Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-00969-9

REGIONAL CASE STUDY

Integration of community‑based waste bank programs

with the municipal solid‑waste‑management policy in Makassar,
Indonesia
Rieko Kubota1,2 · Masahide Horita1 · Tomohiro Tasaki2

Received: 24 July 2019 / Accepted: 24 December 2019 / Published online: 16 January 2020
© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Municipal solid-waste management (MSWM) in developing countries has faced common challenges such as no separation
at source, complicated collection processes, and open landfills. Previous studies suggested that it is essential that MSWM
policy adapts to local contexts and situations in its implementation. In Indonesia, neighborhood associations exist to enhance
cooperation among community members. Community-based recycling activities called waste banks (WBs) in Indonesia
utilize the functions of neighborhood associations. This study analyzed how local governments supported community-based
WB programs and examined the institutional mechanism of the central WB which was established as part of the commu-
nity-based WB integration to the city’s MSWM policy in Makassar, Indonesia. Through a desk study and semi-structured
interviews with key actors in community-based WBs, it was found that the local government’s major intervention was the
establishment of a mayor’s regulation to set up a central WB using the municipal budget to facilitate waste transaction
between community-based WBs and recyclers. The institutional framework of the central WB and the functions performed
by the central WB, such as recyclable waste collection from community-based WBs and market price analysis on recyclable
waste, were clarified through this study.

Keywords Solid-waste management · Community-based recycling · Government intervention · Institutional framework

Introduction climate change and environmental protection [1]. Therefore,

Background
In developing countries, the dominant issue about munici-
pal solid-waste management (MSWM) is how to properly
collect and treat waste. Wilson pointed out that “in some
countries, simple survival is such a predominant concern,
that waste management does not feature strongly on the
list of public concerns” [1]. However, in many of develop-
ing countries, the resource value of waste is increasingly
an important driver of waste management nowadays so are
* Rieko Kubota
kubota.rieko@nies.go.jp
1
Department of International Studies, Graduate School
of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 5‑1‑5,
Kashiwa‑no‑ha, Kashiwa‑shi, Chiba 277‑8563, Japan
2 the factors complicating MSWM in developing countries
Center for Material Cycles and Waste Management Research,
National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16‑2, Onogawa,
Tsukuba‑shi, Ibaraki 305‑8506, Japan
the formulation and implementation of MSWM policies to
cater multiple purposes has become more complex. Several
factors influence the quality of waste-management service
provided by the government such as lack of government
policies/strategies and its coordination, financial support,
low participation of private sectors, inefficiency, and low
community awareness. These factors contribute to the low
level of service (LoS) of MSWM [2].
In order for MSWM to be implemented appropriately,
McDougall et al. suggested that the success of MSWM
depends on the cultures of different cities, policies, and
available technologies [3]. Marshall and Farahbakhsh illus-
trated that the challenges and complexities faced by devel-
oping countries are different from those faced by developed
countries [4]. Urbanization, inequality, economic growth,
cultural and socio-economic aspects, policy, governance and
institutional issues, and international influences are among
[4].

