Habitat International 119 (2022) 102488
Available online 24 November 2021
Community-driven material recovery facility (CdMRF) for sustainable economic incentives of waste management: Evidence from Semarang City, Indonesia
Mochamad Arief Budihardjo
a,*, Septa Yudha Ardiansyah
b, Bimastyaji Surya Ramadan
aaEnvironmental Sustainability Research Group, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 50275, Indonesia
bDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 50275, Indonesia
A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:
CBSWM CdMRF Circular economy Recycling Sustainability Waste minimisation
A B S T R A C T
This study of community-driven material recovery facilities (CdMRFs) in Semarang City, Indonesia, was per- formed with the involvement of all stakeholders. Descriptive analysis was employed to describe the existing conditions of CdMRFs. Stakeholders and spatial analyses were conducted to explore the potential development of CdMRFs and formulate the best strategic framework for improving their performance and sustainability. The results indicate that CdMRFs have strengths and weaknesses that must be considered when operating at the neighbourhood level. Although CdMRF practices have economic potential for recovering the value of recyclable waste material, according to the perspectives of CdMRF managers, some community members do not trust CdMRFs to recycle their waste because most CdMRFs are initiated by individuals, apart from official local community activities. Therefore, local policies to support waste recycling at neighbourhood associations, the promotion of CdMRFs, and engagement with all stakeholders are necessary to recruit additional members and increase waste recovery rates. Rapid, versatile transaction recording that improves pick-up and collection ser- vices may significantly improve CdMRF operation.
1. Introduction
Successful recycling in industrialised and developed countries is often supported by strict government regulations and a high level of public awareness (Pires et al., 2011). Governments play a significant role in providing high-quality waste management services by estab- lishing and implementing policies, laws, and regulations that govern all aspects of waste management, for example, community participation (Marques et al., 2018). Managing solid waste is more complicated in developing countries than developed countries because of limited recycling practices and solid waste management policies (Marshall &
Farahbahksh, 2013).
In developing countries, informal sectors have played an important role in managing solid waste because they collect and recycle used goods that have economic value (Wilson et al., 2009). This informal sector of urban waste management often consists of individuals who are part of independently financed and organised waste management services in
urban areas that operate apart from local governmental authorities (Guibrunet, 2019). The informal waste management sector comprise household waste collectors, scavengers and waste pickers, informal street sweepers, scrap collectors or itinerant waste buyers, and dealers or traders either funded by non-governmental organisations or indepen- dently managed (Ezeah et al., 2013). Non-government organisations (NGOs) and community-based organisations (CBOs) also improve the waste management system because they can encourage proper waste handling (Ahsan et al., 2012). A community-based organisation that promotes a recycling programme has been established in developing countries namely the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, which benefitted individuals and communities (Kubota et al., 2020).
Community-based solid waste management (CBSWM) is an approach based on community participation and involvement in waste manage- ment and recycling practices (Dhokhikah et al., 2015). CBSWM aims to reduce waste at the source, recover recyclable materials, and reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfills (Sukholthaman & Sharp, 2016).
* Corresponding author. Environmental Sustainability Research Group, Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Dipone- goro, Semarang, 50275, Indonesia.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Budihardjo), [email protected] (S.Y. Ardiansyah), [email protected] (B.S. Ramadan).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102488
Received 5 March 2021; Received in revised form 17 November 2021; Accepted 18 November 2021
CBSWM contributes significantly to solid waste management in several developing countries, for example, the Philippines (Wynne et al., 2018) and Thailand (Sukholthaman & Sharp, 2016). In the cities of Chennai and Hyderabad, in India, CBSWM was implemented by establishing a community-driven material recovery facility (CdMRF) that provided economic incentives and employment opportunities for local scavengers (Indrianti, 2016). CdMRFs are waste collection points at the neigh- bourhood scale, such that the community becomes the main actor in the recycling system. The establishment of a CdMRF as a form of CBSWM in neighbourhoods, hamlets, and urban villages was proven to trigger community participation in solid waste recycling (MacRae & Rodic, 2015). A CdMRF illustrates the effort of a community to support sus- tainable solid waste management practices while educating the public and improving recycling practices and general welfare (Purba et al., 2014). CdMRFs also improve the surrounding community because they increase awareness of appropriate solid waste management, knowledge of the impacts of unmanaged solid waste, and public concern about solid waste and build caring and mutually beneficial community enthusiasm (Indrianti, 2016).
In Indonesia, CdMRFs are well-known as waste banks that have customers or members from surrounding neighbourhoods and are managed by the community or local leaders (Raharjo et al., 2015).
CdMRF members are encouraged to perform waste segregation at the household and collection sites. At CdMRFs, recyclable waste collected by the community is weighed and valued according to the type and classification of the waste (Soesanto et al., 2021a). CdMRFs record all transactions and balances (deposited money from selling their waste) of all members. Members may withdraw their money from waste sales at any time once the balance fulfils the minimum amount of cash regulated by the CdMRF (Soesanto et al., 2021b). A CdMRF is typically preferred by communities over other informal recyclers when the former offers fairer prices than the latter (Challcharoenwattana & Pharino, 2015 2015). Many researchers have demonstrated the potential of a recycling system through a CdMRF project (Singhirunnusorn et al., 2012;
Wijayanti & Suryani, 2015). Although CdMRFs seem to be promising, the development of CdMRFs depends on the active participation of all community members (Singhirunnusorn et al., 2012).
