Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01636-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Understanding citizens’ perception of waste composting

and segregation
Made Adi Widyatmika1 · Nomesh B. Bolia1

Received: 17 August 2022 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published online: 7 March 2023
© Springer Nature Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze citizen perceptions of composting and segregation in two case studies from Jakarta
and Delhi. The framework incorporates primary and secondary data gathered via questionnaires, interviews, and data from
the available literature. Binomial and multinomial logistic regression models are used to analyze residents’ perceptions of
composting and waste segregation. Therefore, four distinct models have been developed to investigate people's viewpoints
to waste composting, segregation, and the incentives that can be offered to promote effective waste management. The most
preferred incentives for segregation are the assurance that waste will not be blended following collection and the availability
of nearby composting sites for composting. The primary sources of concern at the household and community levels of Jakarta
are a lack of guarantees for proper waste management after collection and a lack of land for composting. It is necessary to
improve waste management control and evaluation through training and reinforcing garbage collectors’ commitment. The
primary constraint is their exclusive focus on the absence of government amenities, indicating a limited understanding of
municipal solid waste management at the individual and community stage. Additionally, based on the comparison of the
two cases, decentralization should be acknowledged and strengthened.

Keywords Citizen’s perception · Composting · Incentives · Logistic regression · Segregation · Solid waste management

