Municipal solid waste management in small and metropolitan cities in Indonesia: A review of Surabaya and Mojokerto

Abstract

The increasing urban population has triggered a complex waste problem in Indonesian cities. Since the 1960s, waste generation in Indonesian urban areas has increased exponentially. Considering that municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is a case-by-case issue, MWSM practices vary on the municipal level. This article aims to explore the implementation of MSWM in small and metropolitan cities. By distinguishing cities by their typology, this article hopes to understand the similarities and differences of MSWM characteristics. This study uses a case study approach in which Surabaya represents metropolitan cities and Mojokerto represents small cities. The paper compares the current conditions and challenges of MSWM. This study is based on a literature review but also includes simple statistical analysis to strengthen the arguments in this paper. The review found that there are differences in the implementation of MSWM in Surabaya and Mojokerto in almost all aspects. Surabaya faces more complex problems and challenges and comes up with several solutions such as cooperation with a Japanese city and it is tackling human resources issues. On the other side, MSWM in Mojokerto is mostly government-centered and the city still has to handle institutional limitations such as regulatory issues, limited resources, and lack of participation.

Dynamic Governance Model Within Integrated Waste Management In Malang City: Agile People And Process In Actions

“…These features contribute to the increasing population growth in Malang city, which indirectly elevates the volume of domestic waste in the community. With a population of 874,890, according to (Wibisono et al, 2020). Malang can be categorized as a metropolitan city, causing the problem of waste management to be more complex.…”

“…In the broader context, it refers to the rules, institutions, and network that determine how an organization functions (Bhatta, 2006;Neo & Chen, 2007). Governance is an important factor for a city in dealing with waste management problems (Supriyadi et al, 2000), especially as an institution (Wibisono et al, 2020). Currently, waste management is under the authority of local governments (Chaerul et al, 2007) with still referring to provincial and central government policies (Siagian et al, 2019a).…”

“…Reducing household waste is difficult to do (Sudibyo et al, 2017). The increase in household waste in Indonesia cannot be separated from the high flow of urbanization in several cities (Wibisono et al, 2020). Over the years, the issue of solid waste has become an important issue in several big cities in Indonesia.…”

“…Meanwhile, Jakarta, as the largest waste-producing metropolitan city in Indonesia, implements it through community-based sorting by type with waste banks (Putri et al, 2018), Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (3R) and Waste to Energy (WTE) (Farizal et al, 2018). (Wibisono et al, 2020) explained that the waste management problem in urban Indonesia varies according to the case. Surabaya city faces a complex waste problem due to urbanization and industry, while Mojokerto waste management still depends on the government and has institutional con-straints (Wibisono et al, 2020).…”

“…(Wibisono et al, 2020) explained that the waste management problem in urban Indonesia varies according to the case. Surabaya city faces a complex waste problem due to urbanization and industry, while Mojokerto waste management still depends on the government and has institutional con-straints (Wibisono et al, 2020). Conversely, Batu city implements a waste bank program (Irkham et al, 2019).…”