Household Waste Control Index towards Sustainable Waste Management: A Study in Bekasi City, Indonesia

Ferdinan,; Utomo, Suyud Warno; Soesilo, Tri Edhi Budhi; Herdiansyah, Herdis

doi:10.3390/su142114403

Open AccessArticle

Household Waste Control Index towards Sustainable Waste Management: A Study in Bekasi City, Indonesia

by

Ferdinan

,

Suyud Warno Utomo

,

Tri Edhi Budhi Soesilo

and

Herdis Herdiansyah

^*

School of Environmental Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta 10430, Indonesia

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14403; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114403

Submission received: 23 September 2022 / Revised: 14 October 2022 / Accepted: 22 October 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022

Download

Browse Figures

Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Household waste is the most significant contributor to the accumulation of waste in the final processing area. Indonesia produces 65.2 million waste per year. Improper waste management practices in Indonesia require evaluation steps to achieve sustainable waste management. This study aims to formulate an evaluation instrument for the implementation of household waste management using the analysis of the Household Waste Control Index (HWCI) calculation. This study uses quantitative methods by collecting data from a survey of 548 waste bank members spread across 12 districts in Bekasi City and using the analysis of the calculation of the Household Waste Control Index. Based on the study results, it is known that the implementation of household waste management in Bekasi City is in the moderate category (5.86 out of 10), and the governance of household waste management at the community level still needs to be improved. Furthermore, based on the validation results, it is concluded that the household waste control index can be recommended as an instrument to measure, evaluate, and consider recommendations for waste management policies to realize sustainable household waste management in Bekasi City and other areas that have similar conditions to Bekasi City.

Keywords:

household; control; index; sustainable; waste management

1. Introduction

Waste management is a big challenge for developing countries, given the complexity of the problems and the limited resources they have, so they require serious attention and solutions through the development of innovative and dynamic knowledge [1].

The problem of waste generation has become a global issue, data in 2016 showed the generation of waste generated worldwide reached up to 2.01 billion tons, and the number is expected to increase to 3.4 billion tons by 2050 [2]. In 2019, the U.K. produced at least 26,441 thousand tons annually [3]. Meanwhile, in Germany, the waste generated in 2015 was 51.6 million tons, despite high technology and a systematic waste management system. High household waste production is closely related to rapid population and economic growth, urbanization, and high food consumption [4]. According to environmental statistics data from the Central Agency of Statistics, in 2016, Indonesia already produced 65.2 million tons of waste every year [5]. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened waste generation by increasing medical waste by 2372 tons per day in Indonesia [6]. Also, in 2021 Bekasi City has been producing an average of 1500 tons per day with a managed waste of 1061 tons per day [7]. From these data, the accumulated waste generation is at an alarming rate. It has become a challenge because improper waste management leads to significant environmental problems such as disease in humans and natural hazards. [8].

Based on data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, it is known that household waste contributed about 1064 tons or about 60% of the total amount of waste in 2019 [9]. Meanwhile, as stated in Presidential Regulation Number 97 of 2017 and Regulation of the Mayor of Bekasi Number 65 of 2018, the target for household waste management is that 70% of the total waste is processed correctly, followed by a minimum waste reduction of 30%. Can evaluate the effectiveness of household waste management in implementing the regulation in question. Indonesia has another problem in tackling waste production because the waste management system in Indonesia still relies on conventional methods such as landfill and open dumping [10]. According to data from the Central Agency of Statistics (B.P.S.), in 2017, only 1.2% of recycling in Indonesia and 66.8% of waste burning in Indonesia [5]. The problems of waste management in Indonesia need proper waste management. Without proper waste management, this problem is likely to increase and potentially cause negative impacts on environmental ecosystems [11]. Improper waste management in Indonesia can lead to other problems, such as plastic pollution on the Indonesian coast by 38.790 particles/kg dry weight [12]. Another problem that improper waste management can cause is emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gasses [13].

Currently, waste management in developing countries only has one goal, namely protecting the environment [14], taking into account three aspects; economic, social, and environmental. Research has demonstrated the potential of household waste to generate additional G.D.P. (economy), create cumulative employment and annual household savings (social), and reduce waste and CO₂ emissions (environment) through the implementation of waste banks at the community level [15]. Waste Banks, one of the biggest drivers of sustainable waste management, make it possible to generate additional income for households through household waste management [16,17].

As research stated, it seems that many types of research on waste management only focus on environmental aspects. In contrast, other factors that may affect waste management applied in society, such as economic, social, financial, and especially, policy and waste management regulations, are not included in the index [18]. Analysis of household waste management by considering many factors that contribute to and impact the broader scope of waste management systems and can trigger waste production [19]. The author tries to elaborate on research related to household waste management as a whole, from upstream to downstream waste, so that the implementation process of household waste management can be formulated to measure the effectiveness of its implementation. Research related to household waste management still requires a broader scope of waste management problems, and to achieve a more comprehensive coverage, the index calculation method is used [20]. The index is a composite manual measurement consisting of a summary and rating of specific observations [21].

There are previous studies on measuring waste management. The zero waste index is a measurement tool for waste management performance. These measurement tools forecast the number of virgin materials, energy, water, and greenhouse gas emissions substituted by the resources recovered from waste streams [22]. Other research also proposes other measurement tools, such as the Solid Waste Management Index (SWaMI), which aims for the Higher Education Institutes (H.E.I.s) decision makers to educate and train by inserting sustainable waste management. This measurement works by statistically analysis of these H.E.I.s (Higher Education Institutes) under the SWaMI assessment dimensions perspective, the benefit [23], and Waste Hierarchy Index to measure the waste hierarchy within a circular economy context, applied to municipal solid waste [24]. Research related to waste management using the intended index requires improvising indicators adjusted to the characteristics of the research area. The waste management index summary consists of the Zero Waste Index, Solid Waste Management Index, and Waste Hierarchy Index, shown in Table 1.

Developing the index calculation method to measure waste management is still facing obstacles. This measurement problem still lacks scope and completeness and needs improvement to adapt to the current phenomenon. The implementation of this study aims to formulate comprehensively by elaborating studies related to household waste management. This condition is then formulated as a new index as an evaluation instrument to measure the effectiveness and achievement of household waste management, which is named the Household Waste Control Index (HWCI). This index calculation is comprehensively translated into three measurement indicators, namely input indicators (∑i), process indicators (∑p), and output indicators (∑o). The Household Waste Control Index especially can show high relevance in describing the actual condition of household waste management compared to other indices.

