Community participation in household solid waste reduction in Surabaya, Indonesia

(1)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Resources,

Conservation

and

Recycling

j ou rn a l h o m epa g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / r e s c o n r e c

Community

participation

in

household

solid

waste

reduction

in

Surabaya,

Indonesia

Yeny

Dhokhikah

a,c,∗

_,

_Yulinah

_{Trihadiningrum}

a

_,

_Sony

_Sunaryo

b

a_Department_of_{Environmental}_Engineering,_Institut_Teknologi_Sepuluh_Nopember,_Indonesia b_Department_of_Statistics,_Institut_Teknologi_Sepuluh_Nopember,_Indonesia

c_Department_of_Civil_Engineering,_Universitas_Jember,_Indonesia

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received6March2015

Receivedinrevisedform17June2015 Accepted22June2015

Keywords:

Communityparticipation Householdsolidwastereduction EasternSurabaya

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thegoalofthisstudywastoexaminethecommunityparticipationinhouseholdsolidwaste(HSW) reductionandtheinﬂuencingfactorsineasternSurabaya.Theresearchwasconductedinthreedistricts, namelySukolilo,Rungkut,andTenggilisMejoyo.TheHSWsamplingforSWcompositionanalysiswas performedovereightconsecutivedays.SurveyconcerningcommunityinvolvementinHSWreduction wasconductedin300householdsusingstratiﬁedrandomsamplingtechnique.Thequestionnaireswere distributedduringHSWsamplingforgenerationrateandcompositionmeasurements.

Results of this study showed that average HSW generation rate in eastern Surabaya was 0.33kg/capita/day.TheHSWcompositionwasdominatedbyfoodwaste(64.19%),followedbyplastics (10.79%),paper(9.24%)anduseddiapers(6.97%).Thesocio-economiccharacteristicshadlessinﬂuence thanthesupportingfactorsonsorting,recyclingandcompostingactivities.

ThisstudysuggestedfourstrategiestosupportthecommunityparticipationonHSWreductionin east-ernSurabaya.Thesestrategieswere:tointensifytheHSWreductiontrainingprograms;tointensifythe informationdisseminationthroughmassmediaandcampaign;toincreasethenumberofenvironmental cadres;andtooptimizetheexistenceofwastebankanditsfunction.

1. Introduction

Population, industrialization, urbanization, and economic growtharethefactorscausingtheincreaseinsolidwaste(SW) gen-erationindevelopingcountries(DhokhikahandTrihadiningrum, 2012).Householdsolidwaste(HSW)hasbecomeaseriousproblem inlargecitieswithhighpopulationdensity.Surabaya,oneofthe highlypopulatedmetropolitancitiesinIndonesia,facesthis prob-lem,whichisprimarilycausedbythelackoflandtoserveasthe finaldisposalsite,lackoffunds,andfacilities.Thispopulation gen-erates3982.25cubicmetersofSWeachday(SanitationWorking GroupSurabaya,2010).In2005,Surabayaorganizeditsfirstannual greenandcleancompetition,whichwasfollowedbymorethan500 neighborhoodassociations(RukunTetangga).Thisprogramaimsto promotetheimportanceofSWreductionatthesource.SW reduc-tionwasinitiatedbytheclosingofthefinaldisposalsite(FDS)in Keputihattheendof2001.InthisyeartheCleansingAgencyof

∗_{Corresponding}_author.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](Y.Dhokhikah).

SurabayaCityandUnileverIndonesiaCorporationsupportedthe initialSWreductionprogram(Trihadiningrum,2006).

Indonesiahassomelegalinstrumentsthatsupportthe reduc-tionofHSWatsource.Regulationonwastemanagementisstated inActNo.18of2008Article29.Itmentionsaboutthebanofwaste managementwhichcausesenvironmentalpolluting,illegal dump-ingandopenburning.Inaddition,GovernmentRegulationNo.81 of2012,conﬁrmedtheimportanceofreduction,reuse,and recy-cle(3R)ofHSW.Additionally,thereisalsoaministerialregulation on3Rthroughawastebank,namelytheRegulationofthe Min-isterofEnvironmentoftheRepublicofIndonesiaNo.13of2012. Theoretically,thepresenceofseverallegalinstrumentsgoverning 3RmakestheproblemofSWmanagementeasiertosolve,butin realitytherearesomeconstraintsinimplementationof3R.The implementationof3Rneedsthecommunityparticipation,the col-laborationbetweengovernment,community,privatesector,and non-governmentorganizations(NGOs),andamongthemembers ofthecommunity.

Communityparticipationisa keyfactorattainingthegoalof solidwastemanagement(SWM)(ChungandPoon,2001;Sukhor et al., 2011). In developing countries, community participation playsanimportantroleinachievingSWmanagement(Dhokhikah

(2)

154 Y.Dhokhikahetal./Resources,ConservationandRecycling102(2015)153–162

andTrihadiningrum,2012;Mongkolnchaiarunya,2005;Zurbrugg etal.,2004).In developing countrieswithlargepopulation,the humanresourceisthepotentialresourcefordevelopment.Human resourcesplaythekeyroleinSWmanagementindeveloping coun-tries.

Environmentalknowledgeisstronglycorrelatedwith environ-mentalactivity(Yenckenetal.,2000).Additionally,environmental knowledgeisconnectedtoimprovingthecitizens’attitudetoward the environment (Barraza and Walford, 2002). Environmental educationcansupportenvironmentalactionsandgenerate aware-ness,concern,andrecognitionoftheeffectofcitizens’activities (SalequzzamanandStocker,2001).Ontheotherhand,regulatory knowledgedoesnotautomaticallyimplythatcitizenswilladopt theseactions. Althoughmany citizensstate that theyare will-ingtorecyclewaste,inrealitytheydonotautomaticallyrecycle becauseof severalsituationalreasons(Corralizaand Berenguer, 2000;BorsgstedeandBiel,2002)

Environmentalcadreisdeﬁnedasapersonfromalocal asso-ciationoroutsideoftheneighborhoodassociationsthatprovides thepublicwithenvironmentalcounselingandguidance,suchas howtosegregatetheHSWandhowtocompostthedecomposable waste.Environmentalcadreistypicallyfoundineach neighbor-hoodassociations,andinthevillageordistrict.Theexistenceof environmentalcadrecansupportthedisseminationofinformation aboutenvironmentalissues,andcanimproveattitude, behavior andactionstowardtheenvironment.Inordertoimprovethe com-munity’slevelofknowledge,theenvironmentalcadrehastospread outtocommunitytomotivate,guide,counselaboutsorting, recy-clingandcompostingHSWatsource.

