sustainability

Article
Strengthening Stakeholder Partnership in Plastics Waste
Management Based on Circular Economy Paradigm
Anindita Prabawati 1 , Evi Frimawaty 1, * and Joko T. Haryanto 2

1 School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Depok City 16424, Indonesia

2 Fiscal Policy Agency, Ministry of Finance Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta 10710, Indonesia
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel./Fax: +021-3193-0251

Abstract: Indonesia became the second-largest global marine plastics contributor, with annual plastic
marine debris estimated at 0.48–1.29 million metric tons per year. In Jakarta’s coastal area, 59% of
the marine litter is plastics. The circular economy is a new paradigm adopted in plastic waste man-
agement in Indonesia, and research in this area continues to grow. This circular economy paradigm
requires sufficient collaboration among stakeholders in plastic waste management. However, the
data on Indonesia’s best partnership scheme for plastic waste management is still lacking. This
study aims to fill the gap by examining the most feasible partnership scheme that brings the most
effective plastics waste handling and economic benefit. This study used a quantitative questionnaire
followed by an interview to provide information about stakeholders’ participation in plastic waste
management in Central Jakarta. A stakeholder analysis was employed to assess the best partnership
scheme. The result finds that the public-government partnership is the most feasible and sustainable
partnership to be implemented in Central Jakarta, Indonesia. Collaboration between the public
and government could enlarge service coverage in managing plastic waste based on the circular
economy paradigm. Strengthening the public-government scheme contributes positively to the
plastics collection rate, recycling rate, benefit-sharing, and positive perspective among stakeholders.

Keywords: Central Jakarta; circular economy; partnership scheme; plastics waste management;
stakeholder analysis

Citation: Prabawati, A.; Frimawaty,

E.; Haryanto, J.T. Strengthening
Stakeholder Partnership in Plastics
1. Introduction
Waste Management Based on
Circular Economy Paradigm. In 2015, Indonesia contributed 0.48–1.29 million metric tons of marine debris, which
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278. https:// made this country the second-largest plastic leakage into the environment after China [1,2].
doi.org/10.3390/su15054278 This matter may be more challenging because of global plastic waste trading. Indonesia
should be aware of the potential risk beyond international plastics waste trading since
Academic Editor: Antonis A. Zorpas
Indonesia already has its plastics waste problem. The nationwide problems to be dealt with
Received: 23 January 2023 are the low collection and recycling rates, lack of waste management facilities, ineffective
Revised: 14 February 2023 collaboration, and society’s perception and behavior in managing municipal solid waste.
Accepted: 21 February 2023 In the global annual trading of plastic waste, China and Hongkong have become
Published: 27 February 2023 the most promising marketplace that has accepted 72.4% of all plastics wasted since 1992.
Most plastics waste exporters are from high-income countries (HIC), such as the United
States of America (USA), Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK), and some other EU-27
members [3,4]. This plastics waste trading has become a global trend because the export
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
cost is cheaper than processing it by itself due to domestic environmental law.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This trading is economically beneficial for China, with up to 3263.375 million USD from
This article is an open access article
imports and 70.846 million USD from export in 2017 [4,5]. However, in 2017, to demonstrate
distributed under the terms and
the domestic recycling system and environmental awareness, China banned 24 categories
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
of recyclable solid waste, such as plastics substances, mixed paper, and textiles. As a result,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
the aim to develop a local recycling system increased by 42% from 2015 to 2020. However,
4.0/).
the ban put tremendous pressure on other developing countries, like India and Indonesia, as

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054278 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 2 of 14

potential global plastic waste markets since powerful HIC actors control the global plastics
value chain [4,6]. Therefore, even though this ban may be a possible economic source, this
circumstance may lead Indonesia to a severe waste management crisis.
Plastics have infiltrated almost every aspect of daily human life since this material
is flexible, strong, and practically light to carry. Thus, global production of plastic had
outpaced all industrial materials since 1950, when the plastic output was about 2 million
metric tons, and has significantly grown to 322 million metric tons in 2015 [1,3]. However,
plastic leakage, mainly when it forms microplastics, damages terrestrial and marine ecosys-
tems. Furthermore, recent studies show that microplastics also affect the human body.
Luqman et al. [7] detected microplastics in human stool and daily consumable products
from fishermen in Indonesian coastal areas.
Along with this trend, Indonesia’s plastic waste production is estimated to continue
with economic and population growth. Indonesia produces 9.85 billion plastics yearly,
turning into waste from approximately 90 thousand modern markets. In Jakarta, the
capital city of Indonesia, plastic waste is found in many forms and sizes: in the river
(9.37 ± 1.37 particles/m3 ), in an estuary (8.48 ± 9.43 particle/m3 ), and a coastal area in the
form of microplastics [8]. Even though Jakarta has 1899 temporary landfills spread in its
five administration cities, waste management in Jakarta is still not optimal, as indicated by
the plastics waste flow reaching 8.32 tons per day [8,9]. The more plastics produced, the
more plastic waste is generated. Furthermore, the lack of waste facilities and technologies
worsens the situation. Thus, the recycling rate of plastic waste is only 14% of all total
plastics produced globally [8,10].
Marine litter is described by UNEP [11] as solid material discarded, disposed of, or
abandoned in the marine and coastal environments, mainly consisting of material made
and used by people and dumped into waterways, shores, and beaches, and transported into
the ocean globally by river, winds, or stormwater. If there is no intervention against this
trend, in 2050, the number of plastics will be higher than fish, by weight, in the ocean [10].
Up to 80% of plastic marine debris comes from terrestrial ecosystems due to a lack of a
waste management system. Therefore, the polluted river becomes the primary transport of
land-based plastic leakage into the ocean. Lebreton [12] predicted that 1.15–2.41 million
tons of terrestrial-based plastic waste flows to the sea from 122 rivers around the world
annually. Asia’s top 20 polluted rivers account for 74% of plastics leakage [12]. Reducing
50% of plastic waste in the ten most polluted rivers could reduce 45% of marine debris [13].
The Chinese Yangtze River contributed the most plastic to emission, with a total catchment
of approximately 4137 particles/m3 [12]. In addition, rivers in Indonesia, particularly those
located on Java Island, have become significant contributors to plastics mass flow, such as
the Ciliwung river [8], Citarum river [14,15], Brantas river, Bengawan Solo river, Serayu
river, and Progo river [12]. Ciliwung, the most polluted river in Indonesia, flows through
industrial and densely populated areas in Jakarta [8]. As a transporter of plastic waste, the
Ciliwung river is affected by the rainy and dry seasons. Therefore, monthly variation in the
waste release of the Ciliwung River is high in January and February when the rainy season
is at its peak [16].
Developing countries, like Indonesia, have a challenge in managing municipal solid
waste. The lack of infrastructure, rapid urbanization, industrialization, economic growth,
and cultural aspects are the causes [17–19]. Historically, in Jakarta and other parts of
Indonesia, society manages household waste by burying, burning, or throwing directly
into rivers and waterways. This behavior causes more plastics, particularly single-use ones,
to end up in the environmental system.
Policy design can reduce plastic waste pollution in the ocean. Policies can have cross-
border effects, but local action is also needed [20]. Plastic waste management in developing
countries is relatively diverse, with various levels of treatment, low recycling rates, and the
distribution of waste tends to be high. Jakarta has had the authority in waste management
from the Central Government since 1974. However, no regulation was taken until 2008, when
the first regulation related to waste management was enacted in Law No. 18 of 2008 on
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 3 of 14