Introduction reduction strategies into their policies, employing diverse

Solid waste management is one of the major issues con-
fronting most countries around the world, as its generation
grows exponentially each year in lockstep with population
growth. Each country generates a different amount of waste
as a result of its diverse population and socioeconomic [1].
Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is a signifi-
cant issue in terms of environmental contamination, inclu-
sivity, and economic sustainability, requiring combined
assessment as well as holistic planning [2, 3]. The waste
management process as a whole involves a variety of stake-
holders, but this study focus solely on “citizens’ percep-
tions” of MSWM.
Several Asian nations, including South Korea, Taiwan,
Japan, and Hong Kong, have begun incorporated waste
* Made Adi Widyatmika
adi.widyatmika@gmail.com
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi (IITD), New Delhi, Delhi 110016,
India
techniques of food waste collection to facilitate recycling
processes [4]. Indonesia is the fourth most populous nation
in the world and is one of Southeast Asia’s largest econo-
mies. Indonesia generates approximately 3.2% of global
municipal waste and is among the top five countries for solid
waste generation after USA, China, India, and Brazil [5].
Currently, more than 55% of Indonesians live in urban
areas and cities. As in other developing countries and cit-
ies, the waste management problem in Jakarta, Indonesia’s
largest and world’s second-largest megacity, is persistently
contentious. Jakarta’s metropolitan area generated an aver-
age of 7,453 tons of waste per day in 2018 and this amount
reached 7,702 tons in 2019. Out of this, a total volume of
93% waste was transported to the processing sites and land-
fills. Recently, Jakarta has adopted a more direct waste man-
agement strategy [6]. According to a report by the BPS,1
household waste accounted for 37.33% of the total waste
produced in Jakarta in 2020 [7]. Next are traditional markets,
which generate 16.35% of waste, followed by residences,
1
BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik) is the government agency in responsi-
ble for providing statistical data in Indonesia.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
such as apartments, flats, and hostels (16.01%), commerce
(7.29%), public facilities (5.25%), and offices (3.22%).
Meanwhile, 14.55% of Jakarta’s waste comes from other
sources [8]. The majority of households reported an increase
in waste during the coronavirus pandemic, according to a
survey by Waste4Change.2 This is inextricably linked to
lifestyle changes and stay-home curbs. Organic waste saw
the most significant increase of all waste types. The average
increase in cooking residue or food waste volume has more
than doubled. The pandemic has also led to an alarming
rise in plastic waste due to online shopping and food deliv-
ery services [9]. COVID-19 has caused a surge in medical
waste due to the growing consumption of personal care and
single-use products, such as masks, gloves, protective medi-
cal suits, hand sanitizer bottles, etc. One of the solutions to
the increased household waste during the pandemic is sort-
ing them at the source. Since the effectiveness of solid waste
separation met expectations in every scenario [10], a more
robust separation system is necessary.
Public participation can be addressed as a whole or in a
range of methods. In certain instances, the configuration is
determined by the sense of involvement, namely resource
management, environmental assessment, and regulation [1];
in others, the configuration is determined by the outcome of
participation, such as treatment of objections to activities
and the initiation of dialogs. In “indirect participation”, the
community pays a cleaning service to collect and dispose
of their waste. One type of waste management participa-
tion is the willingness to pay for improving waste manage-
ment facilities to maintain cleanliness and environmental
quality [11]. Community participation is frequently defined
as the participation, involvement, and equality of commu-
nity members in a specific activity, directly or indirectly,
contributing ideas, and participating in policy formulation,
program implementation, and evaluation [12]. Composting
is a method of managing and reducing the volume of organic
waste generation with the aid of microorganisms (e.g., bac-
teria and fungi). The use of microorganisms will accelerate
the decomposition of organic waste. Temperature, humid-
ity, food for microorganisms (nutrient content), soil acidity
(pH), composting time, and oxygen content in the soil must
be taken into account for the proper growth of microorgan-
isms [13, 14].
Waste segregation is an important first step in any sub-
sequent management process. The most basic waste sorting
method is to separate easily decomposed (organic) waste
2
Waste4Change is a waste management company in Indonesia that
provides waste management solutions from upstream to downstream,
which consists of 4 lines: Consultation (research and studies); Cam-
paign (capacity building); Collection (daily waste transportation and
processing for zero waste to landfill); and Creation (waste recycling
and EPR program).
1609
from non-perishable (inorganic) waste [15]. Organic waste
can decompose into smaller materials in a relatively short
period. Meanwhile, inorganic waste does not decompose,
e.g., glass, metal, paper, and plastic.
Residents’ participation in the MSWM system is essen-
tial for its efficacy, as residential areas are the system’s pri-
mary waste generators [16]. The community has a right to
assume responsibility for waste management and participate
in its management. Participating in the community requires
a variety of waste reduction and management activities,
including sorting, reducing, reusing, and recycling waste.
Waste segregation should be the first approach when imple-
menting a top-down approach. Additionally, sorting waste
demonstrates the community’s right to contribute to environ-
mentally responsible waste management. At the same time,
this strategy is important because of its logical results as a
producer of domestic waste and other waste from household
economic activities, such as food stalls, and home industries.
Recognizing the obligation to sort waste, on the other hand,
can serve as a motivator for communities and waste gen-
erators to reduce their waste generation. Additionally, the
government may promote composting to aid communities
in reducing waste generation.
Extensive prior research has been conducted on waste
management, particularly in terms of government policy, the
legal framework, and financial allocation. However, there is
still a shortage of data on people’s perceptions and inten-
tions toward waste management. It is crucial to determine
how city residents feel about waste management services
and what incentives will encourage them to participate in
waste management. This study focuses on public percep-
tion as a source of waste generation in Jakarta, one of the
world’s most densely populated cities [17], which is yet to
be published in the literature. This information can also be
used as a model for dealing with solid waste at its source
in cities, especially in developing countries. This research
employed binomial logistic regression (BLR) to demonstrate
the influence of a community’s demographic characteristics
on its perception of waste management. The multinomial
logistic regression (MLR), on the other hand, reveals the
likelihood of the community, based on its demographics,
to choose the desired incentives to encourage people to sort
their trash and compost it. Further, Jakarta and Delhi share
the same status as national capitals and economic hubs for
their respective nations. Another reason for comparing resi-
dents’ perspectives on waste management is the diversity
of the two cities’ populations. Thus, this study shared more
light on how the public views waste management in their
city. This study was carried out in municipalities of Jakarta,
Indonesia, during 2020–22.
13
1610
Fig. 1  Map of study area, Jakarta, Indonesia
Materials and methods
Study area
Jakarta, the national capital of Indonesia, is located on the
