KnE Life Sciences | The 3rd International Meeting of Public Health and the 1st Young Scholar Symposium on Public Health | pages: 203–211

, , , and

1. Introduction

Waste Management or Solid Waste Management is a service in which local authorities are responsible for it, but almost all administrations in developing countries failed to provide services to most communities (Pfammater 1996). Nowadays, universities can be considered small towns, as they have several campuses and buildings where a lot of people with various activities produced the amount of trash that generate several direct and indirect impacts on the environment (Gallardo et al. 2016). Law of The Republic of Indonesia No. 18 in 2008 about waste management mentions the need for management to take place, so as not to have a negative impact on public health and the environment.

The Office of Public Works – Human Settlements and Spatial Planning and The Environmental Agency of Banyumas Regency In 2013, said that urban waste production volume always increased, as in 2010 to 2013 the increase reached 48.307 m3 from 1.601.927 m 3 to 1.650.234 m 3 .

According to Azwar (1998), there are six elements of management (the six M's) which can do the management jobs effectively and efficiently. The six M's are men, money, materials, machines, methods, and market. However, in the non-profit management, there are not only five M's with included market element.

Associated with the management or trash management of the first element that is men can be the role of leadership, the role of cleaning officer, and community participation. Hilma (2014) in her study said that there was a relationship between the role of officers market hygiene with waste management. Rizkiyana (2013) also mentioned that there was a relationship between the role of community leaders and source of funds with waste management in Gerendeng Village, Purwokerto. The second element of money is the cost used for the implementation of trash management. The third element there are materials that are materials that will be processed in the form of trash generation. Then the fourth element of the machines can be equipment or infrastructure used in trash management. Ashidiqy (2009) said that there was a relationship between existing infrastructure facilities and waste disposal behavior river. Rizkiyana (2013) also mentioned that there was a relationship between infrastructure facilities and waste management. The last element is the method is a way of working or operational techniques in trash management. Rizkiyana (2013) in her study said that process or implementation of management was related to waste management.

All activities within the campus have the potential to cause negative impacts to a certain extent on the environment. One such impact is the incidence of waste (Cervantes et al. 2010). Furthermore, higher education institutions bear the ethical responsibility to promote sustainability and environmental awareness of people inside and outside universities (Fagnani and Guimaraes 2017), especially in universities which has faculty with Environmental Health Major must provide good examples for other communities inside and outside the university.

Based on the preliminary survey conducted at the Faculty of Health Sciences on a University in Banyumas Regency, it had known that the trash management was still not good, but the environmental conditions were clean enough. Moreover, the most study on waste management on campus just examines the characteristics and composition of waste generation. There was nothing that has been discussed between waste management with some elements in management. Therefore, the researcher interested to research "Determinant of The Result of Trash Management at Faculty of Health Sciences on a University in Banyumas Regency “.

2. Methods

This study was a descriptive-analytic research with a quantitative approach and cross-sectional study design. This study was located at the Faculty of Health Sciences (FIKes), on a university in Banyumas Regency. There were six buildings in this faculty such as Dekanat, Pharmacy, Science of Nutrition, Nursing, Public Health, and Physical Education and Sport. The variables in this study were the role of the leader, the role of the cleaning officer, the participation of the campus community, the cost of trash management (this variable will only be described), the condition of trash generation, the adequacy of the facilities, the operational techniques applied, and the results of trash management.

Data of those variables were collected by using check list consisting of 29 points of observation and questionnaire consisting of 85 questions, and those questions were asked to 93 respondents consisting of cleaning services, lecturer, employee, and students from total population in FIKes as much as 1.689 people. Univariate data analysis was intended to know the frequency distribution of respondent characteristics and each research variable — the bivariate analysis used Chi-Square test to determine the factors associated with the results of trash management.

3. Results

Table 1 stated that funding for trash management at FIKes included salary cleaning service and trash transport. Salary of cleaning services at FIKes sourced from 75% Rectorat funding and 25% from FIKes itself. As for the transportation of trash in FIKes, funded entirely by Rector. In one yea, FIKes spent as much as IDR. 166.800.000,-. That amount did not include the cost of procurement facilities and infrastructures for trash management.

Table 1

Funding in FIKes Trash Management.


Expenditure Source Total per Month Total per Year
Rector Dekanat FIKes
Salary of Cleaning Service IDR, 600.000-,/person x 17 person IDR. 200.000-,/person x17 person IDR. 13.600.000-, IDR. 163.200.000-,
Trash Transport IDR, 300.000-,/month    - IDR. 300.000-, IDR. 3.600.000-,
Total Expenditure IDR, 166.800.000-,

Table 2 showed that most of the respondents came from the Department of Public Health (29.0%) and Pharmacy (29.0%) and most of the students (69.9%). While Table 3 showed that As many as 51 (54.8%) of respondents stated the role of leader was good. A total of 50 (53.8%) of respondents stated the role of cleaning officer was good. Respondents who stated FIKes community participation in was good as much as 50 (53.8%). As many as 65 (69.9%) of respondents stated that the trash generation in FIKes only slightly, for the sufficiency of facilities as much as 55 (59.1%) stated enough. The operational techniques applied in FIKes as much as 54 (58.1%) respondents stated it was good. It caused 53 (57%) of respondents stated that FIKes trash management result was clean.

