Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Widodo Brontowiyono; Thomas Boving; Adelia Anju Asmara; Suphia Rahmawati; Andik Yulianto; Noviani Ima Wantoputri; Annisa Nur Lathifah; Yuli Andriansyah

doi:10.12688/f1000research.111125.1

Home Browse Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Widodo Brontowiyono ¹, Thomas Boving², Adelia Anju Asmara³, [...] Suphia Rahmawati⁴, Andik Yulianto⁴, Noviani Ima Wantoputri³, Annisa Nur Lathifah⁴, Yuli Andriansyah⁵

Widodo Brontowiyono ¹, Thomas Boving², [...] Adelia Anju Asmara³, Suphia Rahmawati⁴, Andik Yulianto⁴, Noviani Ima Wantoputri³, Annisa Nur Lathifah⁴, Yuli Andriansyah⁵

PUBLISHED 19 May 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Environmental Engineering, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Sleman, DI Yogyakarta, 55584, Indonesia
² Department of Geosciences, University of Rhode Island, South Kingstown, Rhode Island, 02881, USA
³ Water Quality Laboratory, Center for Environmental Studies, Department of Environmental Engineering, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
⁴ Risk Assessment Analysis Laboratory, Center for Environmental Studies, Department of Environmental Engineering, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
⁵ Department of Islamic Economics, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Widodo Brontowiyono
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Thomas Boving
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Adelia Anju Asmara
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Project Administration, Software, Visualization

Suphia Rahmawati
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Software, Validation, Visualization

Andik Yulianto
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Software, Validation, Visualization

Noviani Ima Wantoputri
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Annisa Nur Lathifah
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Yuli Andriansyah
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: This study focuses on identifying non-technical aspects that influence the sustainability of communal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in a peri-urban area of Indonesia.
Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted by random sampling using a method of descriptive analysis that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches. Economic support for communal WWTPs was measured by the community’s Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Ability to Pay (ATP).
Results: The results indicate that social dimension, such as a community’s level of participation are critically important in sustaining communal WWTPs. In addition, institutional dimension influences the degree of satisfaction a community has toward the WWTP management. This support is reinforced by social capital in the form of a philosophy of mutual cooperation, like gotong royong (cooperation by members of a community to achieve a common goal) and swadaya (self-reliance).
Conclusions: The findings of this study can be used in Indonesia to make policy recommendations for managing and ensuring sustainability of communal WWTPs on a non-technical dimension. Additionally, gotong royong deserves to be promoted internationally as a fundamental value for fostering participation and contribution.

Keywords

Communal WWTP, gotong royong, non-technical dimensions

Corresponding author: Widodo Brontowiyono

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Brontowiyono W et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Brontowiyono W, Boving T, Asmara AA et al. Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:542 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111125.1) First published: 19 May 2022, 11:542 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111125.1) Latest published: 19 May 2022, 11:542 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111125.1)

Introduction

Background

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) are vital parts of the environmental infrastructure and becoming increasingly important in the densely populated urban and suburban areas around the world.¹^,² WWTP can be operated as centralized and communal entities. For example, in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, the city’s WWTP is centralized, while in the peri-urban area surrounding Yogyakarta, WWTPs are communal. In total, the Special Region of Yogyakarta Province cur-rently operates 376 communal WWTPs, although not all are operational. Centralized WWTP are often inefficient, which is why communal WWTPs are critical in reducing environmental pollution problems.³

Proper environmental sanitation is a strategic issue in Yogyakarta’s peri-urban area and the sustainable management of the regions WWTPs is critically important. The sustainability of WWTPs depended on a number of indicators, including technical, participatory, or social, institutional, and economic factors.⁴ These sustainability indicators suggest that current environmental sanitation efforts in the Yogyakarta region are insufficient and more efforts are required.⁵^–⁷

Sustainability encompasses structural, engineered aspects, such treatment facilities, equipment, and supplies. These aspects are largely supported by both government and non-government agencies. Meanwhile, sustainability also depends on non-technical aspects, such as community dynamics, that, if developed and managed optimally, can sustain the management of communal WWTPs. Previous research indicated that not all communal WWTPs in Yogyakarta are well managed⁸ and their some performance evaluation standards are not well achieved.⁹^,¹⁰ Some issues raising from previous research indicated the needs to also evaluate some non-technical aspects in managing communal WWTPs. Wastewater management requires the use of appropriate decision-making models. However, there are still gaps, particularly in terms of socioeconomic factors and sustainability analysis.¹¹^–¹⁴ These gaps often limit the usefulness of decision-making models.