Waste Management. As a continuous commitment to reducing and managing marine plastic

waste, in 2017, Indonesia established the National Action Plan (NAP) through Presidential
Regulation No. 97 of 2017 to reduce and handle plastic waste from its source, also known as
Jakstranas. This NAP aims to reduce plastic waste by 30% and manage it by 70% in 2025 from
generators. Furthermore, Jakarta has adopted this regulation into Governor Regulation No.
108 of 2019 (also known as Jakstrada), with the same target as NAP.
Plastic waste comes from multiple sources, such as industry, modern markets, and
household activity [21]. Industries are essential in reducing plastic waste, particularly in
their final product and packaging. However, a household is one of the primary sources
that dominate the amount of plastic waste. Moreover, the practical use of plastic in daily
life causes difficulties in lowering it.

1.1. Circular Economy

The circular economy has become a new paradigm that attracts many researchers and
values plastic waste as valuable. The circular economy replaces the old “end of life” concept,
a linear idea of plastic waste management [22]. The circular economy concept brings a
whole production, distribution, and consumption process within the principle of reducing,
reusing, and recycling (3R) [23]. Furthermore, the recycling process through chemical or
feedstock recycling and mechanical recycling can help to reduce plastic leakage [24].
A broad literature described the definition of the circular economy. Korhonen et al. [25]
defined a circular economy as constructed from societal production and consumption sys-
tems by cyclical material flows and renewable energy resources. Tsai et al. [26] stated that
the circular economy is a business operationalization concept rooted in Earth’s limited capa-
bility to bear contamination, in reaction to the necessity of economic development, resource
consumption, and environmental influences. In the theoretical and practical approach to a
circular economy in a business model and global value chain, Schroeder et al. [6] argued
that the current concept of the circular economy is built upon the corporation’s existence
and the dominance of the disintegrated production technology. Therefore, technology may
address any matter to help the circular economy’s improvement, expansion, replication,
and boost smart city system [19,27].
Prior studies have examined the implementation of a circular economy in waste man-
agement. The business as usual (BaU) scheme is no longer suitable for carrying out plastic
pollution problems and only increases the amount of plastic waste in the oceans [10]. Thus,
a shifting paradigm in plastic waste management is urgently needed [1]. The circular econ-
omy is increasingly attractive as a new paradigm in plastic waste management that sees
the value in plastic waste and restructures the linear supply chain system to work continu-
ously [24,28]. According to Robaina et al. [29], the increase in capital in a European country
would likely boost the efficiency rate of waste management year by year. Klamykova
et al. [30] argued that China’s implementation of the circular economy was on three levels:
individual businesses, eco-industrial parks, and eco-cities or municipalities. This Chinese
strategy and experience are feasible in other countries. Bianchini and Rossi [31] described
sustainability in sporting events by managing plastic waste. It shows that an increase
in plastic waste collection, sorting, and recycling rates are a basis of a circular approach.
In addition, they state that direct social participation contributes to increasing the Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs) score of sustainability. Dijkstra et al. [28] identified barriers
to implementing the circular economy paradigm in waste management, mainly driven by
private sectors; they found that the border is primarily from the high costs needed and the
deadlock of supply chain lock-in. Finally, Gong et al. [32] investigated the initiative within
the industry in the United Kingdom regarding the economy of plastics: collaboration work
is the enabling factor to work across the sector in managing plastics based on a circular
economy. In this case, a circular economy promotes economic growth, raises European
Union businesses’ savings, and reduces environmental impacts.
In conventional or linear systems, extract-use dump material and energy flow are
unsustainable since they directly turn into the environment [25]. This system is linear
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 4 of 14
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 4 of 16

regarding the economy of plastics: collaboration work is the enabling factor to work across
because
the sector inallmanaging
material and based
plastics energy on aare taken
circular (fromInnature)
economy. this case,ina these
circular linear flows and extracted
directly or indirectly
economy promotes economic to produce
growth, goods; Union
raises European whenbusinesses’
the products
savings, or andgoods are used, the waste
reduces environmental impacts.
flows into the environmental system. Thus, whenever
In conventional or linear systems, extract‐use dump material and energy flow are
the goods’ life ends, broken or
useless,
unsustainablethey will
since theybe wasted.
directly Thisthetake-make-dispose
turn into environment [25]. This systemsystem leads to resource overuse and
is linear
becauseemissions
high all material and energy are
release that taken (from nature)
causes in these
pressure onlinear
theflows and extracted
environment.
directly or indirectly to produce goods; when the products or goods are used, the waste
The circular economy is restructuring the supply
flows into the environmental system. Thus, whenever the goods’ life ends, broken chain radically
or to break linear systems
and work in the cycle forever. The circular design sees plastic as a business model replacing
useless, they will be wasted. This take‐make‐dispose system leads to resource overuse and
high emissions release that causes pressure on the environment.
the ‘end-of-life’ concept into the circular, which consists of reducing, reusing alternatively,
The circular economy is restructuring the supply chain radically to break linear
recycling, andinrecovering
systems and work the cycle forever.materials
The circular(Figure
design sees1).plastic
Thisassystem
a businessembodies
model products, companies,
replacing
and the ‘end‐of‐life’
consumers concept
at the into the circular,
micro-level, which consists
including of reducing, reusingpark, and the macro-level
an eco-industrial
alternatively, recycling, and recovering materials (Figure 1). This system embodies
consists of the and
products, companies, city,consumers
region,at the nation, andincluding
micro‐level, beyond. A circular
an eco‐industrial park,economy aims to achieve
sustainable
and the macro‐leveldevelopment that
consists of the city, alsonation,
region, implies improving
and beyond. A circularenvironmental
economy quality, economic
aims to achieve sustainable development that also implies improving environmental
prosperity, and social equity for current and future generations [27,33].
quality, economic prosperity, and social equity for current and future generations [27,33].

