Determination of the Waste Production and Level of Willingness to Waste Separation in the Students Living in Boarding Houses in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 947-951

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

Determination of the Waste Production and Level of

Willingness to Waste Separation in the Students

Living in Boarding Houses in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Kasam M.T*, Fajri M. Iresha, Eko Siswoyo

Department of Environmental Engineering, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Received: 05/02/2020

Accepted: 13/06/2020

Published: 20/09/2020

Abstract

Boarding houses (student-rented rooms) in Indonesia are generally grouped into two different types, namely Non-Exclusive Boarding

House (NEBH) and Exclusive Boarding House (EBH). The different types of boarding house will affect the patterns of solid waste generation.

This study aims to determine the level of participation and willingness of the students living in these two types of boarding houses to separate

their waste. Based on findings of this study, a waste management system can be designed, including the analysis of solid waste generation,

waste composition, and characteristics of residents. The research began with waste generation sampling in the boarding houses around campus

of three universities in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The residents’ characteristics were identified using questionnaires. The weight and volume of

waste generated in EBH were found slightly larger than NEBH namely 0.36 and 0.31 kg/person/day (weight) and 2.38 and 2.04

liter/person/day (volume), respectively. Regarding the waste composition, a slight difference was observed for organic waste (19.30% and

7.51%) and plastic waste (28.08% and 27.74%) for the NEBH and EBH, respectively. In addition, the level of willingness to separate the

waste for students in NEBH was higher than those in EBH with scores of 61% and 41%, respectively. It was concluded that students in

NEBH generate more waste than EBH, especially for two main types of waste, but the level of participation and willingness to waste

separation in NEBH residents was higher than EBH residents. The results of this study are essential to be considered in developing an

effective model of boarding houses regarding waste management system in Indonesia and other developing countries.

Keywords: Boarding house, solid waste generation, solid waste management

Introduction¹

students coming from families of higher income. This variety in

types of boarding house will cause variety in waste generation

pattern and its composition.

Yogyakarta Special Province is one of the biggest education

cities in Indonesia, hosting a great number of students who come

from various regions. More than 400,000 students are living in

this city, studying at universities (especially at Universitas Gadjah

Mada (UGM) as the most prominent university in Yogyakarta),

polytechnics, or other institutions. UGM has 53,199 students;

most of them reside at the boarding house or dormitory around

the UGM campus. Another big university in this city is

Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) that has around 24,000 students

Various factors that influence waste generation in these

circumstances include socioeconomic parameters such as

education, occupation, income of the family, the number of

family members, etc. (2, 3). There is a strong correlation between

waste generation and family size of a household (4). The

consumption pattern of household is directly linked to the family

income, which results in composition and quantities of household

waste (5). Income is an effective factor on waste generation. More

specifically, solid waste generation is directly dependent on the

income levels; the upper-income individuals tend to consume

more industrialized products and their garbage contains more

recyclable materials than that of low-income communities (6, 7).

This research aims to measure and characterize the waste

generation in the boarding houses around university campuses in

Yogyakarta Region and, more specifically, to determine the

trends in the volume of waste generated and examine possible

integrated solid waste management strategies.

(1). A large number of students require a large number of

boarding houses. Accommodations spread across the Yogyakarta

region are of various types in terms of both the number of rooms

and facilities. Based on the level of the facilities, the boarding

houses are grouped into two types, they are Non-Exclusive

Boarding House (NEBH) and Exclusive Boarding House (EBH).

NEBH is defined as a simple dwelling with necessary facilities

such as a bed, shared bathroom, and study table, while EBH is a

residence with complete facilities such as air conditioning, Wi-Fi,

refrigerator, wardrobe, study table, bed, and television. The price

of EBH is also higher than NEBH and is occupied generally by

Corresponding author: Kasam M.T, Department of Environmental Engineering, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

Email: 925110102@uii.ac.id.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 947-951

patterns of students while staying in the boarding house. The

questionnaire was distributed online in the Google E-Form

environment using the Slovin method.

Materials and Methods

.1 Sampling Area

Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY) Province, Indonesia

At the UII campus, which is mostly a boarding house for the

university students, waste is stored at the source, collected at the

transfer station, then transported to landfill, as shown in Figure 1.

Waste storage at the boarding house around the campuses is of

two types, namely individual and communal. In the individual

storage type, a trash bin is used by only one boarding house, while

in the communal storage, two or more houses use one trash bin.