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
In Indonesia, these issues are also hindering factors in
the implementation of MSWM. Aside from that, MSWM
in Indonesia has faced several impediments, including non-
involvement of stakeholders in policy making, unskilled
officers undertaking the collection, transportation and
treatment, the absence of long-term waste-management
strategies, and weak coordination between authorities and
neighborhood association environment workers (who carries
out primary collection) [5]. As pointed out by Xu et al. the
engagement of multiple stakeholders in MSWM, especially
in source separation and recycling, is a key issue in policy
implementation. Another key issue is the development of a
model that integrates both residents’ participation and recy-
cling market mechanisms [4].
As the population of Indonesia continues to grow and
economic activities prosper, the volume of municipal solid
waste (MSW) also steadily increases every year. Inevitably,
highly populated urban areas are some of the main genera-
tors of MSW in the country. Statistical data from the Minis-
try of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia (MEF) show
that the volume of MSW generated per capita in Indonesia
accounted for more than 0.7 kg per day in 2015 [6]. Out of
this, only 69% of the total amount of generated MSW goes
to landfill (TPA) and the rest are burned, dumped in public
spaces, or handled by informal sectors [6]. The recycling
rate of household waste has remained at approximately 1.7%
countrywide [7].
MSW management issues have been tackled in Indonesia
since the 1970s. Solid-waste management has been imple-
mented, since it was included in the Third 5-year develop-
ment Plan (1979–1984) and the Fourth 5-year development
plan (1984–1989).
In 2006, community-based MSWM gained momentum,
when the Ministry of Public Works and Human Settlements
(previously called the Ministry of Public Works) issued a
sub-decree to promote a community-based municipal solid-
waste reduction campaign, by introducing various solutions,
including 3R (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) programs. Soon
after, the Waste Management Law (No. 18/2008) was jointly
enacted in 2008, by the Ministry of Environment and For-
estry (previously called the Ministry of Environment) and
the Ministry of Public Works and Human Settlements. The
Indonesian government began promoting waste reduction,
including activities to limit waste generation, 3R activities,
and waste separation with the enactment of this law. This law
made it clear that waste management is conducted through
shared responsibility of all related parties such as individ-
ual, community, business, and government [8]. This law is
enforced by GR no. 81/2012 that mandates the minimization
of waste through a 3R approach. It also mandates that the
handling of waste must be implemented at the source itself,
as early as possible, and suggest that it would lead to the
provision of potential economic benefits [8].
929
Recycling initiatives through community involvement
have been reported from several Asian countries from the
1990s. The degree of involvement of government, commu-
nity, and private sector varies as well as the level of success
of the recycling initiative varies. An example of such recy-
cling initiatives is the case of Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam.
Approximately 5000 women sold recyclables from house-
holds to the waste shopkeepers and received micro-credit
loan in return [9]. The resource recovery program of Metro
Manila in the Philippines was implemented in 17 cities and
towns in the early 1990s. 17 environmental cooperatives
were set up and 890 junk shop owners became members
in them. The cooperatives employed approximately 1500
waste collectors to buy recyclable waste from residents [10].
In 2006, an innovative community-based MSWM approach
called Waste Bank was introduced by recycling companies
in Thailand [11]. Even though there are several similar
community-based waste recycling programs in countries
such as Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam, the concept
in Thailand involved the collective action of neighborhood
associations, which benefitted individuals, rather than the
profit being used for community activities. Community-
based waste bank (CBWB) is a community recycling mecha-
nism established by communities. Community-based WBs
receive recyclable waste from the members/residents of the
waste bank, in return for cash. Usually, waste banks accept
recyclable waste, such as plastic, paper, metal, and glass
among others [12]. Different types of waste have different
rates per kilogram and the waste received from the residents
are weighed per waste category, to record the total price of
received waste. The residents can accumulate cash in the
waste bank book which is similar to a bank accounting book,
and they are able to utilize it as cash and products. Since
this concept was introduced to Indonesia in 2008 and the
first community-based WB was established in Yogyakarta
city, by a researcher called Dr. Bambang Suwerda [11, 13],
the number of community-based WBs increased to approxi-
mately 7500 community-based WBs in various cities across
the country [8, 14].
Multiple studies have attempted to analyze community-
based WBs in Indonesia. Wijayanti discusses community-
based WBs as community-based environmental governance
with economic, social, educational, and technological instru-
ments [11]. Tallei concludes that community-based WB
programs should receive assistance from NGOs, the public
sector, and consultancy firms [15]. Regarding residents’ par-
ticipation in community-based WBs, Indrianti [16], Tahir
[17], Purba et al. [18], Murase [19], and Ulhasanah et al.
[20] developed case studies of community-based WB pro-
grams in Surabaya, Bandung, Lampung, Padang, Yogya-
karta, North Sulawesi, Malang, and Balikpapan.
Their research emphasized the importance of rais-
ing awareness amongst residents about waste separation
13
930
behaviors, the role of the community, and the evaluation
of how the community cooperates in the community-based
WB program. Premakumara et al. stressed the necessity of
improving residents’ awareness and behaviors regarding
3R and waste separation, as well as the need to integrate
community-based WB into a municipality’s MSWM pol-
icy, through a case study in Surabaya city [21]. Wijayanti
points out that the vital roles played by local governments in
community-based WB programs are those of the regulator,
facilitator, and stimulator of other stakeholders [11]; how-
ever, specific descriptions of how local governments should
play such roles were not provided.
These previous studies did not offer specific guidance on
how to integrate community-based WB programs as part
of the municipality’s MSWM. They also did not propose
methods of how the local government can make intervention
through institutional and management arrangement. There-
fore, this study addressed this gap in knowledge.
Study objectives
This study aimed to analyze how community-based WBs
were supported by local governments, as part of a city’s
MSWM policy. This study examined the single case of
Makassar city in Indonesia and investigated the local gov-
ernment established central waste bank and its institutional
framework, as part of the city’s interventions to assist com-
munity-based WBs, rather than comparing community-
based WBs between countries. The impact on the MSWM
of the region by the setting up of the central WB in Makassar
city was also investigated, through the change of volume of
collected waste by community-based WBs. The study aims
at providing the gap knowledge in how local governments
can support community-based WBs through institutional
framework.
Makassar, targeted by this study, is the capital city of the
South Sulawesi Province of Indonesia. The city has an area
of 175.8 km2 and is divided into 14 districts (Kecamatan)
with a population of approximately 1.44 million people [22].
Makassar was selected as a target city of this study, because
it was the only city to establish a central WB as its Regional
Technical Implementation Unit (Unit Pelaksana Teknis Dae-
rah: UPTD), a 100% government-funded arm to implement
and facilitate the community-based recycling activities, as
part of the support to community-based WBs. Furthermore,
the mechanism of the central WB, its impact on the reduc-
tion of MSW, and increases in the volume of recycled waste
were documented there.
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
Study methods
Creswell [23] explains qualitative and quantitative research
approaches as well as their mixed research approach which
should be in a basis of several factors. Such as, research
problem that study addresses, research designs, research-
er’s personal experience, and also the audience. We exam-
ined the possibility and feasibility of employing these
approaches. However, in this research, two reasons why we
chose qualitative research are, first, in our semi-constructed
interviews, we used observation and multiple open-ended
questions that attempting to understand the institutional
framework and procedures. Second, availability of data
was quite limited. Therefore, we chose to take a qualita-
tive research approach. On top of that, to bridge the gap in
knowledge on process and know-hows of local government
intervention, we focused on providing qualitative analysis
on institutional framework of the central WB and how it has
impacted community-based WBs.
This study used a combination of desk surveys and data
and information collection from sources, including the
national and local government authorities of Indonesia,
academic literature on MSWM policies in Indonesia and
community-based waste management, reports published by
international organizations, and preliminary field study con-
ducted in December 2015 in Depok and Jakarta, Indonesia.
This research was followed by face-to-face, semi-struc-
tured interviews in May 2017 and March 2019. The targeted
interviewees in community-based WB activities were staffs
at 14 community-based WBs, five staffs of the central WB
who are in managing positions, a local environmental NGO
called Yayasan Peduli Negri (YPN)1 that receives support
from the Unilever Foundation Indonesia, the management
officers of Cleanliness and Environment Department of
Makassar local government, the officer in charge of the
municipal solid-waste management in the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Forestry, the officer who is in charge of the
community-based solid-waste management program of the
Ministry of Public Works and Human Settlements, Presi-
dent of the Indonesian Waste Bank Association, Director
of Unilever Foundation Indonesia, and local recyclers in
Makassar who are engaged in the trading of collected waste
in Makassar city.
To identify the details of the role of the local government
in the development of community-based WBs, questionnaire
was developed for each actor, with an aim to understand
the actor’s role, capacity, rules, and activities related to
community-based WBs. The questionnaires were developed
1
YPN also provide support to the leaders and members of commu-
nity-based WBs while giving suggestions to the local politicians to
promote the appropriate environmental management.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937 931