Implementation of the analysis using the measurement of the household waste control index considering each stage of waste management, the Household Waste Control Index is expected to be an innovative step to understanding sustainable household waste management on a community scale. So that further research is intended to show the effectiveness of the implementation of household waste management in Bekasi City at this time by using the Household Waste Control Index instrument, then it will be compared with routine evaluations carried out by the relevant Regional Apparatus to validate the suitability of the data analysis results using the household waste control index. Households with factual data based on the evaluation of the Office have the authority to evaluate the implementation of household waste management. In the end, it is hoped that the analysis results will show valid results approaching factual data so that, in time, it can be considered for use in the evaluation process of household waste management and as a recommendation for the development of sustainable waste management policies.

2. Materials and Method

This study is a quantitative study using an electronic questionnaire. This research was conducted in 12 districts in Bekasi City, West Java Province, Indonesia as shown in Figure 1, as the city with the highest population density and the central location for T.P.A. Bekasi City and D.K.I. Jakarta.

As a commuter city and a location close to the Jakarta Metropolitan Area, it is estimated that more than 2.5 million people live in Bekasi City [5]. Therefore, this study proposes further research in Bekasi City using the HWCI index to investigate the current state and problems of waste management at the community level.

This research was conducted during the implementation restrictions on public activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic that hit Indonesia. The population in this study was all Bekasi City residents registered as members of the Bekasi City Waste Bank Unit in 2020, with a total of 8584 households. Sampling was carried out by purposive sampling from 12 districts in the Bekasi area and calculated proportionally. The sample size was calculated using the Slovin method [25]. A total of 382 households, with an additional 10%, were taken as the sample of this study. The minimum sample size is 420 waste bank members. The participation rate of respondents reached 130% of the set sample target, bringing the total sample to 548 households registered as waste bank members in the Bekasi City area (Table 2).

It is important to measure how effective waste management is to achieve Sustainability. The results of the elaboration of research related to household waste management were then evaluated using an analytical instrument Household Waste Control Index was formulated into three indicators, namely input indicators, process indicators, and output indicators as detailed as shown in Table 3.

The implementation of the Household Waste Control Index analysis by measuring several indicators that affect household waste management, which is divided into 3 (three), including:

Input Indicator (Ʃi)
- Regulations on waste management that exist at the scale of the community unit (i₁) [26,27,28,29,30]
  - The formulation of the score for calculating the Input Indicator is related to the indicators of household waste management regulations at the community pillar scale as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if there is no waste management regulation on the scale of the community unit;
    (2)
    The score is 1: if there is a waste management regulation on the scale of the community unit.
- Knowledge of the community in managing household waste (i₂) [31,32,33,34]
  - The formulation of the score for calculating the Input Indicator is related to the community knowledge indicator related to household waste management at the community unit scale as follows:
    (1)
    The score is 0: if you do not have knowledge related to household waste management;
    (2)
    The score is 1: if you already have knowledge related to household waste management
- Contribution/Retribution in household waste management (i₃) [17,26,35]
  - The formulation of the score for calculating the Input Indicator is related to the indicators of community contributions/retributions related to household waste management at the community unit scale as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if there no/no fees/retribution for household waste management;
    (2)
    Score is 1: if there is a household waste management fee/retribution
- Household waste management facilities that exist at the scale of the community unit (i₄) [36,37,38]
  - The formulation of the score for the calculation of the Input Indicator is related to the indicators of supporting facilities related to household waste management at the community unit scale as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if you do not have a household waste management facility at the scale of a community unit;
    (2)
    Score is 1: if you already have a household waste management facility at the scale of a community unit
Process Indicator (Ʃp)
- Household Waste Management Activities at the community scale (p₁) [27,39]
  - The formulation of the scoring for the calculation of Process Indicators is related to the indicators of household waste management activities at the community level pillars as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if there is no household waste management activity on the scale of the community unit;
    (2)
    Score is 1: if there is already a household waste management activity on the scale of the community unit.
- Waste Bank Activities (p₂) [40,41,42]
  - The formulation of the scoring process for the calculation of the Process Indicator is related to the activity indicators of the Waste Bank in managing household waste at the scale of the community unit as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if there is no Waste Bank activity on the scale of the community unit;
    (2)
    Score is 1: if there is already a Waste Bank activity on the scale of the community unit.
- Environmental Activist Community Activities (p₃) [43,44]
  - The formulation of the scoring for the calculation of Process Indicators is related to the activity indicators of the Environmental Activist Community in managing household waste at the scale of the community unit as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 0: if there is no environmental activist community activity on the scale of the community unit;
    (2)
    Score is 1: if there is already an environmental activist community activity on the scale of the neighborhood association.
- Household waste management activities carried out are routine and sustainable (p₄) [45,46]
  - The formulation of the scoring for the calculation of Process Indicators is related to the indicators of household waste management activities at the community level pillars that are carried out regularly and sustainably, as follows:
    (1)
    The score is 0: if household waste management activities at the community unit scale are not carried out routinely;
    (2)
    The score is 1: if household waste management activities at the scale of the community unit are carried out regularly
Output Indicator (Ʃo)
- Percentage of waste managed through household waste management activities (o₁) [47,48,49]
  - The formulation of the calculation score of the output indicators related to the percentage of waste that is managed by household waste management at the scale of the community unit is as follows:
    (1)
    The score is 1: if the percentage of household waste that is successfully managed: is <30%;
    (2)
    The score is 2: if the percentage of household waste that is successfully managed: is 30% to 70%;
    (3)
    The score is 3: if the percentage of household waste that is successfully managed: is> 70%;
- Percentage of residual waste from household waste management activities (o₂) [50,51]
  - The formulation of the score for calculating the Outcome Indicators related to the percentage of residual waste from the household waste management process at the community unit scale is as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 1: if the percentage of residual waste: is> 70%;
    (2)
    Score is 2: if the percentage of residual waste: is 30% to 70%;
    (3)
    Score is 3: if the residual waste percentage is < 30%.
- Economic value of household waste management activities (o₃) [52,53,54]
  - The formulation of the score for the calculation of the Outcome Indicators related to the economic value of the household waste management process at the scale of the community unit is as follows:
    (1)
    Score is 1: if the economic value is small;
    (2)
    Score is 2: if the economic value is moderate;
    (3)
    Score is 3: if the economic value is significant.
- Benefit Value of household waste management activities (o₄) [55,56,57]
  - The formulation of the score for calculating the Outcome Indicators related to the value of the benefits of the household waste management process at the community level pillar is as follows:
    (1)
    The score is 1: if the value of benefits is small;
    (2)
    Score is 2: if the value of benefits is moderate;
    (3)
    Score is 3: if the value of the benefits is significant.