northwest coast of Java Island, Indonesia, between 5°19′
12″–6°23′ 54″ South Latitude and 106°22′ 42″–106°58′ 18″
East Longitude (Fig. 1). Furthermore, Jakarta is the center
of national finance and trade in Indonesia, with activities
taking place around the clock in its populated areas. Jakarta
Pusat, Jakarta Utara, Jakarta Barat, Jakarta Timur, Jakarta
Selatan, and Kepulauan Seribu are the six districts that make
up this city.
Jakarta’s rapid population growth has created significant
challenges. Jakarta’s population reached 10.56 million by
2020 [7], resulting in mass migration that will exacerbate
residents’ problems, such as poor sanitation, a lack of hous-
ing, and insufficient transportation [18]. This condition
poses a significant challenge to waste management in urban
areas. Each year, the largest urban areas in Indonesia gener-
ate nearly 10 million tons of waste. In January of 2020, there
were 1006 TPS, or waste stalls, in Jakarta. With 355 points,
East Jakarta has the greatest number of stalls, followed by
West Jakarta with 236 points. North Jakarta currently has
156 points, while South Jakarta has 146. Central Jakarta has
the lowest number of garbage stalls, with only 106 points
[19].
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
After the waste is collected at the TPS,3 it is managed at
the TPS3R4. However, the number of TPS3R is very limited;
there are only 11 points in DKI Jakarta. The TPS3R, with
community participation, is expected to play a role in reduc-
ing waste that goes to the landfill, given that some existing
landfills have become critical due to increasing waste vol-
umes. Bantar Gebang is the only landfill servicing the met-
ropolitan area of Jakarta. Since 1989, Bantar Gebang landfill
has served as the province of DKI Jakarta’s official waste
disposal site. The current condition of the Bantar Gebang
landfill is quite alarming because it is already at capacity.
7500–8000 tons of waste from Jakarta are disposed of daily
on this 108 hectare landfill [20]
The term “solid waste management” is commonly used
to refer to both the formal and informal sectors. In Indone-
sia, the formal component comprises governmental agen-
cies and formal businesses, while the informal sector made
up of individuals, groups, and small businesses engaged in
unregistered and unregulated activities. The informal sector
refers to recycling in solid waste activities. Scavengers (i.e.,
itinerant waste pickers) and waste buyers are in charge of
scavenging [21]. This study focuses solely on how the public
3
TPS (Tempat Penampungan Sementara) is a site where waste is
transported before being transferred to a recycling site, processing
site, or TPS3R.
4
TPS3R – the TPS with 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) concepts—is a
site for reducing the quantity and/or improving the qualities of waste
that will be disposed further in a landfill.
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
perceives the formal sector, in this case, DLH Jakarta, to
handle the waste.
Development of the model
In this study, logistic regression models are developed, since
the dependent variable is categorical and the categories are
equivalent and cannot be ordered meaningfully. In general,
logistic regression classifiers can use a linear combination
of multiple feature values or explanatory variables as the
sigmoid function’s argument [22]. The semiparametric clas-
sification statistic MLR is used to solve multiclass problems.
According to [23], It is a generalization of logistic regression
that can be applied to problems with more than one class
(e.g., more than two possible outcomes). The MLR model
estimates a separate BLR model for each indicator variable.
If the outcome of the dependent variable possesses N cat-
egories, the result is N-1 binary logistic regression models.
Each model conveys the impact of predictors on the likeli-
hood of success in that category compared to the reference
category [24].
Decisions about how to dispose of household waste are
influenced by socioeconomic factors [25]. Therefore, the
respondents were classified according to socioeconomic
categories to systematically analyze the MLR models [26].
The categories include occupation of the family’s head, own-
ership of the residence (rented or owned), family’s monthly
income, community satisfaction with the service of DLH,5
and the amount of household waste.
In the case of Delhi, a study by [27] identified composting
and segregation as the two most important parts of MSWM
in Delhi. Since Jakarta and Delhi share the same status as
capital cities, this study emphasizes these two points as the
most important aspects in waste management at the source.
Two models are generated for both aspects. The first model
seeks to develop insights and analyze variation in people's
behaviors in segregation and composting based on socio-
economic status. The second model focuses on interven-
tions to predict people’s behavior. This modeling includes
the following interventions: a nearby composting site, extra
money for composting products, laws mandating composting
and waste segregation, free separate dustbins, lower waste
collection costs, a guarantee that garbage won't be mixed
after collection, and a greater concern for the environment.
Equation 1 illustrates the binomial regression models for
composting and segregation.
P viduals to compost and segregate their waste. The depend-
( ) ∑
log = B0 + Bi xi (1)
1−P
5
DLH (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup) is the Jakarta government agency
responsible for the city's environment and cleanliness.
1611
where P is the probability that individuals will segregate or
compost their waste, B is the coefficient of regression, and xi
is the independent variable, which is the respondents’ social
and demographic category.
A multinomial logistic regression model with N different
interventions can be thought of as a set of N-1 independ-
ent binary logistic regression models, with one interven-
tion chosen as a “reference” and the other N-1 interventions
regressed independently against the reference. If outcome N
is chosen as the reference category, then the nth intervention
is shown in Eq. 2
K
∑
(2)
[ ]
log P(Y = n)∕P(Y = N) = Bn0 + Bnk xnk
k=1
where n is the intervention, K is the total number of inde-
pendent variables, Y is the specific intervention within the
overall set of interventions, and xnk is independent variable,
which is the respondents' demographic category.
Model interpretation
The composting and segregation models use BLR, with the
dependent variable being whether or not a person composts
and segregates their waste. This study identified six vari-
ables that could predict people’s satisfaction with the DLH’s
services. They are the occupation of the head of the family,
family’s monthly income, housing status, whether rented
or owned, the primary source of the waste, and amount
of the waste. This study employed SPSS 25 to construct
the “Variables in the Equation” table for this investigation.
This table displays the statistical significance of each inde-
pendent variable’s contribution to the model. The statistical
significance value (p value.) indicates whether each inde-
pendent variable contributes significantly (p value < 0.05)
or insignificantly (p value > 0.05). The Likelihood Ratio
Test table indicates which of the independent variables are
statistically significant (p value < 0.05) and which are not
(p value > 0.05). Meanwhile, the Parameter Estimate table
displays the model’s coefficients. The odd ratio or EXP(B)
indicates the magnitude of the independent variable’s influ-
ence on the dependent variable. If the coefficient (B) is posi-
tive, the independent variable is related to the dependent
variable in a positive way, and vice versa.
Multinomial logistic regression is used in the compost-
ing incentive and segregation incentive model. This model
aims to investigate the interventions that will encourage indi-
ent variable in the composting incentive is the factor which
encourage people to compost their garbage. The following
are the possible dependent variables in the MLR model for
composting incentive: nearby composting locations, addi-
tional income from compost sales, and laws for composting,
13
1612 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621