Wastebankis abank thatis establishedbythecommunity. Wastebankreceivesrecyclablewastefromcommunity(asthe cus-tomer/clientofthewastebank).Thewastebankacceptsrecyclable waste,suchasplasticbottles,plastic glasses,newspaper, maga-zines,books,plasticbags,corrugatedpaper,ofﬁcepaper,electrical wires,aluminumcans,ferrouscans,andwornshoes,amongothers, fromclients.DifferenttypesofSWmaterialshavedifferentprices perkilogram.EachtypeofSWisweighedandthenitsweightis recorded.Eachclientobtainsadepositbook,whichcontainsthe typeofwaste,weight,priceperkilogramandtotalamount. Cur-rently,therearemorethan20wastebanksinSurabaya(Ministry ofEnvironmental,2012).TheycanminimizethevolumeofHSW fromsources beforetransporting tothetemporarydisposalsite (TDS).

Theprimarygoalofthisstudyistodeterminecommunity partic-ipationinHSWmanagementinSurabaya,Indonesia.Theworking objectivesofthisresearchareasfollows:(a)todeterminethe gen-erationrateandcharacteristicsofHSWineasternSurabaya, (b) toidentifythesocio-economiccharacteristicsoftherespondents ineastern Surabaya, (c) todeterminetheinﬂuence of support-ingfactorsoncommunityparticipationinsorting,recyclingand compostingactivities,and(d)toanalysetheinﬂuenceof socio-economiccharacteristicsandsupportingfactorsonHSWreduction (sorting,recyclingandcomposting).

2. Materialsandmethods

SurabayaisthecapitalcityofEastJavaProvinceandrecordeda populationofmorethanthreemillionpeoplein2013.Thecityhas ﬁveregions(centre,north,east,southandwest);encompassing31 districts(kecamatan)and160villages(kelurahan)(StatisticCenter Board,2012).Thisstudywasconductedintheeasternregionof Surabaya,EastJavaProvince,Indonesia.EasternSurabayacovers anareaof91.18km2_._The_population_was_746,532_in₂₀₁₁_and_the

populationdensitywas72,297peoplepersquarekilometre. East-ernSurabayaconsistsofsevendistricts,42villages,390community

Fig.1. ThemapofIndonesia.

associations(RukunWarga)and2538neighborhoodassociations (StatisticCenterBoard,2012).

From2006to2013SurabayareceivedAdipura,anationalaward forcleancities.Surabaya wasalsoawardedtheASEAN Environ-mentallySustainableCityAwardin2011,andtheEnvironmentally SustainableCity(ESC)Awardin2012.Theseawardswerepresented tothecitywiththebestimplementationofsustainable environ-mental regulations. In addition,Surabaya receivedthe City-net awardinthecategoryofthebestparticipatorycityin the Asia-Paciﬁcregionin2012(SurabayaCityGovernment,2014).

2.1. Descriptionofthethreedistricts

Eastern Surabaya was chosen as the study area because it has economic and population growth rates higher than other regions.Thenumber ofpublicand privateuniversities,colleges andacademies, industrialand commercialareas increaseinthe lastdecade,followingtherapidgrowthofpublichousingtowards theeastcoast.EasternSurabaya consistsofseven districts.The selecteddistrictswerebasedonthepopulationdensity,whichthe densitywasbasedonINS(IndonesiaNationalStandards) 19-2454-2002(INS,2002).TheﬁrstdistrictwasSukolilo,whichcoveredan areaof23.68km2_and_was_divided_into_seven_villages,₆₇

commu-nityassociationsand361neighborhoodassociations.Thenumber ofresidentsin thisdistrictwas100,148withapopulation den-sityof4230people/km2_._The_second_district_was_Rungkut_with_an

areaof 21.08km2_,_consisting_of_six_villages_with₇₃_community

associationsand394neighborhoodassociations.Thisdistrictwas occupiedby111,286inhabitants,withapopulationdensityof5280 people/km2_._The_third_district_was_Tenggilis_Mejoyo,_which_covered

5.52km2_,_and_had₂₅_community_associations_and₁₅₆

neighbor-hoodassociations.Thisdistrictwaspopulatedby76,154residents, withapopulationdensityof13,796people/km2 _(Statistic_Center

Board,2012).Fig.1showsthemapofIndonesia,andFig.2shows themapofSurabayaandthestudyarea.

2.2. Samplingmethod

The survey sample size was based on statistical principles. Householdsweresampledaccordingtothestratiﬁedrandom sam-plingmethod.Theselecteddistrictswerechosenbythepopulation density,whichSukolilowastheleastdense(43peopleperhectare), Rungkutwasoflow density(53peopleperhectare),and Teng-gilis Mejoyo wasof medium density (138 people per hectare). Theselectedhouseholds hadvarious socio-economiclevelsand othercharacteristicsincludinggender,age,educationbackground, andfamilyincome.Therewerethreesocio-economiclevels(high, middleandlow)whichwerebasedonthetypeofdwelling. Deter-miningthetype ofsettlementwasbasedonINS19-3242-2008, withtheprovisionsofaluxury,medium,andsimpleresidential house,withsizetypesover70m2_,_between₄₅_and₅₄_m2_and₂₁_m2

(3)

Fig.2.ThemapofSurabayaandthestudyarea(Sukolilo,RungkutandTenggilisMejoyoDistrict).

ThesamplingHSWwasconductedinJune2013.Thequantityof sampleswasmeasuredbasedonStandardTestMethodfor Deter-minationoftheCompositionofUnprocessedMunicipalSolidWaste ASTMD5231-92-1994(Standard TestMethod,1994),withthe minimumweightof100kgeachsample.WeassumedthattheHSW generationratewas0.3kg/capitaeachdayandthehousehold mem-berswere4people.TheHSWgenerationforasemi-permanent dwellingrangedfrom0.3to0.35;andforapermanentdwelling rangedfrom0.35to0.4(PublicWorkDepartment,1993).One hun-dredhouseholderswereselectedforHSWsamplingandsurveyfor eachdistrict.Samplingwascarriedoutineightconsecutivedays. TherespondentswereaskedtocollecttheirdailyHSWintowaste bagswhichweredistributedonedaypriortocollection.The col-lectedHSWwasusedtodeterminethegenerationrateandthe composition.

ThecollectedHSWwastransportedtotemporarydisposalsite (TDS)formeasuringtheweightofHSW,todeterminetheHSW density,andtoclassifythecompositionofHSW.TheHSWsample wasweighedusingabalanceof50kgcapacity.

2.3. Surveyoncommunityparticipation

Wecommunicatedwithselectedrespondentstogaintheir con-sentto contributetothesurvey.Each selectedrespondentwas givenaninvitationlettertobecomerespondentanda question-naire.Each respondentwasvisited forquestionnaire checkand collection.Thenumberofrespondentsforsurveywascalculated usingSlovin’sFormula.Thenumberofrespondentsineachdistrict was100.TheSlovin’sFormulawasasfollows(Setiawan,2007):

n= N

N×d2+1 (1)

wheren=numberofsample;N=totalpopulation;d=error mar-gin=0.10. For further calculationof sample size was shown in Table1.

