PE-SW13-Yudhi Kristian-15305084 - FTSL-ITB

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS COMMUNAL WASTE TREATMENT
FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION
(CASE STUDY : SINDANG SARI, SUKABUMI CITY)
ANALISIS AWAL IMPLEMENTASI
TEMPAT PENGOLAHAN SAMPAH TERPADU
(STUDI KASUS : SINDANG SARI, KOTA SUKABUMI)
Yudhi Kristian 1 and Mochammad Chaerul 2
Environmental Engineering Study Program
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering ITB, Jl Ganesha 10 Bandung 40132
1 youdhie_ecogreen@yahoo.com and 2 chaerul_2000@yahoo.com
Abstract : Communal Waste Treatment Facility is one of the alternatives for municipal waste management with
community based approach. With coverage that is relatively not widespread, the burden of waste that is not large so
the handling of waste to be more effective. Failure of community development activities, such as the Communal
Waste Treatment Facility, likely caused by human factors and management. Results of study in RW 04, Sindang
Sari, Lembur Situ, Sukabumi City shows that people tend not understand issues related garbage, as evidence, 54%
correspondent can not distinguish the waste based on type. Implementation of the socialization does not continue
cause the lack of knowledge and lack of public control of public behavior that caused the low level of community
participation in supporting the success of the Communal Waste Treatment Facility. Meanwhile, composting or
organic waste processing technology may be applied because 77% waste is a type of wet garbage.
Key words: Communal Waste Treatment Facility, not optimal, human, composting
Abstrak : Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu skala kawasan merupakan salah satu alternatif bagi pengelolaan
sampah kota dengan pendekatan berbasis masyarakat. Dengan cakupan wilayah yang relatif tidak luas dan beban
sampah yang tidak besar membuat penanganan sampah akan menjadi lebih efektif. Ketidakoptimalan kegiatan
pemberdayaan masyarakat, seperti Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu, cenderung disebabkan oleh faktor
manusia dan manajemen. Hasil studi di RW 04, Sindang Sari, Lembur Situ, Kota Sukabumi menunjukkan bahwa
masyarakat cenderung kurang paham terkait masalah persampahan terbukti 54% koresponden tidak dapat
membedakan sampah berdasarkan jenisnya. Pelaksanaan sosialisasi yang tidak berkelanjutan menyebabkan
minimnya pengetahuan masyarakat serta kurangnya kontrol terhadap perilaku masyarakat yang menyebabkan
rendahnya tingkat partisipasi masyarakat dalam menunjang keberhasilan Tempat Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu.
Sementara itu, pengomposan atau teknologi pengolahan sampah organik paling mungkin diaplikasikan karena 77%
sampah merupakan jenis sampah basah.
Kata kunci : TPST, tidak optimal, manusia, pengomposan
SW 13-1

INTRODUCTION
The remaining waste is a day-to-day activities of human and / or natural processes that
shaped solid. Each individual in a certain amount of waste produced that variatif every day.
Waste generation has been increasing along with the increase in city population growth.
Increased waste generation is a consequence of the increased quality of life and changes in the
pattern community. Therefore, the rate of waste generation must be followed by improving the
quality of waste management to avoid impact that may be incurred from the presence of garbage.
Shifting the paradigm of waste management in the city show that the waste is a resource
that can be used, not junk that should be immediately removed. Therefore, the concept collect-
transport - disposal start to avoided because it is not considered to be relevant. The problem of
waste has caused a lot of ideas that attempts to provide alternative solutions for municipal waste
management that is able to give results more effective (Alhumoud, 2002 One alternative is an
integrated waste management (Damanhuri, 2004). Communal Waste Treatment Facility (CWTF)
is one of the forms. However, many challenges in its implementation.
Communal Waste Treatment Facility (CWTF) is the waste management concepts that are
expected to become an effective alternative because this concept is integrated waste handling in
the service coverage area, which is relatively not large. This means that waste can be handled as
soon as and the burden of waste that is not large. The existence of a CWTF is expected to reduce
the number of waste generation that must be removed to Final Processing Facility which can
extend the Final Processing Facility service. In addition to the solution of the limited Final
Processing Facility land in urban area, CWTF also expected to improve community. involvement
in waste management and able to give economic value to the community.
However, many challenges in its implementation especially concepts that involve the role
of the community in as CWTF. According Sidik (1998), in the developing country such as
Indonesia, the waste problem is not caused by technology but by society and management.
Meanwhile, Carter (1977) in Jonerosano (2005), states that there must be two way
communication on a continual basis to increase public understanding fully the activities of a
process, where problems and needs of the environment is being analyzed by the authorities.
There is must be a feed forward information (from government to community) on a policy and
feed back information (from community to government) on the policy.
The objective of this research is to analyze the problems that arise in the implementation
of the CWTF in RW 04, Sindang Sari, Lembur Situ, Sukabumi. This is useful to measure the
level of success of the implementation of the concept of CWTF in support of municipal waste
management so it can be a reference for the improvement and development efforts.
METHODOLOGY
Research was held through various stages. Implementation research begins with the
collection of secondary data to the conclusion of stage (Figure 1).
SW 13-2

