Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

I.

Introduction

1.1 Background

The production of waste is becoming an important environmental issue


throughout the world as waste generation increases proportionately with
population and urbanization (Idris, Inanc, & Hassan, 2004). Urban areas
supposedly produce more waste than rural areas. Research has revealed that
urban dwellers generally consume more resources than rural dwellers, and so
generate large quantities of solid waste and sewage. Solid waste management is
an integral part of urban and environmental management, like most of other
infrastructural services has come under great stress, consider low priority areas,
solid waste management was never taken up seriously either by public or by
concerned agency or authorities and now the piled up waste is threatening our
heath, environment and well-being (Chouhan and Reddy 1996, Mazumdar 1994
& Yadav et al. 2009).

Based on the last year study, the number of waste in IPB Dramaga reached
6,626.67 kg / month or about 0.25 kg. This amount was obtained from the audit
in some waste shelters (TPS) those spread around the campus. The amount is
assumed to be less accurate because a lot of waste have been taken in advance
by scavengers before entering the waste shelters. Based on this assumption,
waste re-audit must be conducted in every unit in campus.

In 2011, at least 44 tons of solid waste dumped monthly at the University


waste dumping site in Cikabayan, and only 28% is transported to the waste
dumping site of Bogor City in Galuga and the rest (72%) is abandoned there.
Since the University composting project is still small and ineffective, a lot of
waste has accumulated at this site resulting into production of strong odor,
leachate into the nearby stream and attraction of flies – another health and
environmental hazard (Setiawan, 2015).

In 2020, IPB is targeted to be a green campus. One of the green campus


programs is to reduce the amount of waste on campus. The important key of
waste reduction on campus is by recycling process. Recycling process can be
done easily if the facility (sorted waste bins) is adequate and waste sorting
process has been done as it should be.

1
Previous studies conducted at Bogor Agricultural University that focused on
waste generation and littering behavior of student and teacher in campus. The
main problem outlined is insuffiency of waste bin in some areas and waste is
being improperly sorted into the wrong streams. For example, items that belong
in the organics stream may be thrown into the garbage stream. This means that
efforts to divert waste into separate streams, using the three-bin system at
campus, create problems of waste stream contamination.

1.2 Objectives

The research question for this study is: Is the waste bin facility in IPB
campus has already adequate in number and placement to support zero waste
movement in 2020?

The following objectives were outlined for this study:

1. Conduct the waste audit from every academic unit


2. Comparing the result of waste audit in academic unit and in TPS
3. Identify number, type, and location of waste bin in campus
4. Suggest the efficient placement of waste bin in campus academic area

2
II. Methodology
II.1 Study site
Bogor Agricultural University (IPB) (Fig 1) is one of the biggest universities
in Indonesia. There are around 24,000 students and faculty members at this
university every year. This has resulted into generation of a significant amount of
solid waste (both organic and inorganic) in the University. An estimated 5,310 m 3
of solid waste was revealed to be generated by the University monthly.

Figure 1. Study site

The study was conducted in IPB campus especially in 10 faculty, consist of


Faculty of Agriculture, Veterinary, Fishery and Marine Science, Animal Husbandry,
Forestry, Agricultural Technology, Mathematics and Natural Science, Economic
Management, Human Ecology, and Graduate School.

II.2 Project design


The study is divided into two main parts. First, calculating the amount of
waste from each work unit at the campus. Second, analysing existing waste
facilities in the campus. During this time, the number of waste is calculated by
calculating the volume of waste in the landfill and temporary landfill in campus.
The methods allegedly less valid because before reaching the temporary
landfills, there are a lot of waste such as bottles, plastic cups, paper and

3
cardboard taken by scavengers. Therefore, waste audit carried out directly on
the campus units before the garbage transported to the temporary landfill and
landfill.

IPB has 74 units on campus that consists of faculties, departments,


cafeteria, and several other facilities (Table 1). After each work unit has been
listed and coded, then the waste sorting and calculating was conducted.