Table1

SamplesizeineachdistrictbasedonSlovin’sFormula.

Nameofdistrict Population Numberof household

Samplesize (households)

Sukolilo 100,148 25,037 100

Rungkut 111,286 27,822 100

TenggilisMejoyo 76,154 19,039 100

Interviews were conducted after collecting the answered questionnaires from the respondents. The questionnaires were reviewedtogaindataonawidevarietyofissuesrelatedto com-munityparticipationinSWreduction.

3. Dataanalysis

Aregression methodwasappliedtoexplain therelationship betweenaresponsevariableandoneormorepredictorvariables. TherespondentsselectedwereaskedtheiractivitytosorttheHSW, tocreate unique handcraftedgoods,and tocompost HSW.The activitiesofrespondentsinsortingHSW;creatingunique hand-craftedgoods,andcompostingweregiventhevalueof“1”,while theiractivitiesinnotsortingHSW,creatinghandcraftedgoods,and compostingweregiventhevalueof“0”.Furthermore,datafrom thequestionnaireswerecompiledandprocessedbybinarylogistic regression.

Datawereprocessedbydeterminingpredictorvariablessuch associo-economicfactors;andsupportingfactors.Thepredictor variableswerethefollowing:

(1)Thesocio-economiccharacteristicsincluded

(4)

respon-156 Y.Dhokhikahetal./Resources,ConservationandRecycling102(2015)153–162

dent’s agewas between36 and 50 years old;X2=3, ifthe respondent’sagewasbetween51and65yearsold;andX2=4, iftherespondent’sagemorethan65yearsold.

(c)Educational background (X3) had six categorical variables, whereX3=1,iftherespondentnevergraduatedfrom elemen-taryschoolorwasuneducated;X3=2,iftherespondentonly graduatedfromelementary school;X3=3,iftherespondent graduatedfromjuniorhighschool;X3=4,iftherespondent graduatedfromsenior highschool; X3=5,iftherespondent graduatedfromacademyordiploma;X3=6,iftherespondent wasundergraduateorpostgraduate.

(d)Familyincome(X4)hadeightcategorical,whereX4=1,ifthe family incomewasless thanRp 500,000;X4=2, ifthe fam-ilyincomerangedfromRp500,000toRp1500,000;X4=3,if thefamily income rangedfromRp1500,000 toRp2500,000; X4=4, if the family income ranged from Rp2500,000 to Rp3500,000; X4=5, if the family income ranged from Rp3500,000toRp5000,000;X4=6,ifthefamilyincomeranged fromRp5000,000toRp7500,000;X4=7,ifthefamilyincome rangedfromRp7500,000toRp10,000,000;X4=8,ifthefamily incomemorethanRp10,000,000.

(2)Thesupportingfactorsincluded

(a)Theleveloftherespondents’knowledgeconsistingof mecha-nismsofSWsorting,recycle,compostdegradableHSW,treat HSW into biogas, and animal feed, definitions of compost andbiogas,andtheprocessofrecyclingandcomposting.The responseswerecomposedof threechoices onscaleranging from“lowlevelofknowledge”,“sufficientknowledge”to“high level of knowledge”. The level of knowledge was the fifth predictor variable (X5).Therespondents’ knowledge hasan influenceonHSWsorting,recyclingandcompostingbehaviour (Ramayahetal.,2012;TroschinetzandMihelcic,2009). (b)Informationfrommassmedia(electronicorprintmedia)about

classifying,segregatingandhandlingSW(including decompos-ableandrecyclablewastes).Theinformationfrommassmedia wasthesixthpredictorvariable(X6).X6 hadtwocategorical

variables,whereX6=1,iftherespondentnevergot

informa-tionfrommassmediaabout3R;andX6=2,iftherespondent

evergottheinformationfrommassmediaabout3R.

(c)HSWreduction trainingincludedactivityof educationaland trainingsofSWsorting,recycling,andcompostingconducted bylocalgovernment;privatesectororNGOs.HSWreduction trainingwastheseventhpredictorvariable(X7),whichhadtwo

categoricalvariables.IftherespondentnevergotHSW reduc-tiontraining,thevalueofX8was1.Iftherespondentevergot

atleastonceHSWreductiontraining,thevalueofX8was2.

(d)Environmentalcadre—thepresentofcadresinthecommunity providingmotivationandcounsellinginHSWreduction.The environmentalcadrewastheeighthpredictorvariable(X8)and

hadtwocategoricalvariables.Iftherewasnoenvironmental cadreintherespondent’sarea,thevalueofX8was1.Ifthere

wasatleastoneenvironmentalcadreintherespondent’sarea, thevalueofX8was2.

(e)Theavailabilityofwastebanktoacceptrecyclablewastefrom thecustomer,andresellthewastetoanagent.Theexistence ofwastebankwastheninthpredictorvariable(X9)andhad

two categoricalvariables.Ifthere wasnowastebankinthe respondent’sarea,thevalueofX8was1.Iftherewasawaste

bankintherespondent’sarea,thevalueofX8was2.

Additionally,theresponsevariableswerethefollowing:

Table2

HSWcompositionsineasternSurabaya.

Typeofwaste Averageofweight(%)

Foodwaste 64.19

(1)Sortingactivity(Y1)—activityofrespondentstoclassifytheSW intodecomposableorrecyclablewaste.

(2)Recyclingactivity(Y2)—activityofrespondentstocreateunique handcraftedgoodsfromrecyclablewaste,suchaspencilcases, bags,wallets,purses,andﬂowers.

(3)Composting activity (Y3)—activity of respondent to convert decomposablewasteintocompost.

Logisticregressionwasappliedtoprocesspublicopinionabout thepublicacceptanceinarecyclingscheme(Keramitsoglouand Tsagarakis,2013),sourceseparation(Zhangetal.,2012).SPSS17.0 softwarewasusedfortheseregressions.The logisticregression modelwasasfollows(HosmerandLemeshow,2000):

g(x)=ˇ0+ˇ1X1+···+ˇpXp (2)

ˇ0=thevectorofparametertobeestimated;ˇp=thecoefﬁcientof

predictorvariables;Xp=avectorofpredictorvariableobservations;

(x)=theconditionalmean.Theinterpretationofbinarylogistic regressionmodelwasusedOddRatio(OR).OR’sformulawasshown asfollows:

OddsRatio=expB (4)

4. Results

4.1. ThecompositionofHSWineasternSurabaya

TheaverageofHSWgenerationrateineasternSurabayawas 0.33kgeachdaypercapita.GenerationrateofHSWinSukolilo, Rungkut, and Tenggilis Mejoyodistrict were0.39kg/capita/day, 0.31kg/capita/day and 0.29kg/capita/day–respectively. Genera-tion rateof HSWin Sukolilo district wasthe highest,and was followedbyRungkut andTenggilisMejoyodistrict.The compo-sitionsoftheHSWineasternSurabayaweredominatedbyfood waste(64.18%),plastics(10.79%),paperwaste(9.24%)andused dia-pers(6.97%).ThecompositionofHSWineasternSurabayaisshown inTable2.