Table 1  Waste received at Year Volume (t)

Tamangapa landfill in Makassar
CBWB Recyclers city 2006 131,421
2007 168,204
Buying price
2008 145,329
2009 162,057
Recyclable waste
2010 194,451
Flow of cash
2011 193,405
Flow of waste 2012 203,419
2013 246,970
Customers 2014 247,182
2015 246,271
2016 237,851
Fig. 1  General mechanism of community-based WB

WBs, one sectoral community-based WB operating at the

after reviewing the work of Bouabid et al., which analyzed
roles, capacities, and institutional arrangements based on
a capacity factor analysis, for evaluating water and sanita-
tion infrastructure options in developing countries [24]. The
analyzed capacity factors were services, institutions, human
resources, technical aspects, economic and financial aspects,
and social and cultural aspects.
Figure 1 depicts the general mechanism of community-
based WB.
Selection criteria for community‑based WBs’
interviewees
district level, one central WB operating at the city level,
one recycler, the Cleanliness and Environment Department
of Makassar’s local government, YPN, and 14 community-
based WB users randomly selected at 14 community-based
WBs.
The second field survey was conducted in March 2019,
with the aim of following up the MSWM policy of Makassar
local government and their progress on community-based
WB programs. The main interviewees this time were the
Cleanliness and Environment Department of Makassar’s
local government, the central WB, and YPN.

A comprehensive list of community-based WBs in Makas- Results and discussion

sar was obtained through YPN. As of December 2016,
there were 354 community-based WBs in Makassar city.
We announced the implementation of the survey to 206
active community-based WBs2 through the environmental
NGO YPN. Out of the 206 community-based WBs, only 14
community-based WBs were willing to respond to the ques-
tionnaire. Seven community-based WBs were in operation
for more than 5 years, and four community-based WBs were
established in less than 5 years. Though an intensive effort
was put in, the number of community-based WB leaders as
respondents was quite small. This is the main limitation of
study that we could not receive responses from majority of
the community-based WB leaders.
Field surveys in Indonesia
Field surveys in Makassar were conducted twice, with an
interval of almost 2 years. The first survey was conducted in
May 2017. The study team interviewed 14 community-based
In Sect. 3.1, the pre-development phase of community-
based WBs in Indonesia and its introduction to Makassar
city is discussed. In Sect. 3.2, how local policy implemen-
tation reinforced the lack of guidance by legal framework
in Makassar city is discussed. This is followed by Sect. 3.3
where the importance of neighborhood associations in
implementing community-based WBs in Makassar city is
illustrated. For community-based WBs to be used by more
households and for the collection of more waste, commu-
nity-based WBs need an authority’s endorsement and sup-
port. Therefore, Sects. 3.4 and 3.5 discuss the institutional
mechanism of the central WB and how it assists commu-
nity-based WBs to smoothly conduct the recycling activi-
ties at the community level. Section 3.6 discusses the effect
of community-based WBs in the increase of the amount of
recycled waste collected after the number of community-
based WBs increased.