Figure 1. The concept of the circular economy uses minimum energy and waste flow [27].
Figure 1. The concept of the circular economy uses minimum energy and waste flow [27].
The circular economy principle is to integrate sustainable approaches elaborating
holisticThe circular
resource economy
utilization. principle
Therefore, there is a needis to integrate
to support sustainable
research and innovation approaches elaborating
to accelerate a circular economy implementation in solid waste management. Moreover,
holistic resource utilization. Therefore, there is a need to support research and innovation
circular economies must create technology for reprocessing or recycling plastics into other
to accelerate
valuable products a circular
[28]. The basiceconomy implementation
circular economy in prevention
is to reach more waste solid wasteand management. Moreover,
better resource
circular management,
economies extending
must createandtechnology
closing the material cycles that account
for reprocessing orfor
recycling plastics into other
waste input‐output to create economic flow [26]. Thus, a circular economy will boost the
valuable products
sustainable business model. [28]. The basic circular economy is to reach more waste prevention and
better resource
Furthermore, management,
public extending
awareness is essential to shiftingand closing
behaviour the material
and attitude toward cycles that account for
plastic usage [25,34]. A perfect circular economy target is to tend to zero incineration or
waste input-output to create economic flow [26]. Thus, a circular economy will boost the
zero waste, where waste does not exist by the whole system approach to reduce waste
sustainable business model.
Furthermore, public awareness is essential to shifting behaviour and attitude toward
plastic usage [25,34]. A perfect circular economy target is to tend to zero incineration or
zero waste, where waste does not exist by the whole system approach to reduce waste and
prelude waste-to-energy (WTE) practices. The government should target the recycling rate
in the initial conception and design of products to achieve the zero-incineration condition in
the following years [35]. This system should encourage high-quality recycling technology.

1.2. Plastics Waste Management

A large body of literature has discussed the strategy in plastic waste management.
Researchers who have looked at this subject include Huysman et al., Payne et al., and
Asteria and Haryanto [24,36,37]. Huysman et al. [37] argued that plastics are classified into
two categories: first is post-consumer waste produced by the user, e.g., household waste,
and second is post-industrial or pre-consumer waste generated during the manufacturing
process. Payne et al. [24] described that waste management strategy has a comprehensive
approach from conventional, such as landfill, an alternative method like incineration, com-
posting, and linear economy, into the latest one named circular economy. A previous study
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 5 of 14

stated that a circular economy would reduce unprocessed plastic waste effectively, reduc-
ing anthropogenic stress in the environmental system. Asteria and Haryanto [36] argued
that empowerment activities that use user-friendly technology are crucial for women’s
involvement in waste management in Jagakarsa, Jakarta. Elgie et al. [38] claimed that
reducing waste production can be done by implementing circular measurements. Syakti
et al. [2] researched in the Bintan coastal area, Indonesia, and suggested that managing
plastic debris should focus on local activities involving local actors. One of the local action
initiatives was Bank sampah, or Waste Bank operationalization. Waste banks have become
an approach to gaining the partnership of stakeholders in collecting and recycling plastic
waste and exchanging it with some revenue based on the type and weight of the solid
waste they had collected. A waste bank is an essential stakeholder in municipal solid waste
management in some cities in Indonesia [39,40].
In response to the rise of global plastic production, countries committing plastics bans
and levies are also growing, such as the Caribbean, Canada, and West Africa [20], [41,42].
The Caribbean economy relies mainly on the health of the marine ecosystem, but they have
become the top ten marine polluters per capita. Rangel-Buitrago et al. [43] described the
abundance, source, and management of Caribbean coastal waste as the flow of garbage
in rivers and human activities on the coast such as tourism. He suggested that waste
management on the beach started by reducing waste at the source and identifying the
shape of the beach to determine periodic and intensive actions in reducing waste. Clayton
et al. [20] described the efficacy of the policy framework in addressing plastics pollution
in 11 countries in the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM). Some
countries have shown positive results, like Antigua and Barbuda, which reduced 15.1% of
plastic waste by developing a partnership between government and private to implement
economic instruments. However, in countries where prohibitions are enforced, there is
often weak enforcement, which affects their effectiveness. Pettipas et al. [41] described the
policy framework recommendation to encourage stakeholders, such as the government,
citizens, industry, and NGOs, to enforce the innovative practice of waste management
continuously. Adam et al. [44] argue that stakeholder engagement and time allocation be-
tween announcement and implementation will affect current and future policies addressing
single-use plastics. At the international level, the United Nations (UN) recognizes the issue
related to global marine pollution in SGDs 14 Life Below Water. The goal clearly stated
in target 14.1 is to prevent and reduce all kinds of marine pollution, mainly land-based
pollutants causing marine debris and nutrient pollution, in 2025 [42]. Since land-based
plastic is a massive source of marine debris, multi-stakeholder partnerships primarily work
on the land first. Plastic is a land-based product used by people, mainly inland, so the fate
of plastic should be managed on the ground first.
As a continuous commitment to reducing and managing marine plastic waste, In-
donesia established National Action Plan (NAP) through Presidential Regulation No. 97 of
2017 to reduce and manage plastic waste from its source, also known as Jakstranas. This
NAP aims to reduce plastic waste by 30% and handle it by 70% in 2025 from the source.
Furthermore, Jakarta Province has adopted this regulation into Governor Regulation No
108 of 2019 (also known as Jakstrada), with the same target as NAP. Facing 2025 is critical to
acknowledge Indonesia’s initiative in reducing and handling plastic waste.
Since reducing and handling plastic waste cannot be done by the government alone,
all stakeholders should be aligned with the programs. Good collaboration with the right
partner is crucial for meeting the Jakstranas, Jakstrada, and SDG targets. However, the data
relates to whom the collaboration work should be done and how the best scheme of the
partnership in plastic waste management is still lacking. Thus, this paper examines to what
extent the partnership improves plastic waste management based on the circular economy
in Central Jakarta. This study is essential because stakeholder collaboration can effectively
address the plastic waste problem, so the best partnership model should involve the key
stakeholders. Furthermore, meeting government targets to reduce and handle plastic
waste contributes to improving economic growth and environmental health, and achieving
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 6 of 14