along with increased concern for the environment serving as

100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
the reference category. Meanwhile, for segregation incentive

Total
model, the possible dependent variable are free separate dust
bin, lower trash collection fees, a law mandating segregation,
environmental concern, and a guarantee that waste will not

Unsatisfied
be mixed after collection. The occupation of the family’s

82.61%
82.73%
84.66%
67.18%
61.49%
84.92%
77.78%
72.99%
85.38%
head, family monthly income, housing status, and amount
of household waste all emerged as significant predictors in

DLH service
the overall model.

Satisfied

17.39%
17.27%
15.34%
32.82%
38.51%
15.08%
22.22%
27.01%
14.62%
Data collection

100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
The data collection methods depend on the study’s size.

Total
At the household or locality level, information is gathered
through surveys or interviews; at the district or country level,
it comes from a government database [28, 29]. Initially, with

58.70%
55.00%
73.62%
61.54%
60.14%
64.75%
52.14%
63.10%
60.23%
≥ 1 SD
the help of experts like DLH officials and NGOs, a 21 ques-

Waste amount
tion questionnaire was created. The district of Kepulauan
Seribu is not included in this study because it is located off

41.30%
45.00%
26.38%
38.46%
39.86%
35.25%
47.86%
36.90%
39.77%
< 1 SD
the coast of Jakarta. The questionnaire was divided into two
sections. The first section includes the demographic profile
of the respondents. Section Two assesses the waste manage-

100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
ment practices and how they are implemented.

Total
The sample for this study was the working-age population
of Jakarta. There are 7,958,435 people of working age in
Plastics

37.68%
33.64%
43.56%
40.51%
32.43%
41.02%
36.75%
41.98%
34.80%
Jakarta [7], who are divided into four occupational catego-
ries. This is shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2. A pilot survey was
done prior to the final survey. Fifty preliminary question-
Clothes

2.90%
9.09%
10.43%
18.46%
25.00%
7.98%
3.42%
7.22%
14.62%
naires were distributed to the population to get feedback
from respondents and evaluate the questionnaire’s reliability.
From October 2020 to April 2021, 800 heads of households
from the four occupational sectors were given a structured
Paper, cardboard

questionnaire, to which 716 people responded. The data

were subsequently analyzed with BLR and MLR.
18.12%
23.18%
12.88%
16.92%
18.92%
19.96%
10.26%
18.72%
17.54%
Table 1  Table of respondent categories in the Jakarta case study

Results and discussion

Food waste
Waste type

41.30%
34.09%
33.13%
24.10%
23.65%
31.04%
49.57%
32.09%
33.04%

Statistical descriptions

The final survey was conducted in 800 households, and

Agriculture, daily worker

716 people responded, indicating a good response rate.

