地价格对城市填埋成本影响大，人口密度对城市焚烧成本影响大。3）不同经济发展水平下，城市生活垃圾焚烧成本普遍低于填埋成本。

关键词: 城市生活垃圾, 焚烧, 填埋, 堆肥, 成本-效益分析