In Semarang City, the capital of Central Java Province, Indonesia, the maximum actual recycling activity of CdMRFs accounts for 5% of the total generated solid waste (Raharjo et al., 2015). This percentage is low because of limited environmental knowledge of the community, which leads to low awareness and participation in recycling activities (Sing- hirunnusorn et al., 2017). Sekito et al. (2013) found that up to 33% of the waste generated in Semarang City could potentially be recycled through informal sectors. However, households’ waste separation practices are not performed properly because of low public awareness, an insufficient number of separated waste collection bins, and the un- availability of separate (organic and recyclable) waste transport
facilities (Fatimah et al., 2020). However, CBSWM in Semarang City has not been significantly developed as expected, despite its potential to increase the recycling rate (Dhokhikah et al., 2015; Samadikun et al., 2018). Additionally, the government recognises CdMRF as part of the efforts to increase community awareness and involvement in recycling (Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia Nomor 13, 2012).
CdMRF, as a model for CBSWM, is discussed extensively in this study.
A qualitative Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis was conducted to determine the key factors (internal and external) that influenced the sustainability of the CdMRF implementation. This study also reviewed the various constraints experienced by the CdMRF and proposed a strategic framework for sustainable CBSWM. The focus of this research was to determine the conditions of the CdMRFs in Sem- arang City and their potential to reduce waste, to determine the eco- nomic potential of CdMRFs and the factors that influence CdMRFs, and to reconstruct effective CBSWM through CdMRFs for sustainable recy- cling activity. This study examined the socioeconomic and practical framework of CdMRFs for sustainable municipal waste management, which may assist in solving the global waste problem.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 outlines the scope of this study, namely the study area and sample justification, and presents the research framework, questionnaire design, and data analysis to answer the research problems. Section 3 provides information on the current waste management practices in Semarang City and the CdMRF profiles and discusses strategies for implementing CdMRFs. Section 4 presents the conclusion and discusses the future implementation strategy and policy recommendations for CBSWM in Semarang City by implementing CdMRFs.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area, scope, and boundaries
This study was conducted on all CdMRFs actively operating for at least two years from December 2016 to December 2018 in Semarang City, Central Java Province, Indonesia. Thirty-seven CdMRFs that actively manage solid waste in their neighbourhoods were surveyed between August and December 2018. The number of CdMRFs in Sem- arang City has fluctuated because several CdMRFs have closed or con- verted to scrap collectors. All CdMRFs were formed independently, either by individuals or the local community, and prioritised the prin- ciple of integrated environmental management. CdMRF members were surveyed to gather their opinions, validate strategic frameworks, and gain insights into determining the best strategies for enhancing the CdMRF services. Informal solid waste recyclers, such as landfill scav- engers, street waste pickers, and solid waste transfer station scavengers, were also surveyed to gain insights into their views on the existence of and any potential competition between CdMRFs.
2.2. Research framework
The research framework is a modified version of that in Li et al.
(2016) and divided into six stages: (1) interviewing CdMRF managers (field sampling), (2) SWOT analysis of the interview findings, (3) focus group discussions with CdMRF stakeholders (focus group discussion [FGD] documentary, see Appendix B; Fig. B.1), (4) validation by CdMRF members of strategic priorities they selected, (5) interviewing scaven- gers, and (6) developing recommendations for achieving the sustain- ability of CdMRFs. The first stage aimed to gather information on the policies, regulations, and actions implemented by CdMRF managers, to maintain the sustainability of the CdMRF, and to determine the current practices of CdMRFs in Semarang City by conducting interviews. After obtaining the interview results, the second stage aimed to reconstruct SWOT analysis for achieving sustainability of CdMRF. The third stage formulated the SWOT strategy from the CdMRF managers, NGO, Abbreviation
CBO Community-based organisation
CBSWM Community-based solid waste management CdMRF Community-driven material recovery facility EPR Extended producer responsibility
ESR Extended stakeholder responsibility FGD Focus group discussion
FWE Family welfare empowerment GDP Gross domestic product NA Neighbourhood association NGO Non-government organisation NU Neighbourhood unit
SWOT Strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats
municipal governments and academic institution. The fourth stage validated the strategies constructed based on the CdMRF members’
feedback. The fifth stage gathered the perceptions of ‘scavengers,’ po- tential competitors of CdMRF development. The sixth stage is the recommendation based on field observations and SWOT results.
2.3. Field survey and FGD
A questionnaire-based field survey was used to investigate the suc- cess of the CdMRF programme as a CBSWM programme. The targeted respondents were stakeholders in CdMRFs, including representatives and managers, members, governments, industry, and the local informal sector (i.e. scavengers and scrap collectors). The first questionnaire was distributed to CdMRF managers to identify the factors that influence CdMRF management. The questionnaire was prepared for in-depth in- terviews with CdMRF managers to explore the various problems and opportunities experienced by CdMRFs. The questionnaire comprised three sections: the CdMRF profile, its business mechanism, and the improvement of the CdMRF quality services.
The findings from the CdMRF manager interviews were discussed with the stakeholders in an FGD, which comprised 37 CdMRF managers, four officers from the Department of Environmental Services of Semar- ang City, two academicians, a representative from the food industry, and a waste management NGO. The FGD was conducted by inviting stake- holders to verify the findings of the interviews and covered strategic priority sequences for sustainable solid waste management.
The second questionnaire was used to validate the strategic planning of the CdMRF and approved by all members of the FGD sessions. The questionnaire was distributed to 230 random CdMRF members. The members were asked about their activities in the CdMRF, preferred strategies for CdMRF development with reference to the FGDs, and opinions regarding strategies to improve the CdMRF services.
The final questionnaire was intended to reveal the opinions of the scavengers on the CdMRFs. This questionnaire was disseminated to 94 informal actors (scavengers) operating throughout Semarang City. The informal actor workers were asked about their profiles (name, age, gross income), picking activity (collection and transportation), waste selling, and knowledge of CdMRFs, and thoughts on CdMRFs in general. The questions asked to each targeted respondent in the in-depth interviews are presented in Appendix A.