Sampling Site
Figure 1. Flow of implementation research
Sampling of waste generation was held in household and CWTF in RW 04, Sindang Sari,
Lembur Situ, Sukabumi. Based on the waste generation measurements and collection methods,
according to SNI 36-1991-03 M, obtained in six households with 4 low income households, 1
middle income households, and 1 high-income households. Determination of the house is done
randomly. Sampling was held during 8 days with the time and place of sampling the same.
The distribution of questionnaires, field observation, and interviews were held to the residents of
RW 4. The distribution of questionnaires to ± 40 households that have been covering the 3 RT and 2
operators. Meanwhile, the interview is done to 10 people, 2 community leaders, and 2 operators of
CWTF.
Sampling Periode
Analysis waste
generation
Sampling was held during eight days, starting on Saturday, 11 July 2009 and ends on
Saturday, 18 July 2009. Sampling was held in the morning, at around 8-9 am WIB. The sample
is adjusted to the garbage collection schedule by the operators. Questionnaires and interviews
wete held in the range between 11 July 2009 to 18 July 2009, at 8 am-5 pm WIB
Sampling Materials and Methods
Secondary Data
(the number of KK, wide area,
the structure
Primary data
- Characteristic waste
generation
- Questionnaire, interview,
observation
conclusion
Sampling wa held to know the size of the waste generation and waste composition. Waste
generation is poured into the sampling box (33 cm x 33 cm x 40 cm) without compaction. Box
SW 13-3
manner of data and analysis of
questionnaires, interviews, and
observation