Table 2

Responden Characteristic.


Variable Frequency Percentage (%)
1. Location
Dekanat 3 3.2
Pharmacy 27 29.0
Science of Nutrition 11 11.8
Nursing 21 22.6
Public Health 27 29.0
Physical Education and Sport 4 4.3
Total 93 100
2. Job
Cleaning Service 14 15.1
Lecturer 2 2.2
Employee 12 12.9
Student 65 69.9
Total 93 100
Table 3

Frequency Distribution of Each Variable.


Variable Total Percentage (%)
The Role of Leader
a. Less 42 45.2
b. Good 51 54.8
Total 93 100
Role of Cleaning Officer
a. Less 22 23.7
b. Good 71 76.3
Total 93 100
Community Participation in FIKes
a. Less 43 46.2
b. Good 50 53.8
Total 93 100
The condition of Trash Generation
a. Many 28 30.1
b. A little 65 69.9
Total 93 100
Sufficiency of Facilities
a. Less 38 40.9
b. Enough 55 59.1
Total 93 100
Operational and Technical Applied
a. Less 39 41.9
b. Good 54 58.1
Total 93 100
The Result of Trash Management
a. Dirty 40 43
b. Clean 53 57
Total 93 100

Meanwhile, the result of bivariate analyze in Table 4 showed that only the variable of waste generation condition and the adequacy of the means associated with the trash management result with the p-value of 0.003 and 0.028 respectively.

Table 4

The result of Bivariate Analyze.


Variable p-value Relation
The Role of Leader 0.148 Not Related
Role of Cleaning Officer 0.134 Not Related
Community Participation in FIKes 0.673 Not Related
The condition of Trash Generation 0.003 Related
Sufficiency of Facilities 0.028 Related
Operational and Technical Applied 0.247 Not Related

4. Discussion

The cost of trash management in FIKes

The cost of waste management in different areas was generally not the same. There are many factors that influence it including the physical condition of the area, the length of the road, the type of settlement, the division of work area, the population density, the type of "container", the use of "incinerator", the economic and social level of the population, sorting of garbage and many others. Yulianti (2000) said that for the calculation of waste management cost was calculated per stage of waste processing, starting from the stage of the lug, collection, transfer, transportation, and until the final disposal.

The financing of trash management in FIKes was still not documented. As mentioned earlier, only data about financing for salary cleaning services and trash hauling existed, but data about the purchasing of the two did not exist yet. Data on the number of needs and expenditures for trash management were not documented nicely. Therefore, it could not be known whether the financing of trash management in FIKes had been efficient or not.

Relationship between the role of leader and the result of trash management

The result of the bivariate analysis showed that there was no correlation between the role of leader and the result of trash management with p-value (0.148) > alpha (0.05). The results of this study were in contradiction with research conducted by Rizkiyana (2013) stating that there was a significant relationship between the role of community leaders and waste management in Gerendeng Village. Purwokerto. The unrelated between the role of leader with the results of FIKes trash management was due to differences of respondents opinion about the role of leader in trash management in FIKes, affecting the results of the bivariate analysis in this study.

Relationship between role of cleaning officer and the result of trash management

Based on bivariate analysis, it's known that there was no correlation between the role of cleaning officer with the result of trash management in FIKes because p-value was (0.134) > alpha (0.05). Cleaning officer such as cleaning service was the spearhead in the cleanliness of the campus. Hartanto (2006) and Rondiyah (2014) in their research stated that the number of inadequate cleaners indirectly affected the effectiveness of waste management performance. If a cleaning officer was available to manage the amount of waste, it was less likely to result in an increased workload that was proportional to the extent of service coverage that increases, affecting the amount of waste transported to the landfill.

Relationship between community participation in FIKes and the result of trash management

Based on bivariate analysis, it found that there was no correlation between the participation of the campus community with the result of trash management with p-value (0.673) > alpha (0.05). The results of this study were not in line with Rondiyah (2014) and Hilma (2014) research which stated that merchant's participation could indirectly affect the performance of market waste management.

Although the result of the univariate analysis showed that 53.8% of FIKes community participation was good in trash management, from the bivariate analysis, it was known that between FIKes community participation and trash management result there was no relation. This was possible because most respondents had a habit of always throwing trash in the trash can, but almost all respondents did not separate organic trash and inorganic trash when disposing of trash and not doing 3R activities (reuse, reduce, and recycle) in which this 3R activity could reduce the amount of trash generation.

Relationship between the condition of trash generation and the result of trash management

Based on bivariate analysis, it was found that there was a correlation between trash generation and trash management with p-value (0.003) < alpha (0.05). There were several factors that could affect the generation and composition of waste. Based on the literature, the generation of trash generated was strongly influenced by nature and human/community factors. Azwar (1979). Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), and Damanhuri and Padmi (2004) mentioned factors that affected the type and generation of trash., some of them, were climate, population, and human.