The overall result of the calculation of the score if it is assumed that all indicators get a maximum score of 20 points; therefore, assuming the lowest index value is 0 and the highest index value is 10, the index coefficient (ci) in this index calculation is determined to be 0.5. The categorization in this study is based on previous research [17], which divided it into 5 (five) categories as described in Table 4.

Furthermore, based on the description of the scoring analysis of each indicator as referred to above, the calculation of the Household Waste Control Index is formulated using the following calculation formula:

HWCI = (i₁ + i₂ + i₃ + i₄) + (p₁ + p₂ + p₃ + p₄) + (o₁ + o₂ + o₃ + o₄) × ci
HWCI = (Σi + Σp + Σo) × ci

(1)

with:

HWCI	= Household waste control index
Σi	= Accumulated input indicator calculation
Σp	= Accumulated process indicator calculation
Σo	= Accumulated output indicator calculation
ci	= household waste control index coefficient (ci = 0.5).

Furthermore, these results will be interpreted following Presidential Regulation Number 97 of 2017 concerning National Strategic Policy for the Management of Domestic Waste and Similar Waste, and Bekasi Mayor Regulation Number 65 of 2018 concerning strategic policies of Bekasi City to evaluate materials and formulate recommendations for further action by stakeholders.

At the end of the implementation, validation was carried out on the results of the calculation of the Household Waste Control Index by holding a Focus Group Discussion (F.G.D.) at the end of August 2021, which invited stakeholders to attend, including representatives of the management of the central waste bank of Bekasi City and representatives of the head of the waste bank unit each district in the Bekasi City area, officials from the Bekasi City Environmental Service, representatives of the environmentalist community and representatives of waste management experts from environmental academics. During the F.G.D. implementation, the analysis of household waste management in the Bekasi City area was exposed using the calculation of the household waste control index and compared with the evaluation of the implementation of waste management in Bekasi City by the Bekasi City Environmental Service.

3. Results

The findings are based on comparative research [21] and an analysis of research results using the Household Waste Control Index with three indicators that impact the household waste management system [35]. The results are shown in the Table below.

3.1. Input Indicators (Σi)

The input indicator is an elaboration based on the results of previous research relating to things that are considered to be able to encourage the implementation of sustainable household waste management, which are formulated into four sub-indicators, including household waste management regulations, community knowledge in managing household waste, levies for household waste management and household waste management facilities, with the calculation results as shown in Table 5.

Based on the results of the study in the Table 5, it can be seen that the Sub-indicator i₁ score is 44% (0.45) of the community already has regulations that require residents to sort and manage waste. The results for the Sub-indicator i₂ score indicate that 69% (0.73) of the total respondents already know household waste management independently and communally. The Sub-indicator i₃ shows that 93% (0.94) of the community is required to pay a household waste management fee as a form of responsibility for the waste produced. Sub-indicator i₄ shows that only about 24% (0.26) of community areas already have supporting facilities for household waste management at the community level. Furthermore, briefly the calculation results of the sub-indicators in the input indicators are shown in Figure 2.

The input indicator scored 2.38 out of a maximum score of 4.00. The results of this study show that public knowledge (i₂ = 0.73) and user fees (i₄ = 0.94) are high compared to facilities owned by households (i₃ = 0.26) and regulations that apply in the community (i₁ = 0.45). These calculations require improvements for all input indicators, primarily the provision of adequate facilities for household waste management.

3.2. Process Indicator (Σp)

Process indicators are formulated based on the results of elaboration of previous research relating to matters that affect the implementation process and the existence of sustainable household waste management, formulated into four sub-indicators, including Activities of household waste management, Activities of the waste bank, Community activities by environmental activists and Routine and sustainable household waste management activities, with the calculation results as shown in Table 6.

Based on the results presented in the Table 6, the Sub-indicator p₁ value in the community was 26% (0.26). The existence of household waste management activities at the community level is proof of the Sustainability of the implementation of waste management activities. The Waste Bank is a place for the community to become agents of change in mobilizing the community in managing household waste so that this study achieves a Sub-indicator p₂ value of 100% (1). At the same time, the Sub-indicator p₃ value is only 22% (0.23) from the community area with an environmental activist community. The Sub-indicator p₄ value is only 47% (0.47) of the people who have carried out household waste management activities at the community level on a regular and sustainable basis. Furthermore, briefly the calculation results of the sub-indicators in the prosess indicators are shown in Figure 3.

The process indicator score shows a total calculation of 1.96 out of 4.00. As shown in Table 6, the scores for household waste management activities, community activities by environmental activists, and the Sustainability of household waste management actions are low. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the three sub-indicators to increase the achievement of process indicators.

3.3. Output Indicator (Σo)

Output indicators as input indicators and process indicators are the formulation of the results of the elaboration of previous research related to the things expected from the implementation process of sustainable household waste management, including four sub-indicators, including The percentage of waste managed through household waste management activities, The percentage of residual waste from household waste management activities, Economic value of household waste management activities and Benefits value of household waste management activities, with the calculation results as shown in Table 7.

The Sub-indicator o₁ of the results in the Table 7, is (0.96), with only 2% of respondents being unable to manage household waste, with >70% (0.96) of the total household waste through independent household waste management and at the community level. The Sub-indicator o₂, namely (1.8), with 41% of respondents generating residual waste <30% of the total waste through the household waste management process, independently and at the community level. The Sub-indicator o₃ is (2.16), where 38% of respondents stated that household waste management activities could generate great economic value. Furthermore, the Sub-indicator o₄ is (2.47). This study found that 58% of respondents stated that household waste management activities yielded significant benefits. Furthermore, briefly the calculation results of the sub-indicators in the process indicators are shown in Figure 4.

The output indicator score shows a total calculation of 7.03 out of 12.00. As shown in Table 7, the scores for the percentage of waste managed and the remaining waste from management activities were lower, which only reached 0.96 and 1.8, respectively. Therefore, improvements are needed for the two sub-indicators to increase the achievement of the output indicators.