Table 1. Working unit in IPB Campus

No Code Location No Code Location

Dept of Economics and


1 R Rectorate Building
38 H1 Development Studies

2 A Faculty of Agriculture 39 H2 Dept of Management

3 A1 Dept of Soil Science 40 H3 Dept of Agribusiness

Dept of Agronomy and Dept of Resources and


4 A2 Horticulture 41 H4 Environmental Economics

5 A3 Dept of Plant Protection 42 I Faculty of Human Ecology

Dept of Landscape
6 A4 Architecture 43 I1 Dept of Nutrition Science

Faculty of Veterinary Dept of Family and Consumer


7 B Medicine 44 I2 Sciences

Faculty of Fisheries and Dept of Communication and


8 C Marine Science 45 I3 Community Development

9 C1 Dept of Aquaculture 46 CCR Common Class Room

Dept of Aquatic Resources


10 C2 Management 47 TL Teaching lab

Dept of Aquatic Products


11 C3 Technology 48 GYM Gymnasium

Dept of Fisheries Resources


12 C4 Utilization 49 SC Student Center

Dept of Marine Science and


13 C5 Technology 50 L Library

14 D Faculty of Animal Science 51 S Kornita Senior High School

Dept of Animan Production


15 D1 and Technology 52 HOS1 Polyclinic

Dept of Nutrition and Feed


16 D2 Technology 53 DOR1 International Dormitory

Faculty of Animal Science


17 CAN1 Canteen 54 DOR2 Male Dormitory

18 E Faculty of Forestry 55 DOR3 Female Dormitory

4
19 E1 Dept of Forest Management 56 CEN1 Center for Environmental Research

South east asian food and


agricultural science and technology
20 E2 Dept of Forestry Products 57 CEN2 center

Dept of Conservation of
Forest Resources and
21 E3 Ecotourism 58 CEN3 Shigeta Animal Pharmaceuticals

22 E4 Dept of Silviculture 59 MOS Mosque

Faculty of Agricultural
23 F Technology 60 DOR4 Amarilis Dormitory

Dept of Mechanical and


24 F1 Biosystem Engineering 61 DOR5 Dramaga Female Dormitory

Dept of Food Science and


25 F2 Technology 62 DOR6 Silvapinus Dormitory

Dept of Agroindustrial
26 F3 Technology 63 HOS2 Animal Hospital

Dept of Civil and


27 F4 Environmental Engineering 64 GRA Graduate Program

Faculty of Mathematics and


28 G Natural Sciences 65 CAN2 Zeamays Canteen

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine


29 G1 Dept of Statistics 66 CAN3 Canteen

Dept of Geophysics and


30 G2 Meteorology 67 CAN4 Blue corner Canteen

31 G3 Dept of Biology 68 CAN5 Purple corner Canteen

32 G4 Dept of Chemistry 69 CAN6 Blue corner Canteen

33 G5 Dept of Mathematics 70 CAN7 Red corner Canteen

34 G6 Dept of Computer Science 71 CAN8 Yellow corner Canteen

35 G7 Dept of Physics 72 CAN9 Sapta Canteen

36 G8 Dept of Biochemistry 73 CAN10 Plasma Canteen

Faculty of Economics and


37 H Management 74 CAN11 Makjan Canteen

Five enumerators have been selected to sort and calculating the sorted
waste in each work unit. Each enumerator visited 14-15 work unit in campus.
Enumerators brought some equipments when doing the waste audit such as
protective mask, latex gloves, plastic bag, scale, and notebook. Before waste
calculation, waste was sorted into some types such as:

1. Dry leaves

5
2. Leftovers
3. Paper
4. Plastic
5. Bottle and cup
6. Cardboard
7. Metal
8. Glass
9. Styrofoam
10.Tissue and sanitary napkin
11.Beverage container
The particular waste stream was then sorted on plastic sheets into the
eleven different streams. Each stream was weighed individually, which allowed
the percent contamination of each stream to be determined. While doing this,
protective protective mask was worn as well as latex gloves. Each group member
had a consistent role in the waste audit process. One student recorded the
weights, one student weighed the waste, two students separated the waste, and
one student assisted all positions. This ensured consistency throughout the
process. The results of the first waste audit were compiled from each location
into Microsoft Excel in order to better analyze the data.

Waste number that has been collected is in daily amount. Then it was
processed into the monthly amount. Data was served mothly because each unit
didn’t dispose waste simultaneously everyday. Therefore the amount of the
waste is converted into monthly data. Converting data into monthly data based
on the frequency of waste disposal.