sampling, fell from 20 cm as 3 times for standard compaction. Measurements made to obtain a
high and weight of garbage. Then identified based on the waste type to be pondered and then
separately in order to obtain the composition of waste. Sitting scales used to measure weight of
the garbage with relatively small and not legible on the spring scale.
Questionnaires were randomly distributed to 40 residents and 2 operators of CWTF.
Meanwhile, the interview is done to 10 people, 2 people, and 2 operators. Questionnaires and
interviews are two approaches that complement each other. The questionnaire is expected to get
the information that has been structured and have a standard objectivity. Meanwhile, the
interview is expected to capture information to a wider and more flexible because the more open
condition in the arrest of a special community.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Communal Waste Treatment Facility
Some of the things that need to be known and discussed for the accuracy and success of the
implementation of CWTF is CWTF Existing conditions, waste characteristics, conditions, and
expectations related to the presence CWTF.
Communal Waste Treatment Facility Sindang Sari built in 2007 by government. CWTF is a
program developed by government in order to support the success of the municipal waste
management. The reason for this preference is CWTF development approach to handling waste
from the source, using the economic value of waste, and involve the community in waste
management. CWTF Sindang Sari built with an area of 210 m2 ± to serve 150 kk who are in the
RT 3 RW 04. CWTF management is done entirely by the community, under the leader of RW
04, Implementing agency handled by karang taruna, with 2-4 people as operators. Financing
operations before CWTF compost product produced entirely depend on the fee from the
community who supported the sale by inorganic waste. The amount of fee is based on the
community level, ranging between Rp 4000, 00 - Rp 10.000, 00. Meanwhile, the government
only serves as the assistant, including the program and control each week or month. CWTF has
as main activities, collectors of household waste, use the type of inorganic waste to be sold, and
the processing of organic waste with the composting. To support the efforts of processing waste
in CWTF, the government share the trash two partitions to each family, each volume has 13 L,
blue for organic waste and yellow for inorganic waste. Garbage collection would be hold using
the garbage cart with two partitions tank with 0.42 m 3 capacity, with dimensions of 1, 25 m x 0,
33 m x 1 m. Garbage collection is scheduled to be done every day for each service block.
However, the management structures that have been planned at the beginning is not in line
with the expected. Karang Taruna who originally appointed the implementing agency is not
prepared because of the lack of human resources who are willing to manage CWTF. Finally,
implementing fully performed by two operators under the direct head of the RW. Plans of CWTF
do garbage collection 2 times in 3 days, one rest day is used to resemble inorganic for separating
waste results in CWTF. Waste separating in CWTF forced to do because almost most of the
people do not separate in one month after the first. Garbage cart with two partitions are
eventually not work well so that garbage collection is in fixed. Composting can not be run to
process organic waste due to equipment problems that do not in function well after the trials.
Levy payment is directly managed by the operators without going through the implementing
agency, as was originally planned. The amount of levy in the range of Rp 2000,00-Rp 10.000,00.
At July 2009, operators set to increase the levy, so some citizenz request to stop service to stop
SW 13-4

getting service from CWTF and discard his/her garbage to ditch or burn. In short, in its
implementation, operators have three function as garbage collectors, for separating inorganic
waste, and attract direct retribution from the community
Characteristic of Waste at Source
Characteristics of waste at source is measured from the garbage that came from some of
the selected home directly to find out waste generation per person per day. Measurement
characteristics of waste had done in the settlement include the household and non residential.
Based on the waste generation measurements and collection methods, according to SNI 36-
1991-03 M, obtained in six households with 4 low income households, 1 middle-income
households, and 1 high-income households. Sampling was held during 8 days with the time made
in the same range each day, at 9 am – 11 am WIB. Measurement results as shown in Figure 2a
for residential and Table 1 for non residential that includes shops and a primary school. For low
income households with 6-9 members of the family life, has waste generation is 1.24 l/o/h. Midle
income household (5 people / home) has 1.73 l/o/h. Meanwhile, high income households (3
people / house) has 2.9 l/o/h. The composision of waste generation at source is 72% organic
waste and 15% plastic (Figure 2b). The average density of household waste generation is 100
Kg/m 3 .
L/person/day
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
day
low income
midle
income
high
income
(a) (b)
Figure 2. An average volume (a) and composition of waste generation (b) in source
Non residential waste generation consists of primary school and shop. Shop (49 m 2 ) has four
worker. Waste source originated from the rest of the trade, such as plastic wrapping. Average of
waste generation is 2.81 l /worker/day. It’s in the range of standard waste generation for shop of
2.5 – 3.0 l /worker/day (Tchobanoglous, 1993). Meanwhile, primary schools (1600 m 2 ) have 250
students. Source of waste originated from the rest of the students and office waste, not including
garden waste. Average volume of waste generated at 0.13 l /student/day where the standard for
school waste generation is 0.1 - 0.15 l /o/h (Tchobanoglous, 1993).However, volume of waste
SW 13-5
15%
8% 5%
72%
organic
plastic
paper
other