3.4. Household Waste Control Index Calculation Analysis

The results of the calculation of input indicators, process indicators, and output indicators are collected in the formula for calculating the household waste control index as formula (1). The maximum accumulated score calculation for input and process indicators is 4.00 out of 4.00. Meanwhile, the maximum accumulated score for the output indicator is 12.00 from 12.00. The results of the index calculations, as listed in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7, then for the calculation of the accumulated household waste control index in Bekasi City, will be used to calculate the environmental household waste management index, as shown in Table 8.

Based on research data and guidelines for assessing input indicators, process indicators, and output indicators as described previously, the final result of calculating the Household Waste Control Index for Bekasi City is calculated using the following formula:

HWCI = (Σi + Σp+ Σo) × ci

HWCI = (2.38 + 1.96 + 7.03) × 05

HWCI = 5.86

Furthermore, in addition to the calculation of the household waste control index at the Bekasi City level, this study also carried out an analysis of the calculation of the household waste control index in 12 districts in the Bekasi City area. Based on the research data, it is known that the results of the calculation of the household waste control index in the Bekasi City district have the lowest index value of 5.01 and the highest index of 6.57 as shown in Table 9.

Based on the calculation, the overall score of the Household Waste Control Index for the Bekasi City area is 5.86 out of 10, as shown in Table 8. Thus, the household waste management category in Bekasi City is in the Medium Category. These results indicate that household waste management at the community level in the Bekasi City area has developed well but still needs improvement, especially on input indicators and process indicators. Table 9 shows that the districts with the lowest input and process indicator scores were Bekasi Timur district, with 2.02 and 1.44, while the highest was Bantargebang, with 2.81 and 2.34. Meanwhile, the district with the lowest score for the output process was Bekasi Timur at 6.56, and the highest was Medan Satria at 7.97 (Table 9). The Household Waste Control Index results as shown in Figure 5 show that the Bekasi Timur district has the lowest Household Waste Control Index score (5.01) and the Bantargebang district has the highest score (6.57).

Furthermore, after obtaining the results of the calculation of the household waste control index, validation of the results of the index calculation is carried out through the implementation of a Focus Group Discussion (F.G.D.) by inviting stakeholders to find out the results of the evaluation of the implementation of household waste management using the analysis of the calculation of the household waste control index.

In the implementation of the F.G.D., a comparison is made between the results of the analysis of the calculation of the household waste control index in each district in the Bekasi City area with the evaluation results of the Bekasi City Environmental Service version based on the accumulated data on the amount of waste generated that is transported to the final processing site of each district in the Bekasi City during 2020 as shown in Table 10.

The comparison the results of the analysis of the calculation of the household waste control index in each district in the Bekasi City area with the evaluation results of the Bekasi City Environmental Service, shows a match between the evaluation data for household waste management between the evaluation results using the waste control index and the data from the field evaluation conducted by the Bekasi City Environmental Service. The analysis results using the household waste control index are directly proportional, resembling the actual conditions as the evaluation data of the Bekasi City Environmental Service version. This condition can be seen from the similarity between the evaluation results of the household waste control index as shown in Figure 6. The results of the evaluation conducted by the Bekasi City Environmental Service placed the Bekasi Timur district as the district with the worst household waste and the Bantargebang district as the result of the evaluation of household waste management as the best in the Bekasi City area.

Based on the validation results, it is concluded that the analysis of the calculation of the household waste control index can be recommended as an instrument in the implementation of measurement, evaluation, and policy-making recommendations to realize sustainable household waste management in Bekasi City and in other cities that have similarities with the conditions of waste management in Bekasi City.

As for the limitations of this study, it only focuses on evaluation within the internal community of waste bank members, so it is necessary to conduct further evaluations on the entire community, in general, to get a complete picture to realize the implementation of sustainable household waste management.

4. Discussion

Evaluation of the implementation of household waste management using the Household Waste Control Index (HWCI) analysis is influenced by Input Indicators, Process Indicators, and Output Indicators. Based on the household waste control index, the accumulated score of the input indicator (Σi) of Bekasi City is 2.38, with a maximum score of 4.00. This indicates that the input sub-indicator achievement has not been maximized. Based on the evaluation of the Household Waste Control Index in 12 districts in Bekasi City, it is known that there are five districts (42%) that have input indicator scores above the input indicator scores of Bekasi City, namely Bekasi Selatan, Jatisampurna, Pondokmelati, Medansatria, and Bantargebang. Meanwhile, in seven other districts (58%), namely Bekasi Timur, Bekasi Barat, Pondokgede, Rawalumbu, Bekasi Utara, Mustikajaya, and Jatiasih, the results of the input indicator scores are below the input indicator scores of Bekasi City. In order to support the improvement of the household waste control index, of course, efforts are needed to increase the sub-indicators that affect the achievement of input indicator scores by accelerating the input sub-indicators which, scientifically based on research, affect the effectiveness and success of the implementation of household waste management, including: with household waste management at the community scale (i₁) [26,27,28,29,30], public knowledge related to household waste management (i₂) [31,32,33,34], household waste management fees (i₃) [17,26,35] and household waste management facilities at the community scale (i₄) [36,37,38].

Process indicators become an integral part of the household waste control index to evaluate the implementation of household waste. Based on the results of the research, the score of the Bekasi City process indicator was 1.96, with a maximum score of 4.00. Based on the results of the analysis of the calculation of process indicator scores in 12 districts in Bekasi City, it is known that there are four districts (33%) that have scores above the Bekasi City process indicator scores, including Bekasi Utara, Pondokmelati, Medansatria, and Bantargebang. Meanwhile, eight other districts (67%), namely Bekasi Timur, Bekasi Barat, Bekasi Selatan, Pondokgede, Rawalumbu, Mustikajaya, Jatiasih and Jatisampurna, the result of the process indicator score is below the Bekasi City process indicator score. This indicates the low achievement of the process sub-indicators that affect the household waste control index as a reflection of the factual conditions of the implementation of household waste management. The process indicator score includes process sub-indicators which, based on research, affect the success of the implementation of household waste management, including household waste management activities (p₁) [27,39], the existence of Waste Bank activities (p₂) [40,41,42], the existence of environmental activists (p₃) [43,44] and routine and sustainable household waste management activities (p₄) [45,46].