II.3 Waste bin identification


General bureau, as the unit that serves waste management has facilitated
the sorted waste bins as well as other facilities such as dump trucks and waste
shelters. These bins have been placed at various locations in campus. Based on
last year observations, some locations with scattered garbage still be found in
campus. On the other hand, 96% of students and lecturers claiming to dispose of
waste in proper place and they only litter if it is difficult to find a waste bin. This
has led to the assumption that the location of the placement of waste bins
currently not efficient.

In addition, as a campus that will be planned on becoming a green campus


in 2020, it is a necessary for IPB to think a plan about waste reduction, such as

6
conducting the recycling program. To support the program, sorted waste bins
should be used in whole area in campus so that the entire campus community
can help to achieve a recycling program by separating trash. If that goes well,
the process of recycling and reusing waste can be run easily.

Based on this idea, identification of waste facility in the academic area to


collect waste bins data that consist of the type, number, and location are made
up. Academic areas were selected because this area is where scattered rubbish
more frequently encountered than other areas such as the rectorate building and
dormitory.

7
III.General Condition of Study Area

III.1 Waste management facility


Generally, the type of waste generated by work units in IPB consists of
paper, cardboard, plastic, wood, dry and wet litter, food waste in packaging,
styrofoam boxes, glass, metals, electronics, stationery, leaf, twigs, and grass
swipe. Nowadays, General Bureau is managing waste that was produced by 20
working units and 26 waste shelters those spread around campus.

In charge of managing and transporting waste in IPB campus, some


facilities owned by the General Bureau of IPB has been used (Table 2).

Table 2. Vehicle and building facilities owned by General bureau

No Name Type Year Amount


1 Dump Truck Mitsubishi 1996 1
2 Dump Truck Diesel 2004 1
3 Pick up car Toyota 2010 1
4 Grass chopper Honda 2004 1
5 3 wheeled Viar 2014 1
motorcycle
6 Building 3

III.2 Existing waste bins


Based on the survey results, it is known that the types of bins are used on
campus are very various, there are many types and sizes. Beside three types
sorting bins that facilitated by general bureau, in the academic area is also still
used non-sorting bins consisting of various sizes. In addition, there are also
sorting bins provided by the faculty. In IPB campus, sorting bins consisted of two
types sorting bins (organic and inorganic) and three types sorting bins (organic,
paper, and plastic).

8
Figure 2. Non-sorting bins

Figure 3. Sorting bins


Volume of waste bins can be various according to type. A small non-sorting
bins volumed between 24-25 Liters. A big non sorting bin can reached a volume
of 128 liters. Either 2 or 3 types sorting bins have a 2-3 times greater capacity.
Its volume ranges between 130-202 liters. Basically, the placement of trash
sorting is very useful and efficient as it can reduce the management unit task in
sorting out the garbage. The use large volume waste bin higher capacity can be
efficient thing since the frequency of waste disposal to waste shelter can be
reduced.

9
IV. Results and Discussion
IV.1 Waste audit result
Based on the results of waste calculating on each work unit, some data has
been obtained in Table 3.

Table 3. Waste audit result in work unit of IPB Campus


Organic (kg) Inorganic (kg)
Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

R 0 296 164 96 60 0 0 0 0 0 38 0

A 219.6 92 40 83.2 73.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A1 360.8 142.4 176.6 31.2 13.6 105 0 3.2 2.8 0 0 0