(5)

Fig.3.HSWcompositionineasternSurabaya,(a)foodwaste,(b)paperwaste,(c)useddiapers,(d)glass,and(e)woods.

Table3

Socio-economiccharacteristicsoftherespondentsineasternSurabaya(n=300).

Socio-JuniorHighSchool 26 8.7

SeniorHighSchool 102 34

AcademyDiploma 16 5.3

wasteconsisted ofcoconut shelland bamboo packaging. Fig.3 showstheHSWcompositionineasternSurabaya.

4.2. Thesocio-economiccharacteristicsoftherespondentsin easternSurabaya

Thesocio-economiccharacteristicsofthehouseholdsareshown inTable3.Oftherespondents,63%werefemaleand37%weremale. Theagesoftherespondentsrangedfromlessthan35,36to50,51to 65andupto65,whichwere17.3%,30%,40.3%and12.3%of respon-dents,respectively.Theeducationalbackgroundofrespondentsin universitygraduation,senior highschoolandelementaryschool were39%,34% and11%, respectively.The familyincome ofthe respondentsrangedfromRp500,000toRp10,000,000.Thelargest percentageoftherespondents(20.7%)hadamonthlyincomeof

Table4

SupportingfactorsinHSWhandling(n=300).

Supportingfactors Noofrespondents Percentage(%)

LevelofknowledgeaboutHSWhandlingandreduction

a.Lowlevelofknowledge 55 18.3

b.Sufﬁcientknowledge 154 51.3

c.Highlevelofknowledge 91 30.3

InformationobtainedfrommediamassaboutHSWhandling

a.Never 117 39

b.Ever,atleastobtainedoneinformation 183 61

Receivedtrainingandeducationalprogram

a.Never 150 50

b.Ever,atleastreceivedonetraining 150 50

ExistenceofEC

a.None 191 63.7

b.Oneormoreperson 109 36.3

ExistenceofWBintheirresidences

a.Notavailable 230 76.7

b.Available 70 23.3

betweenRp1,500,000andRp2,500,000,and18.7%ofrespondents earnedamonthlyincomeofbetweenRp500,000andRp1,500,000. Only4.3%hadanincomelessthanRp500,000,and9.7%hadincome higherthanRp10,000,000.

4.3. Supportingfactorstowardsthecommunityparticipationin sorting,recyclingandcompostingactivities

(6)

Table5

Descriptionofsorting,recyclingandcompostingHSWactivities(n=300).

Respondent’sactivityinsorting,recyclingandcompostingHSW Noofrespondents Percentage(%)

ActivitiesofsortingtheHSW

a.Implemented 143 47.7

b.Notimplemented 157 52.3

ReasonforsortingtheHSW

a.Selfawareness 74 51.7

b.Commandfromleaderofneighborhoodassociation/communityassociation 35 24.5

c.ProﬁtfromsellingdryHSWuseforcommunityneeds 8 5.6

d.Increasethefamilyincome 13 9.1

e.Others 13 9.1

ReasonfornotsortingtheHSW

a.Laziness 51 32.5

b.Notime 60 38.2

c.Donotknowtheprocedure 29 18.5

d.Lackofspace 8 5.1

e.Others 9 5.7

WillingnesstosorttheHSW

a.Willingness 98 62.4

b.Nowillingness 59 37.6

RecyclingtheHSWtocreateuniquehandcraftedgoods

a.Implemented 15 5

b.Notimplemented 285 95

ReasonofrecyclingtheHSWtouniquehandicraft

c.Followfriend 1 6.7

d.Others 1 6.7

ReasonfornotrecyclingtheHSWintouniquehandcraftedgoods

a.Laziness 135 47.4

b.Notime 37 13

d.Others 22 7.7

WillingnesstorecycletheHSWintouniquehandcraftedgoods

a.Willingness 121 42.5

b.Nowillingness 164 57.5

ActivitiesofcompostingtheHSW

a.Implemented 27 9

b.Notimplemented 273 91

ReasonforcompostingtheHSW

c.Followfriend 1 3.7

d.Others 5 18.5

ReasonfornotcompostingtheHSW

a.Laziness 26 9.5

b.Notime 126 46.2

d.Nospace 12 4.4

e.Others 17 6.2

WillingnesstocomposttheHSW

a.Willingness 138 46

b.Nowillingness 162 54

The respondent’s activity in sorting, creating unique hand-craftedgoodfromrecyclablewasteandcompostingHSWisshown inTable5.Thesortingactivitywasperformedby47.7%of respon-dents,butwasnotperformedby52.3%ofrespondents.Theprimary reason for sorting was “self-awareness” (51.7%), and the least popularreason given was“proﬁt for communityneeds” (5.6%). Ontheother hand,themajorreasonsfor notsorting were“no time”(38.2%)and“laziness”(32.5%).Thepercentageofrespondents willing to segregate HSW was as high as 62.4%. This percent-agewashigher thanthat of respondentnot willingtosort the HSW.

Theactivityofcreatingofuniquehandcraftedgoodswasonly accomplishedby5%oftherespondentsineasternSurabaya.The

(7)

Table6

Resultsfromthebinarylogisticregressiononsortingactivity(n=300).

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 6a

Age 22.457 3 0.000

Age(1) 2.035 0.447 20.689 1 0.000 7.653

Age(2) 0.968 0.420 5.319 1 0.021 2.633

Age(3) 1.113 0.519 4.604 1 0.032 3.042

Levelofknowledge 23.078 2 0.000

Levelofknowledge(1) 0.768 0.392 3.831 1 0.050 2.155

Levelofknowledge(2) 1.943 0.434 20.002 1 0.000 6.981

Environmentalcadre(1) 0.588 0.317 3.442 1 0.064 1.800

Wastebank(1) 1.518 0.404 14.093 1 0.000 4.564

Constant −2.766 0.509 29.473 1 0.000 0.063

a_Variable_(s)_entered_on_step_1:_gender,_age,_educational_background,_family_income,_level_of_knowledge,_HSW_reduction_training,_information_from_mass_media, environmentalcadre,andwastebank.

Table7

Resultsfromthebinarylogisticregressiononcreatinguniquehandcraftedgoodsfromrecyclablewasteactivity(n=300).

Step 8a

Wastebank(1) 2.153 0.842 6.542 1 0.011 8.612

Constant -5.682 1.060 28.748 1 0.000 0.003

a_Variable(s)_entered_on_step_1:_gender,_age,_educational_background,_family_income,_level_of_knowledge,_waste_bank,_HSW_reduction_training,_information_from_mass media,andenvironmentalcadre.

