Strengthening Stakeholder Partnership in Plastics Waste Management Based on Circular Economy Paradigm

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 management 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.

1. Introduction

In 2015, Indonesia contributed 0.48–1.29 million metric tons of marine debris, which made this country the second-largest plastic leakage into the environment after China [1,2]. 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 Indonesia already has its plastics waste problem. The nationwide problems to be dealt with are the low collection and recycling rates, lack of waste management facilities, ineffective collaboration, and society’s perception and behavior in managing municipal solid waste.

In the global annual trading of plastic waste, China and Hongkong have become 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 cost is cheaper than processing it by itself due to domestic environmental law.

This trading is economically beneficial for China, with up to 3263.375 million USD from imports and 70.846 million USD from export in 2017 [4,5]. However, in 2017, to demonstrate the domestic recycling system and environmental awareness, China banned 24 categories of recyclable solid waste, such as plastics substances, mixed paper, and textiles. As a result, the aim to develop a local recycling system increased by 42% from 2015 to 2020. However, the ban put tremendous pressure on other developing countries, like India and Indonesia, as 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 ecosystems. 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 [17,18,19]. 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 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 systems 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 capability 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 management. 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 economy 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 continuously [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 because all material and energy are taken (from nature) in these linear flows and extracted directly or indirectly to produce goods; when the products or goods are used, the waste flows into the environmental system. Thus, whenever the goods’ life ends, broken or 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 circular economy is restructuring the supply chain radically to break linear systems and work in the cycle forever. The circular design sees plastic as a business model replacing the ‘end-of-life’ concept into the circular, which consists of reducing, reusing alternatively, recycling, and recovering materials (Figure 1). This system embodies products, companies, and consumers at the micro-level, including an eco-industrial park, and the macro-level consists of the city, region, nation, and beyond. A circular economy aims to achieve sustainable development that also implies improving environmental quality, economic prosperity, and social equity for current and future generations [27,33].

The circular economy principle is to integrate sustainable approaches elaborating holistic resource utilization. Therefore, there is a need to support research and innovation to accelerate a circular economy implementation in solid waste management. Moreover, circular economies must create technology for reprocessing or recycling plastics into other valuable products [28]. The basic circular economy is to reach more waste prevention and better resource management, extending and closing the material cycles that account for waste input-output to create economic flow [26]. Thus, a circular economy will boost the 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, composting, and linear economy, into the latest one named circular economy. A previous study stated that a circular economy would reduce unprocessed plastic waste effectively, reducing 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 between 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, Indonesia 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 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.

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.

Multiple stakeholders, from ministries to industries, are involved in MSW management, in which each institution plays its role. In this case, the government had a crucial role in almost every part of MSW management, particularly in achieving Jakstranas and Jakstrada targets. At a national level, at least three ministries are involved: (1) the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) is responsible for developing policy, regulation, and coordination in pollution control; (2) the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (MPWH) provides technical advice, promotes pilot projects, and constructs or supervises large-scale off-site solid waste facilities or landfills; (3) the Ministry of Home Affairs Regulation (Mendagri) manages administrative aspects of waste management at households, residential-industrial estates, and public facilities [9].

Local governments also have a significant role in managing MSW in their area. For example, in Jakarta the Environmental Services Office (government institution under MoEF) was primarily responsible for managing waste in the city. This institution had a Waterways Management Unit that addresses removing floating debris from rivers and waterways. The trash collected from water channels is transported using small or medium trucks to the emplacement location or transfer station [9]. Waste facilities in Central Jakarta shown in Table 1.

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 significant 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 [52,53,54,55]. 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].

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 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, disciplines, 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 partnership (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 regulations 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 consumption 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 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.

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.

Footnotes

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.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The concept of the circular economy uses minimum energy and waste flow [27].

Figure 2. The geographic location of the study area in Central Jakarta, Indonesia [49].

Figure 3. The main waste composition generated in Jakarta Province in 2021 [51].

Table 1

Waste management facilities in Central Jakarta.