2
Active status of community-based WB indicates the status based on
the transaction of waste with central WB.

13
932
Pre‑development phase of community‑based WBs
and its introduction to Makassar city
In Makassar city, since the middle of 2000s, the amount of
MSW brought to the city’s landfill has steadily increased at
the rate of 10–20% each year, as shown in Table 1.
In the late 2000s, Makassar city conducted Clean and
Green Program with the assistance of Indonesian Unilever
Foundation’s CSR scheme under the national government
policy to promote 3Rs and household-level separation.
This could be considered as an initial step for Makassar to
integrate the community-based recycling program into its
MSWM policy.
Around 2008, the community-based WB concept was
introduced by Mr. Saharuddin Ridwan, the leader of YPN
in Makassar city, when he heard a lecture delivered by Dr.
Bambang Suwerda. This caught Mr. Saharuddin’s attention
and he understood it as an innovative technique to induce
the motivation of residents to separate waste at home. Mr.
Saharuddin introduced this concept to community leaders
and residents, and this concept gradually received attention
and interest so as to become part of the activities of the
existing neighborhood association. After convincing both
the local government and community leaders of the existing
neighborhood association called Rakun Warga (RW), the
first community-based WB was launched in the Halipan RW
in 2011 as a pilot study. In the course of 4 years, the number
of community-based WBs steadily increased to 200.
This community-based recycling concept became popu-
lar in Makassar city, because it allows residents to receive
money: certain types of waste (paper, plastic, metal, and
grass) are purchased at the quoted price set by recyclers.
The recycling concept became attractive, as the commu-
nity-based MSW initiative started by the Ministry of Public
Works and Human Settlements called TPS3R required resi-
dents to pay treatment fee per waste amount to the facility
based on Polluters-Pay Principles.
Despite the growing popularity of the community-based
WB as part of community empowerment activity in Makas-
sar, YPN was concerned about the trust of the community
people towards this activity, because some communities
showed uneasiness in selling recyclable waste to recyclers
directly. One of the main concerns in this regard was that the
recyclers did not pay the agreed price on recyclable waste to
the resident or did not collect waste at the appointed time.
Reinforcement of lack of guidance in legal
framework through local policy formation
and implementation
The national government first attempted to define ‘commu-
nity-based WBs’ to help communities establish the system
and facilities for activities of WB. In 2012, the Ministry of
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
Environment issued Regulation No. 13 to provide guide-
lines for 3R activities through community-based WBs.
This was the first official document that encouraged the
local government, communities, NGOs, and other inter-
ested stakeholders to implement 3R activities through
community-based WBs. The regulation defines commu-
nity-based WBs as places for sorting and collecting recy-
clable and/or reusable waste that has economic value [6].
The scope of this Ministerial Regulation covers (1)
the requirements of the community-based WBs, (2) the
working mechanisms of the community-based WBs, (3)
community-based WB implementation, and (4) commu-
nity-based WB implementers. Construction requirements
for community-based WB buildings were also specified.
This Ministerial Regulation placed more attention on the
physical establishment of the community-based WBs than
the operational and management aspects.
As seen from the scope of the ministerial regulation
stated above, the legal framework of the national govern-
ment did not give the local government and communi-
ties enough guidelines for the operation and management
of community-based WBs. Most importantly, it did not
clearly specify how residents could earn enough cash by
selling waste to the recyclers.
In 2015, when the former mayor was running for elec-
tion, he committed to keeping Makassar clean in his politi-
cal campaign. After he was elected in 2015, he issued a
regulation on the development of the community-based
WB program in Makassar city, which included: (1) “1
Neighborhood Association, 1 Community-based waste
bank” policy to increase the number of community-based
WBs in the city, (2) Central WB establishment to assist
facilitating the waste trade between community-based
WBs and recyclers, (3) requiring civil servants in Makas-
sar to contribute at least 2.5 kg of waste to community-
based WBs each month, without which they would not
receive their monthly salary, (4) increasing the number of
recycled waste categories collected by community-based
WBs to reduce the volume of waste that goes to landfills,
and (5) spending 6 billion Rupiah (approximately JPY 45
million yen) on establishing a central WB in 2016.
While this former mayor was not re-elected in the 2018
election and community-based WB owners and residents
worried about the continuity of community-based WBs
after he left the role, he was appointed as a caretaker
(no candidate was elected as mayor) of the local govern-
ment. So far, this has been not affected the program. Mr.
Iskandar of the Cleanliness and Environmental Depart-
ment of the local government commented that it no longer
worries about the continuity of the community-based WB
program in its local MSWM policy, because the program
has been well recognized by both citizens and the national
government.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
Though community-based recycling, which involves sell-