the SDG14 target. Therefore, this study contributes to (1) identifying the stakeholders of
plastics waste management in Central Jakarta, and (2) developing improvements in the
partnership model in plastics waste management based on a circular economy.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Survey Design
This study used a quantitative questionnaire followed by an interview to examine
collaboration work in existing partnerships in plastic waste management. A stakeholder
is any individual, organization, or unorganized group with an interest [45], stake, or
responsibility in plastics waste management in Central Jakarta. Stakeholder mapping
as a primary step in stakeholder analysis was conducted based on guidance from ODA
(1995) [46].

2.2. Research Location

Plastic waste is a multi-dimensional problem that has not yet been resolved in Jakarta,
Indonesia. A prior study by Jambeck et al. [1] states that the amount of plastic waste
produced is affected by population and economic growth. Thus, this study was conducted
in Central Jakarta Administrative City since this location is the most densely populated
among other administrative cities in Jakarta Province (Figure 2). In February 2021, the
population density in Central Jakarta was 21,959 people per km2 . Moreover, Central Jakarta
contributed to the province’s largest Gross Regional Domestic Product, Rp 701.98 trillion
(approximately USD 49 billion), 25% of the total GRDP of the area in 2020 [47]. In the same
year, the waste generated in Central Jakarta was 308,331.29 tonnes annually [48] (Timbulan
Sampah: DKI Jakarta Tahun 2021). The waste generated will continue to grow along
with increased consumption per capita associated with economic growth and population
density [17]. Thus, Central Jakarta needs an intervention to improve the waste collection
and recycling rate.

Figure 2. The geographic location of the study area in Central Jakarta, Indonesia [49].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 7 of 14

2.3. Data Description and Collection Methodology

The sample size in this study consisted of stakeholders, which was taken based on
the Stakeholder Mapping Process. The mapping criteria include stakeholders who work
on plastic waste management in 3R (reuse, reduce, recycle). Stakeholder groups identified
for the study: (a) government institutions that are responsible for managing municipal
solid waste; (b) private sectors that run economic development in solid waste management;
(c) NGOs who participate in plastic waste management [36,45].
Stakeholder mapping is the primary method employed to identify and assess the
impact of private organizations and the government institution’s role in waste management
in Central Jakarta. The population in this study is formal and informal stakeholders.
Informal stakeholders comprise waste pickers and collectors in Central Jakarta, while
formal stakeholders comprise the private sector and the government. The private sector
operating waste management collecting and recycling consists of Bank Sampah (Waste
Bank) and the recycling industries in Central Jakarta. The chosen waste bank is based on
the track record and consideration of the Environmental Services Officer (ESO). Finally,
the government institutions responsible for solid waste management are mainly state
municipal solid waste. A quantitative questionnaire was employed to gain information
related to collaboration work amongst stakeholders, the role and contributions of each
member of the partnership, and recent issues related to a circular economy.

2.4. Analytical Framework

In this study, data taken from the quantitative questionnaire were analyzed using
descriptive analysis. In addition, stakeholder analysis was employed to gain information
related to the key actors or critical stakeholders that play a crucial role in solid waste
management. A stakeholder table was set up for mapping all potential stakeholders.
Potential stakeholders were then categorized into primary and secondary stakeholders [46].
Primary stakeholders are the partnership members contributing to or being affected by the
project of the partnership in managing plastics waste. This contribution or effect can be
either positive or negative. Secondary stakeholders are members of the partnership which
support the primary stakeholder or the support system, mainly consisting of private sectors
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The support can be a form of funding,
monitoring, advocating, and project assistance. Each stakeholder’s interest and the effect
are identified and then analysed, positive or negative, for plastic waste management in
Central Jakarta.
After the stakeholder table was set, a stakeholder assessment was conducted to identify
the significance of the members to plastic waste management. The stakeholders were then
categorized based on their importance and influence in plastics waste management. Lastly,
the risk and assumptions of stakeholders in plastic waste management were analysed
to rationalize the premise that critical stakeholders were crucial in the plastics waste
management partnership.

3. Results and Discussion

Indonesia is still struggling to reduce the volume of waste entering landfills since
the landfill’s capacity is becoming limited [50]. Bantargebang has been the only reliable
landfill for Jakarta’s waste from 1989 until today, receiving more than 7000 tons daily
in 2021 [48] (Timbulan Sampah: Kota Administrasi Jakarta Pusat, DKI Jakarta, Tahun
2021, Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Na-sional, 2021). In this case, plastics are
still highly presented, being approximately 14% of the total waste volume (Figure 3). The
government tried to reduce the waste volume entering landfills through some scenarios,
such as developing intermediate treatment facilities (ITF), law enforcement, and partnering
to manage organic and solid waste, particularly plastic.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 8 of 14

