4.4 Article

Plastic waste management in Jakarta, Indonesia: evaluation of material flow and recycling scheme

Journal

JOURNAL OF MATERIAL CYCLES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 2140-2149

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10163-018-0753-2

Keywords

Plastic waste; Recycling; Indonesia; Material flow analysis; Scavenger; Waste Bank

Funding

  1. Resource Recycling Science Laboratory of Kyoto University
  2. JSPS, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan [15H02862]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Jakarta, Indonesia, municipalities collect plastic mixed with other waste, scavengers recover plastic waste by picking through waste, and some citizens recover plastic at community-based waste management centers called waste banks. The fact that each stakeholder operates separately means that the actual amount of plastic recycled in Jakarta is not well-known. This research evaluated the amount of plastic recovered at the source, identified the amount of plastic waste recycled using a material flow analysis (MFA), and proposed alternative solutions to improve plastic waste management in Jakarta. Through interviews, the amount of plastic waste recovered was determined; each scavenger recovers 239kg/month and each waste bank recovers 260kg/month. Through the MFA, the rate of plastic recycled was identified as 24%, leaving 76% of plastic waste in landfills or in the environment. There are several actions that can be taken to promote higher recycling rates in Jakarta: conducting separation at source; integrating scavenger activity with waste bank and municipality collection; providing a material recovery facility at final disposal sites using sorting technology to recover plastics; and using alternative technology such as chemical recycling or thermal treatment to treat plastic waste that is not readily recycled through mechanical recycling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available