At these campuses, waste is collected and accumulated at the

transfer station using pick up. The final stage of solid waste

management in settlements around the campuses is transportation

to the Piyungan landfill that is about 20-25 km away.

which lies between 7 33’- 8 12’ South Latitude and 110 00’-

10 50’ East Longitude of Greenwich, encompasses an area of

,185.80 km², which accounts for 0.17 percent of the whole

country (1,860,359.67 km²). Yogyakarta is the smallest province

after DKI Jakarta Province. The majority area of DIY (i.e.,

5.65%) lies at 100-499 m height above mean sea level, while

around 28.84% lies at height less than 100 m, around 5.04% at

00-999 m, and around 0.47% at above 1000 m. The population

of DIY in 2016 was recorded as 3.720.912 people; males

accounted for 49.45%, while females accounted for 50.55%.

Population growth in 2016 to reach 1.18 percent in 2010, up from

the previous year's growth, which is 1.13 percent. With an area of

,185.80 km , the population density in the province was recorded

Storage in

boarding

house

Landfill at

Piyungan

District

as 1,168 people per km .

Collecting

Transportation

Transfer station

The research locations are boarding houses located at three

universities: Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Universitas Islam

Indonesia (UII), and Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY).

These three universities were chosen because they are the most

prominent universities in Yogyakarta.

Figure 1: Waste Management System at the Study Location

.2 Waste Generation

Based on sampling conducted during eight days at EBH and

NEBH, it was found that the average amount of solid waste

generation per house is 90.19 kg/day for EBH, while it is 95.04

kg/day for NEBH.

.2 Sampling Method

The sampling activity aims to determine the total weight and

volume of the solid waste generated in boarding houses and then

to compare the waste volumes between NEBH and EBH. This

sampling activity was carried out for eight consecutive days (from

Table 1 Comparison of the Weight and Volume of Waste in Each Area

of the Boarding Houses

2 December to 19 December 2017), as recommended by SNI 19-

964-1994 on Method for Taking and Measuring Examples of

Type of

Boarding House

Weight

(kg/person/day)

Volume

(l/person/day)

Area

Urban Waste Collection and Composition (8). To determine the

number of samples, two sampling techniques were used: 1)

purposive random sampling, which is a sampling technique with

specific considerations, and 2) quota sampling through which

researchers determine a sample of a population that has specific

characteristics to the amount (quota) as desired (9).

Exclusive

Non- Exclusive

Exclusive

Non- Exclusive

Exclusive

Non- Exclusive

Exclusive

0.35

0.25

0.35

0.39

0.33

0.36

0.31

2.72

2.00

1.82

1.85

2.61

2.26

2.38

2.04

UII

UGM

UNY

Total

Regarding the quota sampling, the researchers determined the

characteristics of the boarding houses through checking the

number of rooms of the house. For the purpose of this study, 15

rooms for EBH and 15 rooms for NEBH were taken into

consideration. Then for the desired total for the total sample to be

sampled, there are 17 exclusive boarding houses and 18 non-

exclusive boarding houses. So that the total number of boarding

houses to be sampled are 35 boarding houses with 15 rooms for

each boarding house. According to the quota sampling technique,

the technique adopted in this study for data collection is purposive

random sampling. The average weight and volume of solid waste

during 8 consecutive days were obtained from both types of

boarding room. The composition of solid waste was classified

into organic, plastic, paper, metals, glass, textile, and others.

These are referred to as the composition that are often appeared

in Municipal Solid Waste. Questionnaires were distributed to

collect information about the number of residents (students), their

characteristics, and also their knowledge about waste

management and sorting.

Non- Exclusive

When compared among boarding houses in the area of UGM,

UII, and UNY, the weight of solid waste generation of the EBH

in the area of UGM tend to be equal to that of NEBH.

Nevertheless, on average, the volume and the weight of waste

generated from EBH is slightly larger than NEBH; in terms of

volume, 2.38 and 2.04 liter/person/day were produced by EBH

and NEBH, respectively, and in terms of weight, it was 0.36 and

0.31 kg/person/day. It was revealed that the students who lived in

EBH disposed of more waste than students in NEBH. Therefore,

it was confirmed that the economy level can be correlated with

the quantity of waste generation (10). Almost no significant

difference was observed regarding the composition of the solid

waste generation between EBH and NEBH.

3.3 Waste Composition

The general waste composition is slightly different between

NEBH and EBH, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. Paper, metals, and

others that mostly consist of diapers in EBH are higher than

NEBH. It can be identified that paper and metals are material that

are often used by luxury product packaging, especially for

sustainable, environmental-friendly, or organic products. On the

Results and Discussion

.1 Existing Waste Management at the Study Site

Solid Waste Management techniques were implemented in

the area around the UGM and UII to find out the consumption

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 947-951

other hand, organic and plastic in NEBH are higher than EBH.