2.4. Data analysis
The linear regression method was used to determine the relationship between the average amount of collected waste per member per year and the average net profit per month for each CdMRF. Sustainability factors were drawn from the literature and interviews. SWOT analysis was used to formulate strategies for improving CdMRFs in Semarang City, and the strategies were shared with the members to gain insights into the most successful methods for sustaining the CdMRF. The ques- tionnaires administered to the CdMRF members and scavengers were discussed and analysed descriptively. The sustainability of the CdMRF services is defined by economic (Eco), environmental (Env), and social (Soc) dimensions, modified from the model of Chardine-Baumann and Botta-Genoulaz (2014).
An average nearest neighbour analysis was used to describe spatial patterns of CdMRFs (Shubho et al., 2013). Hotspot analysis was used to determine the effectiveness of the average waste collected by CdMRFs.
This analysis is used as a reference in determining the priority of the CdMRF development plan for unserved areas. Spatial autocorrelation analysis (using Global Moran’s I calculations) was used to determine the threshold distance by finding the highest z-score value (peaks). The threshold distance value is the maximum service radius of a CdMRF. The highest z-score value indicates the scale where clustering is the most intense. In this case, the spatial analysis includes the effectiveness of a CdMRF in reducing waste in the surrounding area (Clarke et al., 2018).
Hotspot analysis was used to create a waste collection density map, which was further classified as low to high waste collected by the CdMRF and its members. Next, a hotspot map was generated to observe the pattern of what was collected and recycled by the CdMRF in each district (Kumari & Pandey, 2020).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Overview of waste management in Semarang City
Indonesia is a lower-middle-income country with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and GDP per capita (USD [2019]) of USD 1.119 trillion and USD 4,135.202, respectively (The World Bank Group, 2019).
Additionally, the GDP and GDP per capita of Semarang City are USD 24, 800 million and USD 3,790, respectively (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jawa Tengah, 2021). Based on wageindicator.org, the minimum wage of Semarang City in 2021 was 161.39 USD/month (Anonymous, 2021).
Semarang is the sixth-largest city in Indonesia, after Jakarta, Surabaya, Medan, Bandung, and Makassar. The population of Semarang was 1, 595,267, with a population density of 4,552 people/km2 in 2016.
Approximately 4.14%, or 73,600 people, are categorised as poor (Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Semarang, 2021). Semarang City comprises 16 districts (Kecamatan) and 177 sub-districts (Kelurahan). There are 1,499 neighbourhood associations (NAs)/Rukun Warga (RW) and 10,423 neighbourhood units (NUs)/Rukun Tetangga (RT) in Semarang City. An NU is the lowest administrative division in Indonesia and typically consists of 1–50 households. An NA typically consists of 3–10 NUs.
In 2018, waste generation in Semarang City was 5,080.51 m3/day, equivalent to 1,192.8 ton/day or 435,372 ton/year, and has increased by 2% annually (a waste generation map is provided in Appendix B, Fig. B2). The waste composition in Semarang City is dominated by organic (62%), plastic (13%), and paper (12%). Most inorganic waste recycling activities are conducted by informal recyclers, including CdMRFs, scavengers, scrap collectors, and traders. They work individ- ually or for small or micro enterprises. In a CdMRF, recycled waste is usually collected from households, offices, or restaurants near the CdMRF. Recycled waste is then resold to the scrap collector or processed by the CdMRF.
3.2. Overview of CdMRF 3.2.1. CdMRF general profile
The levels of education and age of the CdMRF managers are provided in Appendix B, Figs. B3 and B4. The middle-aged cohort dominated the management of CdMRFs in Semarang City. Additionally, 73% of CdMRF managers were women or groups from the Family Welfare Empower- ment (FWE), which in Bahasa is Pemberdayaan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK). This number was mentioned by several respondents who stated that the involvement of the FWE in solid waste management signifi- cantly influenced the existence of the CdMRF. The scope of the CdMRF service area comprised one village and one or several NUs, although not all communities participated in CdMRF activities. The average number of members per CdMRF in Semarang City was 197, ranging from 15 to 600 members in Melati Jomblang. The total members and annual solid waste managed per CdMRF are listed in Table 1. Each member recycled an average of 45.15 kg/year or 3.8 kg of solid waste per month. Thus, there should have been potential income for the community, especially for members. It is estimated that each member receives a maximum of USD 37.78 per month. This number is equivalent with 23.41% of Sem- arang City minimum wages. This practice can provide benefits and additional income for its members, up to 20.99% per month per the minimum wage of Semarang City (Table 1). The central CdMRF (City- scale CdMRF), built by the municipal government, has not been actively involved in the waste recycling effort in Semarang City because no appointed staff regularly manage and maintain the sustainability of the central CdMRF.
3.2.2. Working mechanism of CdMRF
CBSWM applied to a CdMRF began with sorting solid waste at each member’s home (Appendix B, Fig. B5). Solid waste was sorted into eight types (plastic bottles, plastic packaging, plastic sachets, cardboard, paper, glass, metal, and organic waste) or five types (organic, plastic, paper, glass, and metals) of waste. Once sorted, waste was deposited at a CdMRF to be weighed, recorded, and stored in the form of a monetary deposit. The collected solid waste was then transported to the traders or producers by scrap collectors for a certain period, depending on the agreement between the CdMRF and scrap collectors. Plastic was the most common waste received by a CdMRF, followed by paper,
cardboard, and mixed waste (Appendix B, Fig. B6). Members did not immediately receive the money from waste sales, because the money was initially deposited and recorded manually in an accounting book.
The accumulated savings from collected waste sales can be considered credit.
