Municipal Solid Waste Management in Sukodono Village – East Java

Steven1, Angelina Tulus1, Silvia Haniwijaya Tjokro2, Mujtahidah, and Djazuly Chalidyanto
1
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Widya Mandala Catholic University Surabaya, Indonesia
2
Department of Administration and Health Policy, Faculty of Public Health Universitas Airlangga
Surabaya, Indonesia
Puskesmas Panceng, Gresik, Indonesia
Department of Administration and Health Policy, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia
stevenwijono@gmail.com, silviahani3487@gmail.com

Keywords: Waste Sorting, Infrastructure, Community Leader, Garbage Bank, Waste Management

Abstract: Municipal solid waste management system has not been introduced in Sukodono Village and gave negative
impacts such as smoke pollution and damage ground water sources. The research used analytic survey,
directed to connect between the level of knowledge, attitude about waste management, infrastructure or
facilities, and the role of community leaders with the waste management behavior in this community, also
applied a simple random sampling with 170 respondents. The data were analyzed using a cross sectional
method. The results showed that the related factors include infrastructure with p = 0.000 and r = 0.324, the
role of community leaders with p = 0.000 and r = 0.301. By finding the related factors, the village then made
programs to solve the problem, such as forming a garbage bank, and 62.5% waste could be managed without
burning them. The recommendations that can be given are by making plans for proposed activities, such as
counseling on good waste management, giving different trash bins as a means of sorting organic and inorganic
waste, building temporary dump and final landfill, counseling organic waste management into integrated
fertilizer, craft training from inorganic waste, and the formation of waste banks.

1 INTRODUCTION Negative impacts of burning cause pollution.

Rural areas in Gresik Regency are dominated by rural
settlements, where waste management applies
individual management like by burning, burying or
throwing into a water channel or river. This occurs due
to differences in physical characteristics, community
characteristics and community lifestyle, as well as the
waste management infrastructure and facilities in the
area (Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan PDPDKG
2010, 2010).
Rural areas in Gresik Regency are not introduced
to the waste management system. One of them is
Sukodono Village area, Panceng Subdistrict (KKSK,
Gresik, 2011). Based on the Gresik Environmental
Agency, the gap of waste management in rural areas of
Gresik is caused by the ineffective role of waste
management elements, limited funding, and lack of
facilities and infrastructure, such as storage facilities,
collection facilities, number and spread of garbage
dumps and allocation landfill land. This limitation
requires Gresik Regency Government to seek for
innovative solutions from various sectors.
Meanwhile, burying waste can damage ground water
sources, and garbage disposal into waterways can
increase the potential for disasters due to clogged
water flow in the surrounding. The application of
individual waste management in rural areas of Gresik
Regency has a negative impact. In Sukodono Village,
most people individually manage waste by collecting
household waste without sorting them out first
(inorganic or organic waste). As a result, the wastes
arethen stacked behind the house.
Municipal solid waste characterisation is necessary
for planning sustainable solid waste management,
especially in across socioeconomic residents. Higher
Institute of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Bamenda University of Science and Technology in
Cameroon has did the study and revealed that the per
capita generation of putrescible and miscellaneous
wastes (predominantly sand, ash and dust) were
statistically different (p < 0,05) across residents and
were inversely related to income while the generation
of plastics, metals, papers, glass except textiles were
 statistically different across residents and were previously used by Kamal Fitrul in 2009 and tested
positively related to income (Tambe, et al., 2016). valid and reliable (Fitrul, 2009).
Nowadays, solid waste is accepted as a major The population in this study was all heads of
problem of our society. Solid wastes may be defined Sukodono Village in Panceng Sub-District of Gresik
as useless, unused, unwanted, or discarded material in Community Unit No. 001 to Community Unit No.
available in solid form. Semisolid food wastes and 007 with a total number of 463 families. The total
municipal sludge may also be included in municipal respondents participating in this study were 170 people
solid waste (Singh, et al., 2014). A six-month field selected by using a simple random sampling
study was conducted to identify the solid wastes (Notoatmodjo, 2013). Bivariate analysis was
management steps such as storage at source, performed using non-parametric statistics, the
separation, on-site storage, collection, transporation, Spearman Rho correlation test.
treatment, reuse, recycling, and ultimate disposal in
Bangladesh (Ahsan, et al., 2014).
3 RESULTS
2 METHODS The results of this study were analyzed using
Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS programs (version
This research used an analytical survey directed to 13.0). These are the results of the study ranging from
connect the level of knowledge, attitudes about waste the latest level of education, the level of knowledge
management, infrastructure and the role of community about waste, respondent's attitudes towards waste, the
leaders with the waste management behavior in role of community leaders, availability of facilities and
Sukodono Village community. The research method infrastructure, and respondent's waste management
used was a survey with a cross sectional approach behavior.
(Handayani, 2011). The survey in this study was
carried out by distributing questionnaires that was