Objectives

This research focuses on these non-technical sustainability aspects, including community participation, institutionalization, and economy, as well as community’s perception and the understanding of communal WWTP management. This study focuses on Indonesia and an area in Yogyakarta’s peri-urban zone that is situated in Sleman Regency. It includes the districts of Depok, Mlati, and Ngaglik. This area (574.8 km²) is characterized by a very high settlement density (1,902 people per km², 2010 Census). Data on environmental management performance indicates that ten rivers in Yogyakarta has E. coli bacteria value that exceeds the quality standard.¹⁵ Since pathogenic E.coli bacteria can cause bloody diarrhea,¹⁶ it is understable that the incidence rate of diarrhea in Sleman Regency was 17.85% in 2019 with approximately 19,126 cases.¹⁷ The high number of cases was attributed to the high settlement density, which reduces the distance between septic tanks and wells. Hence, in these densely populated areas, the urgency of communal WWTPs is a non-negotiable development priority.

The purpose of this study is to identify non-technical sustainability aspects that may affect the management of communal WWTP in this study area. The study’s findings are expected to serve government entities and WWTP managers, and inform community policies and programs aimed at ensuring the long-term viability of communal WWTP operations.

Methods

Study design

The design of this study, based on Grimes and Schulz,¹⁸ was descriptive study. This type of study fall under the observational study. Since the purpose was to analyze non-technical aspects of the communal WWTPs, this study described responses of participants to some questions in the questionnaire. This implies that this study can also be categorized as cross-sectional study.¹⁹ Since its characteristics was descriptive, this study did not assign any exposures to participants. Although the data was collected from locations in three sub-districts that can be used to grouping data, comparative analysis was not applied. This study focused on measuring the responses from participants and considered its analysis on data from three sub-districts as a holistic data.²⁰^,²¹

This study involved users of WWTPs in peri-urban in Yogyakarta. It implies that human factors and legal issues should be handled carefully. For this reason, this study was prepared and conducted using the steps as follows. The research proposal that this study was based on, including its attachments, was submitted to the Directorate of Research and Community Development, Islamic University of Indonesia. The Directorate of Research and Community Development, the Directorate of Human Resources, and the Board of Ethics and Law, Islamic University of Indonesia conducted an initial check for the proposal and its attachments in terms of feasibility, ethical concerns, government regulation, legal issues, and others. Once everything is completed and approved based on university standards, the proposal was sent for review. After that, the proposal was presented to reviewers and university management. The Directorate of Research and Community Development, Islamic University of Indonesia finally accepted the proposal and provided an approval sheet signed by the Director and Chief of Research Center.

After this step, surveyors for this study asked for approval from the Heads of villages, Lurahs in Bahasa Indonesia, to conduct the research in their area. They were informed about the purpose of the research, the type of data to collect, and respondents’ characteristics who would be provided with the questionnaire to fill out. It took additional time due to the many villages in which the study was planned to be conducted. Once all of Lurahs agreed and approved the study and questionnaire, data collection was started.

A small talk with potential respondents was initiated before collecting data. It is considered polite to start communication with this type of talk among Javanese, the majority of people living near communal wastewater treatment plants in the study, as part of Eastern hospitality. The surveyors explained the purpose of the study and showed permission by Lurah to potential respondents before asking them to become respondents. After that, a page of the consent form was presented to respondents. If the respondents agreed, they signed the consent form and a questionnaire was presented to each respondents. They filled it until all items were completed. All questionnaires were checked and only fully filled-out ones were used for analysis.

Setting

The study was conducted by collecting data from users of WWTPs in three sub-districts in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia, that are part of Sleman Regency: Ngaglik, Depok, and Mlati (Figure 1). These three sub-disctrict consisted of some villages and were characterized as rural area. However, due to recent development and increasing population, these area can now be characterized as peri-urban in Yogyakarta. Each of three sub-districts has different numbers of WWTPs that this study used to collect data. Depok has the most number with sixteen WWTPs, followed by Ngaglik with fifteen WTTPs. Mlati has the least number with six WWTPs. Data was collected between September and November 2021.

Figure 1. Locations of research.

Source: Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG).²² Note: Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG) hold copyright of the maps used and allowed users to download, distribute, adapt, and derive Informasi Geospasial Dasar (IGD) or Basic Geospatial Information on their website with a condition users should include citation and source to Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG).²³ Based on these term and condition, the authors modified the map for research purpose.

Participants

The population of this study is the entire community using the communal WWTPs in three sub-disctricts: Mlati, Ngaglik, and Depok. Quota sampling technique was used to select a representative sample from a population that shares certain characteristics with the desired population size.²⁴^,²⁵ The primary reason this study used quota sampling technique is to sample a subgroup that is of particular interest to the study.²⁶

Being user of a communal WWTP was main characteristics for a respondent to be chosen in this study. Additional eligibility criteria was being in the specific area of the communal WWTP of this study. To ensure that potential participants were captured in the data colletion, this study also ask manager of the communal WWTP in selecting potential participants. Manager of the communal WWTP is considered has proper understanding of the users in the area. Thus, having one of them in determining sample could help the study find more reliable participants for research source.