In this study, all solid waste saved was weighed and valued according to the market prices shown in Table 2. There are differences in the amount of data for each type or component of waste. For example, of 37 CdMRFs, two conduct transactions for aluminium waste. Some CdMRFs implement a percentage system in their redistribution of funds received.
For example, the Sari Asri CdMRF distributes its profits as follows: 70%
Table 1
Waste collected by CdMRF members.
No. CdMRF
Name No. of
Members Waste Collected per Year (kg)
Average Amount of Waste Collected per Member per Year (kg)
Total Sales (USD) per month
Operational cost of CdMRF (USD) per month (Appr.
5%)
Profit of CDMRF (USD) per month (Appr. 10%)
Total Member income (USD) per month (Appr. 85%)
Each member income (USD) per month
Percentage of member income to minimum wage (%)
1 Bangkit
Sejahtera 60 230 3.83 177.8 8.89 17.78 151.13 2.52 1.40
2 KSM Melati
Putih 40 2,510 62.75 533.3 26.67 53.33 453.31 11.33 6.30
3 Melati
Jomblang 15 941 62.73 106.7 5.34 10.67 90.70 6.05 3.36
4 Melati
Jatingaleh 50 3,600 72.00 533.3 26.67 53.33 453.31 9.07 5.04
5 Melati
Mangkang 55 2,098 38.15 711.1 35.56 71.11 604.44 10.99 6.11
6 Maju Mapan 105 1,596 15.20 302.2 15.11 30.22 256.87 2.45 1.36
7 Pandowo
Berjaya 78 1,741 22.32 533.3 26.67 53.33 453.31 5.81 3.23
8 Resik Becik 500 4,000 8.00 213.3 10.67 21.33 181.31 0.36 0.20
9 Lestari 45 702 15.60 142.2 7.11 14.22 120.87 2.69 1.49
10 Aisah 200 2,240 11.20 568.9 28.45 56.89 483.57 2.42 1.34
11 Sri Rejeki 24 6,000 250.00 1066.7 53.34 106.67 906.70 37.78 20.99
12 Mulya
Sejahtera 179 12,516 69.92 711.1 35.56 71.11 604.44 3.38 1.88
13 Seruni 135 600 4.44 64 3.20 6.4 54.40 0.40 0.22
14 Sedekah
Sampah 50 120 2.40 177.8 8.89 17.78 151.13 3.02 1.68
15 Gares 330 500 1.52 106.7 5.34 10.67 90.70 0.27 0.15
16 Dinar Resik 45 1,104 24.53 1137.8 56.89 113.78 967.13 21.49 11.94
17 Raflesia 122 1,300 10.66 853.3 42.67 85.33 725.31 5.95 3.30
18 Mawar
Mangkang 18 520 28.89 497.8 24.89 49.78 423.13 23.51 13.06
19 KSM Bina
Mandiri 600 36,000 60.00 85.3 4.27 8.53 72.51 0.12 0.07
20 Payung
Lestari 206 5,904 28.66 177.8 8.89 17.78 151.13 0.73 0.41
21 Alam Pesona
Lestari 45 11,952 265.60 533.3 26.67 53.33 453.31 10.07 5.60
22 Rejo Asri 20 120 6.00 213.3 10.67 21.33 181.31 9.07 5.04
23 Gedawang
Asri 356 9,962 27.98 533.3 26.67 53.33 453.31 1.27 0.71
24 Guyub
Rukun 30 732 24.40 497.8 24.89 49.78 423.13 14.10 7.84
25 Kemuning 20 300 15.00 426.7 21.34 42.67 362.70 18.13 10.07
26 Adi Dharma 81 1,146 14.15 142.2 7.11 14.22 120.87 1.49 0.83
27 PKK RT 4
RW 10 39 480 12.31 177.8 8.89 17.78 151.13 3.88 2.15
28 Mawar 20 444 22.20 213.3 10.67 21.33 181.31 9.07 5.04
29 Mekar sari 32 600 18.75 1422.2 71.11 142.22 1208.87 37.78 20.99
30 Musholla Al-
Firdaus 30 857 28.57 711.1 35.56 71.11 604.44 20.15 11.19
31 Lumintu 195 2,400 12.31 248.9 12.45 24.89 211.57 1.08 0.60
32 Mentari 40 1,038 25.95 142.2 7.11 14.22 120.87 3.02 1.68
33 Plamongan
Sari 46 3,396 73.83 712.2 35.61 71.22 605.37 13.16 7.31
34 Waras 84 852 10.14 248.9 12.45 24.89 211.57 2.52 1.40
35 Indria Jaya 53 15,600 294.34 1422.2 71.11 142.22 1208.87 22.81 12.67
36 Kreasindo 55 419 7.62 1066.7 53.34 106.67 906.70 16.49 9.16
37 Sari Asri 160 3,000 18.75 355.6 17.78 35.56 302.26 1.89 1.05
Average per member income =9.09 USD/month.
Average percentage of member income to minimum wages =5.63%.
to members in the form of savings, 15% to transportation, and the remainder to operational officers. The Kreasindo CdMRF allocates 20%
of its profits to salaries for operational employees and 10% to the maintenance of CdMRF facilities such as that for waste transportation vehicles and plastic or paper shredders. The ideal profit-sharing ratio from CdMRF activities based on national guidelines is 85:15, where 85%
is returned as member savings, and the remaining 15% is for operational activities such as accounting, photocopying, purchasing stationery, and transporting solid waste from the CdMRF to collectors (Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia Nomor 13, 2012). The net profits of CdMRFs from waste sales activity vary substantially, from 163.55 to 711.11 USD/year. On average, the CdMRFs’ profits are be- tween 0.021 and 0.071 USD/kg waste from sales to scrap collectors. For example, if X CdMRF sells 1 kg of plastic bottles to collectors for USD 0.110, the members receive USD 0.094 from the CdMRF, and USD 0.016 is retained by the CdMRF to cover its operational cost and profit. For some CdMRFs, proceeds from solid waste sales were reinvested in the CdMRF’s treasury or other social activities at the neighbourhood scale.