Figure 3. The main waste composition generated in Jakarta Province in 2021 [51].
Figure 3. The main waste composition generated in Jakarta Province in 2021 [51].
Multiple stakeholders, from ministries to industries, are involved in MSW manage-
ment, in which each institution plays its role. In this case, the government had a crucial role
Multiple
in almost every part stakeholders,
of MSW management, from particularly
ministries to industries,
in achieving areJakstrada
Jakstranas and involved in
management, in which
targets. At a national level, ateach institution
least three ministries plays its role.
are involved: (1)In
thethis case,ofthe
Ministry governme
Environ-
ment and Forestry (MoEF) is responsible for developing policy, regulation,
crucial role in almost every part of MSW management, particularly in achieving Ja and coordination
in pollution control; (2) the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) provides tech-
and
nicalJakstrada targets.
advice, promotes Atprojects,
pilot a national level, at
and constructs least three
or supervises ministries
large-scale are
off-site involved
solid
Ministry of Environment
waste facilities or landfills; (3) theand Forestry
Ministry of Home(MoEF) is responsible
Affairs Regulation (Mendagri)for developing
manages
regulation,
administrative and coordination
aspects in pollution
of waste management control; residential-industrial
at households, (2) the Ministry of Public Wo
estates,
and public facilities [9].
Housing (MPWH) provides technical advice, promotes pilot projects, and const
Local governments also have a significant role in managing MSW in their area. For
supervises large‐scale
example, in Jakarta off‐site solid
the Environmental waste
Services facilities
Office (governmentor landfills; (3) the
institution under Ministry o
MoEF)
Affairs Regulation
was primarily (Mendagri)
responsible for managing manages
waste in administrative aspects
the city. This institution had aof waste manage
Waterways
households, residential‐industrial estates, and public facilities [9].
Management Unit that addresses removing floating debris from rivers and waterways. The
trashLocal
collected
governments also have a significant role in managing MSWthe
from water channels is transported using small or medium trucks to in their a
emplacement location or transfer station [9]. Waste facilities in Central Jakarta shown in
example,
Table 1. in Jakarta the Environmental Services Office (government institutio
MoEF) was primarily responsible for managing waste in the city. This institutio
Waterways Management Unit that addresses removing floating debris from riv
waterways. The trash collected from water channels is transported using small or
trucks to the emplacement location or transfer station [9]. Waste facilities in
Jakarta shown in Table 1.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 9 of 14

Table 1. Waste management facilities in Central Jakarta.

No Facility Type Total

Center 1
1. Waste Bank (Bank Sampah)
Unit 234
Community-scale 34
2. Composting facility Compost house (Rumah kompos) 0
Organic processing center 18
Biodigester 0
Thermal process
3. Waste to Energy a. Incinerator 0
b. Pyrolysis
c. Gasification
Refuse-Derived Fuel 0
3R waste processing site (TPS 3R) 125
Recycling center 0
4. Recycling facility Temporary waste processing site outside the
0
landfill
Intermediate treatment facility (ITF) 0
5. Landfill 1
6. Informal Sector Waste picker and collector 43

Jakstranas and Jakstrada stated that the government could collaborate with the private
sector or the community to handle plastic waste. Identifying and assessing stakeholders is
the first step to achieving Jakstranas, Jakstradai, and SDG14 targets. Partnership schemes
must also ensure that the stakeholder interest or goal is accommodated while progressing
along the targets. The stakeholders’ analysis of their importance and influence in managing
plastics waste in central Jakarta are shown in Table 2. Primary stakeholders have a signifi-
cant role in handling or affecting plastic waste management directly. Primary stakeholders
consist of the formal and informal sectors. On the other hand, secondary stakeholders are a
supporter of the program in the form of funding, monitoring, and others.
Waste banks significantly reduce plastic waste before entering landfill, as shown by
Table 3. One of the outstanding waste banks is Jati Rawasari, located on a flat residence in
Central Jakarta, Jakarta, Indonesia. The location gives the advantage either for the resident
or the Waste Bank. Like other waste banks in Indonesia or some in South East Asia, this
waste bank utilizes the function of a neighborhood association or local community [52–55].
The waste management system facilitated the resident; moreover, the waste bank could
make economic activities. The internal centralized waste disposal regulation runs over the
apartments to ensure that household waste is disposed of immediately.
Encouraging resident participation still becomes a challenge in municipal solid waste
management, although some educational strategies and the benefit-sharing system have
been socialized [56]. Five people operate this waste bank, but not all residents are interested
in participating. There are only 30 residents who are interested in joining as Waste Bank
customers. Membership of the waste bank is not an obligation to the resident, so it is based
on the resident’s awareness and perception of the value of solid waste management. This
low number of customers is due to the residents’ unfamiliarity with waste separation habits.
Sorting the waste and keeping it in a house until it reaches a certain amount is a strange
habit [40]. Although the waste bank only had a few members, this is the only temporary
garbage collection in the flat where all the residents throw their household waste. In this
case, the waste bank operator will do the sorting process to separate valuable solid waste.
People’s consciousness of environmental and littering behavior is one indicator of a high
score of living conditions [57].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 10 of 14

Table 2. Stakeholders in plastic waste management.

What Is Important to Plastics

No. Stakeholder Name Influence Importance Status
Waste Management
Environmental Services Responsible for municipal waste
1. high High Primary stakeholder
Officer, ESO management
Institution above Environmental
Ministry of Environment Officer (National Level
2. medium High Secondary stakeholder
and Forestry, MoEF institution) responsible for waste
management
Providing technical advice,
promoting pilot projects, and
Ministry of Public Works
3. constructing/supervising low medium Secondary stakeholder
and Housing (MPWH)
large-scale off-site solid waste
facilities (landfills)
Managing administrative aspects
The Ministry of Home
of waste management at
4. Affairs Regulation low medium Secondary stakeholder
households, residential-industrial
(Mendagri)
estates, and public facilities
Community-based site for
5. Waste banks (bank sampah) collecting sorted inorganics waste high High Primarily stakeholder
that has economic value
3R waste processing site Formal collecting site that has
6. high High Primarily stakeholder
(TPS 3R) economic value
A “middleman” in informal
7. Waste picker and collector waste management that as a pool high High Primarily stakeholder
for scavengers sell their waste
Asosiasi Daur Ulang Plastik Association of private sector in
8. low High Secondary stakeholder
Indonesia (ADUPI) managing plastics waste
Indonesian Plastics Association of private sector in
9. low High Secondary stakeholder
Recyclers managing plastics waste
Developing Green Economy
National Development Index, in which municipal waste
10. medium low Secondary stakeholder
Planning Agency (Bappenas) management is one of its
indicators
Responsible for planning and
Municipal Development
11. implementation of solid waste medium low Secondary stakeholder
Planning Agency (Bappeda)
management
Private sector running solid
12. Waste4Change medium medium Secondary stakeholder
waste management
Provides consultancy services
13. Rekosistem that focuses on waste medium medium Secondary stakeholder
management projects
Processing plastic waste into
14. Rebricks medium medium Secondary stakeholder
eco-friendly building materials
PT Jakarta Properindo Developing intermediate waste
15. low low Secondary stakeholder
(Jakpro) management facility
Armada Kemasan Private sector running solid
16. medium medium Secondary stakeholder
Nusantara waste management

Table 3. Waste reduction through the existence of Waste Banks in Central Jakarta.