4.4. Theinfluenceofsocio-economiccharacteristicsand supportingfactorsforHSWreduction

Theresultsofthebinarylogisticregressiononthecommunity sortingactivityareshowninTable6.Basedontheresult,the influ-encingfactorsfortheHSWsortingactivitywereageofrespondent, thelevelofknowledge,thepresenceofanenvironmentalcadre, andthewastebankavailabilitybecausethesignificantvalueswere 0.000;0.000;0.064;and 0.000,respectively.Thesignificant val-ueswerelessthan0.1(10%),indicatingthatthevariableshighly influencethesortingactivity.

BasedonEq.(2),thelogisticregressionmodelonsortingactivity wasasfollows:

g(x)=−2.766+2.035age (1)+0.968age (2)+1.113age (3)

+0.768level ofknowledge (1)+1.943level ofknowledge (2)

+0.588 environmental cadre (1)+1.518waste bank (1)

TheprobabilityofsortingHSWbyrespondentwiththeageof 36–50yearsoldwaseighttimesmorethanitwiththeageofless than35yearsold.TheprobabilityofsortingHSWbyrespondent withtheageof51–65yearsoldwasthreetimesmorethanitwith theageoflessthan35yearsold.TheprobabilityofsortingHSWby respondentwiththeageofmorethan65yearsoldwasthreetimes morethanitwiththeageoflessthan35yearsold.

Theprobability of sorting HSWby respondent withlevel of knowledge“sufﬁcientknowledge”wastwotimesmorethanitwith thelevelofknowledge“lowlevelofknowledge”.Additionally,the probabilityof arespondent withtheknowledgelevel indicated as“highlevelofknowledge”wasseventimesmorelikelytosort HSWthanarespondentwiththeknowledgelevelof“lowlevelof knowledge”.

Whiletheprobabilityofsortingwastwotimeshigherwhenan environmentalcadrewasavailablethanwhentherewasno envi-ronmentalcadre.Inaddition,theprobabilityofsorting wasﬁve timeshigherwhen,awastebankwasavailablethanwhenthere wasnowastebank.

Theﬁttedmodelofsortingactivitywasusedtoestimatethe probabilityonsortingactivity.Forexample,respondentof40years old(=1)withhighlevelofknowledge(=1),therewerean

envi-ronmentalcadre(=1) andawastebankinhisarea(=1).So, the probabilityofsortingactivitywasasfollows:

g(x)=−2.766+2.035 (1)+0.968 (0)+1.113 (0)+0.768 (0)

+1.943 (1)+0.588 (1)+1.518 (1)

g(x)=3.318

(x)= e

[3.318]

1+e[3.318]

=0.965≈0.97=97%

Ontheotherhand,iftherewerenoanenvironmentalcadre(=0) andawastebank(=0),theprobabilityofsortingwasasfollows:

g(x)=−2.766+2.035 (1)+0.968 (0)+1.113 (0)+0.768 (0)

+1.943 (1)+0.588 (0)+1.518 (0)

g(x)=1.212

(x)= e

[1.212]

1+e[1.212]

=0.77=77%

Theestimatedlogisticprobabilityonrespondent’ssorting activ-itywas97%,ifhewas40yearsoldwithhighlevelofknowledge,and therewereanenvironmentalcadreandawastebankinhisarea. Whentherewerenotanenvironmentalcadreandawastebank, theestimatedlogisticprobabilityonrespondent’ssortingactivity was77%.

(8)

Table8

Resultsfromthebinarylogisticregressiononcompostingactivity(n=300).

Step 6a

Gender(1) 1.079 0.534 4.081 1 0.043 2.941

HSWreductiontraining(1) 1.097 0.609 3.249 1 0.071 2.996

Informationfrommassmedia(1) 1.690 0.764 4.888 1 0.027 5.419

Constant -5.872 0.980 35.924 1 0.000 0.003

a_Variable(s)_entered_on_step_1:_gender,_age,_educational_background,_family_income,_level_of_knowledge,_waste_bank,_HSW_reduction_training,_information_from_mass media,andenvironmentalcadre.

goodsfromrecyclablewaste,suchasthepresenceofenvironmental cadreandwastebank.

BasedonEq.(2),thelogisticregressionmodelonrecycling activ-itywasasfollows:

g(x)=−5.682+2.074 environmental cadre (1)

+2.153 waste bank (1)

Theprobabilityofcreatinguniquehandcraftedgoodsfrom recy-clablewastebyrespondentswiththepresenceofanenvironmental cadrewaseighttimeshigherthanwithoutanenvironmentalcadre. Inaddition,theprobabilityofcreatinguniquehandcraftedgoods fromrecyclablewastebyrespondentshavinganavailablewaste bankwasninetimeshigherthanwithoutanavailablewastebank. Theﬁttedmodelofrecyclingactivitywasusedtoestimatethe probabilityonrecyclingactivity.Forexample,iftherewerean envi-ronmentalcadre(=1)andawastebankinrespondent’sarea(=1). So,theprobabilityofcreatinguniquehandcraftedgoodsactivity wasasfollows:

g(x)=−5.682+2.074 (1)+2.153 (1)=−1.455

(x)= e

[−1.455]

1+e[−1.455] =0.189≈0.19=19%

Ontheotherhand,ifthere werenoanenvironmentalcadre (=0)andawastebank(=0)inrespondent’sarea,theprobabilityof creatinguniquehandcraftedgoodswasasfollows:

g(x)=−5.682+2.074 (0)+2.153 (0)=−5.682

(x)= e

[−5.682]

1+e[−5.682] =0.003=0.3%

Theestimationofprobabilityonrespondent’screatingunique handcraftedgoodsactivitywas19%,iftherewereanenvironmental cadreandawastebankinrespondent’sarea.Oncontrary,ifthere werenotanenvironmentalcadreandawastebank,theestimation ofprobabilityonrespondent’screatinguniquehandcraftedgoods activitywas0.3%.

Theresultsfromthebinarylogisticregressiononcomposting areshowninTable8.Theinfluencingfactorsonthecomposting activityweregender,HSWreduction training,informationfrom massmedia,andtheexistenceofenvironmentalcadre,becausethe significantvalueswere0.043;0.071;0.027;and0.018,respectively. Thevaluesofsignificantwerelessthan0.1(10%),indicatingthatthe variablesexertedsubstantialcontroloverthecompostingactivity. BasedonEq.(2),thelogisticregressionmodeloncomposting activitywasasfollows:

g(x)=−5.872+1.079 gender (1)

+1.097environmental training (1)

+1.680information from mass media (1)

+1.191environmentalcadre (1)

Theprobabilityforafemalerespondenttocompostwasthree timeshigher thanthat fora malerespondent. Additionally,the probability of composting for respondent who received HSW reduction training was three times more than that respondent who never received HSW reduction training. Additionally, the probabilityofcompostingforrespondentwhoreceived informa-tionfrommassmediaabout3Rwasﬁvetimeshigherthanthat respondentwhoneverreceivedinformationfrommassmedia.In addition,theprobabilityofcompostingbyrespondentwith avail-ableenvironmentalcadrewasthreetimeshigherthanthatwithout environmentalcadre.