This study groups the respondents into occupational cat-
Government officer

egories, namely government employees, private workers,

Middle income

entrepreneurs, agriculture, and daily workers. Based on

Private sector
Businessman

High income
Low income

the monthly income, respondents are grouped into low,

Owned
Rented

medium, and high income, which earn less than IDR6 5.1
Housing status

6
IDR is the currency of Indonesia which stand for Indonesia Rupiah.
Occupation

The exchange rate is USD 1 = IDR 15,484.40 (retrieved from https://​

www.​ g oogle.​ c om/​ f inan​ c e/​ quote/​ U SD-​ I DR?​ s a=​ X &​ ved=​ 2 ahUK​
Income

Ewjbtc_​sqd38​AhVzT​mwGHZ​VjDfI​QmY0J​egQIA​RAZ; January 23,

2023.

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621 1613

not they were satisfied with the services provided by DLH.

Table 1 shows the categories of respondents in Jakarta.
When asked if they would compost waste at home, 36.6%
say yes, and 63.4% say no. Concerning composting incen-
tives, 18.4% of people prefer a nearby composting site,
40.1% for extra money, 24.9% for a law mandating com-
posting, and 16.6% would do it for increased environmental
awareness. When asked if they were willing to segregate
waste, 51.7% said they were, while the rest said they were
not. This demonstrates the majority of Jakarta residents are
willing to segregate their waste, though there are still many
who are not. 21.9% of all respondents say they would be
more likely to separate if there was a way to ensure that
Fig. 2  Population of Jakarta in the working age the waste wasn’t mixed up after they were collected. 27.5%
want lower fees for door-to-door collection, 22.8% want a
law mandating waste segregation, and 23.7% say they would
Table 2  The Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients of the Composting do for free separated dustbins. Only 4.1% say they would do
Model it for the environment. In general, people preferred service
Chi-square df Sig. improvement as an incentive to segregate their waste.

Step 1 Step 105.522 7 0.000

Block 105.522 7 0.000 Composting model
Model 105.522 7 0.000
Table 2 shows the chi-squared (105.522) is greater than df
(7) with p value less than 0.05. This result demonstrates that
the addition of independent variables has a real influence
million, between IDR 5.1 million to IDR 10 million, and
on the model, or that the model is considered fit. Table 3
more than IDR 10 million per month, respectively. Food
demonstrates the Nagelkerke R Square value is 0.251 and
waste, paper and cardboard, clothes, and plastic are the
the Cox & Snell R Square value is 0.137. These values indi-
categories based on the type of waste generated. Regarding
cate that the ability of the independent variable to explain
homeownership status, they are classified as either home-
the dependent variable is 25.1%. Therefore, there are 74.9%
owners or renters. Respondents also indicated whether or
other factors beyond the model that explain the dependent

Table 3  Table of parameter estimates of the significant independent variables in composting model
Variable Category B S.E df p value Exp(B)

Family’s head occupation Ref: Agricultural and daily worker 3 0.027

Government service − 0.494 0.437 1 0.025 0.610
Employee of private sector − 0.987 0.381 1 0.010 0.373
Business − 0.276 0.437 1 0.028 0.759
Family’s income monthly Ref: High 2 0.000
Low 0.795 0.408 1 0.005 2.214
Middle 1.530 0.276 1 0.000 4.618
Housing status Ref: Rented
Owned − 1.167 0.287 1 0.000 0.311
Amount of household waste Ref: 1 SD and more
Less than 1SD − 1.050 0.246 1 0.000 0.350
Constant 2.643 0.478 1 0.000 14.054
Percentage correct − 2 Log likelihood Cox and Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
88 458.781 0.137 0.251
a
Variable(s) entered on step 1: Family’s head occupation, Family’s income monthly, Housing status, Amount of household waste
*
Ref reference category

13
1614
Table 4  Table of model fitting Effect
criteria and likelihood ratio test
for composting incentive model
Intercept
Family's head occupation
Family's income monthly
Housing status
Amount of household waste
variable. The parameter estimates shows the p value of all
variables are less than 0.05. It determines that each inde-
pendent variable has a substantial partial effect on the
dependent variable in the model.
The following interpretations are derived from the above
results:
a) People involved in the agricultural sector and daily work-
ers are more inclined to compost than people engaged in
government service, private sector, and business. This
can be explained by assuming that agricultural labor-
ers and daily workers are not restricted by work hours,
making it easier to arrange the time for composting their
waste.
b) People from low- and middle-class incomes are more
likely to compost their waste than people from high
income. Composting results in organic fertilizer, which
has a market value and is very useful in the agricultural
sector.
c) People who own their homes are less likely to compost
than those who rent. Many people are hesitant to com-
post at home due to the lack of facilities and esthetic
concerns.
d) Households who produce less than 1 Standard Dustbin
(SD)7 are less likely to compost their waste.
Composting incentive models
Table 4 shows that all independent variables are statistically
significant, with p value is less than 0.05. From Table 5, the
creation of three models uses four dependent variables as
composting incentives, with the environmental concern vari-
able serving as a reference. The first row shows two inde-
pendent variables that are statistically insignificant, namely
business of occupation and less than 1 SD of waste amount.
In the second row, there is only the middle-income variable
that is estimated to be insignificant. The third row indicates
business as an insignificant variable. Those variables have a
significance level greater than 0.05.
7
A standard dustbin (SD) is a household trash can with 1 L capacity.
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
Model Fitting Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
− 2 Log Likelihood of Chi-Square df p value
Reduced Model
386.088a 0.000 0
398.505 12.418 9 0.019
407.045 20.957 6 0.000
409.177 23.089 3 0.000
391.766 5.678 3 0.013
These models’ interpretations and implications are as
follows:
a) In comparison to environmental concerns as an incen-
tive, nearby composting sites appear to be the best option
for private sector employees, agricultural workers, the
low-income class, and house renters. Other categories,
on the other hand, prefer attention to the environment as
a stimulant. This group would rather live in a comfort-
able place because they still think the composting site
will make their lives less comfortable.
b) Compared to environmental concerns, the additional
income from composting becomes the preferred incen-
tive for individuals other than government employees
and business owners. On the other hand, people with
lower-middle incomes favor composting regulations as
an incentive rather than concern for the environment.
They appear to intend explicit guidelines about the price
of the composting results.
Segregation model
Table 6 reveals that the chi-squared (348,066) is more than
df (9), with a significance smaller than 0.05. This result
shows that adding independent variables has a real effect on
the model or that the model is regarded fit. The Nagelkerke R
Square value is 0.514, while the Cox & Snell R Square value
is 0.385, as seen in Table 7. According to these values, the
independent variable can explain 51.4% of the dependent
variable. As a consequence, 48.6% of the dependent variable
is explained by factors other than the model. The parameter
estimations suggest that three independent variables, namely
business category, middle-income, and people who produce
clothing waste, have p-value greater than 0.05. These vari-
ables are regarded as insignificant.
This model renders itself to the following interpretations:
a) Employees in the government and private sectors are
more likely to segregate their waste than those in the
agricultural sector and the daily workers. It seems that
government employees and private employees have a
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621 1615