ing of the waste to recyclers/junkshops, has been seen as
a distraction from formal solid-waste management, Wilson
[25] asserts that the recycling helps municipal solid-waste
management by reducing the amount of waste that must be
treated and brought to the landfill. Economic incentive-ori-
ented recycling in the informal sector and waste-manage-
ment services in the formal sector both may actually benefit
from cooperation [25]. To make sure that the informal waste
pickers’ source of income is not disturbed by the commu-
nity-based WB program, YPN has intervened to convince
both the waste pickers and community-based WBs to col-
lect different types of recyclable waste. While community-
based WBs collect mainly plastics, metal, papers, and glass,
waste pickers would collect more valuable waste such as
wire cables and electric appliances.
The structure of community‑based WBs in Makassar
city and its importance of involving neighborhood
associations
Community-based WBs in Makassar city is strongly sup-
ported by neighborhood associations called Rakun Tetangga
(RT)/Rakun Warga (RW). RT/RW is the smallest unit of
local governance that is operated on a voluntary basis under
the supervision of district office called Kecamatan. RT/RW
are usually headed by community leaders who are elected in
theory, but, in practice, are chosen by government officials
from among the residents [26] and also have their commu-
nity committee meetings with appointed committee mem-
bers such as treasurer, secretariat, and cleaning officer. They
carry out formal civil service such as signing documents,
confirming eligibility for government programs, enforcing
rules and laws, organizing their communities for collective
action, and keeping the security at night [26]. On top of that,
the neighborhood associations conduct civil defense, infor-
mation distribution, delivery of service to the government
and production assistance, and the promotion of mutual aid
called Gotong Royong [26]. The door-to-door waste col-
lection service is also carried out as part of the duties of
neighborhood association. This kind of neighborhood gov-
ernance originates from the periods of single-party rule or
foreign occupation. In the case of Indonesia, it originates
from Japanese occupation period.
According to the results of surveys completed by com-
munity-based WB users, we can infer that the involvement
of RT/RW leaders in community-based WBs assures users
that community-based WB is trustworthy. Residents trust
RT/RW leaders, because they also conduct many other
types of community activities stated previously. Out of
the 14 community-based WBs that we surveyed, four were
inactive community-based WBs that did not regularly sell
waste to the central WB. Through interviews, we found that
933
these four were neither operated by RT/RW community
leaders or RT/RW community committee members. The
residents in the inactive community-based WBs explain
that the leaders do not organize the community-based WB
activities regularly nor allow the exchange of cash based
on the waste transaction at the community-based WBs. The
residents expressed the distrust to the community-based WB
run by non-neighborhood association leaders, because the
community-based WB was not organized as an official com-
munity activity. This implies that the involvement of existing
neighborhood association leaders is an important factor for
encouraging community residents to trust community-based
WBs.
Institutional mechanism of Central WB and its
support to the community‑based WBs
After the mayor’s regulation was enacted in 2015, following
repeated suggestions and advice from the Mr. Saharuddin,
the local government determined that establishing a Central
WB would better facilitate the waste material recycling flows
and process in the city. The local government decided to
play a key role in the community-based WB program, by
establishing the Central WB for the purpose of (1) collection
of recyclable waste from community-based WBs at on-call
service, (2) segregation and cleaning of waste to gain more
value at the time of selling to the recyclers, (3) analyzing the
market price of recyclable waste and issuing the reference
buying/selling price regularly and disseminating the price
information endorsed by the local government, and (4) sell-
ing waste to the recyclers.
Central WB establishment and its operations
The Central WB is set up in the central district of the Makas-
sar city and thus offers accessibility to both the recyclers and
the community-based WBs. Central WB is equipped with a
large, temporary, waste storage yard for all the recyclable
waste, with a crushing equipment for PET bottles and alu-
minum cans. The director of the Central WB is appointed
by the local government since its establishment and has both
permanent staffs appointed by the local government and
temporary sorting staffs and drivers of collection vehicles.
As for the budget of the Central WB, the local govern-
ment initially covered 100% of the budget for running the
Central WB when it was first established in 2016. This
included the cost of the property, the construction of the
building and facility, the running costs of the office, the pro-
curement of waste crushers and vehicles, and salaries for
employees. This enabled the Central WB to move its focus
away from making a profit from waste transactions between
community-based WBs and recyclers.
13
934
However, since 2017, the Central WB has had to pay a
“minimum amount of revenue” to the financial division of
local government to compensate for the cost it incurs. The
amount of payment the Central WB must make is revealed
after the beginning of fiscal year, but for the last 3 years, the
timings varied. Though the amount was not revealed, Central
WB officers indicated that the minimum amount of revenue