NEBH and EBH produced 19.30% and 17.51% organic waste,

and 28.08% and 27.74% plastic waste, respectively.

higher than those in EBH, with scores of 61% and 41%,

respectively.

100%

50%

Others

Yes

41%

61%

Organic

Textile 10.12%

Glass

17.51%

.00%

EBH

59%

39%

.45%

Metal

NEBH

.53%

Figure 4: Willingness to Separate the Waste

In terms of students’ awareness about how to separate the

waste, the percentage of those who knew the way to separate the

waste was more than those who did not know how to do that. In a

comparison made between EBH and NEBH, it was found that the

percentage of students in NEBH who were aware of the ways for

waste separation was higher than those in EBH.

Plastic

7.74%

Paper

34.65%

Figure 2: Waste Composition for EBH

Yes No

Others

Textile

8.20%

Organic

19.30%

4.70%

Glass

.99%

Metal

.41%

EBH

NEBH

Yes

Plastic

28.08%

Paper

4.31%

Figure 5: Understanding to Separate the Waste

The last analysis was done on the level of participation. The

students from NEBH were more enthusiastic about participating

in separating the waste. 72% of the respondents from NEBH

admitted that they separate waste in their house compared with

EBH where only 67% of students do it.

Figure 3: Waste Composition for NEBH

Further, more comprehensive analyses on waste composition

details can help to design a proper system for waste management

in the boarding house area. Table 2 shows more details about the

waste composition based on the recycle market and also the

advance treatment for organic and residues. In case of organic

waste, food waste is still the main problem, while in case of plastic

waste, all types of recyclable plastic have almost the same

composition. However, the concern here is plastic bags whose

weight percentage was the same as other types of plastic, but it

has a low weight per plastic bag. It shows that people still use

plastic bags for their daily activities.

Yes

Never

100

EBH

NEBH

Yes

Never

Specifically, analyzing the most general compositions

presented in the Table 2, which include organic, recyclable, and

residue, it was found that recyclable waste was in the range of

Figure 6: Level of Participation to Separate the Waste

0.5-53.5%, which means high potential of the waste to be

Conclusion

Findings showed that students living in EBH produce waste

recycled and get the economic profit.

more than those who live in NEBH. This condition is due to the

higher lifestyle of EBH residents.

.1 Level of Participation and Willingness to Separate Waste

To determine the level of participation and willingness to

separate the waste from EBH and NEBH, questionnaire was used

as a tool. According to the questionnaire results shown in Figure

, the level of willingness to separate in residents of NEBH is

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 947-951

Table 2: Detailed Composition of the Waste in EBH and NEBH

Percentage (%)

Separated Waste

UII

UGM

UNY

General

Composition

Waste Seller-based

Composition

To-

tal

NEB

To-

tal

To-

tal

NEB

To-

tal

To-

tal

NEB

To-

tal

Food

waste

Yard

waste

12.

16.

13.9

3.7

11.7

3.1

22.6

2.9

Organic

16.1

17.6

17.7

14.8

19.7

25.4

4.1

5.2

2.8

Transparent plastic bottle

Plastic glass

Plastic bag

3.5

3.4

3.9

3.1

4.8

3.1

3.9

4.3

3.7

1.5

0.9

2.1

0.0

1.0

1.3

3.8

4.3

2.2

4.5

3.8

5.1

5.4

5.8

0.6

0.2

100

3.4

3.3

4.1

3.6

1.9

4.7

4.5

3.4

4.0

3.2

1.2

0.9

1.7

0.7

3.0

3.5

4.4

2.3

3.8

3.9

3.8

5.3

5.1

0.4

0.5

100

3.2

1.5

1.8

3.9

4.4

3.8

2.6

4.3

3.5

4.4

4.6

4.2

3.3

3.8

2.9

2.8

6.4

4.5

1.8

1.4

1.7

0.3

1.3

2.8

3.4

2.1

3.1

3.5

1.6

3.9

2.4

2.1

4.0

6.5

7.7

1.7

1.3

100

3.2

3.6

3.0

3.6

2.5

2.9

4.3

3.1

2.0

1.1

1.6

0.0

1.6

2.0

3.5

2.4

2.8

1.4

3.1

2.9

3.0

4.2

5.7

7.0

0.9

0.4

100

Plastic

Colorful plastic bottle

Plastic rigid

Cardboard

3.7

4.2

4.9

4.8

1.5

Colorful HVS

White HVS

Duplex

Paper

4.4

Recyclable

44.4

44.2

48.3

53.5

47.3

40.5

Tetraplex

5.1

2.8

0.7

5.7

0.5

0.9

0.4

3.2

Can

Metal

Glass

Iron

Glass bottle

Synthesis fiber

Clothes

0.2

0.6

0.9

2.3

1.9

1.1

1.7

4.4

3.2

2.2

3.8

Textile

Others

Packaging plastic

Food pack (Plastic)