Table 5  Pivot table of parameter estimates of composting incentive model

Incentives for ­compostinga B SE df p value Exp(B)

A nearby composting site Intercept 0.341 0.495 1 0.014

Government officer − 0.160 0.424 1 0.009 0.852
Employee of private sector 0.402 0.398 1 0.031 1.496
Business − 0.022 0.413 1 0.058 0.978
Agricultural and daily worker 0b 0
Low 0.421 0.509 1 0.041 1.524
Middle − 0.259 0.315 1 0.041 0.771
High 0b 0
Owned − 0.523 0.286 1 0.008 0.593
Rented 0b 0
Less than 1 SD 0.340 0.267 1 0.202 1.405
1 SD and more 0b 0
Money for the composting products Intercept 0.845 0.452 1 0.002
Government officer − 0.355 0.368 1 0.035 0.701
Employee of private sector 0.310 0.349 1 0.037 1.364
Business − 0.265 0.359 1 0.046 0.767
Agricultural and daily worker 0b 0
Low 1.506 0.470 1 0.001 4.510
Middle 0.568 0.311 1 0.067 1.765
High 0b 0
Owned − 1.098 0.250 1 0.000 0.334
Rented 0b 0
Less than 1 SD 0.182 0.240 1 0.045 1.199
1 SD and more 0b 0
The laws that mandate composting Intercept 1.039 0.468 1 0.026
Government officer − 0.533 0.386 1 0.017 0.587
Employee of private sector − 0.280 0.373 1 0.045 0.756
Business − 0.165 0.367 1 0.065 0.848
Agricultural and daily worker 0b 0
Low 0.432 0.503 1 0.039 1.540
Middle 0.267 0.319 1 0.040 1.306
High 0b 0
Owned − 0.919 0.265 1 0.001 0.399
Rented 0b 0
Less than 1 SD − 0.192 0.260 1 0.046 0.825
1 SD and more 0b 0
a
The reference category is: More concern about the environment
b
This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant

Table 6.  The Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients of the Segregation better understanding of the importance of waste sorting
Model than daily workers and those in the agricultural sector.
Chi-square df Sig. b) People with lower incomes are less likely to segregate
their waste than those with middle and higher incomes.
Step 1 Step 348.066 9 0.000
This is understandable because people with middle-to-
Block 348.066 9 0.000
high incomes tend to live in residential clusters with
Model 348.066 9 0.000
better waste management systems and in more aware
neighborhoods.

13
1616 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621

Table 7  Table of parameter estimates of the significant independent variables in segregation model
VariableCategory B SE df p value Exp(B)

Family’s head occupation Ref.: Agricultural and daily worker 3 0.000

Government officer 3.006 0.333 1 0.000 20.213
Employee of private sector 3.134 0.297 1 0.000 22.974
Business 0.337 0.294 1 0.251 1.401
Family’s income monthly Ref.: High 2 0.000
Low − 1.031 0.374 1 0.006 0.357
Middle 0.282 0.278 1 0.311 1.325
Main source of household waste Ref.: Plastic 3 0.000
Food 1.307 0.246 1 0.000 3.694
Paper and cardboard − 0.585 0.282 1 0.038 0.557
Clothes 0.267 0.361 1 0.461 1.305
Amount of household waste Ref.: 1 SD and more
Less than 1SD − 0.744 0.221 1 0.001 0.475
Constant − 1.584 0.366 1 0.000 0.205
Percentage correct − 2 Log likelihood Cox and Snell R Square Nagelkerke R Square
79.7 643.716 0.385 0.514

Table 8  Table of model fitting Effect Model Fitting Criteria Likelihood Ratio Tests
criteria and likelihood ratio test
for segregation incentive model − 2 Log Likelihood of Chi-Square df p value
Reduced Model

Intercept 625.898a 0.000 0

Family's head occupation 730.736 104.838 12 0.000
Family's income monthly 705.050 79.152 8 0.000
Main source of household waste 665.344 39.445 12 0.000
Amount of household waste 642.625 16.726 4 0.002

c) Households that generate more paper and cardboard
waste are less likely to segregate than households that
generate more food waste and cloth shreds. Because
scavengers usually take over waste sorting, people who
generate paper and cardboard waste tend to leave their
waste mixed.
d) Households that produce less waste than one standard
trash can are less likely to segregate their waste. It is
understandable if someone has a small amount of waste
and tends to put it in one container for efficiency rea-
sons.
Segregation incentive model
Table 8 demonstrates that all independent variables are sta-
tistically significant, with p value less than 0.05. As a ref-
erence, the creation of four models from Table 9 uses five
dependent variables as composting incentives, with the cer-
tainty that waste does not mix after collection. The first row
contains statistically insignificant businessmen, paper and
cardboard waste producers, and clothing trash producers. In
the second row, two variables are assumed to be insignifi-
cant: producers of paper and cardboard waste and produc-
ers of clothing waste. Government personnel, private sector
employees, business, agricultural, and daily workers, as well
as paper and cardboard waste producers and clothing waste
producers, are all unimportant variables in the third row. The
fourth row shows the identical situation, but with the middle-
income category included as an insignificant variable.
The same study in Delhi established that the distribu-
tion of free trash cans did not satisfy the citizens and that
other incentives, such as increased environmental awareness
and the implementation of laws requiring segregation, are
preferable [27]. In contrast to the study's findings, Jakarta’s
respondents prefer guarantees that the waste will not be
mixed again after collection as an incentive. The interpreta-
tion of the segregation incentive models are as follows [30]:
a) People from low- and middle-income classes prefer
lower costs for waste collection as an incentive rather
than a guarantee that the waste is not mixed after collec-
tion. People who work in government, the private sec-