Theﬁttedmodelofcompostingactivitywasusedtoestimatethe probabilityoncompostingactivity.Forexample,iftherespondent isfemale(=1),andhasreceivedHSWreductiontraining(=1),and informationfrommassmedia(=1),withthepresenceofan envi-ronmentalcadre(=1),thentheprobabilityofcompostingactivity wasasfollows:

g(x) =−5.872+1.079 (1)+1.097 (1)+1.690 (1)+1.191 (1)

=−0.815

(x)= e

[−0·815]

1+e[−0·815]=0·307≈0·31=31%

Ontheotherhand,iffemalerespondent(=1)never received HSWreduction training(=0) andinformation frommass media about3R(=0),andtherewasnotanenvironmentalcadreinher area(=0),theprobabilityofcompostingwasasfollows:

g(x)=−5.872+1.079 (1)+1.097 (0)+_{1690 (0)}+1.191 (0)

=−4.775

(x)= e

[−4.775]

1+e[−4.775]=0.008=0.8%≈1%

Theestimationofprobabilityonrespondent’scomposting activ-itywas31%,iffemalerespondenteverreceivedatleastonceHSW reductiontrainingandtherewereanenvironmentalcadreanda wastebankin hisarea.Whentherewerenotanenvironmental cadreandawastebank,theestimationofprobabilityon respon-dent’scompostingactivitywas1%.

5. Discussion

(9)

recyclablematerialssuchaspaper(rangedfrom3.6%to30%),and plastics(rangedfrom2.9%to19.9%).Thecompositionofrecyclable materialstendedtomultiplyastheresultofthechanginglifestyle andtheconsumptionofmorepackagedproducts(Dhokhikahand Trihadiningrum,2012).

BasedonTable5,thereasonsofrespondentnotsortingHSW wereprimarycausedbylackoftime,laziness,andnotknowingthe procedureofsortingHSW.Therespondents’reasonsweresimilarto previousstudieswhichstatedthatthebarrierstosortwere“lack oftime”(Grodzin´ıska-Jurczaketal.,2003),lackofspacetosave recyclablesathomeandscarcityoflocalfacilities(Alexanderetal., 2009;Hageetal.,2009;Martinetal.,2006;PerryandWilliams, 2007;TimlettandWilliams,2008),aswellaslackofacollection service(Grodzin´ıska-Jurczaketal.,2003).

ThereasonsofrespondentnottorecycleHSWinTable5were laziness,notknowingtheprocedureofrecycle,andlackoftime. Theyweresimilartothepreviousstudieswhichstatedthatthe bar-riersofrecyclingwerelimitedoftimetodo(Alexanderetal.,2009; Grodzin´ıska-Jurczaketal.,2003;Martinetal.,2006),lackof incen-tivetorecycle(RobinsonandRead,2005;TimlettandWilliams, 2008),publicattitudestowardrecyclingactivitiesandtheir per-ceptionsof theconstraintsinrecycling (Alexander etal.,2009), assumptionof“producelittlewaste”(Grodzin´ıska-Jurczaketal., 2003),apathytowardsrecycling(RobinsonandRead,2005),lack ofpublicawarenessandparticipation(Grodzin´ıska-Jurczaketal., 2003;RobinsonandRead,2005;Shawetal.,2007;Singhirunnusorn etal.,2012),lackofenthusiasmandstimulus(Shawetal.,2007).

BasedonTable5,thereasonsofrespondentnottocompostwere lackoftime,notknowingtheprocedureofcomposting,and lazi-ness.Theyweresimilartopreviousstudieswhichmentionedthat theconstraintsofcompostingarelackofinterestandlackof aware-nessinsellingandpromotion(Hoornwegetal.,1999;Zurbrugg, 2002).On theotherhand,composting wasthebestanswerfor SWM,becauseitreducedtheSWvolume,suppliedplantnutrients, andincreasedthesoilquality(Körneretal.,2008;Mbuligweetal., 2002).Inaddition,decentralizedcompostingneedslowtechnology andbudget(Körneretal.,2008).Becauseofitsbeneﬁts,composting issupportedbylocalgovernment,community,privatesectorand NGOs.

Table6indicatedthatenvironmentalknowledgehadastrong correlationwithenvironmentalbehavior(Ramayahetal.,2012; TroschinetzandMihelcic,2009; Yenckenetal.,2000)and with theimprovementoftheresidents’attitudetowardthe environ-ment(BarrazaandWalford,2002;Singhirunnusornetal.,2012), and knowledge transfer could improve the SW management (Valaencia-Vazquezetal.,2014).

BasedonTable6,thepredictorvariablesinfluencingthesorting activitywererespondent’sage,thelevelofknowledge, environ-mentalcadre,andwastebank.Sortingactivitywasinfluencedby levelofknowledge(Ramayahetal.,2012;TroschinetzandMihelcic, 2009).Additionally,Table7showsthatactivityofcreatingunique handcrafted goodswas influenced byenvironmental cadre and wastebank.

Theexistenceofawastebankencouragesthecommunity activi-tiesonHSWsortingandrecycling(seeTables6and7).Customersof thewastebanksellrecyclablewastethathasvalue,suchaspaper, plastic,metal,andglass.Thewastebankprovidesdepositbooks tothecustomers,containingthetype,amountandweightofthe recyclablewaste.Thewastebanksetsthepriceofeachtype of SWaccordingtotheagreementbetweenthebankandthe cus-tomer.Furthermore,theamountofmoneysavedisobtainedfrom thepriceofeachtypeofwasteorthenumberofunitsmultiplied bytheweightofthewaste.Theamountofmoneyisrecordedin thedepositbook.Thecustomersofwastebanktakeanadvantage ofsortingandrecyclingHSW,becausetheycangainmoneyfrom sellingrecyclablewaste.

TheexistenceofawastebankinIndonesiaissupportedbylegal instrument,namelytheRegulationoftheMinisterofEnvironment oftheRepublicofIndonesiaNo.13 of2012.Manywastebanks wereestablishedin2012aftertheregulationwasreleased.Awaste bankalsosupportedthecreationofuniquehandcraftedgoodsinthe community(TriwardaniandSarmini2013;Purbasari,2014),such asbysupportingatrainingprogram.Thekeyrolesinreductionand recyclingwerethepublicawareness(HottaandAoki-Suzuki,2014), andknowledgetransfer(Valaencia-Vazquezetal.,2014).Training programcantransferknowledgeandtechnology,andimprovethe community’slevelofknowledge,andincreasetheirawarenessin HSWreduction. Inaddition,level ofknowledge canchangethe awarenesstoaction.Furthermore,thefunctionofwastebankis notonlyasamediafor sellingtherecyclablewaste,butalsoas amediaororganizationfortransferringtheknowledgeand tech-nologyofHSWreductionandimprovingthecommunity’slevelof knowledge.