fluctuates each year and also, the justification of the mini-
mum amount of revenue was not shared to Central WB. It
is set by the local government without room for negotiation.
These arrangements of the local government that lacks
transparency and accountability puts the Central WB in
a difficult position, as it cannot determine the revenue it
acquires from waste transaction until the local government
announces the compensation amount it must pay. Therefore,
the Central WB has not been able to upgrade its waste pro-
cessing facility that could transform collected waste into
waste with added value.
The local government also approves and endorses the
fixed price list of traded wastes between recyclers and com-
munity-based WBs every 3 months. There are four major
categories (paper, plastic, metal, and glass) of waste that
are traded, for which fixed prices are decided, based on an
analysis conducted by the Central WB. This price list is now
used only for reference, and recyclers use market prices for
actual waste transactions.
Legal grounds for establishing the central WB to assist
government interventions in community‑based WBs
The Central WB was established under the institutional
scheme set by Decree (Permendagri) 61/2007 issued by the
Ministry of Interior of Indonesia. The institutional frame-
work of the central WB is based on the Unit Pelaksana
Teknis Daerah (UPTD) under the above decree. UPTD is a
unit that conducts technical operations for the public service
and for local offices or agencies (Permendagri 12/2007 art.
1 [27]).
Thus, in principle, the Central WB should not seek prof-
its, as it is expected to serve public waste-management ser-
vices and provide public goods under the UPTD framework.
The final decision-maker for the Central WB is the head
of the parent organization, which in Makassar’s case was
the Mayor. The income source for the Central WB comes
from the local government’s budget and revenue from waste
transactions.
Currently, the Central WB cannot receive income from
selling services and goods, donations, or funds from partner-
ship programs such as a donor’s project funds. The Central
WB wishes to upgrade their recycling facility and improve
their recycling system, so that it is a more comprehensive
recycling hub, that can treat multiple types of waste, to add
more value, like the Material Recovered Facility (MRF).
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
However, the UPTD framework does not allow the Central
WB to prepare a business plan, a contractual performance
agreement, or to take out loans or credit for its activities.
Incentives for communities to participate
in community‑based WB after central WB establishment
By establishing the Central WB as an intermediary between
community-based WBs and recyclers, community-based
WBs are less burdened with having to negotiate prices with
recyclers directly.
The local government tries to ensure that community-
based WB leaders are motivated to keep running commu-
nity-based WBs effectively and to encourage more resi-
dents to participate in the activities. With the assistance of
the Unilever Foundation Indonesia, the local government
provides awards to community-based WBs that are able to
acquire more customers (residents) and collect more recy-
clable waste annually.
Newly available data on collected recyclables
after establishment of central WB
In developing countries, data on recycling are difficult to
obtain, because recyclable waste is collected by the informal
sector. Thus, it is not possible to systematically collect sta-
tistical data to identify the recycling rate. Community-based
WB activities can be considered to be part of the recycling
system carried out by the informal sector. However, the
establishment of the Central WB enables the local govern-
ment to gather all the waste and weigh it before selling it
to recyclers. This is a “win–win” cooperation between the
formal and informal sectors: waste volume in landfills is
reduced and the recycling rate is raised at the same time.
Consequent increase of community‑based WBs
and collected waste volume after local government
intervention
Since the introduction of the mayor’s regulation, many RW
community leaders expressed interest in starting commu-
nity-based WBs in their own RWs, and the number of com-
munity-based WBs grew rapidly. By the end of 2016, the
total number of community-based WBs had grown to 450.
In the following year, it reached 500 approximately.
As shown in Table 2, after the Mayor’s regulation was
enacted in 2016, the number of community-based WBs and
the number of community-based WB customers significantly
increased. In conjunction with this rapid increase, the vol-
ume of collected waste also increased to almost five times
than that of the previous year in 2015.
While the volume of collected waste increased for 2 years,
there was a drop-in waste collection by community-based
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
Table 2  Summary of collected waste and revenue from selling to recyclers
Year Summary of collected waste and revenue from selling to recyclers
# Of waste bank # Of customer Collected waste (kg)
(accumulated) (accumulated)
2014 100 2,000 417,762
2015 188 5,606 246,945
2016 450 18,000 1,000,877
2017 499 19,960 1,271,903
2018 544 21,000 943,600
3,881,087
WBs in 2018, which was explained by the Central WB
officer and YPN as being affected by the crush of supporting
candidates for the mayor’s election by community leaders
and members in 2018.
Community-based WB leaders may express support
for a particular candidate, while residents have a preferred
candidate that may conflict with the community-based WB
leader’s preference. This different preference of political
parties affects residents’ motivations to participate in the