Furthermore, the output indicator becomes the final part of the household waste control index, which is also the final instrument for evaluating the implementation of household waste management. Based on the study’s results, it is known that the output indicator score of the Bekasi City Household Waste Control Index is 7.03 from a maximum score of 12.00. Based on the results of the analysis of the calculation of output indicator scores in 12 districts in Bekasi City, it is known that there are ten districts (83%) that have output indicator scores above the output indicator scores of Bekasi City, including Bekasi Selatan, Pondokgede, Rawalumbu, Bekasi Utara, Mustikajaya, Jatiasih, Jatisampurna, Pondokmelati, Medansatria, and Bantargebang. Meanwhile, two districts (17%) whose output score is below the output score of Bekasi City are Bekasi Timur and Bekasi Barat. This indicates that in the analysis of the output sub-indicators in the household waste control index, the factual conditions in the district area can be represented from the calculation of the output indicator score of Bekasi City. The output indicator score includes output sub-indicators which, based on research, are an indication of the successful implementation of household waste management, including the percentage of waste managed through household waste management activities (o₁) [47,48,49], The percentage of residual waste from household waste management activities (o₂) [50,51], The economic value of household waste management activities (o₃) [52,53,54] and Benefits value of household waste management activities (o₄) [55,56,57].

Based on the study results of the 12 districts in Bekasi City, it was concluded that the Bekasi Timur district was in the spotlight because it had a household waste control score of 5.01, which was included in the medium category. The Bekasi Timur district’s index score is the lowest among the 12 districts in the Bekasi City area. Based on the calculation score, the index is below the Bekasi City household waste control score (5.86). Based on the analysis of the household waste control index, the Bekasi Timur district, in addition to having the lowest score in the household waste control index calculation, also has the lowest calculation on all indicators that affect the calculation of the household waste control index. The low index of household waste control in the Bekasi Timur district is possible because the location of the Bekasi Timur district is far from the location of the Sumurbatu final processing site. Based on the analysis of input, process, and output indicators, the condition reflects the low level of motivation and awareness of the community to manage household waste in their respective homes.

Meanwhile, Bantargebang District, based on the study’s results, had the highest household waste control score of 6.57, included in the good category. The household waste control score in the Bantargebang district is the highest compared to 12 other districts in the Bekasi City area. It has the highest score for calculating input and process indicators, so the Bantargebang district index calculation is above the household waste control index at the Bekasi City level (5.86). The high household waste control score in the Bantargebang district is possible because the location of the Bantargebang district is close to the final processing site in Sumurbatu. Based on the analysis of the input and process indicators, the condition reflects the community’s level of motivation and awareness to manage household waste in their respective homes.

In addition to Bekasi Timur and Bantargebang District, there is also Medansatria District which, based on the results of the study, shows a high score in the calculation of output indicators, so the household waste control index in Medansatria District is 6.20, ranks second highest in the Bekasi City Region after Bantargebang District and has index above the household waste control index at the Bekasi City level. Although the Medansatria district is not too close and far from the Sumurbatu final processing site, this can be seen from the analysis of output indicators that reflect the level of motivation and awareness of the community in implementing household waste management in their respective homes.

The critical aspect that requires significant improvement is at the education stage to manage household waste by each member of the community so that further assistance and promotion are needed from environmentalists to increase community action in household waste management [18]. More environmentalists and community involvement should follow this activity during the policy implementation process to realize sustainable household waste management. The implementation of binding regulations on household waste management at the higher community level, followed by the provision of adequate waste management facilities at the household level, and increasing the capacity and efficiency of waste management.

These findings indicate the need to improve household waste management in Bekasi City as a whole, starting from the upstream to downstream stages. The implementation of household waste management indirectly has an impact on the condition of the Sumurbatu final processing site, where the less managed household waste, the worse the condition of the final processing site, especially related to the Sustainability of the surrounding environmental ecosystem, which is increasingly polluted by waste content [58]. The condition of household waste management is shown by previous research that conditions in Bantar Gebang, Bekasi, have many problems in finance, decision-making, regulation, and health [59]. In addition, another factor in waste management in Bekasi City is that the Sumur Batu T.P.A. initially functions as a “Sanitari Landfill” but operates as a “Controlled Dumps” [60]. Another similar study was conducted in Bekasi City, which found that household waste management in Bekasi City was still considered inadequate and needed further improvement [61]. With the increase in efforts to manage household waste independently by the community, gradually over a certain period, it will result in less and less waste being transported to the Sumurbatu T.P.A. so that it is possible in the future the piles of waste at the Sumurbatu T.P.A. to be handled by the Landfill Mining method which can use up the piling up piles of garbage at the final processing site [62]. The critical aspect that needs to be improved is that the indicators of the managed process by providing promotion and education to the community, providing promotion and education have shown a significant impact on the implementation of sustainable household waste management [63,64]. Government policies are needed regarding the implementation of household waste management. This requires significant action and commitment from every stakeholder, not only by the government but must be carried out independently by the community itself [60].

Meanwhile, based on the implementation of the Focus Group Discussion (F.G.D.), an exposure of the results of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation of household waste management in the Bekasi City area was carried out using the household waste control index, as well as describing the conditions for implementing regional household waste management in 12 districts in the Bekasi City area. The district with the highest control index score represents the condition of the implementation of household waste management, which is better than the district with a smaller index. In the implementation of the F.G.D., a comparison was also made on the implementation of the evaluation of the implementation of household waste management using the analysis of the household waste control index, with the results of an evaluation of the implementation of waste management according to the Bekasi City Environmental Service, which was represented by the recapitulation data on the amount of household waste generated by the Bekasi City Environmental Service officers from each district to the Sumurbatu Final Processing Site (T.P.A.), where based on data from the Bekasi City Environmental Service, the district with the least number of recapitulation of household waste generation is the district that is considered good in making waste management efforts. Household activities, whether carried out independently in their respective homes or household waste management carried out in groups on a community scale.

Based on the comparison of the evaluation of the implementation of household waste management in the City of Bekasi between the analysis data using the household waste control index and the data from the evaluation version of the Bekasi City Environmental Service, it can be seen that there are similarities in determining the districts that are already good in the implementation of waste management in Bekasi City, which is based on Data analysis of household waste control index, as well as data from the evaluation results of the Bekasi City Environmental Service, put Bantargebang District as the first and best-ranked district in the implementation of household waste management. Likewise, Bekasi Timur District has similarities among the lowest and worst-ranked districts in implementing household waste management. Meanwhile, when compared to the ranking of districts in the Bekasi City area regarding the evaluation of household waste management, the results of the evaluation of the analysis of the household waste control index and the evaluation results of the Bekasi City Environmental Service, although there are slight differences, overall it is almost certain that there are similarities and similarities in the ranking.