Number of Waste Banks Percentage of Amount of Waste Rate of Waste

District Activity (%) Reduction (kg/month)
Active Non-Active Total Reduction (%)

Gambir 15 20 35 42.86 85,485.95 49.43

Tanah Abang 13 12 25 52.00 11,592.8 6.70
Menteng 6 14 20 30.00 11,628 6.73
Senen 8 14 22 36.36 4890 2.82
Cempaka Putih 21 19 40 52.50 12,933.95 7.48
Johar Baru 14 30 44 31.82 10,728.9 6.20
Kemayoran 17 30 47 36.17 23,201.95 13.42
Sawah Besar 20 17 37 54.05 12,473.3 7.21

Jati Rawasari Waste Bank collaborates with the Central Jakarta City Environment
Service Officer (institution under MoEF). This partnership is the only partnership conducted
by the Jati Rawasari waste bank. The sorted plastic from the customers and other residents
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 11 of 14

will be picked up by the institution regularly, and the waste bank will be paid off based on
the weight of the plastic waste. There is no collaboration between the Jati Rawasari waste
bank and other waste banks or the private sector. This limitation in cooperation among
stakeholders is another challenge to be addressed to improve the benefit sharing in the
waste bank to make a successful transition into a circular economy city. The waste bank
operator had decided on this kind of partnership to ensure the sustainability of the waste
bank. The City Environmental Service Officer (ESO) always picks up solid waste. Although
the price offered by the private sector is economically more profitable, the waste bank
could not provide the demand for the weight. Thus, partnering with the local government
through ESO was considered the best partnership scheme.
Palafox-alcantar et al. [58] mentioned a partnership in which different actors, disci-
plines, goals, and objectives could be jointly held in the interest of the waste management.
To make the collaboration among stakeholders happen, Ghazali et al. [56] found that critical
stakeholders need to identify the knowledge and value required as a program enabler,
facilitate the learning process, and ensure the program’s sustainability through cadres. Jati
Rawasari waste bank implements the theory, but it still needs improvement.
The difference between the public-government partnership and public-private part-
nership (PPP) is the complexity of the PPP attributes. Dolla and Laishram [59] define
enabling attributes in PPP, such as scope, information asymmetries, economic transaction
attributes, the maturity of the organization, and innovation. These attributes are the basic
framework of rationale for PPP adoption, or else it could bring the tremendous unfair effect
that the private sector may overexploit the stakeholder (in this case, waste bank), leading
to the program’s fall [60]. Therefore, some stakeholders are reluctant to implement the PPP
scheme [61].
In Indonesia, the government had a critical role in ensuring that the policy and regula-
tions were implemented as a basis for municipal plastic waste management. Furthermore,
the Government of Jakarta is accelerating collaboration work to create a livable city through
Jakarta Collaboration City (Jakarta Kota Kolaborasi). In this case, ESO is an institution that
can catch the momentum to promote collaboration in plastic waste management. Since
plastic waste management has not been set in Jakarta’s Collaboration City agenda, the
chance as a political agenda is still wide open, and ESO is the best institution to lead it. A
partnership between the public and government (with ESO) would encourage people’s
participation and widen the coverage of waste services through the formal and informal
sectors. The informal sector mainly works in unreachable areas through formal waste
services [62].
To gain adequate results in plastic waste management, the inclusion of the population
is one of the main factors [53,62]. Social inclusiveness can make a high rate of waste sorted
and selected, increase the collective valuable waste such as plastics, and lead to an effective
recycling rate in the city. The involvement of the formal and informal sectors also had a
significant role in waste management of the citizen’s recycling behavior. Informal sectors
such as waste pickers and waste collection will increase collecting action, particularly
plastics that harm the environment [54]. They collect plastic and other valuable waste as
a source of income for their livelihood while reducing the potential plastic leakage in the
environment. Based on the findings of Ferronato et al. [57], the informal sector’s role is
how their presence can bring positive habits to people in the city, where people are able to
get their waste to waste pickers or informal recycling sites nearby.
The critical elements of a circular economy consist of reducing raw material consump-
tion while increasing the recycling rate [62]. These two factors still need to be improved in
the operation of plastic waste management in Central Jakarta. Although everyone prefers
environmental quality, social involvement in waste management through trading in the
trash correlates with high social acceptance [63,64]. The system of public and government
collaboration in handling plastic waste is aligned with people’s values, societal structures,
and culture to do the daily economic activity. Therefore, the basis of a circular economy can
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 12 of 14

be implemented to boost sustainable plastic waste management in Central Jakarta through

a public-government partnerships scheme [65].

4. Conclusions
Integrating a circular economy in plastic waste management, like the waste banks,
TPS 3R, and informal waste service, could positively impact the environment and people
while simultaneously achieving Jakstranas, Jakstrada, and SDG 14 targets. Stakeholder
partnership between people, whether formal or informal sector and government, is a
critical strategy in implementing the circular economy paradigm since this scheme could
share the economic benefit. Strengthening public-government partnerships contributes
positively to the collecting rate, recycling rate, benefit-sharing, and positive perspective in
plastic waste management in Central Jakarta.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.P., E.F. and J.T.H.; methodology, A.P., E.F. and J.T.H.;
software, A.P.; validation, A.P., E.F. and J.T.H.; formal analysis, A.P.; investigation, A.P.; resources, A.P.
and E.F.; data curation, A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.; writing—review and editing,
A.P., E.F. and J.T.H.; visualization A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by Program Pendampingan Publikasi Internasional Q2 (PPI Q2)
(The Project Support Program for International Publication Q2, PPI Q2), Universitas Indonesia,
Number: NKB-611/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2021.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We thank Program Pendampingan Publikasi Internasional Q2 (The Project
Support Program for International Publication Q2), Universitas Indonesia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest regarding the publication
of this work. In addition, ethical issues, including plagiarism, informed consent, misconduct, data
fabrication and falsification, double publication and submission, and redundancy, have been entirely
witnessed by the authors.