Food pack (Styrofoam)

Plastic bag

Plastic

1.9

2.3

4.2

2.7

2.4

2.5

8.9

White HVS

HVS Colorful

Duplex

Residue

39.5

38.2

34.1

31.5

37.8

34.1

Paper

Tissue

Diapers

Others

Hazardous waste

Wood

1.3

2.2

100

0.4

100

Total

Then, the composition of waste was dominated by paper,

plastic, and organic waste. However, the volume of organic waste

was smaller among the three above-mentioned waste types, which

is due to the student's habit of eating outside the boarding house.

This condition differs from the condition with the Household

Waste in Indonesia where organic waste dominates the other

types. Additionally, paper is a dominating type of waste produced

in the two types of the residents. This is because the waste

produced in the boarding houses where students are living is more

like that of offices or commercial areas. Residents in EBH use

plastic more than those living in NEBH, which is because of their

different lifestyles. Therefore, residents in EBH are more

consumable than those in NEBH. Then, in terms of the level of

willingness to participate in managing waste, NEBH residents

have a stronger desire than residents of EBH. For this reason, the

3R socialization program and waste segregation can be prioritized

in NEBH. Then, the EBH residents can be subjected to high fees.

Garbage collection can be done using two different methods:

commercial waste and regular waste. The former is applicable to

residents living in EBH, where waste can be mixed but they must

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2020, Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages: 947-951

pay high fees for its collection. On the other hand, the regular

method, through which waste is collected for free or much

cheaper than the commercial waste collection method, is

applicable to NEBH where waste is already separated. It can be

concluded that the solid waste management system will run better

following socio-economy conditions.

Acknowledgment

Authors wish to thank the students who participated in this

research, namely Ardian Murdani, Bulgam Akbar, and

Muhammad Alif Fathurrahman. Also, for collectors of waste

around UGM, UII, and UNY, then for all communities around

there who helped in accomplishment of this research.

Ethical issue

Authors are aware of, and comply with, best practice in

publication ethics specifically with regard to authorship

(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, manipulation

of figures, competing interests and compliance with policies on

research ethics. Authors adhere to publication requirements that

submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere

in any language.

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that

would prejudice the impartiality of this scientific work.

Authors’ contribution

All authors of this study have a complete contribution for data

collection, data analyses.

References

Central Bureau of Statistics Special Province of Yogyakarta. DIY

dalam Angka Tahun 2017. Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Badan Pusat

Statistik; 2017.

Khan D, Kumar A, Samadder S. Impact of socioeconomic status on

municipal solid waste generation rate. Waste management.

016;49:15-25.

Monavari SM, Omrani GA, Karbassi A, Raof FF. The effects of

socioeconomic parameters on household solid-waste generation and

composition in developing countries (a case study: Ahvaz, Iran).

Environmental monitoring and assessment. 2012;184(4):1841-6.

Suthar S, Singh P. Household solid waste generation and composition

in different family size and socio-economic groups: A case study.

Sustainable Cities and Society. 2015;14:56-63.

Ogwueleka TC. Survey of household waste composition and

quantities in Abuja, Nigeria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

013;77:52-60.

Qu X-y, Li Z-s, Xie X-y, Sui Y-m, Yang L, Chen Y. Survey of

composition and generation rate of household wastes in Beijing,

China. Waste Management. 2009;29(10):2618-24.

Saeed MO, Hassan MN, Mujeebu MA. Assessment of municipal

solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste management. 2009;29(7):2209-13.

SNI 19-3964-1994 tentang Metode Pengambilan dan Pengukuran

Contoh Timbulan dan Komposisi Sampah Perkotaan, (1994).

Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta; 2004.

0. Owamah I, Izinyon O, Igbinewekan P. Characterization and

quantification of solid waste generation in the Niger Delta Region of

Nigeria: a case study of Ogbe-Ijoh community in Delta State. Journal

of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2017;19(1):366-73.