3.3. Stakeholder analysis of CdMRF
3.3.1. SWOT factor definition from managers interview
Many CdMRFs implement a savings-and-loan system in exchange for a community’s solid-waste-saving activity. For example, at the Aisah CdMRF, the public can frequently buy their daily necessities by saving and donating solid waste over a specified period. The money is obtained from the sale of handicrafts created by its members. The CdMRF teaches its members to manage organic and inorganic solid waste by training them in skills such as composting, making handicrafts, and sorting their waste independently. In addition to the benefit of becoming a CdMRF member, the community can earn additional income via recycling ac- tivity in the CdMRF. The CdMRF can also employ community members.
However, many CdMRF managers are self-funded and self-govern while performing their activities and do not employ professional staff to assist in the collection process.
CdMRFs are strongly supported by the Indonesian government and are listed in the 2012 Ministry for Environment Regulation No. 13 (Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia Nomor 13, 2012). In this ministerial regulation, a CdMRF is considered a recycling point that can be integrated into the industry to perform an extended producer responsibility (EPR) or an extended stakeholder responsibility and accomplish reverse logistics (Purba et al., 2014). However, in practice, this schema is difficult to implement. For instance, Gedawang Asri CdMRF collects single-use plastic sachets (the same manufacturer) from their members to be sold directly to the producer. However, because the amount of collected sachets is small, the industry refuses to accept collected sachets from Gedawang Asri CdMRF. The industry prefers to accept collected waste and recycle it in large quantities to simplify the handling and payment procedure. Therefore, the industry sets a minimum amount of waste that they accept. Because the amount
of recycled material collected by each CdMRF generally cannot fulfil the industry’s target, the EPR scheme cannot last longer than expected.
Notably, the Indonesian government recognises annually the cities that maintain a high level of cleanliness. City governments in Indonesia attempt to obtain a good environmental management performance score from the central government. Therefore, the existence of a CdMRF in a city is becoming an essential factor in improving its performance score and reputation.
A substantial obstacle to operating CdMRFs is the unavailability of managers to transport waste to collectors and recyclers due to an insufficient number of transport trucks. Some CdMRFs must transport the collected solid waste to collectors and recyclers because their areas are not covered by mobile collection services provided by collectors and recyclers. The leadership qualities of each CdMRF manager are also extremely influential (Indrianti, 2016). Managers who are persistent and consistent in managing their CdMRF tend to maintain their business for a longer duration than managers who do not. Additionally, their low recycling effectiveness impedes CdMRF sustainability because not all solid waste types can be treated and managed by a CdMRF unit. Ideally, CdMRF members are encouraged to sort and store their waste and transport their collected waste to a CdMRF on the collection day. In practice, members do not always store their waste, and the collection cycle can vary from once per month to once every two months. Most waste is neither sorted nor separated by type when received by a CdMRF; thus, managers must sort the incoming waste. In total, 68% of members sorted their waste before collection by a CdMRF, and the remaining members either partially sorted (5%) or did not sort their waste (26%). Occasionally, CdMRFs do not record transactions properly, resulting in missing records. CdMRF management is highly dependent on capital funding. Many CdMRFs close because of poor administration.
Other external threats to CdMRFs include price fluctuations from collectors, inconsistent pick-up times, unavailability of experts who promote and oversee CdMRF performance, community leaders (NA of- ficials, sub-district heads, regents, or local leaders) who do not support implementing CdMRF programmes, inconsistent public awareness, and conflicts with other community groups such as FWEs or scrap collectors.
Because many CdMRFs are unofficial community activities, the industry cannot support them unless permission is granted to neighbourhood leaders. Many CdMRFs do not receive funding and support from stake- holders because they compete with other official local community activities.
3.3.2. Stakeholders FGD
In the FGD, CdMRF managers, NGOs, local governments, academi- cians, and the industry were invited to develop appropriate strategies to empower and sustain the existing CdMRFs. Table 3 lists the 13 strategies developed during the FGD. The main priorities are as follows: weakness- opportunity (WO) > weakness-threat (WT) >strength-threat (ST) >
strength-opportunity (SO). During the FGD, many participants focused on the top priority, WO strategies, which are discussed in detail.
The main problem for CdMRFs is the low level of trust in the com- munity (i.e. residents), especially when neighbourhood leaders do not support establishing CdMRFs. Although CdMRFs can be considered a partner of the Semarang City Environmental Services Department, CdMRFs may have conflicts with scavengers, FWEs, and other CBOs.
This condition makes CdMRFs underperform and unable to develop.
Some CdMRFs also cannot obtain corporate social responsibility funds from companies or industries because most of their activities are not registered as official activities at the neighbourhood scale. These prob- lems should be considered in detail. Thus, the municipal government should formulate policy to accommodate possible conflicts of interest among stakeholders in the CdMRF. A strong promotion system might expand the service area of the CdMRF because this effort has effectively attracted many members and enhanced the recovery rate. Some CdMRF managers also stated that their impetus for joining the CdMRF was the many development trainings to improve their skills and creativity.
Table 2
Average selling prices of solid waste components to collectors.