No	Facility	Type	Total
1.	Waste Bank (Bank Sampah)	Center	1
		Unit	234
2.	Composting facility	Community-scale	34
		Compost house (Rumah kompos)	0
		Organic processing center	18
3.	Waste to Energy	Biodigester	0
		Thermal process Incinerator Pyrolysis Gasification	0
		Refuse-Derived Fuel	0
4.	Recycling facility	3R waste processing site (TPS 3R)	125
		Recycling center	0
		Temporary waste processing site outside the landfill	0
		Intermediate treatment facility (ITF)	0
5.	Landfill		1
6.	Informal Sector	Waste picker and collector	43

Table 2

Stakeholders in plastic waste management.

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

Table 3

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

District	Number of Waste Banks			Percentage of Activity (%)	Amount of Waste Reduction (kg/month)	Rate of Waste Reduction (%)
	Active	Non-Active	Total
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

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, pp. 768-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678662]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110609]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat0131] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29938223]

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, pp. 22-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.005]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112283]

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, pp. 77-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.04.003]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/environments8120138]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111763]

9. World Bank Group. Kementerian Koordinasi Bidang Kemaritiman, Embassy of Denmark and Royal Norwegian Embassy. 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.

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611]

13. Schmidt, C.; Krauth, T.; Wagner, S. Export of Plastic Debris by Rivers into the Sea. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2017; 51, pp. 12246-12253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-020-04710-y]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00028]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab30e8]

17. Abdoli, M.A.; Rezaei, M.; Hasanian, H. Integrated solid waste management in megacities. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag.; 2016; 2, pp. 289-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7508/gjesm.2016.03.008]

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, pp. 509-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.099]

19. Herdiansyah, H. Smart city based on community empowerment, social capital, and public trust in urban areas. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag.; 2023; 9, pp. 113-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2023.01.09]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111833] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33213855]

21. Hidayat, Y.A.; Kiranamahsa, S.; Zamal, M.A. A study of plastic waste management effectiveness in Indonesia industries. AIMS Energy; 2019; 7, pp. 350-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/energy.2019.3.350]

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, pp. 24-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9790/2402-1502012438]

23. Guman, O.; Wegner-Kozlova, E. Waste management based on circular economy principles. E3S Web Conf.; 2020; 177, 4014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202017704014]

24. Payne, J.; McKeown, P.; Jones, M.D. A circular economy approach to plastic waste. Polym. Degrad. Stab.; 2019; 165, pp. 170-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.05.014]

25. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ.; 2018; 143, pp. 37-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.041]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124132]

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, pp. 5314-5324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034605h] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700315]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120967]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32438212]

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, pp. 190-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125345]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118941]

33. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2017; 127, pp. 221-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117802]

35. Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 153, 104553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553]

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, pp. 317-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2021.03.01]

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, pp. 46-54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.013]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105170]

39. Indrianti, N. Community-based Solid Waste Bank Model for Sustainable Education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2016; 224, pp. 158-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.431]

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, pp. 1614-1619. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01049-8]

41. Pettipas, S.; Bernier, M.; Walker, T.R. A Canadian policy framework to mitigate plastic marine pollution. Mar. Policy; 2016; 68, pp. 117-122. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.025]

42. Walker, T.R. (Micro)plastics and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem.; 2021; 30, 100497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100497]

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, pp. 142-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.021]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103928]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100116]

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, pp. 1027-1037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00840-6]

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, pp. 2979-2995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0175-2]

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, pp. 405-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-00989-5]

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, pp. 1039-1047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X211017986] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33966559]

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, pp. 928-937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-00969-9]

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, pp. 599-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/GJESM.2021.04.08]

57. Brotosusilo, A.; Handayani, D. Dataset on waste management behaviors of urban citizens in large cities of Indonesia. Data Brief; 2020; 32, 106053. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106053]

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. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13071845]

59. Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Bundling in public–private partnership projects—A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag.; 2020; 69, pp. 1177-1203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2019-0086]

60. Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Factors affecting public-private partnership preference in Indian municipal waste sector. Int. J. Constr. Manag.; 2019; 20, pp. 567-584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1703085]

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, pp. 108-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X20936765]

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, pp. 80-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v2i2.1023]

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, pp. 821-831. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33895564]

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, pp. 436-457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7454/jessd.v5i2.1128]

65. Korhonen, J.; Nuur, C.; Feldmann, A.; Birkie, S.E. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 175, pp. 544-552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.111]