151.6
A2 0 8 66.8 73.28 35.36 0 0 0 0.8 0 112 0

A3 35.4 27.48 0 80.64 13.6 10 0 0 0 0 22.8 0

A4 40 0 6 37.8 16.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0

B 600 52.4 225.2 85.2 105.2 0 12.6 0 10 0 17.6 0

C 0 48 12 18 60 40 0 14.4 8.4 0 9.6 0

C1 0 33.6 80.4 37.2 32.88 4 0 0 2.4 0 8.6 0

C2 0 20 22.8 20.4 12.8 2.54 0 0 0 0 0 0

C3 0 22.16 21.52 5.46 5.28 0 0 4 0 13.12 1.32 0

C4 0 0 93.6 49.92 24.48 5 0 0 18.48 17.52 0

C5 0 14.88 96.4 36.4 38.6 5 0 0 4 62 0 0

D1
0 224 256 736 448 0 0 0 16 0 56 0
D2

CAN1

E 0 30 28 50 62 44 0 0 12 0 14 0

E1 120 36 26 38 42 28 0 0 0 0 32 0

E2 0 36 6 10 20 10 0 0 6 0 8 0

E3 6 60 49 26 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 10

E4 0 36 12 22 20 22 0 0 6 0 12 0

F1

F2 219.8 45.8 46.4 29.8 15 0 4 0 4 0 6.2 0

F3

F4

G 116.2 108 240 161.4 45 0 36 12 2.8 38.6 24 0

G1 0 0 36 22 8 0 0 0 16 0 0 0

10
G2 0 0 25 14 64 0 0 0 5 0 3 0

G3 0 237.6 36.96 51.6 16.8 16.8 12 0 4.8 0 0 0

G4 0 140 3 20 27.2 1 0 0 0 44.8 0 0

G5 0 26.88 15 22.8 17 5 0 0 3.4 26.2 10 0

G6 0 0 20 5 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

G7 0 0 39 8 7 0 0 20 3 0 0 0

G8 0 102 16 6.4 12 6 4 0 2 0 0

18.07
H 0 23.6 24.1 7.53 2 5.02 0 0 0 0 0 0

H1 0 50 2.8 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 0 0

H2 0 50 12.11 6.44 5.95 7.5 0 0 0 7.84 1.54 0

H3 0 108 20.24 3 7 0 0 4 1 0 0 0

H4 0 78.4 8.5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I 228 0 38 78 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I1 0 59.6 89.2 38.2 55.2 15 0 0.2 0.4 16.4 4.4 0

I2 0 108 0 104 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I3 0 37.2 12 10 15 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0

CCR 52.8 154.8 102 67.6 123.2 0 6.8 6 0.6 44.8 26 0.56

TL 106 33.5 23.8 10 11.6 0 0 0 0 28 3.8 0

GYM 580.8 0 16.8 13.72 53.04 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

SC 0 0 14 14 30 28 0 0 6 0 0 0

L 54 90.86 34.76 57.64 27.28 0 0 2.64 0.03 8.8 6.16 0.23

S 396 43.2 24 86.4 208.8 0 0 0 0 0 62.4 0

HOS1 0 0 21 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DOR1 0 0 34.5 16.5 18 6 0 0 0 0 1.2 0

DOR2 1579. 4229.7 7331.5 3381.


0 2820 0 0 564 0 1692 0
DOR3 1 6 2 6

CEN1 0 54.5 11.5 6.25 3.25 0 0 0 0 6.4 0.5 0

CEN2 170 114 40 24 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CEN3 216 0 50 20 20 0 150 0 0 0 0 0

MOS 480 75 57 37.5 10.5 0 0 0 1.8 0 7.5 0

DOR4 192 0 48 62.4 192 0 24 0 4.8 0 14.4 0

DOR5 0 0 5.2 4.24 6.32 0 1.28 0 0.16 0 2.32 0

DOR6 0 0 15.6 12.72 18.96 0 3.84 0 0.48 0 6.96 0

HOS2 1.2 21.6 20.51 34.66 26.43 0 1.2 0 0.2 5 1.6 8.6

101.9
GRA 0 2 101.36 24.36 34.48 200 6.72 2.8 0 0 0.56 0

CAN2 0 572 11.2 6 3.2 0 1 3.6 0 0 0 0

CAN3 0 124 0 40 20 52 0 0 4 0 4 0

CAN4 841.2 24 37.2 9.12 4.8 1.2 0 0.48 0 0.48 0.1

11
CAN5 103.2 813.6 98.4 133.2 38.4 7.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

CAN6 0 1302 72 168 72 0 0 0 0 0 24 0

629.0
CAN7 192 4 73.92 70.32 45.12 0 0.72 2.88 0 0 4.92 0

CAN8 0 195.6 5.7 28.2 13.2 0 1.05 0 0 0 0 0

CAN9 0 444 27.3 34.6 173 0 3 10 0 0 12.6 0

CAN1
0 0 345.6 15.6 9.6 38.16 50 2 0 0 0 2.4 0

CAN1 293.7
1 0 6 16.8 48.8 15.92 8 0.96 0 0 0 0 0

TOTA 4489. 1032 7261.3 10541. 6137. 3511.8 273.3 85.7 695.5 19.4
L 8 7 4 2 4 6 7 2 5 327.94 2273.18 9

Waste type: 1. Dry leaves, 2. Leftovers, 3. Paper, 4.Plastic, 5. Bottle and cup, 6.
Cardboard, 7. Metal, 8. Glass, 9. Styrofoam, 10. Tissue and sanitary napkin, 11. Beverage
container

From Table 2 can be seen that some faculties have coordinated with
department in waste disposal. Hence, waste disposal is conducted by the faculty
not department. Based on audit, plastic is a type of waste that has contributed
most to the campus waste which is about 10,541.2 kg per month. Food leftovers
ranks second highest with 10,327 kg / month. The organic waste generation per
month reached 14,816.764 kg, while the inorganic waste reached 31,127. 052 kg
/ month. Total organic and inorganic waste reaches 45,943.816 kg / month.