BasedonTable8,gender,HSWreductiontraining programs, informationfrommassmedia,andenvironmentalcadreinﬂuenced thecompostingactivity.Informationplaysakeyroleinchangingof theattitudetowardSWM.Informationabouttheenvironmentcan disseminatethroughmassmediaorelectronicmedia,andmany citizenscangaininformationfromeducationandtraining. Simi-lartopreviousstudiesthatenvironmentaleducationcansupport pro-environmentalactionsandgenerateawareness,concern,and recognitionoftheeffectofcitizens’activity(HottaandAoki-Suzuki, 2014; Ramayah et al., 2012; Salequzzaman and Stocker,2001; Sukhoretal.,2011).Itwasstatedthatthegenderrolewas dom-inantin3RimplementationinothercitiesinIndonesia,because mostofthecadreswerewomen(Utamietal.,2008;Wardi,2011). Similartootherdevelopingcountries,womenwerethekeyroles inHSWreductioninYala,Thailand(Mongkolnchaiarunya,2005).

Environmentalcadresinﬂuencethecommunity participation onHSWreduction.Environmentalcadrestransferknowledgeand technology,guideandmotivatethecommunity.Knowledge trans-fer about HSW reduction improves the community’s level of knowledge,increasesawareness,andchangestheawarenessinto actionpro-environmental.

Therearefourstrategiesthatcanbeproposedtosupportthe communityparticipationonHSWreductionineasternSurabaya. TheﬁrststrategyofreductionHSWatsourceistointensifythe HSWreductiontrainingforcommunityandenvironmentalcadres. TheHSWreduction training cantransferinformation aboutthe HSWhandling,and reduction, and itcan improvetheir knowl-edge.Theparticipantsoftraining involveallofthecommunity. Thegovernment,privatesector,NGOs, institution,and commu-nitycancontributeintrainingmaterials,funding,traineronHSW reductiontraining.Thesecondstrategyistointensifythe informa-tionabouttheHSWhandling,reductionandrecyclingthroughthe massmediaand campaign.Thethirdstrategyistomultiplythe numberofenvironmentalcadresasmotivatorsandguidestothe communityintheHSWreduction.Environmentalcadresarenot onlyfromresidentsoutsidetheregionbutalsofromlocalresidents andlocalcommunityleaders.Thefourthstrategyistomultiplythe existenceofwastebankanditsfunctions.Thewastebankfunctions areasabankacceptingrecyclablewastefromcommunityas cus-tomer,andasanorganizationimprovingthecommunitythrough environmentalcampaignandtrainings.

6. Conclusion

(10)

socio-162 Y.Dhokhikahetal./Resources,ConservationandRecycling102(2015)153–162

economiccharacteristicsofrespondentshadless inﬂuencethan supportingfactorsinsorting HSW,creatinguniquehandcrafted goodsfromrecyclablewaste,andcomposting.Inordertoimprove thecommunityactivityin3R,thecollaborationbetweenthe gov-ernment and community, private sector,and NGOs have tobe conducted.Fourstrategiestoachievethegoalofcommunity par-ticipationin HSWreduction aretointensifytheHSWreduction trainingforcommunityandenvironmentalcadres;toincreasethe informationthroughmassmediaand campaignabouttheHSW handlingandreduction;tomultiplythenumberofenvironmental cadresfromcommunityandthelocalleaders;andtoincreasethe numberofwastebankandtheirfunctions(asbankwhichacceptthe recyclablewaste;andanorganizationforenvironmentalcampaign andtrainings).

Acknowledgements

Theauthorsgratefully acknowledgetheHigherEducation of Ministryof EducationandCulture ofIndonesiafortheﬁnancial researchfund,contractno.(013674.33/IT2.7/PN.08.01/2013).The authorsarealsogratefultoYoanitaPuspitaRatih,HendriSutrisno, andIntanJuliaLaksonofortheassistancesindatacollection.Our gratitudeisalsodeliveredtoDr.VitaRatnasariforheradvicein ﬁnalizingthismanuscript.

References

Alexander,C.,Smaje,C.,Timlett,R.,Williams,I.D.,2009.Improvingsocial technologiesforrecycling.Proc.Inst.CivilEng.WasteResour.Manage.162, 15–28.

Barraza,L.,Walford,R.A.,2002.Environmentaleducation:acomparisonbetween EnglishandMexicanschoolchildren.Environ.Educ.Res.8,171–186. Borsgstede,C.,Biel,A.,2002.Pro-environmentalactivity:situationalbarriers,and

concernforthegoodatstake.G ¨oteborgPsychol.Rep.32(1),1–10. Chung,S.S.,Poon,C.S.,2001.Acomparisonofwaste-reductionpracticesandnew

environmentalparadigmofruralandurbanChinesecitizens.J.Environ. Manage.62,3–19.

Corraliza,J.,Berenguer,J.,2000.Environmentalvalues,beliefsandactions.A situationalapproach.Environ.Behav.32(6),832–848.

Dhokhikah,Y.,Trihadiningrum,Y.,2012.SolidwastemanagementinAsian developingcountries:challengesandopportunities.J.Appl.Environ.Biol.Sci.2 (7),329–335.

Grodzin´ıska-Jurczak,M.,Tarabul,M.,Read,A.R.,2003.Increasingparticipationin rationalmunicipalwastemanagement–acasestudyanalysisinJasloCity (Poland).Resour.Conserv.Recycl.38,67–88.

Hage,O.,Söderholm,P.,Berglund,C.,2009.Normsandeconomicmotivationin householdrecycling:empiricalevidencefromSweden.Resour.Conserv. Recycl.53,155–165.

Hoornweg,D.,Thomas,L.,Otten,L.,1999.CompostinganditsApplicabilityin DevelopingCountries.UrbanWasteManagement.WorkingPaperSeries.The WorldBank,Washington,USA.

Hosmer,D.W.,Lemeshow,S.,2000.AppliedLogisticRegression,2nded.JohnWiley &Sons,Inc.,Toronto,Canada.

Hotta,Y.,Aoki-Suzuki,C.,2014.Wastereductionandrecyclinginitiativesin Japanesecities:lessonsfromYokohamaandKamakura.WasteManage.Res.32 (9),857–866.

INS(IndonesiaNationalStandard)19-2454-2002.2002.Theprocedureforthe operationaltechniquesofurbanwastemanagement.NationalStandardization Board.(inBahasaIndonesia).