Distribution of Respondents
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
84.7% 87.1%
40.0%
68.8% 66.5%
30.0% 59.4%
20.0% 40.6%
31.2% 35.9% 26.5% 25.9%
33.5%
10.0% 15.3% 12.9%
0.0% 1.2% 0.6% 4.7% 5.3%
Positive

Negative
Bachelor
High school
Middle school

Good

Enough

Good

Good

Good
Diploma
Not attending school

Elementary school

Less

Less

Less

Bad

Based on the Latest Educational Level

Based on Level of Knowledge about Waste
Based on Attitudes toward Garbage
Distribution of Community Leaders’ Roles
Distribution of Availability of Facilities and Infrastructure
Distribution of Waste Management Behavior

Figure 1 : Distribution of respondents based on the latest educational level, level of knowledge about waste, attitudes toward
garbage, community leaders’ roles, availability of facilities and infrasturcture, and waste management behavior
90.0% 81.8%
80.0% 69.9%
66.6% 65.9% 65.4% 65.5%
70.0% 61.4%
56.4% 58.3%
60.0%
50.0% 43.6% 41.7% 38.6%
40.0% 33.3% 34.1% 34.6% 34.5%
30.1%
30.0%
18.2%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

Availability of lack facilities and

Availability of good facilities and

Positive attitude
Negative attitude
Less knowledge

Sufficient knowledge

The role of community leaders is less

The role of community leaders is good

Good knowledge

infrastructures

infrastructures
Distribution of Knowledge Based on Distribution of Distribution of Distribution of
Respondents with Waste Management Respondents Based on Respondents Based on Respondents Based on
Behavior Attitudes towards Waste the Role of Community Availability of Facilities
Leaders in Waste and Infrastructure For
Management waste management

Bad behavior Good behavior

Figure 2 : The Relationship of Knowledge, Attitudes, Community Figures and Infrastructures with Waste Management
Behavior

The results above show a significant relationship relationship of independent variables (knowledge,
with the value of p <0.005 of bivariate analysis. This attitudes, community figures and infrastructures) with
bivariate analysis was conducted to identify the the dependent variable (waste management behavior).