Figure 4. Percentage of waste weight based on waste audit in 2016


Based on waste calculations performed from temporary landfills in 2015,
the total waste amount is 6,626.67 kg /month consisting of 2,154.33 kg of

12
inorganic waste and 4,472.34 kg of organic waste. Number of waste from
calculation in temporary landfill and work unit have differences. The waste
amount calculated from work unit has a larger amount. This is because the waste
in temporary landfill already taken up by scavenger so that the waste number
was smaller.

Scavengers, those individuals who recover items from waste for the
purpose of reuse or recycing, play an important role in transforming discarded
objects into objects of value. In this role, scavengers are mediators in the
relationship between societies and their environments. In contemporary
societies, scavenging activities reduce the amount of wastes that need to
becollected, transported, and disposedof, and they extend the life of dumps and
landfills (Medina, 2007).

Based on the different audit methods, the waste number has a significant
difference. According to the waste audit that conducted in waste shelter, the
waste number generated by every person of the campus (students and staffs) is
about 0.25 kg / month. While based on the waste audit in each unit, garbage
generated each campus residents reached 0.5 kg / month. This number is two
times greater than the results obtained last year.

Table 4. The differences of waste number that obtained in 2016 and 2015

Weight (Kg)
No Type Categories
2016 2015
1 Dry Leaves 4,489.80
Organic 4,472,34
2 Leftovers 10,326.96
3 Paper 7,261.34 379,71
4 Plastic 10,541.20 616,28
5 Bottle and Cup 6,137.40
6 Cardboard 3,511.86
7 Metal 273.37 82,83
Inorganic
8 Glass 85.72 19,88
9 Styrofoam 695.55 99,40
10 Tissue and Sanitary Napkins 327.94
11 Beverage Container 2,273.18 619,59
12 Others 19.49 336,63
Total 45,943,82 6,626.67
Total Organic 14,816,76 4,472.34
Total Inorganic 31,127,05 2,154.33

13
The difference this result implies that before reaching waste shelter, a half
of waste number has been reduced. The presence of scavengers on campus can
indirectly provide easiness on waste management. Most types of waste those are
reduced before entering the waste shelters are paper, cardboard, bottles and
beverage containers.

Decreasing the amount of trash before entering the waste shelters was not
enough to make all the waste on campus managed. In the landfill, there is still
much waste that is not transported to the city landfill and managed properly.
Moreover, to reduce the amount of waste in the landfill of waste, incineration
process is often conducted. In fact, the burning of garbage can produce
pollutants that are harmful to human health.

Open, unmanaged, and or uncontrolled waste dumps may have the


following resultant effects (Aziz and Amr, 2016):

a. Produce liquid waste (leachate) and gaseous emissions (landfill gas) that are
potential environmental pollutants
b. Disposal sites may become ground for many disease-bearing pest and micro-
organisms.

Environmental impacts arise from pollution associated with incineration,


landfill, and recycling of waste. Health hazard arise from some air pollutants,
from waste not disposed to controlled outlets, from poorly managed waste sites,
and from possible ground water contamination by leachate from landfill sites
(Pearce and Brisson, 1995).

Ultimately, recycling is the last solution for the sake of decreasing the
amount of waste in the campus landfill. Recycling can be categorized into two.
One, composting organic waste into organic fertilizer. Two, recycling inorganic
waste like plastic and beverage containers into goods that can be used. Both
landfills and recycling facilities charge fees for transportation and also often
include a surcharge for weight, therefore, the minimization of the weight of
wastes transported to landfills can decrease disposal costs (Ellis, 2011).