Based on the final results of the F.G.D. implementation, it can be concluded that the results of the evaluation of the implementation of household waste management using the household waste control index can present the factual conditions of the implementation of household waste management in the community so that other evaluation methods using household waste control index can be recommended to be an instrument for relevant stakeholders to evaluate and as a recommendation for strategic policy making to realize sustainable household waste management.

Given the importance of the Sustainability of the implementation of household waste management to make a positive contribution to maintaining the Sustainability of environmental ecosystems, it is deemed necessary to carry out periodic evaluations related to the implementation of household waste management to subsequently become input and material for policy recommendations by stakeholders related to steps strategic and integrated approach to be taken in realizing sustainable waste management. So based on this description, it is expected that the household waste control index can be recommended as an evaluation instrument for the implementation of household waste management, which can provide an overview and recommendation for policy-making by stakeholders regarding the conditions of implementing household waste management in the community to achieve the target of 70% household waste. Managed and 30% reduction of household waste as regulated in Presidential Regulation Number 97 of 2017 concerning National Strategic Policy for the Management of Domestic Waste and Similar Waste, and Bekasi Mayor Regulation Number 65 of 2018 concerning Strategic Policy of Bekasi City, in order to realize effective household waste management. Sustainable by 2025.

5. Conclusions

To answer the significant challenges related to the complexity of household waste management problems and to realize sustainable waste management, the relevant stakeholders must carry out an integrated and innovative handling effort. First, the periodic evaluation of the implementation of household waste management as a material for formulating strategic policy-making related to efforts to realize household waste management can use the instrument for calculating the Household Waste Control Index. The household waste control index can be recommended for measurement and evaluation, as well as policy recommendations for implementing sustainable household waste management at the community level. Second, the results of the analysis of household waste management at the City level using the Bekasi City Household Waste Control Index gets a score of 5.86, so the City of Bekasi is in the medium category, where it is defined that household waste management has been carried out well in the community but has not been maximized, so it is necessary to improved indicators supporting the improvement of household waste control. Third, considering the complexity of the problems that exist in the implementation of household waste management, in general, the implementation of waste management requires periodic evaluations, innovations in improvising significant governance improvements in each indicator, and support from all stakeholders so that the implementation of household waste management can run properly and sustainably. So to the author’s suggestion for further research, it is necessary to do research related to the calculation of the Household Waste Control Index with research respondents involving the general public.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F., S.W.U., T.E.B.S. and H.H.; methodology, F., S.W.U., T.E.B.S. and H.H.; software, F.; validation, F., S.W.U., T.E.B.S. and H.H.; formal analysis, F.; resources, F.; data curation, S.W.U., T.E.B.S. and H.H.; writing—original draft preparation, F.; writing—review and editing, F. and H.H.; visualization, F. and H.H.; supervision, S.W.U., T.E.B.S. and H.H.; project administration, F. and H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Research Grant International Indexed Publication (PUTI) 2020–2021, with a contract number: NKB-731/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020 organized by the Directorate of Research and Development, Universitas Indonesia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Health Research Ethics Committee UPNVJ (protocol code 396/IX/2022/KEPK and date of approval on 19 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to convey our gratitude and sincere thanks to Cluster Interaction, Community Engagement, and Social Environment, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia (social.sil.ui.ac.id) accessed on 20 October 2022, who has helped in the process of technical editing and reviewing articles. Also, we would like sincerely thank all the suggested reviewers who have provided us with numerous suggestions and the motivation to remain decisive in finishing this study. Our sincere thanks go to the Sustainability editor for his cooperation in responding to our paper submission.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Viljoen, J.M.M.; Schenck, C.J.; Volschenk, L.; Blaauw, P.F.; Grobler, L. Household Waste Management Practices and Challenges in a Rural Remote Town in the Hantam Municipality in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ann Koh and Anuradha Raghu. The World’s 2-Billion-Ton Trash Problem Just Got More Alarming. Bloomberg. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-07-11/how-the-world-can-solve-its-2-billion-ton-trash-problem?leadSource=uverify%20wall (accessed on 12 July 2019).
U.K. Government. U.K. Statistics on Waste. 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics (accessed on 1 January 2020).
Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. External Influences on Forming Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviour: Evidence from Households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Central Agency of Statistics. Environmental Statistics of Indonesia; Central Agency of Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2018; ISBN 0216-6224. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2018/07/03/5a963c1ea9b0fed6497d0845/statistik-indonesia-2018 (accessed on 3 July 2018).
Hantoko, D.; Li, X.; Pariatamby, A.; Yoshikawa, K.; Horttanainen, M.; Yan, M. Challenges and Practices on Waste Management and Disposal during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 286, 112140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Central Agency of Statistics. Jawa Barat Province in Figures; Central Agency of Statistics: Bandung, Indonesia, 2022; Available online: https://jabar.bps.go.id/publication/2022/02/25/0d261f828b581d8082bbc6c1/provinsi-jawa-barat-dalam-angka-2022.html (accessed on 25 February 2022).
Puchongkawarin, C.; Mattaraj, S. Development of a Superstructure Optimization Framework for the Design of Municipal Solid Waste Facilities. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2020, 30, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
National Waste Management Information System (SIPSN). Timbulan Sampah; Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019. Available online: https://sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/public/data/timbulan (accessed on 1 January 2019).
Fatimah, Y.A.; Govindan, K.; Murniningsih, R.; Setiawan, A. Industry 4.0 Based Sustainable Circular Economy Approach for Smart Waste Management System to Achieve Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Indonesia. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zaman, A. Waste Management 4.0: An Application of a Machine Learning Model to Identify and Measure Household Waste Contamination—A Case Study in Australia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lestari, P.; Trihadiningrum, Y. The Impact of Improper Solid Waste Management to Plastic Pollution in Indonesian Coast and Marine Environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kristanto, G.A.; Koven, W. Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Management in Depok, Indonesia. City Environ. Interact. 2019, 4, 100027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sharma, H.D.; Gupta, A.D. Sushil The Objectives of Waste Management in India: A Futures Inquiry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 1995, 48, 285–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ministry of National Planning and Development; Embassy of Denmark; UNDP. The Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits of a Circular Economy in Indonesia; Central Agency of Statistics; Ministry of Environment and Forestry; World Economic Forum: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021. Available online: https://lcdi-indonesia.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Full-Report-The-Economic-Social-and-Environmental-Benefits-of-a-Circular-Economy-in-Indonesia (accessed on 1 January 2022).
Sinthumule, N.; Mkumbuzi, S. Participation in Community-Based Solid Waste Management in Nkulumane Suburb, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Resources 2019, 8, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Siritorn, K.; Permpoonwiwat, C.K. Effects of Area Characteristics and Municipal Waste Collection Fees on Household Waste Generation. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sundana, E.J. Zero Waste Management Index—Sebuah Tinjauan. Creat. Res. J. 2019, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kebaili, F.K.; Baziz-Berkani, A.; Louissi, H.A.; Mihai, F.-C.; Houda, M.; Ababa, M.; Azab, M.; Petrisor, A.-I.; Fürst, C. Characterization and Planning of Household Waste Management: A Case Study from the MENA Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Babbie, E.R. The Practice of Social Research; Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, USA; Cengage Learning [Distributor]: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780495598411/0495598410. [Google Scholar]