Since there were 37 WWTPs in three sub-disctricts, this study focused on finding minimum of two representative respondents for each location. Thus, the basis for analysis was centered in sub-disctrict and not in individual WWTPs. This strategy was chosen as consequences of quota sampling technique used in the study as well as other reasons such as budget and time limitations.²⁷

Variables

This study collected data from participants on three non-technical aspects of the communal WWTPs sustainability. These aspects are social, institutional, and economic ones. Social aspects of the communal WWTPs consist of (a) the reason behind participant decision to join a communal WWTP as a user; (b) the presence of a socialization before the construction of the communal WWTP; (c) participation of the user in the construction of the communal WWTP; (d) participation of the user in the maintenance of the communal WWTP; and (e) willingness of user in the maintenance of the communal WWTP.

Institutional aspects in this study include (a) user awareness of managerial team of the communal WWTP; (b) compiling process in selection of the managerial team of the communal WWTP; (c) user willingness to beome a member the managerial team of the communal WWTP; (d) user knowledge of conflict in the management of the communal WWTP; (e) user perception of the performance of the communal WWTP managerial team; and (f) user satisfaction with the communal WWTP services.

Economic aspects of this study were (a) average family income; (b) average family expenditure; (c) the presence of communal WWTP fee; (d) the amount of the communal WWTP monthly fee; (e) willingness to pay a regular monthly fee; (f) appropriateness of the the communal WWTP monthly fee; (g) ability to pay the communal WWTP monthly; (h) suggestion on the communal WWTP fee; and (i) collection of fee for the communal WWTP reparation.

Data sources and measurements

Data sources for variables mentioned in sub-section above was results of questionairre distributed to participants. Quantitative variables were analyzed using a frequency distribution and presented in a frequency distribution table. The grouping is done based on the location of the respondent’s sub-district, because the study uses a sub-district analysis unit.

Bias

Quota sampling suffers from a number of drawbacks as a result of its non-probability nature, including nonrepresentative samples and external risks to the validity of a study. Additionally, quota sampling has the potential to produce inaccurate estimates or findings about the proportion of specified traits in the population of interest. When it comes to demographic data, it is frequently difficult to obtain the most up-to-date information available. It is also likely that quota sampling will leave out hidden populations that are disadvantaged and disenfranchised. These populations are frequently left out of non-probability sampling, including quota sampling, because they are difficult to track down and may refuse to participate in an interview session.²⁵^,²⁸^,²⁹

This study used quota sampling technique which make it potent for some biases as mentioned above. For this particular reason, some efforts have been tried to address potential sources of bias by seeking proper explanations regarding potential participants in collaboration with communal WWTP managers. If the participants chosen based on manager’s explanation did not agree to be surveyed, then other potential participants were approached until minimum two participants for each communal WWTP. Once participants filled out the questionnaire, initial checklist was conducted to ensure that all questions were answered. If the questionairre was fully filled out, then it was considered eligible for further analysis. If, in any case, a questionairre was not fully filled out, the additional participants would be approached and asked to fill out the questionnaire. The survey was considered sufficient once minimum of two fully filled out questionairres were collected within a communal WWTP.

Study size

Quota sampling begins with the determination of the proportion of a population’s specified characteristics that exists. Following the determination or identification of the proportions, the study might proceed to the collection of interviews from respondents.²⁵ This study follows the same steps in determining its study size. It first decided that the unit of analysis used was based on sub-district. Each sub-district has different numbers of the communal WWTPs and for each of them, a minimum of two participants were selected to fill questionairre. With 37 communal WWTPs in research location, it took minimum 74 participants as study size for this research.

Quantitative variables

Participants’ answer in the questionairre became main quantitative data that were combined in the same sub-district coverage. Quantitative variables were analyzed using a frequency distribution and presented in a frequency distribution table. The grouping is done based on the location of the respondent’s sub-district, because the study uses a sub-district analysis unit. In the case of missing data, imputation technique was applied. It consisted of the process of filling in or replacing the missing values in a dataset with plausible values based on the information obtained in the dataset.

Statistical methods

The descriptive analysis method was used in this study, with qualitative and quantitative approaches serving as the basis for analysis and interpretation in the context of communal WWTP management. The approach is empirical, utilizing analytical methods capable of explaining cause and effect based on factual conditions.³⁰^,³¹ This study analyzed many aspects in the context of communal WWTP management, such as social, institutional, and economic.