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621 1617

Table 9  Pivot table of Incentives for segregation B SE df p value Exp (B)

parameter estimates of
segregation incentive model Lower waste collection costs Intercept 0.292 0.514 1 0.570
Government officer − 3.012 0.576 1 0.000 0.049
Employee of private sector − 2.279 0.382 1 0.000 0.102
Business − 0.562 0.390 1 0.150 0.570
Agricultural and daily worker 0* 0
Low income 3.425 0.552 1 0.000 30.720
Middle income 1.289 0.417 1 0.002 3.631
High income 0* 0
Food − 0.629 0.316 1 0.047 0.533
Paper and cardboard − 0.427 0.359 1 0.234 0.652
Clothes 0.154 0.440 1 0.726 1.167
Plastic 0* 0
Less than 1 SD − 0.588 0.275 1 0.032 0.555
1 SD and more 0* 0
Laws that mandate segregation Intercept 0.686 0.448 1 0.126
Government officer − 1.087 0.407 1 0.008 0.337
Employee of private sector − 1.381 0.366 1 0.000 0.251
Business − 0.734 0.400 1 0.066 0.480
Agricultural and daily worker 0* 0
Low income 1.735 0.505 1 0.001 5.667
Middle income 0.850 0.323 1 0.008 2.339
High income 0* 0
Food − 0.757 0.294 1 0.010 0.469
Paper and cardboard − 0.312 0.320 1 0.329 0.732
Clothes − 0.227 0.443 1 0.609 0.797
Plastic 0* 0
Less than 1 SD − 0.571 0.253 1 0.024 0.565
1 SD and more 0* 0
Free separated dustbin Intercept − 0.206 0.463 1 0.656
Government officer 0.230 0.419 1 0.584 1.258
Employee of private sector − 0.362 0.398 1 0.363 0.696
Business − 0.362 0.442 1 0.412 0.696
Agricultural and daily worker 0* 0
Low income 0.401 0.547 1 0.463 1.494
Middle income 0.539 0.272 1 0.048 1.714
High income 0* 0
Food 0.590 0.269 1 0.028 1.805
Paper and cardboard − 0.022 0.332 1 0.946 0.978
Clothes − 0.555 0.555 1 0.317 0.574
Plastic 0* 0
Less than 1 SD − 0.436 0.238 1 0.067 0.646
1 SD and more 0* 0
Concern for the environment Intercept − 1.641 0.818 1 0.045
Government officer 0.322 0.767 1 0.675 1.380
Employee of private sector − 0.086 0.726 1 0.906 0.918
Business − 0.278 0.855 1 0.745 0.757
Agricultural and daily worker 0* 0
Low income 0.139 0.904 1 0.878 1.149
Middle income − 0.254 0.452 1 0.574 0.776
High income 0* 0
Food − 0.843 0.474 1 0.076 0.430

13
1618 Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621

Table 9  (continued) Incentives for segregation B SE df p value Exp (B)

Paper and cardboard − 0.677 0.615 1 0.271 0.508

Clothes − 0.802 1.113 1 0.471 0.448
Plastic 0* 0
Less than 1 SD 0.947 0.450 1 0.035 2.579
1 SD and more 0* 0 0

*This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant

tor, and business, on the other hand, prefer to guarantee
that waste is not mixed up after collection compared to
the lower collection cost. This is understandable given
that these people have more income. Meanwhile, in the
category of waste amount, households with fewer than
one standard dust bin choose the guarantee that waste is
not mixed as an incentive.
b) People who work in the government and the private
sector and those who produce less than one SD prefer
guarantees that waste will not be mixed again to laws
governing waste segregation. This is supported by the
findings of several in-depth interviews with respondents,
all of whom expressed concern about careless handling
after collection. Meanwhile, lower–middle-income
groups prefer regulation as an intervention rather than a
guarantee.
c) Only the food waste producer category preferred the free
separated dust bins as an incentive, whereas the other
categories had no significant effect on the model. Obser-
vations on the ground indicate that the free dustbins that
have been provided are of poor quality and poorly main-
tained.
Summary: comparing Jakarta and Delhi case
Sections 3.1 and 3.5 detail the finding of our study for
Jakarta. However it would be interesting to compare how
other cities respond to similar interventions. In this section,
we summarize the comparison between Jakarta and New
Delhi, another major city, for which corresponding ones
are reported in the literature. Further, Jakarta and Delhi are
both national capitals and economic hubs for their respec-
tive countries. The diversity of the two cities’ populations
is another reason for comparing residents’ perspectives on
waste management. As a result, this study sheds more light
on how the general public perceives waste management in
their city.
Compared to the case study of Delhi [27], the present
study of Jakarta shows nearly identical results in terms of
city residents’ satisfaction with waste management services.
The comparisons of the two cases are illustrated in Fig. 2
and Fig. 3. The majority of respondents stated that they were
satisfied with waste management services, 52.8% in Delhi
and 78.9% in Jakarta. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) pro-
duction in Delhi exceeds 9500 tons per day, out of which
nearly 8000 tons are collected by Delhi Municipal Corpora-
tions. Jakarta generates an average of 7702 tons of MSW per
day; out of this, 7163 tons are collected and processed. Both
studies used the same demographic parameters, namely the
occupation of the head of the household, monthly income,
home ownership status, waste type, and waste amount pro-
duced by each household.
From the analysis, it is found that 36.6% of respondents
in Jakarta are willing to compost their waste. They come
from middle- and lower-income groups who expect addi-
tional money from composting. In the Delhi case study, only
23% of respondents were willing to compost, mostly, indi-
viduals with lower incomes were more inclined to consider
supplementing their income through compost sales as an
incentive [27].
In terms of waste segregation, 51.7% of Jakarta respond-
ents are willing to sort it. As an incentive, people with lower
incomes prefer the lowest cost for waste collection. Mean-
while, people in other categories are eager to sort their waste
if there is a guarantee that it will not be mixed again dur-
ing transportation and disposal. In the Delhi case, with only
28.6% willing to sort, the lower-income class is either less
responsive to segregation or lacks trust in the waste manage-
ment system and its associated assurance that source segre-
gated garbage will not be mixed later. On the other hand,
Fig. 3  People willingness to compost and segregate their waste in
Jakarta and Delhi