generated from the school can be greater if the waste from the garden or park is included in
measurement.
Table 1. An average volume of non residential garbage
non
resindetial 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 average SB
shope (4)* 2.72 2.59 2.45 2.45 2.59 3.27 3.27 3.13 2.81 0.33
school
(250)** 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.04
ket : * l/worker/d ; **l/student/d
Characteristics of Waste in CWTF
Characteristics of waste measured by the garbage into CWTF each day. Determining the
characteristics of waste is required to determine the further handling of the approach, whether it
includes the support facilities and appropriate technology to apply.
Collecting garbage from households to CWTF use the garbage cart that has a volume of
0.42 m 3 , with dimensions of 1, 25 m x 0, 33 mx 1 m. Every day , garbage cart carries away waste
as much as two times ritation. Average volume of garbage into CWTF of 0.85 m 3 (Figure 3a).
with 77% of which form of organic waste (Figure 3b).
m3/day
0.9
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.82
0.81
0.8
0.79
1 2 3 4 5 6
day
(a) (b)
Figure 3. An average volume (a) and composition of waste generation (b) in WCTF
The questionnaire and interview
Society knowledge about solid waste
average
Socialization is intended to provide basis knowledge, increase knowledge, and disseminate
SW 13-6
13%
6% 5%
76%
organic
plastic
paper
other

information about the program, which will be implemented. Furthermore, the socialization will
make same perspective to community so they can together achieve the vision and mission have
been defined. Citizens who are well informed on how to recycle are more likely to participate in
a recycling programme than those who are not so well informed (Nyamwange 1996). Based on
the distribution of the questionnaire, 90% people do not know CWTF, covering equipment,
activities, and the purpose of CWTF in the environment where they live. There is 75% of people
are never in the socialization and 25% did not follow the program socialization was hold either
by the government as well as by community leaders. Weak socialization is one of the causes of
not optimum acceptance level to program has planed.
Knowledge is an absolute requirement to support the success of a community based
program. According Devy (2005), 56% correspondent say that less information to be one of
cause of the low public participation in municipal waste treatment, especially 3R. Based on
Figure 4, 54% correspondent not understand to distinguish the type of waste is one of the causes
are many people do not perform according to waste separating rules set.
54%
N=40
Figure 4. Knowledge about waste type
The people who can distinguish the type of waste is a community that had followed the
program socialization, that is as much as 47% are housewives, 20% work as PNS, and 33%
private work. Meanwhile, 54% of people who can not distinguish the type of waste, 74% had
followed the program socialization and 36% did not follow the program socialization. Of these,
68% were housewives, 10% private work, and 21% work as laborers. The data showed that the
inability of people to separate the waste are caused by lack of knowledge, either because they do
not ever participate in the socialization and lack of socialization. If the level of employment is
assumed straight proportionate to the level of education, the education level has a positive
correlation with the behavior of people in the management of waste
Public Attitudes towards Waste
3%
Lack of knowledge and the socialization make results achieved do not match those expected.
Lack of support will impact on the stagnating or even stop program. From Figure 5, to 56%
people have separate at the beginning of the operational CWTF, 18% survive in waste
separating, and 26% did not do the first time since CWTF has built. Ironically, 74% of people
SW 13-7
43%
yes doubt no

who do waste separating was only 23% who do waste treatment , 19% for ease of handling
grounded in CWTF, and 58% states do not know.
Meanwhile, many reasons that cause people to stop and do not se (Figure 6).
In addition, the use of inexactly waste facilities can be triggered not optimum waste
management. Inexactly waste management facilities to be factors that cause the passive
participation in the municipal waste management (Medley, 2006). Based on Figure 7, of the
total people who got the trash two partitions from the government, most do not use it well
26%
18%
56%
yes
ever
no
N= 40 N = 33
Figure 5. Level of waste separation Figure 6. Reason of stop waste separation
rumah tangga
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 7. Trash condition
Perception or attitude will affect the behavior of someone. Public perception of waste has a
share in determining the trend of public attitudes or behavior in waste management program.
Positive perceptions tend to be will result in positive action. However, any negative perceptions
that can lead to positive action if someone want what he think not occur significantly. According
Jonerosano (2006), more than 70% of people think bad of waste, facilities, and waste
management facilities. Based on Figure 8, 80% from 40 correspondents have the negative
perception that waste is something that should be avoided because it smells, dirty, with the
scenery, and is a source of diseases
SW 13-8
22%
7%
11%
7%
4% 15%
34%
usefull 1usefulli not usefulli damaged nothing
not important
no time
mixed collecting
CWTF not optimalize
less capacity
damaged
unknown