References
1. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from
land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Syakti, A.D.; Jacob, M.; Birrien, T.; Suhana, M.P.; Aziz, M.Y.; Salim, A.; Doumenq, P.; Louarn, G. Daily apportionment of stranded
plastic debris in the Bintan Coastal area, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110609. [CrossRef]
3. Brooks, A.L.; Wang, S.; Jambeck, J.R. The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat0131.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Liu, Z.; Adams, M.; Walker, T.R. Are exports of recyclables from developed to developing countries waste pollution transfer or
part of the global circular economy? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 22–23. [CrossRef]
5. Liu, Z.; Liu, W.; Walker, T.R.; Adams, M.; Zhao, J. How does the global plastic waste trade contribute to environmental benefits:
Implication for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions? J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112283. [CrossRef]
6. Schroeder, P.; Dewick, P.; Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Hofstetter, J.S. Circular economy and power relations in global value chains: Tensions
and trade-offs for lower income countries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136, 77–78. [CrossRef]
7. Luqman, A.; Nugrahapraja, H.; Wahyuono, R.A.; Islami, I.; Haekal, M.H.; Fardiansyah, Y.; Putri, B.Q.; Amalludin, F.I.; Rofiqa,
E.A.; Götz, F.; et al. Microplastic Contamination in Human Stools, Foods, and Drinking Water Associated with Indonesian Coastal
Population. Environments 2021, 8, 138. [CrossRef]
8. Cordova, M.R.; Riani, E.; Shiomoto, A. Microplastics ingestion by blue panchax fish (Aplocheilus sp.) from Ciliwung Estuary,
Jakarta, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 161, 111763. [CrossRef]
9. World Bank Group. Kementerian Koordinasi Bidang Kemaritiman, Embassy of Denmark and Royal Norwegian Embassy. In
Indonesia Marine Debris Hotspot; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
10. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: The Isle of
Wight, UK, 2016.
11. UNEP. Single-Use Plastics: A roadmap for Sustainability; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 13 of 14

12. Lebreton, L.C.M.; van der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.-W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans.
Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611. [CrossRef]
13. Schmidt, C.; Krauth, T.; Wagner, S. Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12246–12253.
[CrossRef]
14. Sembiring, E.; Fareza, A.A.; Suendo, V.; Reza, M. The Presence of Microplastics in Water, Sediment, and Milkfish (Chanos chanos) at
the Downstream Area of Citarum River, Indonesia. Water Air, Soil Pollut. 2020, 231, 355. [CrossRef]
15. Honingh, D.; Van Emmerik, T.; Uijttewaal, W.; Kardhana, H.; Hoes, O.; Van De Giesen, N. Urban River Water Level Increase
Through Plastic Waste Accumulation at a Rack Structure. Front. Earth Sci. 2020, 8, 28. [CrossRef]
16. van Emmerik, T.; Loozen, M.; van Oeveren, K.; Buschman, F.; Prinsen, G. Riverine plastic emission from Jakarta into the ocean.
Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 84033. [CrossRef]
17. Abdoli, M.A.; Rezaei, M.; Hasanian, H. Integrated solid waste management in megacities. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2016, 2,
289–298. [CrossRef]
18. Mangla, S.K.; Govindan, K.; Luthra, S. Prioritizing the barriers to achieve sustainable consumption and production trends in
supply chains using fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 151, 509–525. [CrossRef]
19. Herdiansyah, H. Smart city based on community empowerment, social capital, and public trust in urban areas. Glob. J. Environ.
Sci. Manag. 2023, 9, 113–128. [CrossRef]
20. Clayton, C.A.; Walker, T.R.; Bezerra, J.C.; Adam, I. Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 162, 111833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Hidayat, Y.A.; Kiranamahsa, S.; Zamal, M.A. A study of plastic waste management effectiveness in Indonesia industries. AIMS
Energy 2019, 7, 350–370. [CrossRef]
22. Jayalath, G.N.; Thilakarathne, E.P.; Abeygunawardana, A.P.; Silva, A.P.; Egodauyana, K.P.; Nawarathna, A.M.; Gunasekara, A.J.
Thilakarathne, Status of Plastic Waste Generation and Propose a Circular Economy-Based Policy Framework to Manage Plastic
Waste in Sri Lanka Status of Plastic Waste Generation and Propose a Circular Economy-Based Policy Framework to Manage
Plastic Waste in Sri Lanka. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. Food Technol. 2021, 15, 24–38. [CrossRef]
23. Guman, O.; Wegner-Kozlova, E. Waste management based on circular economy principles. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 177, 4014.
[CrossRef]
24. Payne, J.; McKeown, P.; Jones, M.D. A circular economy approach to plastic waste. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2019, 165, 170–181.
[CrossRef]
25. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46.
[CrossRef]
26. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.-D.; Tseng, M.-L.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J. Municipal solid waste management in a circular economy: A data-driven
bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 275, 124132. [CrossRef]
27. Mihelcic, J.R.; Crittenden, J.C.; Small, M.J.; Shonnard, D.R.; Hokanson, D.R.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, H.; Sorby, S.A.; James, V.U.;
Sutherland, J.W.; et al. Sustainability Science and Engineering: The Emergence of a New Metadiscipline. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2003, 37, 5314–5324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Dijkstra, H.; van Beukering, P.; Brouwer, R. Business models and sustainable plastic management: A systematic review of the
literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120967. [CrossRef]
29. Robaina, M.; Murillo, K.; Rocha, E.; Villar, J. Circular economy in plastic waste—Efficiency analysis of European countries. Sci.
Total. Environ. 2020, 730, 139038. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Kalmykova, Y.; Sadagopan, M.; Rosado, L. Circular economy—From review of theories and practices to development of
implementation tools. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 135, 190–201. [CrossRef]
31. Bianchini, A.; Rossi, J. Design, implementation and assessment of a more sustainable model to manage plastic waste at sport
events. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125345. [CrossRef]
32. Gong, Y.; Putnam, E.; You, W.; Zhao, C. Investigation into circular economy of plastics: The case of the UK fast moving consumer
goods industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 244, 118941. [CrossRef]
33. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2017, 127, 221–232. [CrossRef]
34. da Silva, L.; Prietto, P.D.M.; Korf, E.P. Sustainability indicators for urban solid waste management in large and medium-sized
worldwide cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117802. [CrossRef]
35. Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104553. [CrossRef]
36. Asteria, D.; Haryanto, J.T. Empowerment key factors in shaping women’s awareness of household waste management. Glob. J.
Environ. Sci. Manag. 2021, 7, 317–330. [CrossRef]
37. Huysman, S.; De Schaepmeester, J.; Ragaert, K.; Dewulf, J.; De Meester, S. Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case
study on post-industrial plastic waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 120, 46–54. [CrossRef]
38. Elgie, A.R.; Singh, S.J.; Telesford, J.N. You can’t manage what you can’t measure: The potential for circularity in Grenada’s waste
management system. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105170. [CrossRef]
39. Indrianti, N. Community-based Solid Waste Bank Model for Sustainable Education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 224, 158–166.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4278 14 of 14

