This paper analyzes the factors affecting the willingness to pay of urban households concerned with efficient waste management in Bangladesh. The multistage random sampling approach selected 1400 families from seven major cities in Bangladesh. This study addresses the socioeconomic and environmental factors that influence urban households’ willingness to pay for improved waste management services in Bangladesh. This study uniquely contributes to the literature by providing a large-scale empirical analysis of 1470 households using a logit model, revealing income, education, and environmental awareness as key predictors of WTP. Detailed survey data from respondents were then analyzed using a logit model based on the contingent valuation method. Indeed, the logit model showed that six variables (education, monthly income, value of the asset, knowledge of environment, and climate change) had a statistically significant effect on the WTP of the households. The results show that 63% of respondents were willing to pay BDT 250 or more per month. The most influential factors driving this willingness to pay were income (OR = 1.35), education level (OR = 1.45), and environmental awareness (OR = 3.56). These variables all contribute positively towards WTP. The idea is that families have some socioeconomic characteristics, regardless of which they are ready to pay for a higher level of waste collection. It is recommended that government interference be affected through various approaches, as listed below: support for public–private sector undertaking and disposal, an extensive cleaning campaign, decentralized management, cutting waste transport costs, and privatization of some waste management systems. These could be used to develop solutions to better waste management systems and improve public health.

The subject of Zamestik judgment (Court of Justice of the European Union, C-343/21) examined hereby is a Bulgarian farmer who was ordered by the Bulgarian authorities to repay the part of an agri-environmental grant from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) because, during the period of his commitment to the EAFRD, his agricultural holding was reparcelled and he was unable to fulfil his commitment to ensure the use of entire territory of the land for five years. The Opinion of the Advocate General and the judgment took different positions. From this decision we will learn about the concepts of reparcelling, reparcelling measures and approved land-consolidation, whether this concept should have a uniform EU interpretation and what kind of measures of Member States can be considered as reparcelling measures. The link between reparcelling, approved land-consolidation and agri-environmental objectives of the EAFRD and the “traditional land policy“ room for manoeuvre of the Member States will be examined.