Question

The State Department of Urban Development recently enacted the Decentralized Waste Management Framework (DWMF) to alleviate the growing strain on centralized landfills. Unlike previous policies that relied on municipal fleets to transport mixed refuse, the DWMF mandates that residential welfare associations (RWAs) manage their own organic 'wet' waste through on-site composting or biomethanation. The municipality now only collects non-biodegradable 'dry' waste and hazardous materials. To facilitate this transition, the government offers a one-time 40% subsidy on the purchase of approved processing equipment. However, ongoing operational and maintenance costs must be borne entirely by RWAs through monthly resident contributions.

While environmental advocates praise the DWMF for reducing transportation emissions and extending landfill lifespans, several lower-income neighborhoods have reported severe difficulties. For these communities, the remaining 60% capital expenditure and continuous operational fees present a substantial financial barrier, leading to the ad-hoc dumping of wet waste in public spaces. Furthermore, the policy assumes a uniform availability of communal space, ignoring the dense spatial realities of older, unplanned urban settlements.

Based on the implications of the DWMF described above, which of the following administrative interventions represents the most logically sound policy extension to address the framework's implementation flaws?