The benefits of recycling solid waste are substantial Recycling waste helps
to preserve our limited landfill space Recycling also reduces the need to extract
resources from their natural environment and thus helps to prevent the pollution
such removal efforts create It also saves energy and provides a less expensive
alternative to landfills and incineration Finally communities can use the materials

14
recovered through recycling to generate revenue (Office of the Federal Register
National Archives and Records Administration, 1990)

According to Hester and Harrison (2002) There are a number of reasons why
a higher level of recycling does not occur. These can be divided primarily into:

a. Market failure, where prices do not reflect environmental resources values


b. Government failure, where policies put in place by governments may
encourage inefficient practices
c. Institutional failure, where public awareness may discourage socially optimal
strategies

IV.2 Waste bin placement


One of the important key in the recycling process is the sorting the waste.
Sorting of waste according to categories can facilitate the recycling process so
that the waste does not need to be sorted again by officers when it arrived at the
waste shelters or landfill. The process of waste sorting in the campus
environment also creates the opportunity for every campus citizen to play an
active role in the process of waste management campus.

According to Jones (2009), there are some point that need to be concerned
about waste management such asa number of bins, volume/size of bins,
placement of bins, access for emptying, and frequency of emptying. Before
encountering the waste sorting process, there is one thing that needs to be
addressed by the campus that is related to the type and location of the waste
bins. Based on the survey results, it is known that the amount of waste bin in
campus basically sufficient. However, the location of the waste bins placement
are often inefficient. There are several corridors that have more than one bin. On
the other hand there are corridors and nodes that did not put bin at all.
Moreover, in some places where students usually gathered, the waste bin are
often invisible (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Inexistence of waste bin in student gathering location

15
A littering behavior study in 2001 in Australia noted that people are more
likely to deposit waste in the proper receptacle if the bin is located within 3.5
meters of them. Another previous study done in Australia found that even after
the implementation of three-bin systems in a food court, there were still high
levels of contamination due to insufficient and confusing signage. Improved
signage resulted in the diversion of 44% of waste in the food court (Stantec
Consulting Ltd., 2009).

Inefficiency in waste bin placement in campus is not only a bottleneck in


the process of sorting the waste but also in the process of the creating a clean
campus. More than 90% of students reported that they always dispose the waste
in the bin. They will only littering if the bin is not found around them. In several
locations on campus areas with scattered garbage are still found. This shows the
inefficiency in the placement of bins on campus.

To check the location of waste bin, data collection were conducted in the
academic unit (faculty and department). Academic unit building usually consists
of four floors. Sampling was conducted on the floor that the most frequently
visited and used by the student. In the data collecting process, the location of
each sorting bin and a non-sorting bin marked on the map. The map of sampling
location can be seen in Figure xx.

Waste bin at the sampling location can be seen in the Figure xx. Based on
the survey results, it is known that the waste bin is dominated by non-sorting
bin. The location of waste bin placement are still not spread equally.

IV.3 Waste bin types


Besides location, the type of waste bin has also become a problem itself. To
realize the recycling program, campus should only use sorting bins. The use of
non-sorting bins will only aggravate the campus waste management task in
sorting and recycling waste. However, the use of sorting bin should also be
accompanied by the consistency management unit to keep waste separated in
transporting, gathering at waste shelters, transporting on the trucks, and
gathering at landfill. So the waste didn’t only keep being separated in waste bin.

Until now, the number of non sorting bins of reach ...% of the total existing
bins. Some non-sorting bins even have a small capacity that requires a high
disposal frequency. This resulted in inefficiencies in waste management. In
addition, the janitor often unite the waste that has been sorted in bins during the

16
transport process. This makes the presence of sorting bin and waste sorting
process that has been conducted by the students become useless. When waste
gathered in the waste shelters and landfill, organic and inorganic waste were
mixed. This shows the lack of seriousness of waste management in sorting,
recycling, and reducing of waste volume in campus.

17
V. Recommendation
V.1 Waste Bin Placement
The placement of the waste bin can be one of solution to create a clean
campus. Triangle formed building this campus has many nodes as the meeting
point of several corridor. Nodes can be utilized as a location for waste bin
placement instead of corridor.

Currently, waste bin is often put on the corridor around the triangle park.
However, not all corridor placed the waste bin so students’ and teachers’ effort
in finding and reaching the trash becomes harder. In fact, when the waste bin is
put on each node, it can be more efficient and easily reached. Between one node
to another node can be reached in 45 seconds to 1 minute by walking so that
campus residents can stop complaining of difficulty in finding a waste bin.