Finch, J.P.; Brown, N.; Beckmann, M.; Denman, S.; Draper, J. Index Measures for Oak Decline Severity Using Phenotypic Descriptors. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 485, 118948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. The Zero Waste Index: A Performance Measurement Tool for Waste Management Systems in a ‘Zero Waste City’. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 50, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moreira, R.; Malheiros, T.F.; Alfaro, J.F.; Cetrulo, T.B.; Ávila, L.V. Solid Waste Management Index for Brazilian Higher Education Institutions. Waste Manag. 2018, 80, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pires, A.; Martinho, G. Waste Hierarchy Index for Circular Economy in Waste Management. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hussein, U. Research Methodology for Service Consumer Behavior; Jakarta: Ghalia, Indonesia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
Dehghani, M.H.; Biati, A.; Mirzaeian, Z.; Heidarinejad, Z. Data in Brief Dataset on Investigating an Optimal Household Waste Management in GIS Environment and Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis in Bumehen City, Tehran, Iran. Data Br. 2018, 20, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frndak, S.; Gallo, Y.; Queirolo, E.I.; Barg, G.; Ma, N.; Kordas, K. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health A Mixed Methods Study Examining Neighborhood Disadvantage and Childhood Behavior Problems in Montevideo, Uruguay. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Heal. 2021, 235, 113753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xu, L.; Chu, X.; Ling, M. Influence of Role Models on Public Participation in Household Waste Separation: An Examination of Local Contextual Moderators. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1934–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liu, Q.; Browne, A.L.; Iossifova, D. A Socio-Material Approach to Resource Consumption and Environmental Sustainability of Tourist Accommodations in a Chinese Hot Spring Town. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 424–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cappelletti, F.; Papetti, A.; Rossi, M.; Germani, M. Smart strategies for household food waste management. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 200, 887–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. Development of Demand Forecasting Tool for Natural Resources Recouping from Municipal Solid Waste. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Adekola, P.O.; Iyalomhe, F.O.; Paczoski, A.; Abebe, S.T.; Pawłowska, B.; Bąk, M.; Cirella, G.T. Public Perception and Awareness of Waste Management from Benin City. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Camarillo, M.E.C.; Bellotindos, L.M. A study of policy implementation and community participation in the municipal solid waste management in the Philippines. Appl. Environ. Res. 2021, 43, 30–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liu, Q.; Xu, Q.; Shen, X.; Chen, B.; Esfahani, S.S. The Mechanism of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour—A Study of Jiaxing, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Banerjee, S.; Sarkhel, P. Municipal Solid Waste Management, Household and Local Government Participation: A Cross Country Analysis. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 210–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mak, T.M.W.; Chen, P.-C.; Wang, L.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Hsu, S.C.; Poon, C.S. A System Dynamics Approach to Determine Construction Waste Disposal Charge in Hong Kong. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, C.; Zhang, X.; Sun, Q. The Influence of Economic Incentives on Residents’ Intention to Participate in Online Recycling: An Experimental Study from China. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 2021, 169, 105497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chikowore, N. Factors Influencing Household Waste Management Practices in Zimbabwe. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Santoso, S.; Zagloel, T.Y.M.; Ardi, R.; Suzianti, A. Estimating the Amount of Electronic Waste Generated in Indonesia: Population Balance Model. I.O.P. Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 219, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schlehe, J.; Yulianto, V.I. An Anthropology of Waste. Indones. Malay World 2020, 48, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wulandari, S.; Raharjo, S.; Rachman, I.; Matsumoto, T.L.C.A. Analysis on Improving Scenario of Domestic Solid Waste Management in Padang City Based on the Case in Kitakyushu City. In I.O.P. Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; I.O.P. Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Sariningsih, Y.; Purwanti, Y.; Dinihayati, E. Waste Bank as Business Development Solution in E-Warong KUBE PKH. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 737, 012062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Herbert, J. The socio-ecological imagination: Young environmental activists constructing transformation in an era of crisis. Area 2021, 53, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rodrigue, M.; Michelon, G. Shareholder Activism and the Environment. In Routledge Handbook of Environmental Accounting; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; p. 14. [Google Scholar]
Rajesh, P. Solid Waste Management- Sustainability towards a Better Future, Role of C.S.R.—A Review. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 15, 762–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Byers, A.C.; Gustafsson, T.; Shrestha, M.; Chhetri, N. A Sustainable Solid Waste Management Plan for Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park and Buffer Zone, Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2020, 40, A1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Noureddine, M.; Benzohra, A. Insertion Des Critères Environnementaux Dans Le Traitement Des Déchets Urbains. Environ. Risques St. 2018, 17, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soorani, F.; Ahmadvand, M. Determinants of Consumers’ Food Management Behavior: Applying and Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior. Waste Manag. 2019, 98, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Derias, F.Z.; Mehdi, M.M.; Louis, Z. Quantitative and Qualitative Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in Western Algeria: Impact of Population Growth. Int. J. Tech. Phys. Probl. Eng. 2020, 12, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
Ahamad, N.N.; Mohamad, S.Y.; Midi, N.S.; Yusoff, S.H.; Rahman, F.A. Discrimination of Residual and Recyclable Household Waste for Automatic Waste Separation System. In Proceedings of the 2018 7th International Conference on Computer and Communication Engineering, ICCCE 2018, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 19–20 September 2018; pp. 372–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van Caneghem, J.; Van Acker, K.; De Greef, J.; Wauters, G.; Vandecasteele, C. Waste-to-Energy Is Compatible and Complementary with Recycling in the Circular Economy. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 925–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sharma, K.K. Do the socioeconomic characteristics influence households’ preferences for improved solid waste management options? (A study in the Tinsukia district of Assam). Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 1572–1576. [Google Scholar]
Siddiqi, A.; Haraguchi, M.; Narayanamurti, V. Urban Waste to Energy Recovery Assessment Simulations for Developing Countries. World Dev. 2020, 131, 104949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schmitt, T.; Wolf, C.; Taro, T.; Okwir, S. Beyond “Leanear” Production: A Multi-Level Approach for Achieving Circularity in a Lean Manufacturing Context. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubey, S.; Singh, P.; Yadav, P.; Singh, K.K. ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Household Waste Management System Using IoT and Machine Learning Household Waste Management System Using IoT and Machine. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 167, 1950–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cequea, M.M.; Milagros, J.; Gomes, V.; Schmitt, H.; Ferasso, M. Household Food Consumption and Wastage during the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak: A Comparison between Peru and Brazil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zebua1, R.S.Y.; Sunarti. The Implementation of Character Building to Improve Resident Participation in Waste Management. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 810, 012025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pehme, K.M.; Burlakovs, J.; Kriipsalu, M.; Pilecka, J.; Grinfelde, I.; Tamml, T.; Jani, Y.; Hogland, W. Urban Hydrology Research Fundamentals for Waste Management Practices. Res. Rural. Dev. 2019, 1, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sasaki, S.; Araki, T.; Tambunan, A.H.; Prasadja, H. Household Income, Living and Working Conditions of Dumpsite Waste Pickers in Bantar Gebang: Toward Integrated Waste Management in Indonesia. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 2014, 89, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Munawar, E.; Yunardi, Y.; Lederer, J.; Fellner, J. The Development of Landfill Operation and Management in Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018, 20, 1128–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Arwindo, T.S. Strategi Pengelolaan Sampah Kota Bekasi Sesuai Dengan Daya Dukung Wilayah; Universitas Indonesia: Depok City, Indonesia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Burlakovs, J.; Kriipsalu, M.; Arina, D.; Kaczala, F.; Shmarin, S.; Denafas, G.; Hogland, W. Former Dump Sites and the Landfill Mining Perspectives in Baltic Countries and Sweden: The Status. In Proceedings of the 13th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2013, Albena, Bulgaria, 16–22 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
Arni Sarah, A.; Hayati, S.H.; Donna, A. Evironmental Management at the Household, the Case of Bekasi City. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 73, 07016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Hertomo, E.Y.W.; Kusnadi, N.; Falatehan, A.F. Strategi Peningkatan Retribusi Sampah Rumah Tangga Sebagai Sumber Pendapatan Asli Daerah Kota Bekasi. J. Manaj. Pembang. Drh. 2018, 10, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Map of research location.