INS(IndonesiaNationalStandard)3242-2008.2008.Wastemanagementinthe settlementinIndonesia.NationalStandardizationBoard.(inBahasaIndonesia). Keramitsoglou,K.M.,Tsagarakis,K.P.,2013.Publicparticipationindesigninga

recyclingschemetowardsmaximumpublicacceptance.Resour.Conserv. Recycl.70,55–67.

Körner,I.,Saborit-Sánchez,I.,Aguilera-Corales,Y.,2008.Proposalforthe integrationofdecentralisedcompostingoftheorganicfractionofmunicipal solidwasteintothesystemofCuba.WasteManage.28,64–72.

Martin,M.,Williams,I.D.,Clark,M.,2006.Social,culturalandstructuralinﬂuences onhouseholdwasterecycling:acasestudy.Resour.Conserv.Recycl.48, 357–395.

Mbuligwe,S.E.,Kassenga,G.R.,Kaseva,M.E.,Chaggu,E.J.,2002.Potentialand constraintsofcompostingdomesticsolidwasteindevelopingcountries: ﬁndingsfromapilotstudyinDaresSalaam,Tanzania.Resour.Conserv.Recycl. 36,45–59.

MinistryofEnvironmentalIndonesiasolidwastebankproﬁle.2012.National WorkshopofSolidWasteBank.Malang2–4November2012.(inBahasa Indonesia).

Mongkolnchaiarunya,J.,2005.Promotingacommunity-basedsolidwaste managementinitiativeinlocalgovernment:Yalamunicipality,Thailand. HabitatInt.29,27–40.

Perry,G.D.R.,Williams,I.D.,2007.Theparticipationofethnicminoritiesinkerbside recycling:acasestudy.Resour.Conserv.Recycl.49,308–323.

PublicWorkDepartmentWastegenerationstandardspeciﬁcationsforsmalland mediumcitiesinIndonesia.1993.LPMB.Bandung.(inBahasaIndonesia). Purbasari,N.,2014.Communityempowermentthroughrecyclingplasticwaste

(CasestudyonwastebankcommunityhousingpokliliinPerumahanGriya LembahDepok,SukmajayaSubdistricts,Depokcity).Thesis.SocialScience EducationDepartment.FacultyofTarbiyahandEducation.SyarifHidayatullah StateIslamicUniversity.Jakarta.(inBahasaIndonesia).

Ramayah,T.,Lee,J.W.C.,Lim,S.,2012.Sustainingtheenvironmentthrough recycling:anempiricalstudy.J.Environ.Manage.102,141–147.

Robinson,G.M.,Read,A.D.,2005.RecyclingbehaviourinaLondonBorough:results fromlarge-scalehouseholdsurveys.Resour.Conserv.Recycl.45,70–83. Salequzzaman,M.,Stocker,L.,2001.Thecontextandprospectsforenvironmental

educationandenvironmentalcareerinBangladesh.Int.J.Sustain.High.Educ.2 (2),104–126.

SanitationWorkingGroupSurabaya,2010.DraftofSanitationSurabayaWhite Book.SettlementSanitationDevelopmentAccelerationProgram(PPSP)(in BahasaIndonesia).

Setiawan,N.,2007.SamplesizedeterminationusingSlovin’sformulaand Krejcie–Morgan’stable:thestudyoftheconceptanditsapplication.Scientiﬁc discussionofSocio-EconomicDepartment,FacultyofAnimalHusbandry, UniversitasPadjadjaran(inBahasaIndonesia).

Shaw,P.J.,Lyas,J.K.,Maynard,S.J.,vanVugt,M.,2007.Ontherelationshipbetween set-outratesandparticipationratiosasatoolforenhancementofkerbside householdwasterecycling.J.EnvironManag.83,34–43.

Singhirunnusorn,W.,Donlakorn,K.,Kaewhanin,W.,2012.Contextualfactors inﬂuencinghouseholdrecyclingbehaviours:acaseofwastebankprojectin Mahasarakhammunicipality.Procedia–Soc.Behav.Sci.36,688–697. StandardTestMethodfordeterminationofthecompositionofunprocessed

municipalsolidwasteD5231-92.1994.AnnualBookofASTMStandards. Section11thWaterandEnvironmentalTechnologyVol.11.04.

Sukhor,F.S.A.,Mohammed,A.H.,Sani,S.I.A.,Awang,M.,2011.Areviewonthe successfactorsforcommunityparticipationinsolidwastemanagement. InternationalConferenceonManagement(ICM)Proceeding.

SurabayaCityGovernmentAwardsreceivedbytheCityofSurabaya.www. surabaya.go.id(accessed25.11.14.)(inBahasaIndonesia).

Timlett,R.E.,Williams,I.D.,2008.Publicparticipationandrecyclingperformancein England:acomparisonoftoolsforactivitychange.Resour.Conserv.Recycl.52, 622–634.

Trihadiningrum,Y.,2006.ReducingpotentialofdomesticsolidwasteinSurabaya City,Indonesia.In:Proceedingsofthe4thInternationalSymposiumon SustainableSanitation,Bandung,4–6September.

Triwardani,R.,Sarmini,2013.Acculturationofcharactercaringenvironment throughwastebanksinDuwetVillage,SubdistrictBendo,DistrictsMagetan. KajianMoralKewarganegaraan1(3),470–484(inBahasaIndonesia). Troschinetz,M.,Mihelcic,J.R.,2009.Sustainablerecyclingofmunicipalsolidwaste

indevelopingcountries.WasteManage.29,915–923.

Utami,B.D.,Indrasti,N.S.,Dharmawan,A.H.,2008.Householdwastemanagement ofcommunity-based:theexampleofthetwocommunitiesinSlemanand SouthJakarta.Sodality.J.TransdisiplinSosiol.Komun.Ekol.Manusia2(1), 49–68(inBahasaIndonesia).

Valaencia-Vazquez,R.,Perez-Lopez,M.E.,Vicencio-de-la-Rosa,M.G.,

Martinez-Prado,M.A.,Rubio-Hernandez,R.,2014.Knowledgeandtechnology transfertoimprovethemunicipalsolidwastemanagementsystemofDurango City,Mexico.WasteManage.Res.32(9),848–856.

Wardi,I.N.,2011.Wastemanagementbasedsocialculture:effortstoovercomethe environmentinBali.J.BumiLestari11(1),167–177(inBahasaIndonesia). Yencken,D.,Fien,J.,Sykes,H.(Eds.),2000.Routledge,London.

Zhang,W.,Che,Y.,Yang,K.,Ren,X.,Tai,J.,2012.Publicopinionaboutthesource separationofmunicipalsolidwasteinShanghai,China.WasteManage.Res.30 (12),1261–1271.

Zurbrugg,C.2002.Urbansolidwastemanagementinlow-incomecountriesof Asia:howtocopewiththegarbagecrisis.ScientiﬁcCommitteeonProblemsof theEnvironment(SCOPE).Durban,SouthAfrica,November.