institutional aspect 6 mei 2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
4/18
Research Objective
Identify the potency of Community-based
solid waste management to address the
issues of municipal solid waste.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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?
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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;
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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;
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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.
-
7/30/2019 Institutional Aspect 6 Mei 2013
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;