40. Sekito, T.; Matsuyama, A.; Prayogo, T.B.; Dote, Y. Factors influencing the period of participation in a waste bank system in Malang
City, Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 1614–1619. [CrossRef]
41. Pettipas, S.; Bernier, M.; Walker, T.R. A Canadian policy framework to mitigate plastic marine pollution. Mar. Policy 2016, 68,
117–122. [CrossRef]
42. Walker, T.R. (Micro)plastics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2021, 30, 100497.
[CrossRef]
43. Rangel-Buitrago, N.; Williams, A.; Anfuso, G.; Arias, M.; Gracia, A. Magnitudes, sources, and management of beach litter along
the Atlantico department coastline, Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 138, 142–157. [CrossRef]
44. Adam, I.; Walker, T.R.; Bezerra, J.C.; Clayton, A. Policies to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar. Policy
2020, 116, 103928. [CrossRef]
45. Kwatra, S.; Kumar, A.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, P. Stakeholder participation in prioritizing sustainability issues at regional level using
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique: A case study of Goa, India. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 11, 100116. [CrossRef]
46. ODA. Guidance Note on How to Do Stakeholder Analysis of Aid Projects and Programmes; ODA: London, UK, 1995.
47. BPS Kota Jakarta Pusat. Kota Administrasi Jakarta Pusat Dalam Angka 2021; BPS Kota Jakarta Pusat: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021.
48. Sistem Informasi Pengelolaan Sampah Nasional (SIPSN). Available online: https://sipsn.menlhk.go.id/sipsn/public/data/
timbulan (accessed on 9 May 2021).
49. BPS Kota Jakarta Pusat. Kota Jakarta Pusat Dalam Angka (2022); BPS Kota Jakarta Pusat: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022.
50. Khair, H.; Rachman, I.; Matsumoto, T. Analyzing household waste generation and its composition to expand the solid waste bank
program in Indonesia: A case study of Medan City. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2019, 21, 1027–1037. [CrossRef]
51. BPS. Persentase Komposisi Sampah di Provinsi DKI Jakarta 2017-2021/The Precentage of Waste Composition in Jakarta Province,
Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi DKI Jakarta, 2022. Available online: https://jakarta.bps.go.id/indicator/152/572/1/persentase-
komposisi-sampah-di-provinsi-dki-jakarta.html (accessed on 26 September 2022).
52. Sekito, T.; Prayogo, T.B.; Meidiana, C.; Shimamoto, H.; Dote, Y. Estimating the flow of recyclable items and potential revenue at a
waste bank: The case in Malang City, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 2979–2995. [CrossRef]
53. Widyarsana, I.M.W.; Damanhuri, E.; Agustina, E. Municipal solid waste material flow in Bali Province, Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles
Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 405–415. [CrossRef]
54. Warmadewanthi, I.; Wulandari, D.; Cahyadi, M.N.; Pandebesie, E.S.; Anityasari, M.; Dwipayanti, N.M.U.; Purnama, I.G.H.; Nisaa,
A.F. Socio-economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on waste bank closed-loop system in Surabaya, Indonesia. Waste Manag.
Res. J. a Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2021, 39, 1039–1047. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Kubota, R.; Horita, M.; Tasaki, T. Integration of community-based waste bank programs with the municipal solid-waste-
management policy in Makassar, Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2020, 22, 928–937. [CrossRef]
56. Ghazali, A.; Tjakraatmadja, J.H.; Sunarti; Pratiwi, E. Resident-based learning model for sustainable resident participation in
municipal solid waste management program. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag. 2021, 7, 599–624. [CrossRef]
57. Brotosusilo, A.; Handayani, D. Dataset on waste management behaviors of urban citizens in large cities of Indonesia. Data Brief
2020, 32, 106053. [CrossRef]
58. Palafox-Alcantar, P.G.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C.D.F. A Hybrid Methodology to Study Stakeholder Cooperation in Circular
Economy Waste Management of Cities. Energies 2020, 13, 1845. [CrossRef]
59. Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Bundling in public–private partnership projects—A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag.
2020, 69, 1177–1203. [CrossRef]
60. Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Factors affecting public-private partnership preference in Indian municipal waste sector. Int. J. Constr.
Manag. 2019, 20, 567–584. [CrossRef]
61. Ferronato, N.; Portillo, M.A.G.; Lizarazu, G.E.G.; Torretta, V. Formal and informal waste selective collection in developing
megacities: Analysis of residents’ involvement in Bolivia. Waste Manag. Res. J. a Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2021, 39, 108–121. [CrossRef]
62. Kakinuma, M. Behind the Trash: A Qualitative Research on How Trash Pickers in Cirendeu Area Contribute to Recycling. J.
Environ. Sci. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 2, 80–88. [CrossRef]
63. Bertanza, G.; Mazzotti, S.; Gomez, F.H.; Nenci, M.; Vaccari, M.; Zetera, S.F. Implementation of circular economy in the management
of municipal solid waste in an Italian medium-sized city: A 30-years lasting history. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 821–831. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
64. Soemadijo, P.; Anindita, F.; Trisyanti, D.; Akib, R.; Abdulkadir, M.; Nizardo, N.M.; Rachmawati, R.L. A Study of Technology
Availability For Recycling Low Value Plastic In Indonesia. J. Environ. Sci. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 5, 436–457. [CrossRef]
65. Korhonen, J.; Nuur, C.; Feldmann, A.; Birkie, S.E. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 175,
544–552. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.