Component Respondent Average Selling Prices/kg
(USD) Deviation Standard
(USD)
Plastic 17 0.092 ±0.032
Cardboard 15 0.085 ±0.018
Paper 11 0.092 ±0.036
Iron 13 0.180 ±0.043
Aluminium 2 0.640 ±0.110
Other metals 11 0.064 ±0.036
Glass 8 0.021 ±0.021
Mixed waste 8 0.085 ±0.036
Organic
waste 4 0.110 ±0.011
Sources: CdMRF manager’s interview.
Therefore, this top priority of strategies should be confirmed by CdMRF members and informal actors because they have a dominant contribu- tion to the sustainability of the CdMRF management system.
3.3.3. CdMRF members perception to the FGD results
Interviewing CdMRF members was essential for validating the stra- tegic framework proposed in the FGD. The survey results were clustered based on the respondents’ income (55%, low income; 21%, mid-level income; 24%, high income). Each income cluster has a different moti- vation for being a member of a CdMRF. Low-income respondents became a member of a CdMRF for social reasons (50%), reducing household waste and preventing environmental impact (25%), and
additional income (25%). Environmental awareness is the primary reason for middle-income respondents becoming CdMRFs’ members.
The same pattern is found among high-income respondents who join CdMRFs to reduce their household waste and preserve the environment.
Notably, differences were observed between the three clusters when prioritising the strategies developed through the FGD.
Table 4 shows that low-income members are the most focused on the status clarification of CdMRFs. These members mentioned that the local government should provide incentives and other facilities for CdMRF development. Laws and regulation enforcement are part of a successful, sustainable CdMRF. Middle-income members are concerned about CdMRF promotional efforts, which can be achieved through social media by an influencer artist or by advertising. CdMRFs should produce or recycle their waste to maximise profit rather than sell all their waste to scrap collectors. High-income members focus on the development of CdMRFs, which could lead to improved pick-up services and managerial integrity. An ‘openness’ system that allows members to view their sav- ings history and scheduled pick-up services can also achieve sustainable management of CdMRFs. This finding may provide insights into devel- oping CdMRF based on the specific characteristics of the neighbourhood.
3.3.4. Involvement of scavengers in CdMRF activities
The findings from the distributed questionnaires showed that most scavengers could not define a CdMRF: 35% of respondents provided the correct definition. Within that 35%, approximately 7% assumed that CdMRFs were a type of scrap collector that receives and buys recycled waste. Therefore, this 7% believed that CdMRFs would be a potential threat to them because of the reduced amount of recycled waste in households. Another 7% of the respondents were interested in cooper- ating with CdMRFs because they offered better prices than scrap col- lectors. Approximately 11% of the 65% of respondents who were not familiar with CdMRFs were informed of the CdMRFs’ operations and then felt insecure about their existence because of potential competition with CdMRFs. The remaining respondents (54%) did not consider CdMRFs as competitors.
Scavengers, including street pickers, landfill scavengers, and tem- porary waste collection site scavengers, are the most significant con- tributors to waste recycling in Semarang City, unlike other informal recyclers. A total of 2,584 scavengers were registered in the database of the Scavengers Association of Semarang City. Scavengers are the main actors in household-level recycling, not CdMRFs. They can recycle ±15 kg/person/day of inorganic waste; thus, they recycle 8.54% of all inorganic waste in Semarang City. Ironically, the price of recycled goods at scrap collectors for scavengers is exceptionally low. On average, the Table 3
Strategic framework for a sustainable CdMRF via SWOT analysis and its rela- tionship with sustainability performance factors.
Internal Factors
External Factors Strength (S) Weakness (W) 1. Increasing community
income (Eco) 1. Unable to transport waste to the collectors/recyclers (Env)
2. Employment of community members (Soc)
2. Types of leadership of CdMRF managers (Soc) 3. Independent organic
and inorganic waste management (Env)
3. Lack of capital resources (Eco) 4. Micro-credit/loan
scheme programme (Eco)
4. Lack of motivation to do waste segregation (Soc)
5. Unclear organisation and undisciplined management system (Soc)
Opportunity (O) SO-strategies WO strategies 1. Support from the
government with related ministerial regulations (Soc)
•Diversifying CdMRF activities and products (S1)
•Clarifying the status of CdMRF at the neighbourhood association scale to achieve trust (S4) 2. Government’s policy
to place the CdMRF component in benchmarking with other cities (Soc)
•Developing the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme to increase profits (S2)
•Structuring policies and regulations on waste management priorities (S5) 3. Support from other
waste management stakeholders through EPR mechanism (Eco)
•Increasing the quantity and quality of CdMRF (S3)
•Marketing communication enhancement for the development of CdMRF (S6)
•Conducting training, counselling, and outreach programmes (S7)
Threats (T) ST-strategies WT-strategies 1. Purchasing price
fluctuations among collectors (Soc)
•Synergising CdMRF with other communities (S8)
•Increasing stakeholders’ role in supporting CdMRF (S11)
2. Inconsistent waste pick-up times among collectors (Soc)
•Promotion with stakeholders regarding the urgency of CdMRF (S9)
•Increasing community participation by utilising advanced technology (S12) 3. Lack number of
experts who foster and oversee the performance of the CdMRF (Env)
•Maximising the role of neighbourhood-scale CdMRF and central CdMRF (S10)
•Expanding the scope of CdMRF services (S13)
4. Unsupportive community leaders (Soc)
5. Low community involvement (Soc) 6. Conflicts of interest
with other communities (Soc)
Table 4
Top three strategies based on CdMRF members than FGD results.