community-based WB program and has led to a decrease in
the amount of collected waste.
Conclusion
This study analyzes how community-based Waste Bank Pro-
grams can be supported by local governments, and further
examines the institutional mechanism of the Central WB
which was established by the local government, as part of
integrating community-based WBs into Makassar’s MSWM
policy.
First, we found that while the former mayor was in
office from 2015 to 2018, the Makassar local govern-
ment, committed to following the newly enforced mayor’s
regulations, made use of the MSWM budget on the estab-
lishment and operation of Central WB. Makassar local
government puts efforts into utilizing the existing legal
framework and the institutional scheme while introducing
an innovative, community-based recycling concept involv-
ing households. The Makassar local government used an
existing institutional scheme called UPTD when launching
the Central WB to facilitate the waste transaction process
between community-based WBs and recyclers. UPTD is
the institutional scheme in which the government supports
operational cost and is not allowed raise money through
provision of public service and technical operation. This
originally allowed the Central WB to focus on maximiz-
ing its waste transaction without worrying about making
profit. However, with the enforcement of the “minimum
935
Collected waste Total rev- Total revenue (Japanese
(unit in 1000 piece) enue (Indonesian yen) 1 Rupiah = 0.076
Rupiah) JPY
4,251 459,398,750 34,914,305
5,804 477,796,491 36,312,533
12,017 2,219,607,690 168,690,184
31,751 2,995,745,710 227,676,674
31,816 2,040,663,120 155,090,397
85,639 8,193,211,761 622,684,094
amount of revenue” rule set by the local government that
requires the Central WB to pay the government a fluc-
tuating amount of revenue each year, while the Central
WB also needs to pay back the community-based WBs the
profit for selling waste. This mechanism puts the Central
WB in a not-so-sustainable situation, because the insti-
tutional scheme UPTD does not allow the Central WB
to make any profit by provision of public service which
allows Central WB to invest in upgrading facilities which
could add value to the recycled waste, but the local gov-
ernment actually demands the Central WB to raise profit
to pay the government back.
Second, government interventions in community-based
WBs in Makassar were mainly conducted through the role
of the Central WB to provide a waste transaction platform
between community-based WBs and recyclers and to maxi-
mize the profits made by waste transactions. The Central
WB conducts regular market price analysis and price list-
ing as a reference for community-based WBs that are not
able to carry out such activities with their own capacities.
Through the Central WB, the local government also ensures
a continuous stream of recycled waste and collects data on
the volume of the collected recycled waste. This allows the
local government to increase the city’s recycling rate.
Third, this study also found that the price list set by the
local government every 3 months does not match the prices
used in actual waste transaction with recyclers. Therefore,
it does not serve the original objective of introduction of the
price list anymore. However, this list is used as a reference to
the community-based WBs, because prices regularly fluctu-
ate in the recycling market.
Fourth, as a result of the local government’s interven-
tion since 2015, the number of community-based WBs and
their customers significantly increased, which has led to an
increase in the volume of collected recyclable waste.
Finally, this study also found that after the Mayor’s regu-
lation was enacted in 2016, the number of community-based
WBs and the number of community-based WB customers
significantly increased. In conjunction with the increase of
13
936
the customers, the volume of collected waste also increased
to almost five times that of the previous year in 2015.
While the volume of collected waste increased for 2 years,
the statistics from the Central WB indicates that there was
a decrease in waste collection by community-based WBs in
2018 that was explained by the Central WB officer and YPN
as being related to the mayor’s election in 2018.
This study has also significantly thrown light on that fact
that different preference of political parties between com-
munity leaders and residents affects residents’ motivations
to participate in the community-based WB program and thus
has led to a decrease in the amount of collected waste.
Policy implication and future research
For effective policy implementation in community-based
WBs of Makassar City, the authorities should review the
performance of the central Waste Bank from time to time.
This will also help the central WB in effectively managing
and saving capital, for the further improvement of the mate-
rial recovery facility at the central WB. Because it has been
almost 5 years, since the current system has been put to
place, it is also important to review the roles and responsi-
bilities of each actor such as the local government, the cen-
tral WB, community-based WBs, recyclers, and residents,
to run the community-based WB system in Makassar city in
a more effective and sustainable manner.
As for the possibilities for future research, first, it is
important to note that the changes in MSW collection could
be affected by other factors. There should be studies that
explore those factors in detail. Secondly, Makassar presents
itself as one case study for the concept of innovative recy-
cling with a community-based approach. However, the rela-
tionship between community-based WBs, the central WB,
and the local government should be examined further, con-
sidering the sustainability of the central WB with or with-