Each node connecting the six corridors, so that the number of bins used in
the academic unit can also be less. The number of nodes in the academic units
on each floor amounts to ... the number of nodes show the number of bins
required for each floor in academic units. Plan of waste bin placement can be
seen in Figure xx.

V.2 Waste Bin Types


Because of the use of less waste bin, the possibility of waste piling on each
node will be even greater. Therefore, the use of a waste bin with a large capacity
and additional disposal frequency will be needed. Disposal frequency is also
necessary to be added on certain days, such as the graduation day or during the
seminar.

Beside the size, the type waste bin is also noteworthy. Non sorting bin
should no longer used because it does not comply with waste recycling program.
The whole bins are placed at the nodes must be sorting bin. At least, sorting bin
that used are 3 types sorting bins (paper, plastic, and organic). If waste is being
properly sorted into the right streams, each waste type can directly encounter
the recycling process.

18
VI.Conclusion
Waste generation di kampus IPB memiliki jumlah yang cukup besar.
Terbatasnya kapasitas tampungan di city landfill menyebabkan terciptanya
unmanaged waste di campus landfill. Di sisi lain, kampus IPB memiliki cita-cita
untuk mewujudkan green campus yang bebas dari sampah. Untuk mengurangi
sampah, salah satu cara yang dapat dilakukan adalah daur ulang.

Waste generation in IPB has a huge amount. The limited storage capacity in
the city landfill led to the creation unmanaged waste in campus landfills. On the
other hand, the IPB has aspirations to create a green campus with waste
reduction program. To reduce waste, one of solution is waste recycling.

Current facilities is not yet supporting the recycling programs and clean
campus. There are still plenty use of non-sorting bin and also the waste
transporting process that are not separating types of waste. Moreover,
inefficiency in waste bin placement make it so hard to find waste bin in some
point in campus.

Recommendation of waste bin types and placement are expected to be


useful as a first step in supporting the movement in realizing green IPB campus.
This movement can only be realized with the support of all citizens of the
campus, not just the general bureau as a waste management unit.

19
Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the Center for Environmental Research, Bogor


Agricultural University (PPLH-IPB) for giving us opportunity to get the research
funding. This research was funded by Osaka Gas Foundation of International
Cultural Exchange (OGFICE) Japan for fiscal year 2015-2016.

References

Aziz HA, SA Amr. 2016. Control and Treatment of Landfill Leachate for Sanitary
Waste Disposal. Hershey: Information Science Reference.
Ellis E. (2011, November 10). New recycling system streamlines disposal, will
reduce landfill. The Cornell Daily Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.cornellsun.com/section/ news/content/2011/11/10/new-
recycling-system-streamlines-disposal-will-reduce-landfill
Idris A, B Inanc, MN Hassan. 2004. Overview of waste disposal and
landfills/dumps in Asian countries. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste
Management, 6, 104-110.
Hester RE, RM Harrison. 2002. Environmental and Health Impact of Solid
Management Activities. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Jones ML. 2009. Sustainable Event Management: A Practical Guide. London:
Taylor & Francis
Medina M. 2007. The World’s Scavengers: Salvaging for Sustainable
Consumption and Production. Lanham: Altamira Press.
Pearce DW and I Brisson. 1995. The Economic Waste Management. Hester RE
and RM Harrison (Editor). Waste Treatment and Disposal. Cambridge: The
Royal Society of Chemistry.
The Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration.
1990. Code of Federal Regulations. US Government Printing Office
Washington.
Setiawan Y, Liyantono, M Agaton. 2015 Solid Waste Management in Bogor
Agricultural University, Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Resources
Management.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2009). Best practices review (Project No. 1056098).
Burlington, ON: Stantec Consulting Limited. Retrieved from
http://www.wdo.ca/cif/pdf/ reports/202/202_report.pdf

20
Chouhan B.M and B.K Reddy “Bio-energy scenario in India, “Journal IREDA News,
Vol. 7(1), pp. 20-27, 1996.
Mazumdar, N.B, “Municipal solid waste management the Indian perspectives,”
journal of Environment Monitor, Vol. 12(2) pp. 257-269, 1994.
Yadav I. C. and Devi N.L, “Studies on Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Mysore City- A case study,” journal of Report and Opinion, Vol. 1(3), pp.21-
24,2000.

21