Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013

7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013

1/18

INDRI KURNIA, 25412013

BANAR SUHARJANTO, 25412069

COMMUNITY BASED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT

IN KARAWANG REGENCY

BANDUNG INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING

AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT


2/18

Rapid urbanization have resulted the complexities

of municipal solid waste problems to be handled

in Indonesian cities.

Most of local governments put lack of seriousattention over solid waste sector.

Inadequate solid waste management has negative

impacts to people and environment

The attitude towards waste, then, has to be

changed by managing the problem of solid waste

in a more sustainable way and basing on the

participatory approach

Background / Issue


3/18

Research Problem

The current waste management system in Karawang Regency has

generally failed to address a wide range of solid waste problems.

There is a challenge related to the growth of Jakarta Metropolitan

Area (JMA) to Karawang Regency

All problems cannot be solved only by the government. due to

limitation of government funding,

Public participation becomes a significant factor for a successful

solid waste management


4/18

Research Objective

Identify the potency of Community-based

solid waste management to address the

issues of municipal solid waste.


5/18

INDRI KURNIA, 25412013

BANAR SUHARJANTO, 25412069

INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF

COMMUNITY BASED SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT

IN KARAWANG REGENCY

BANDUNG INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING

AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT


6/18

Research Questions

1. How the performance of two types of community

based solid waste management in Karawang

Regency?;

2. What the proposed model of the community-based

solid waste management that fix to Karawang

Regency?


7/18

Literature Review

1. Approaches in institutions formation : top-down and

bottom-up (Easterly, 2008);

2. Both approach have failure (Dowsley, 2008 andWhitehead, 2002):

a. Top-down : meets national and international

objectives, fails to recognize socio-cultural

effectiveness;

b. Bottom-up : operates within the natural

sociocultural dynamics of the community, lacks

clarity in the strategies.


8/18

Literature Review

3. Combining the two approaches (Froomkin, 2009) :

a. Top-down regime encourages the formation of

bottom-up institutions;b. Bottom-up institutions are assisted in some aspect :

infrastructure, regulation, market policy (preventing

anti-competitive), provide information.


9/18

Methods

1. Scoring System :

The scores are

arranged in order to

identify the knowledgeand willingness to

involved in solid waste

management.

NoScore for each answer

A B C D E F

II.1 3 1 1 2

II.2 3 2 2 3 3

II.3 3 3 3 3 1

II.4 3 2 3 3 3

II.5 2 2 2 2 3

III.1 3 1 1

III.2 1 1 2 1

III.3 3 3 3 3

III.4 3 1 1

III.5 1 1 2 1

III.6 3 3 1 1

III.7 3 3 3 1 2

III.8 2 3 3 3 3

III.9 3 1

III.10 3 1

IV.1 3 3 2 1 1

IV.2 3 3 3 1

IV.3 3 1

IV.4 3 3 2

IV.5 3 1

IV.6 3 3 3

IV.7 1 2 3

IV.8 3 1

IV.9 1 2 3

IV.10 3 1

IV.11 2 2 3Table 1. Score for Each Answer


10/18

Methods

2. The Frequency Analysis

Examining the average score of each;

Ideal score is assumed 78 (assuming respondent

has all sufficient knowledge and willingness to be

involved in the solid waste management);

The performance of one type of management is

considered as good if the average score of the

respondents is at least 39 or 50% of the idealscore.


11/18

Methods

3. Mann-Wittney U-test

Using ordinal data (ranks);

Samples used are independent;

To identify whether there are significant

differences between two variables or not.


12/18

Analysis

1. Level of Knowledge and Willingness to Involve of

Respondents in the Solid Waste Management

General : Sirnabaya 39.64 of 78 (51%), Bank Sampah

41.46 of 78 (53%); Section II (general knowledge) : Sirnabaya 10.28 of 15

(69%), Bank Sampah 12.92 of 15 (86%);

Section III (awareness and participation) : Sirnabaya 16.6 of

30 (55%), Bank Sampah 18.24 of 30 (61%);

Section IV (technical aspects) : Sirnabaya 12.76 of 33(39%), Bank Sampah 10.4 of 33 (32%);

Both type need improvements.


13/18

Analysis

2. The Model to be Proposed as the Best Practice

The Mann-Wittney U-test identifies that there are not any

significant differences;

There is not the best model of the observed two to beproposed as the best practice;

Considering Dowsley (2008), there should be multi-level

authority in institutions combining top-down and bottom-

up;

Scope of top-down regime : promoting equity, efficiency andsustainability in the social, physical and economical aspect

providing knowledge, economic framework, funding

methods, infrastructures.

Froomkin (2009) suggests that local institutions should be

encouraged to emerge.


14/18

Analysis

Figure 1. Proposed Model of Solid Waste Management

Government

Physical

Aspects

Social

Aspects

Economical

Aspects

Knowledge FundingMethod

EconomicFramework

Solid Waste Organizations

Institutional

Aspects

Encouragingthe formation

EcologicalObjectivesEconomicalObjectives Other LocalObjectivesCulturalObjectives

Bottom-up approach area

Top-down approach area

Combined Area of Top-Down and Bottom-up Approach


15/18

Findings

1. There are no behavioral differences in

understanding and willingness to involve in waste

management between society interfered by

government and that which has not been interferedby government;

2. Both type of waste management in Karawang

Regency show the relatively same result knowledge

with some drawbacks;


16/18

Conclusion

Single mode of management might be avoided,

giving evidences that both type of waste management

in Karawang Municipality show the same result with

some drawbacks. This result identifies that both type

of single mode management (either top-down or

bottom-up only) are not sufficient for urban waste

management.

There should be multi-level cooperation in

communal cooperation;


17/18

Recommendation

There are needs of further examination of what type

of management would fit the local community.

Whenever it is needed, the more detailed approachof local socio-culture and other values could be

conducted differently among parties.


18/18

References :

Dowsley, M. (2008). Developing Multi-Level Institutions from Top Down

Ancestors. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1), 55-74.

Easterly, W. (2008). Institutions: Top-Down or Bottom-Up?American

Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 98(2), 95-99.

Froomkin, A. M. (2009). Building the Bottom Up from the Top Down. I/S: A

Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 141-182.

Whitehead, T. L. (2002). Community Based Interventions, Definitions and

Types. The Cultural Ecology of Health and Change (CEHC) WorkingPapers Series, Working Paper #2(pp. 1-9). College Park, Maryland:

Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland;

Documents

Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013