13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
Fig. 4  a Comparison of the composting incentives implemented in Jakarta and Delhi, b comparison of the segregation incentives implemented
in Jakarta and Delhi
upper–middle-class residents want more effective rules to
prevent waste from being mixed up [27]. In both the cases
of Jakarta and Delhi, city dwellers want better waste man-
agement, primarily in terms of how the waste is handled
and how well the rules are enforced. Figure 3 and Fig. 4
show the willingness to compost and segregate, incentives
for composting, and incentives for segregation, respectively.
Conclusion
In this study, logistic regression is used to develop a model
of Jakarta residents' perceptions of composting and waste
sorting and an incentive model to encourage them to do so.
Only those who produce food waste prefer free separate dust
bins as a motivator to separate. When all other stimuli are
considered, the assurance that waste will not be remixed
after collection is the preferred choice as an incentive in
segregation. It means that the community wants more com-
prehensive waste management after door-to-door collection.
When the garbage collectors mixed it up again, they think
it is pointless to sort the waste in their homes. This finding
is consistent with the results of a study conducted in Delhi,
which found that higher income groups are more likely to
separate waste if they are convinced that it would not be
blended in future. In this case, it is also necessary to consider
the garbage collector's comprehension and consistency in
maintaining the cleanliness and neatness of waste handling,
both during transportation and at the garbage collection site.
Except for government employees and business people,
the extra money from selling compost is an incentive for
people to compost. Because there is no time for compost-
ing, these two groups are more concerned with environ-
mental conditions and the comfort of their living spaces.
While this suggests that low-income individuals want to
1619
make more money, it might also imply that composting
is a more complex procedure than separating. Further-
more, the law governing composting will encourage them
to do so. In this condition, a decentralized system at the
local or regional level may outperform individual home
composting.
The study has clear policy implication. To encourage peo-
ple to compost their waste, the government must establish
clear rules and standard procedures for the community to
receive compensation for their composting products. This
clearly emerges from the interpretation in Sect. 3.3. For
individuals other than government employees and business
owners, the additional income from composting is a more
compelling incentive than environmental concerns. People
with lower–middle incomes, on the other hand, favor com-
posting regulations as an incentive rather than out of concern
for the environment. They appear to intend explicit pricing
guidelines for the composting outcomes. Meanwhile, regard-
ing waste segregation, the service provider, in this case, the
DLH, must guarantee that collected waste will not be mixed
during transportation or at the disposal site. This is apparent
from the following finding of Sect. 3.5. Employees in the
government, private sector, and business prefer to ensure
that waste is not mixed after collection and are concerned
about carelessness after collection.
This study is the only first step toward citizen oriented
improvements in solid waste management. Clearly, there are
limitations which also provide directions for future work.
This study reveals the perceptions and motivations of the
community as a source of waste generation. However, the
perception and motivation of waste collection officers, who
also play a significant role, are not covered in this study
because the survey design requires an opposing viewpoint.
Such research should also be conducted on both formal
and informal waste collectors, as well as the scavenger and
13
1620
dealer supply chains. In addition to attitudes and conscious-
ness, it is essential to develop efficient MSWM mechanisms
by optimizing collection, disposal infrastructure, and dis-
posal routes with system dynamic models.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 10163-0​ 23-0​ 1636-5.
Acknowledgements This study was partially supported by the Doctoral
Fellowship of India for ASEAN (DIA) programme of The Ministry of
Education, Government of India. We also appreciate the support mate-
rials provided by Kaveri Kala throughout the duration of the project.
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during
the current study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declares that publication of this manu-
script presents no conflicts of interest. In addition, the authors have
observed all ethical issues, including plagiarism, informed consent,
misconduct, data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication
and/or submission, and redundancy.
References
1. Kala K, BoliaSushil NB (2020) Waste management commu-
nication policy for effective citizen awareness. J Policy Model
42:661–678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jpolm​od.​2020.​01.​012
2. Ferronato N, Torretta V (2019) Waste mismanagement in devel-
oping countries: a review of global issues. Int J Environ Res
Public Health 16:1060. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerp​h1606​1060
3. Priti MK (2019) Review on evolution of municipal solid waste
management in India: practices, challenges and policy implica-
tions. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 21:1263–1279. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​019-​00880-y
4. Limon MR, Villarino CBJ (2020) Knowledge, attitudes and
practices on household food waste: bases for formulation of a
recycling system. Global J Environ Sci Manage. 6:323–340
5. Nanda S, Berruti F (2021) Municipal solid waste management
and landfilling technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett
19:1433–1456. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10311-​020-​01100-y
6. Nugraha A, Sutjahjo SH, Amin AA (2018) Analisis Persepsi dan
Partisipasi Masyarakat terhadap Pengelolaan Sampah Rumah
Tangga di Jakarta Selatan. J Pengel Sumberdaya Alam dan
Lingkungan J Nat Res Environ Manage. 8:7–14
7. BPS C-S-A-JP (2020) Jakarta in Figure of Year 2020. https://​
jakar ​t a.​b ps.​g o.​i d/​p ubli​c ation/​2 020/​0 4/​2 7/​2 0f5a​5 8abc​b 80a0​
ad2a8 ​ 8 725/ ​ p rovi ​ n si- ​ d ki- ​ j akar ​ t a- ​ d alam- ​ a ngka- ​ 2 020. ​ h tml.
Accessed 6 Dec 2021
8. Rizaty MA (2021) Mayoritas Sampah di Jakarta Berasal dari
Rumah Tangga pada 2020. In: Databooks. https://​d atab​o ks.​
katad​ata.​co.​id/​datap​ublish/​2021/​07/​07/​mayor​itas-​sampah-​di-​
jakar ​t a-​b eras​a l-​d ari-​r umah-​t angga-​p ada-​2 020. Accessed 22
May 2022
9. Lestari AP, Ulfatunnisa A, Ibrahim RM (2020) COVID-19 Pan-
demic Waste in DKI Jakarta: An overview of Waste during the
COVID-19 Pandemic in DKI Jakarta. www.​waste​4chan​ge.​com.
Accessed 12 Mar 2022
13
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
10. le Dinh C, Fujiwara T, Asari M et al (2022) Optimization of
solid waste collection system in a tourism destination. Glob J
Environ Sci Manage. 8:419–436
11. Maskey B, Singh M (2017) Households’ willingness to pay for
improved waste collection service in Gorkha municipality of
Nepal. Environ MDPI 4:1–15. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​3 390/​e nvir​
onmen​ts404​0077
12. Ulhasanah N, Goto N (2018) Assessment of citizens’ environ-
mental behavior toward municipal solid waste management
for a better and appropriate system in Indonesia: a case study
of Padang City. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 20:1257–1272.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​017-​0691-4
13. Ayilara MS, Olanrewaju OS, Babalola OO, Odeyemi O (2020)
Waste management through composting: challenges and poten-
tials. Sustainab (Switzerland). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su121​
14456
14. Ansari M, Zafar U, Ejaz U et al (2021) Comparison of com-
posting of chemically pretreated and fermented sugarcane
bagasse for zero-waste biorefinery. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
23:911–921. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10163-​021-​01176-w
15. Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MSM (2018) Solid waste issue:
sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization.
Egypt J Pet 27:1275–1290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejpe.​2018.​
07.​003
16. Ghazali A, Tjakraatmadja JH, Sunarti S, Pratiwi EYD (2021)
Resident-based learning model for sustainable resident partici-
pation in municipal solid waste management program. Glob J
Environ Sci Manage. 7:599–624
17. Kolb E (2019) 75,000 people per square mile? These are the
most densely populated cities in the world. In: 24/7 Wall Street
18. Edelman DJ, Gunawan DS (2020) Managing the urban environ-
ment of Jakarta, Indonesia. Curr Urban Stud 08:57–106. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​4236/​cus.​2020.​81003
19. Defitri M (2022) Daftar Lengkap Tempat Pembuangan Sampah
Resmi TPA Jabodetabek. In: Waste4Change Blog. https://​waste​
4chan​ge.​com/​blog/​daftar-​lengk​ap-​tempat-​pembu​angan-​sampah-​
resmi-​tpa-​jabod​etabek/. Accessed 9 Nov 2022
20. Winahyu D, Hartoyo S, Syaukat Y (2019) Strategi Pengelo-
laan Sampah pada Tempat Pembuangan Akhir Bantar Gebang,
Bekasi. Jurnal Manajemen Pembangunan Daerah. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​29244/​jurnal_​mpd.​v5i2.​24626
21. Sembiring E, Nitivattananon V (2010) Sustainable solid waste
management toward an inclusive society: integration of the
informal sector. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:802–809. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​resco​nrec.​2009.​12.​010
22. Urso A, Fiannaca A, la Rosa M et al (2019) Data Mining: Pre-
diction Methods. In: Ranganathan S, Gribskov M, Nakai K,
Schönbach C (eds) Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Com-
putational Biology. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 413–430
23. Hefner JT, Linde KC (2018) Chapter 20 - Analytical Methods.
In: Hefner JT, Linde KC (eds) Atlas of Human Cranial Macro-
morphoscopic Traits. Academic Press, pp 287–292
24. Suman H, Bolia N, Tiwari G (2018) Perception of potential bus
users and impact of feasible interventions to improve quality of
bus services in Delhi. Case Stud Transp Policy. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​cstp.​2018.​07.​009
25. Brotosusilo A, Utari D, Negoro HA et al (2022) Community
empowerment of waste management in the urban environment:
more attention on waste issues through formal and informal
educations. Glob J Environ Sci Manage. 8:209–224
26. Suman H, Bolia N, Tiwari G (2016) Analysis of the factors
influencing the use of public buses in Delhi. J Urban Plan Dev
142:4016003. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​UP.​1943-​5444.​
00003​16
Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management (2023) 25:1608–1621
27. Kala K, Bolia N (2021) Analysis of citizen’s perception towards
segregation and composting. Environ Dev Sustain 23:1–24.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​020-​01084-3
28. Beigl P, Lebersorger S, Salhofer S (2008) Modelling municipal
solid waste generation: a review. Waste Manage 28:200–214.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2006.​12.​011
29. Kolekar KA, Hazra T, Chakrabarty SN (2016) A review on
prediction of municipal solid waste generation models. Procedia
Environ Sci 35:238–244. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​proenv.​2016.​
07.​087
30. Ye X, Pan W, Li C et al (2020) Exposure to polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons and risk for premature ovarian failure and
1621
reproductive hormones imbalance. J Environ Sci 91:1–9. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jes.​2019.​12.​015
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13