The large populations in FIKes had the potential to generate large amounts of waste, but a lot of trash was not too visible because the role of Cleaning Service that routinely collected trash every morning to be transferred to the temporary shelter. 69.9% of respondents stated that the waste in FIKes was only slightly seen. This was in line with the theory of Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), saying that the frequency of garbage collection was one of the factors that affected waste generation.

Relationship between the sufficiency of facilities and the result of trash management

Based on bivariate analysis, it was found that there was a relationship between the sufficiency of facilities and the result of trash management with p-value (0.028) < alpha (0.05). The results of this study were in line with Rizkiyana (2013) that there was a significant relationship between the availability of facilities with waste management in Kelurahan Gerendeng. Purwokerto. FIKes's clean-looking environments were supported by sufficient quantities of facilities to accommodate all trash generation.

Relationship between operational and technical applied and the result of trash management

Based on the result of the bivariate analysis, there was no relation between operational and technical applied with the result of trash management with p-value (0.247) > alpha (0.05). The results of this study contradicted with Rizkiyana (2013) stating that there was a significant relationship between the implementation or operation and waste management in Gerendeng Village, Purwokerto.

Sejati (2009) stated that the waste management procedure consisted of inclusion waste, waste, collecting, transporting, processing and final disposal. Law of The Republic of Indonesia No. 18 in 2008 stated that waste management was done by using methods and techniques that were environmentally friendly so as not to cause a negative impact on public health and the environment. As many as 58.1% of respondents considered that the operational techniques applied in FIKes were good enough from the side of the collection. Collection and transportation were enough to create a clean environment. However, the operational technique applied in FIKes had not yet processed its waste such as physical transformation which included separation and solidification of trash which aimed to facilitate storage and transportation. Also, it still did trash processing that was not environmentally friendly such as burning trash in an open area in FIKes area. It could have a negative impact on public health and the environment.

5. Conclusion

There were only two variables related to the results of trash management in this study such as the condition of trash generation and the sufficiency of facilities.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Faculty of Health Sciences, Jenderal Soedirman University and Faculty of Public Health. The University of Indonesia. Thanks to Mrs. Dr. dra. Dewi Susanna M. KM. Mr. Saudin Yuniarno M. Kes. and Mrs. Agnes Fitria Widiyanto M.Sc as a reviewer and gave some advice for the improvement of this paper.

References

1 

Ashidiqy. M R. 2009. “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Berhubungan Dengan Perilaku Masyarakat Dalam Membuang Sampah Rumah Tangga Di Sungai Mranggen.” Semarang.

2 

Azwar. A. 1979. Pengantar Ilmu Kesehatan Lingkungan. Jakarta: PT Mutiara Sumber Widya Penabur Benih Kecerdasan.

3 

__________ . 1998. Pengantar Administrasi Kesehatan. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.

4 

Cervantes. J.Lopez. P. Pasiero. and P. Losada. 2010. “Waste Management Program at the Universidad Technological de Leon.” The Open Waste Management Journal 3: 174–83.

5 

Damanhuri. E. and Tri Padmi. 2004. Pengelolaan Sampah. Bandung: Departemen Lingkungan. Institut Teknologi Bandung.

6 

Fagnani. Enelton. and J R Guimaraes. 2017. “Waste Management Plan for Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries: The Continuous Improvement Cycle Model” 147: 108–18. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.080.

7 

Gallardo. A. M Carlos. and M Renau. 2016. “The Determination of Waste Generation and Composition as an Essential Tool to Improve the Waste Management Plan of a University.” Waste Management 53. Elsevier Ltd: 3–11. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.04.013.

8 

Hartanto. Widi. 2006. “Kinerja Pengelolaan Sampah Di Kota Gombong. Kabupaten Kebumen.” Diponegoro University.

9 

Hilma. Adrika. 2014. “Faktor-Faktor Yang Berhubungan Dengan Pengelolaan Sampah Di Pasar Lubuk Buaya Kota Padang Tahun 2014.” Andalas University.

10 

Pfammater. R.A.R.S. 1996. Non-Governmental Refuse Collection in Low-Income Urban Areas. Switzerland: SANDEC.

11 

Rizkiyana. Dini. 2013. “Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang Berhubungan Dengan Pengelolaan Sampah Di Kelurahan Grendeng. Purwokerto.” Purwokerto.

12 

Rondiyah. Sulistiyani. 2014. “Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja Pengelolaan Sampah Di Pasar Banjarsari Kota Pekalongan.” Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat (E-Journal) 2 No. 3: 192–99.

13 

Sejati. Kuncoro. 2009. Pengolahan Sampah Terpadu Dengan Sistem Node. Sub Point Dan Center Point 021775. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.

14 

Tchobanoglous. G. Hilary Theisen. and Samuel A Vigil. 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

15 

Yulianti. Nurul. 2000. “Penetapan Dan Analisis Fungsi Biaya Jangka Pendek Pengelolaan Sampah Kabupaten Bandung Jawa Barat.” Universitas Indonesia. Depok.

FULL TEXT

Statistics

  • Downloads 4
  • Views 16

Navigation

Refbacks



ISSN: 2413-0877