Figure 2. The Input indicator calculation result of the Household Waste Control Index.

Figure 3. The Process Indicator calculation result of the Household Waste Control Index.

Figure 4. The Output indicator calculation result of the Household Waste Control Index.

Figure 5. The results of the calculation of the household waste control index per district in Bekasi City.

Figure 6. Comparison between the results of the calculation of the household waste control index and the results of the evaluation by the Bekasi City Environment Service in 2020.

Table 1. Research that uses Index Calculation in the evaluation of Waste Management.

No	Index Name Used	Analysis Focus
1	Zero Waste Index	Forecasts the number of virgin materials, energy, water, and greenhouse gas emissions substituted by the resources that are recovered from waste streams.
2	Swami (Solid Waste Management Index)	Statistically compare the results and present an analysis of these H.E.I.s under the SWaMI assessment dimensions perspective.
3	Waste Hierarchy Index	Measure the waste hierarchy within a circular economy context applied to municipal solid waste.

Source: Summary of analysis focus based on literature [22,23,24].

Table 2. Research sample.

No	District	Amount
1.	Bantargebang	21
2.	Bekasi Barat	33
3.	Bekasi Selatan	43
4.	Bekasi Timur	48
5.	Bekasi Utara	85
6.	Jatiasih	37
7.	Jatisampurna	29
8.	Medansatria	38
9.	Mustikajaya	75
10.	Pondok Gede	46
11.	Pondok Melati	15
12.	Rawalumbu	78
Total		548

Table 3. Schematic of indicators for calculating the Household Waste Control Index.

Input Indicator	Process Indicator	Output Indicator
Waste management regulations at the community level (i₁) Community knowledge in managing household waste (i₂) Household waste management levies (i₃) Household waste management facilities at the community level (i₄)	Household waste management activities at the community level (p₁) Waste Bank Activities (p₂) Environmental community activities (p₃) Routine and sustainable household waste management activities (p₄)	Percentage of household waste managed through the household waste management process (o₁) Percentage of residual waste from household waste management processes (o₂) The economic value of household waste management activities (o₃) Value of benefits from sustainable household waste management activities (o₄)

Source: The results of the elaboration of research results related to the management of household waste processed by the author [17,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].

Table 4. Category of Household Waste Control Index Results.

Scores	Category	Description
0–2	Very Bad	Household waste management is not carried out properly in the community, so there needs to be an integrated and comprehensive effort to improve household waste control.
>2–4	Bad	Household waste management is very minimal in the community, so it is necessary to re-socialize to involve the whole community in improving household waste control
>4–6	Medium	Household waste management has been carried out well in the community but has not been maximized, so it is necessary to improve the supporting indicators for increasing household waste control
>6–8	Good	The management of household waste in the community is better, so it needs to be improved again for consistency to support the improvement of household waste control
>8–10	Very Good	The household waste management in the community is excellent, so it needs to be maintained and imitated by neighborhood associations.

Table 5. The input indicator of the Household Waste Control Index.

Household Waste Management Regulations (i₁)	Community Knowledge in Managing Household Waste (i₂)	Retribution for Household Waste Management (i₃)	Household Waste Management Facilities (i₄)	Accumulation of Input Indicator (Σi)
0.45	0.73	0.94	0.26	2.38