Priority FGD Results Low Middle High
First Clarifying the status of CdMRFs at the neighbourhood association scale to achieve trust (S4)
Structuring policies and regulations on waste management priorities (S5)
Socialisation with stakeholders regarding the urgency of CdMRFs (S9)
Increasing community participation by utilising advanced technology (S12) Second Structuring
policies and regulations on waste management priorities (S5)
Increasing the quantity and quality of CdMRF (S3)
Marketing communication enhancement for the development of CdMRFs (S6)
Expanding the scope of CdMRF services (S13)
Third Marketing communication enhancement for the development of CdMRFs (S6)
Socialisation with stakeholders regarding the urgency of CdMRFs (S9)
Synergising CdMRFs with other communities (S8)
Marketing communication enhancement for the development of CdMRFs (S6)
scavengers make 3 USD/day net profit, which is under the minimum daily standard wages of Semarang City. Scrap collectors, traders, and producers earn far than profits because they are market leaders in the informal recycling sector. Therefore, scavengers and CdMRFs should be able to work together in a cooperative partnership, despite being com- petitors. Some non-governmental organisations have employed scav- engers as part of their integrated solid waste management strategies.
Scavengers can be waste-picker agents in scheduled pick-up services in collaboration with individual CdMRFs. Additionally, CdMRFs at the NA level should offer greater incentives to scavengers than to scrap collec- tors and promote waste segregation at the source.
3.4. Spatial analysis
Spatial statistics showed a z-score value of − 1.238, a nearest- neighbour ratio of 0.892, and a p value of 0.216. The average distance between the closest CdMRFs is 1,469 m. These results indicate that the distribution pattern of CdMRFs has not even throughout Semarang City at a certain distance. This condition means that an additional CdMRF is necessary for some districts to reduce the waste sent to landfills. We found that CdMRFs were not evenly distributed; thus, hotspot analysis was performed to identify the effect of waste that has been recycled by the CdMRF and determine the number of additional CdMRFs for future development. The spatial autocorrelation analysis indicate that coverage area of a CdMRF is at a radius of 5,677.17 m. This number is the basis of the threshold distance value in hotspot analysis.
As shown in Fig. 1(a), the yellow and red dots represent the contri- bution of CdMRFs to waste generation. No blue dot is in the figure; thus, all CdMRFs in Semarang City actively manage waste generated in the area. The CdMRF in the Pedurungan, Candisari, and Tembalang districts contributes to the total waste collected by CdMRFs in Semarang City.
The CdMRF in each district should improve its collection quantity and efficiency to reduce the high waste volume in Semarang City. The CdMRF grouping, which has a high level of confidence in the effec- tiveness of services, includes the Alam Pesona Lestari, Melati Jatingaleh, KSM Bina Mandiri, Musholla Al-Firdaus, Waras, Seruni, and Sari Asri CdMRFs. The Tembalang district also collects a significant amount of waste per member at CdMRFs. The increasing number of members in this area could provide a substantial amount of waste reduction. The radius of the CdMRF services, as shown in Fig. 1(b), follows the threshold distance value. This figure indicates that some areas were not covered by CdMRFs. These areas composed most of the districts of the Semarang City, except the Gunungpati, Tembalang, and Pedurungan districts. According to the patterns on the spatial map, places with po- tential for developing new CdMRFs were in the Ngaliyan, Tembalang, and Semarang Barat districts.
3.5. Another constraint in achieving CdMRF sustainability
A CdMRF is a facility in which innovative community-based activ- ities are performed: the community consciously performs solid waste management properly, appropriately, and effectively (Purba et al., 2014). A well-managed CdMRF can also generate profits for managers (Samadikun et al., 2018). According to the sequential survey and FGD, there are several constraints in implementing the CBSWM system by using CdMRFs in Semarang City. In the economic context, there is a significant difference in the selling price of waste components in each CdMRF, due to several factors. First, the categories and waste compo- sition significantly affect the sale value; for example, plastic and card- board have different selling prices (Table 2). Second, the economic value and various life cycles of waste components also cause variations in the selling price of waste at the collector level. Third, traders play a signif- icant role in affecting the changes in the selling price of each waste component. However, collectors’ and traders’ markets are not analysed in detail in this study; thus, the economies of scope of those sectors cannot be explained in detail. Fourth, a central CdMRF is predicted to
add to the value of recycled waste by establishing short-chain recycling in the industry. However, establishing a central CdMRF as a price regulator for CdMRFs at the NA scale has not achieved the intended objectives (Kubota et al., 2020). Finally, Simoes et al. (2013) found that the economies of urban waste services are affected by the number of vehicles and staff, which may result in variations in the purchasing price of waste at each market level.
The existing CdMRF operation can recycle 0.03% of the overall waste generated per year in Semarang City. This value is lower than that of the waste recycled by scavengers (see subsection 3.3.4). However, Semar- ang City can still achieve its target by promoting CdMRFs as suitable recycling centres for each NA. Linear regression analysis showed that CdMRF profits were affected by the amount of waste collected per member. In this case, the recycling rate per capita should be increased to enhance the profits of the CdMRF. the recycling reate per capita is positively correlated and contributes 47.1% of the total incentives received by the CdMRF (Xu et al., 2015). In this case, incentivising members to increase their recycling rates is essential for the survival of a CdMRF. Four of the 37 CdMRFs managed their organic waste by com- posting. At present, one of the four CdMRFs still performs the practice using the windrow composting method. Because organic waste com- poses more than 61% of the waste in Semarang City, its potential source should be determined. The CdMRFs that process their organic waste have many barriers to implementing their practices at the household level. Because the city has limited space for open composting methods, composting facilities such as Takakura pots, compost bins, and shred- ding machines should be provided for processing kitchen or garden waste. However, window composting requires a large area for process- ing organic waste. Second, the low monetary value of compost (compared with operational and investment costs) may hinder a com- munity’s willingness to compost at the household level. Third, the composting process is time consuming and requires patience. Despite the obstacles to organic waste recycling, these efforts are invaluable in reducing the amount of organic waste sent to landfills.