4 DISCUSSION
Ishikawa diagram helps to identify and organize
causes that might arise from a specific effect and then
separate the root cause. Through Ishikawa diagram
below, it can be seen that the high incidence of people
who still burn plastic waste was influenced by various
factors, such as human, economic, material, lack of
waste management activities from resident's homes,
time and environment. Furthermore, the lack of
cooperation with parties that can process plastic waste
also becomes a factor for waste burning. Also, there
were no cadres and health workers (number and
quality) who can influence people's behavior in waste
sorting.
In order to intervene four factors that influence
waste management behavior, some activities, such as
counseling on the importance of maintaining early
cleanliness and sorting waste, the impact of waste, and
a 6-step hand-washing demonstration were proposed.
There was also processing on the integrated
compost fertilizer from organic waste and craft
training from inorganic waste which residents can
process the sorted waste.
 Diagram 1: Ishikawa Diagram of Priority Issues
In addition, the construction of TPS (Tempat
Pembuangan Sementara or temporary dump) and TPA
(Tempat Pembuangan Akhir or final landfill) was
planned in Sukodono Village as additional waste
processing shelters. It can also increase employment
for the residents in Sukodono Village. It is expected
that the proposed activities can then be elaborated.
The Decree of Sukodono Village Head has been
formed regarding the Management Structure of the
Endowed Waste Bank in Sukodono Village, Panceng
District, Gresik Regency Number
479/437.115.04/2017. From the establishment of a
garbage bank on December 30th, 2017, 32 customers
(64.0%) brought garbage and saved it immediately
with a total garbage of 11 kg plastic baskets, 3 kg
cardboard, 23 kg plastics, and 1 kg glasses.
Each Neighborhood Unit has managed to be
creative by utilizing plastic waste. The community is
enthusiastic to implement 3R (recycle, reduce, reuse)
and explore more about plastic processing.
5 CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant relationship between external
factors (the role of community leaders & availability
of infrastructures) and the waste management
behavior. As many as 101 people (59.4%) out of 170
samples burnt waste without sorting waste first.
The recommendations that can be given are by making
plans for proposed activities, such as counseling on
good waste management, giving different trash bins as
a means of sorting organic and inorganic waste,
building TPS and TPA, counseling organic waste
management into integrated fertilizer, craft training
from inorganic waste, and the formation of waste
banks. There was a significant relationship between
external factors and waste processing behavior.
REFERENCES
Ahsan, A. et al., 2014. Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste
Management System in a Developing Country. Hindawi
Publishing Corporation, Chinese Journal of
Engineering, Volume 2014, pp. 1-11.
Ashidiqy, M., 2009. Analisis Faktor-faktor yang
Berhubungan dengan Perilaku Masyarakat dalam
Membuang Sampah Rumah Tangga di Sungai
Mranggen. Semarang: Skripsi Jurusan Ilmu Kesehatan
Masyarakat, Fakultas Ilmu Keolahragaaan Universitas
Negeri Semarang.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan PDPDKG 2010, 2010.
Pemutakhiran Dan Penyerasian Analisis Dan
Perencanaan Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW)
Kabupaten Gresik 2010. Gresik: s.n.
Cahyadi, G., 2009. Analisis Faktor-faktor yang
mempengaruhi Produksi Sampah dan Kelayakan
Finansial Usaha Pengelolaan Sampah Rumah Tangga
(Studi Kasus di Perumahan Cipinang Elok, Jakarta
Timur). Bogor: Skripsi Departemen Ekonomi Sumber
daya dan Lingkungan Fakultas Ekonomi dan Manajemen
Instansi Pertanian Bogor.
Chandra, B., 2007. Pengantar Kesehatan Lingkungan.
Jakarta: Penerbit Buku Kedokteran.
DKPJT, 2005. Standar Prosedur Operasional Sanitasi. Jawa
Tengah: Dinas Kesehatan Propinsi Jawa Tengah.
Farida, Y., 2004. Pengantar Pengelolaan Sampah dan Gizi.
Jakarta: Penebar Swadaya.
Fitrul, K., 2009. Hubungan antara Tingkat Pengetahuan dan
SIkap Ibu Rumah Tangga tentang Pengelolaan Sampah
dengan Perilaku Pembuangan Sampah pada
Masyarakat Sekitar Sungai Beringin di RW 07,
 Kelurahan Wonosari, Kecamatan Ngaliyan Kota
Semarang Tahun 2009. Semarang: Universitas Negeri
Semarang.
Gerungan, W., 2002. Psikologi Sosial. Bandung: Refika
Aditama.
Green, W. & Lawrence, 2005. Health Education Planing A
Diagnostic Approach, The Johns Hopkins University.
California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Handayani, H., 2011. Faktor-faktor yang Berhubungan
dengan Perilaku. Jakarta : FKMUI.
Irianto, A., 2004. Statistik Konsep Dasar dan Aplikasinya.
Jakarta Wacana: s.n.
KKSK, Gresik, 2011. Buku Putih Sanitasi Kabupaten Gresik
2010-2014, Kelompok Kerja Sanitasi Kabupaten Gresik.
Gresik: s.n.
Notoatmodjo, 2010. Promosi Kesehatan: Teori dan Aplikasi
Edisi Revisi 2010. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Notoatmodjo, S., 2013. Pendidikan, Metodologi Penelitian
Kesehatan Dan Perilaku Kesehatan. Jakarta: PT. Rineka
Cipta.
Singh, G. K., Gupta, K. & Chaudhary, S., 2014. Solid Waste
Management: Its Sources, Collection, Transportation
and Recycling. International Journal of EnvironmentL
Science and Development, V(4), pp. 347-351.
Tambe, E. B., Ayongwa, N. M. & Forbid, G. T., 2016.
Characterisation of Municipal Solid Waste for Planning
Sustainable Waste Management in Kumba Municipality
- South Western Cameroon. The Open Waste
Management Journal, Volume IX, pp. 19-27.
Thompson, J. & Anthony, H., 2008. The Health Effects of
Waste Incenerators: 4th Report of the British Society for
Ecological Medicine. Northern Ireland: University of
Ulster.