Figure 8. Citizens perception
Perception awakened through the various backgrounds, such as the level of knowledge and
experience. Therefore, the perception is that things can change. In implementation of program,
especially regarding the things that people tend to be avoided, such as waste, understanding is
needed of a serious awakening for the positive public perception of the waste problem.
Development of this perception must be conducted to continue the paradigm change occurs that
is reflected in the attitudes and habits that do.
Hope Society
The majority of people still have limited knowledge of the waste issues. Society also tends
to act when the negative impact of the waste is came or with the bad they felt, for example,
smells and dirty. Based on Figure 9, the public tends to believe that guidance directly will be
more effective than the other media as a means of socialization. Meanwhile, Figure 10 shows
that most people feel no need to get a form of appreciation from the government if it has to do
efforts and participate in municipal waste management. Recycling centres are characterized by
the heavy mechanical equipment and the high level of technology that is used atsuch type of
installations (Huang, 2002).
person
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
orang
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
smells
disease
direct electronic brochures
media
bad scenery
Figure 9. Alternative media socialization Figure 10. Values important for community award
SW 13-9
orang
dirty
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
usefull
need no
sikap

CONCLUSION
Waste generation in CWTF Sindang Sari consists of 77% organic, 13% plastic, 6% paper,
and others 5%. Average volume of incoming waste each day equal to 0.64 m 3 with a density
average of 123, 2 Kg/m3. Meanwhile, the result of measurement of waste generation at source, 1,
24 l /o/h for residential low income population, 1.73 l /o/h for middle income, and 2.9 l /o/h high
income population. Waste generation to non residential of the shop has 2.8 //worker/day and the
elementary school has 0.13 lstudents/day.
Based on the results of the questionnaire, interviews, and field observations show that not
optimalize CWTF operational caused by lack of knowledge society. 54% of correspondents can
not distinguish the waste type. Besides that, people still have negative perceptions of the solid
waste problem, there is 80% from 40 correspondents states that waste is always identical with the
stench, dirty, destructive scenery, and a source of disease. Lack of public knowledge, has not
applied waste processing technology, and lack of socialization cause 56% correspondents to stop
waste separating and 28% correspondents even do not separate from the start. In addition, only
10% of 40 correspondents have bin two partition still work well.
To support the operational success of the CWTF, socialization should be done sustainably.
Development of directly will provide more effective results than through electronic media and
brochures. There is 62.5% from 40 correspondents states the need for incentive as awards form
of government to the people to want to play an active role in the municipal waste management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study is funded by PHKI ITB.
REFERENCES
Alhumoud, 2002. Solid waste management in Kuwait, Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management 28 (2)
(2002), pp. 97–105.
Damanhuri, E. 2004. Pengelolaan Sampah. Bandung ; ITB
Davies et al., 2005 A. Davies, F. Fahy and D. Taylor, Mind the gap: householders attitude and actions towards waste
in Ireland, Irish Geography 38 (2) (2005), pp. 151–168.
Huang, W.L., Lin, D.H., Chang, N.B. & Lin, K.S. (2002) Recycling of construction and demolition waste via a
mechanical sorting process. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37, 23–37.
Jonerosano, M.B. 2006. Studi Mengenai Ketidakpercayaan Masyarakat terhadap Teknologi dan Pengelola Fasilitas
Pengolah Sampah; ITB.
Medley, 2006. Personal Communication with Emanon Medley, Business Manager Greenstar, 6 September 2006.
Sidik, Muhammad Ansorudin. 1998. Pedekatan Sosial Penanggulangan Sampah. Jurnal Analisis Sistem No.12
Tahun V, 1998, hal. 211-220. Jakarta. Deputi Bidang Analisis Sistem, BPPT.
Nyamwange, M. (1996) Public perception of strategies for increasing participation in recycling programs. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 19–22.
Tchobanoglous, H. Theiseen, S.A. Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management. Singapura : McGraw Hill.
Yoandri, Tengku. 2005. Evaluasi dan pengembangan sistem pengelolaan persampahan kecamatan Rumbai Pesisir
kota Pekan Baru: ITB.
SW 13-10