From a social viewpoint, Wijayanti and Suryani (2015) stated that the development of a CdMRF was proven to support and encourage community independence regarding solid waste and environmental management. The efficacy of a recycling management system increases when community leaders are involved as community-based environ- mental managers. Local leaders can increase the low level of trust in the recycling system among residents by encouraging residents to engage in regular recycling and synergise the CdMRF activity with another CBO in an NA. The Semarang City Government and political intervention in the CdMRF affect residents’ motivation to participate in the CdMRF (Kubota et al., 2020). Aprilia et al. (2013) stated that solid waste management regulations have neither accommodated nor clarified the actors responsible for providing facilities, information, or the status of CdMRFs. They are also hindered by administrative matters that are not immediately resolvable (Aprilia et al., 2013).
3.6. Policy implication and recommendation for CdMRF sustainability The results demonstrated that the following criteria should be ful- filled to achieve the sustainability of CdMRFs: community leaders sup- port the implementation of CdMRFs because they have the most substantial effect on the CdMRF operation; strong engagement via mass communication or another effort is practiced to raise public awareness to attract additional members; the municipal government develops municipal-level guidelines for establishing a CdMRF; scavengers develop a good partnership with CdMRFs such that scavengers become waste pick-up agents (Fig. 2; red line); the municipal government en- dorses the establishment of CdMRFs, especially in districts with the highest waste generation and without a CdMRF. Additionally, CBSWM can be an alternative method of solving local and regional waste prob- lems, especially for developing countries, by empowering local com- munities within their specific social culture.
Fig. 1. (a) Hotspot map of waste collected per year by CdMRFs; (b) service radius maps of existing CdMRFs in Semarang City.
4. Conclusions
Currently, CBSWM is not considered particularly effective in reducing waste generation in Semarang City because of the low number of active CdMRFs over more than two years. CdMRFs have the potential to increase incomes within their community. However, they must in- crease their membership and the weight of waste collected per member to maximise profits and ensure the sustainability of CBSWM. This ac- tivity can increase the incomes of residents, especially those in the lower-middle-class, who earn on average USD 9.09 or 5% per month of the minimum wages in Semarang City. Challenges to CdMRF sustain- ability exist in the form of low stakeholder involvement in waste man- agement activities, conflicts of interest, dependence of the CdMRF on collectors, inadequate resources, and poor management. Nevertheless, CdMRFs have the opportunity to sway public opinion and create a clean, healthy environment. CdMRFs also need to obtain trust from residents to increase their services in each region. Local policies and regulations related to recycling efforts in Semarang City should be strengthened, and recycling promotion should be expanded to increase membership and increase recycling rates. Additionally, our spatial analyses show that CdMRFs are not evenly distributed throughout Semarang City; thus, massive promotion and increasing the number of CdMRFs in the Nga- liyan, Tembalang, and Semarang Barat districts is necessary.
Credit author statements
Mochamad Arief Budihardjo: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing, Validation Septa Yudha Ardiansyah:
Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Data Curation Bimastyaji Surya Ramadan: Writing – Original Draft, Resources Software, Project Administration.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to the
Semarang Environmental Agency and “Paguyuban Bank Sampah” Sem- arang City for providing necessary information as supplementary ma- terial for analysis and discussion in this article. The authors would also acknowledge the editor(s) and blind reviewer(s) who were giving essential comments for improving the manuscript quality. This research was funded through Sumber Dana Selain APBN Universitas Diponegoro Fiscal Year 2019 under contract no. 329-119/UN7.P4.3/PP/2019.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2021.102488.
References
Ahsan, A., Alamgit, M., Imteaz, M., Nik Daud, N. N., & Islam, R. (2012). Role of NGOs and CBOs in waste management. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 41(6), 27–38.
Anonymous. (2021). Minimum wage – central Java. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from wageindicator.org: https://wageindicator.org/salary/minimum-wage/indonesi a/6617-central-java.
Aprilia, A., Tezuka, T., & Spaargaren, G. (2013). Inorganic and hazardous solid waste management: Current status and challenges for Indonesia. Procedia Environment Science, 17, 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2013.02.080
Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Semarang. (2021). Profil kemiskinan Kota Semarang Tahun 2018. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from BPS Kota Semarang: https://semarangkota.
bps.go.id/publication/2020/07/31/3bc0d4fcd41b284184a1974c/profil-kemisk inan-kota-semarang-tahun-2018.html.
Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jawa Tengah. (2021). GRDP at current market price by regency/municipality in Jawa Tengah (million rupiahs), 2010 - 2020. Retrieved August 28, 2021, from BPS Provinsi Jawa Tengah: https://jateng.bps.go.id/statictable/2017 /02/13/1410/-seri-2010-pdrb-atas-dasar-harga-berlaku-menurut-kabupaten-kota- di-jawa-tengah-juta-rupiah-2010—2019.html.
Challcharoenwattana, A., & Pharino, C. (2015). Co-benefits of household waste recycling for local community’s sustainable waste management in Thailand. Sustainability, 7 (6), 7417–7437. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067417, 2015.
Chardine-Baumann, E., & Botta-Genoulaz, V. (2014). A framework for sustainable performance assessment of supply chain management practices. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 76, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.07.029 Clarke, T. M., Espinoza, M., Chaves, R. R., & Wehrtmann, I. S. (2018). Assessing the
vulnerability of demersal elasmobranchs to a data-poor shrimptrawlfishery in Costa Rica, Eastern Tropical Pacific. Biological Conservation, 217, 321–328. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.015
Fig. 2. Modification of Semarang City’s waste management system. The black line indicates the current waste management system; the red line, inorganic waste flow; and the blue line, organic waste flow. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)