out interventions by the local government. The comparative
research of community-based recycling initiatives, their
differential historical development in developing countries,
comparison with WBs from other cities with no central WB,
or a completely different system of WBs would be necessary
to extend the scope of this research.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere apprecia-
tion to all the stakeholders who contributed to the data collection in
Makassar. Our appreciation goes out to those from the Indonesian
national government, NGOs, neighborhood associations, and the pri-
vate sector who inspired us to continue this research. Field surveys
were strongly supported by staff members of Yayasan Peduli Neguri
and Mr. Iman Utomo in the field of waste management. Last but not
least, this research is partially financially supported by the Center for
Material Cycles and Waste Management of the National Institute for
Environmental Studies in Japan and was also partly supported by the
Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
Japan Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency (Project
ID: S-16).
References
1. Wilson DC (2007) Development drivers for waste management.
Waste Manag Res 25(3):198–207
2. Meidiana C, Gamse T (2010) Development of waste practices in
Indonesia. Eur J Sci Res 40(2):199–210
3. McDougall F et al (2001) Integrated solid waste management: a
life cycle inventory, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Hoboken
4. Marshall RE, Farahbakhsh K (2013) Systems approaches to inte-
grated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste
Manag 33:988–1003
5. Pasang H et al (2007) Neighborhood-based waste management:
a solution for solid waste problems in Jakarta, Indonesia. Waste
Manag 27:1924–1938
6. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (2015) Laporan
Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup adan Kehutanan 2013. Ministry
of Environment and Forestry, Jakarta
7. Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) (2015) Statistik Indonesia: statistical
yearbook of Indonesia. https://-istmat.info/files/uploads/47409/
statistical_yearbook_of_indonesia_2015.pdf (Last accessed on the
8 Nov 2019)
8. Damanhuri E (2017) Country chapter state of the 3Rs in Asia and
the Pacific, United Nations Centre for Regional Development
9. Mehra R et al (1996) Women in waste collection and recycling to
Ho Chi Minh City. Popul Environ 18(2):187–200
10. Mongkolnchaiarunya J (2005) Promoting a community-based
solid-waste management initiative in local government: Yala
municipality Thailand. Habitat Int 29(2005):27–40
11. Wijayanti DR, Suryani S (2015) CBWB as community-based envi-
ronmental governance: a lesson learned from Surabaya. Proc Soc
Behav Sci 184:171–179
12. Ministry of Environment (2012) Regulation of the State Minister
for environment of the Republic of Indonesia, number 13 of 2012
on implementing guidelines for reduce, reuse and recycle through
CBWB
13. Ulung A., (2018) Children take center stage in waste bank ini-
tiative. The Jakarta Post. https ​ : //www.theja ​ k arta ​ p ost.com/
life/2018/04/17/child​ren-take-cente​r-stage​-in-waste​-bank-initi​
ative​.html (Last accessed on 8 Nov 2019)
14. Yanti W., (March 14, 2019) Personal communication with Utomo
I. and Limbong D
15. Tallei TE et al (2013) Local community-based initiatives of waste
management programs on Bunaken Island in North Sulawesi,
Indonesia. Res J Environ Earth Sci 12(5):737–743
16. Indrianti N (2016) Community-based Solid CBWB model for
sustainable education. Proc-Soc Behav Sci 224:158–166
17. Tahir M et al (2009) Solid waste management at neighborhood
level in Jakarta, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Annual Confer-
ence of Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste Manage-
ment, pp. 277–277, Japan Society of Material Cycles and Waste
Management
18. Purba H et al (2014) Waste management scenario through com-
munity based CBWB A case study of Kepanjen district Malang
regency, Indonesia. Int J Environ Sci Dev 5(2):212
19. Murase N et al (2015) Analysis on relationship between residents’
awareness and waste bank activities in Indonesia—Case of Balik-
papan city, (In Japanese). Kankyou-Jouhou Kagaku Ronbunshu
29:267–272
20. Ulhasanah N (2017) Assessment of citizens’ environmental behav-
ior toward municipal solid waste management for a better and
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2020) 22:928–937
appropriate system in Indonesia: a case study of Padang City. J
Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20(2):1257–1272
21. Premakumara D et al (2016) Transition from waste management to
resource management a potential of CBWB program. JSM Envi-
ron Sci Ecol 4(4):1037
22. Badan Pusat Statistik., (2015) Intermediate population census
23. Creswell J (2014) Research design: qualitative, qualitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage publishing, Thousand Oaks
24. Bouabid A, Louis G (2015) Capacity factor analysis for evaluating
water and sanitation infrastructure choices for developing com-
munities. J Environ Manag 161:335–343
25. Wilson D et al (2009) Building recycling rates through the infor-
mal sector. Waste Manag 29:629–635
26. Soderborg S (2015) Volunteer spies, volunteer bureaucrats:
neighborhood governance in Indonesia and around the world, in
937
Midwest political science Association 2015 Conference. Chicago,
IL
27. Ministry of Interior, Permendagri No. 61 Tahun 2007 Pedoman
Teknis Pengelolaan Keuangan Badan Layanan Umum Derah Den-
gan Rahmat Tuhan Yang Maha Esa Menteri Dalam Negeri, https​
://luk.staff​.ugm.ac.id/atur/blu/Perme​nkeu6​1-2007P​engel​olaan​
KeuBL​UDaer​ah.pdf. Last access: 17 May 2019
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13