For social and institutional aspects, this study usee perception data related to community participation. The analysis method is descriptive qualitative with the assistance of a frequency table based on respondents’ responses. Economic data are used to determine a person’s willingness and ability to contribute. The analysis method was descriptive qualitative with quantification based on respondents’ responses. Quantification of data was performed through analysis of Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Ability to Pay (ATP).³²^–³⁵

In this research, the term “WTP” refers to a community’s willingness to implement communal WWTPs. The WTP for communal WWTPs is determined through a questionnaire survey that follows a question format based on stated preferences methods. The stated preference method employs the Referendum Contingent Valuation (CV) technique, which is more effective with “willing” or “no”. ATP was analysed via open-ended quest ions in surveys. Open-ended questions, also known as unstructured questions, are surveys for which no response options are provided thus leaving respondents to formulate their own responses.³⁶^,³⁷ This method was chosen because it imposes no value constraint on determination of ATP level. The ATP value is calculated using average responses of respondents. A capability value equal to or greater than estimated cost ensures communal WWTP’s sustainability.

Results

Participants

Final data collected for this study came from 120 participants who were current communal WWTP users. Table 1 summarizes the number of respondents and their distribution by sub-district. Data in Table 1 indicates that for all sub-disctrict a minimum of two participants was completed. Mlati is the sub-district with most average participants, followed by Depok and Ngaglik. The difference in average participation among these three sub-disctricts was based on many factors. Among these factors were willingness of participants to be part of the study.

Table 1. Number of Respondents.

No	Sub-district	Number of participants	Number of communal WWTPs	Average participants per WWTP
1.	Depok	54	16	3.375
2.	Mlati	32	6	5.334
3.	Ngaglik	34	15	2.267
	Total	120

Descriptive data

Characteristics of participants based on age are presented in Table 2. Majority of participants are older than 40 years which implies that most of respondents have been living near the communal WWTP for some time. It could help this study to ensure that participants have proper relationships with with the environment.

Table 2. Participants characteristics based on age.

Age	%
≤30	8.82
31-40	11.76
41-50	29.41
51-60	26.47
>60	23.53
N	100.00

Characteristics of participants based on sex are presented in Table 3. The data indicates that most participants are male. It should be understood that among common thing within Javanese culture is that male side used to have significant role especially as head of household. When a surveyor came for data collection, it would be common that a father or other head of household take first cahnce to fill out the questionairre. Thus, this difference should be addressed as potential bias for this study.

Table 3. Characteristics of participants based on sex.

Sex	%
Laki-laki	83.33
Perempuan	16.67
	100.00

Outcome data and main results

Social aspects in sustainability of communal WWTPs

The majority of WWTPs were constructed top-down with government assistance. The willingness to become a communal WWTP customer was found contingent upon the community’s motivation or encouragement. Overall, the conditions at the re-search site were favorable (Table 4), i.e. the majority of customers (47.5 percent) and self-initiatives (45 percent) were motivated to participate freely, while only a small percentage felt obligated (7.5 percent). This distribution influenced the participation and contribution needs for ensuring the sustainability of communal WWTP’s.

Table 4. Encouragement of willingness to become a communal WWTP customer.

No	Encouragement	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Encouragement	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Recommended	28	51.85	14	43.75	15	44.12	57	47.50
2.	Required	6	11.11	0	0.00	3	8.82	9	7.50
3.	Self initiative	20	37.04	18	56.25	16	47.06	54	45.00
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Public outreach and consultation with the communities were required during planning and pre-construction stages (Table 5). The underlying assumption was that a WWTP development will meet community needs. The survey results indicate that most respondents, 95%, were aware of and/or received information regarding the development of communal WWTP. Altogether, the conditions were found favorable for communal participation in the WWTP management.

Table 5. Perceptions of implementation of socialization in development of communal WWTPs.

No	Socialization	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Socialization	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Exist	53	98.15	30	93.75	31	91.18	114	95.00
2.	There is not any	1	1.85	2	6.25	3	8.82	6	5.00
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Most of the development of communal WWTP infrastructure is through government assistance from The Ministry of Public Works and Housing of Indonesia. Another form of assistance is through community participation through the swadaya (self-reliance) system. The forms of community swadaya are varied and combined, among others, labor through community service or mutual cooperation, consumption, funds, and others. The majority of the community, e.g., 93.3%, participated in the development of swadaya communal WWTPs (Table 6). The rest did not because they believed there was no activity and respondents were unaware of developments. Table 6 shows details of types of swadaya participation provided by the community during the communal WWTP development process. The largest types of participation are con-sumption and funds (28.3%) and mutual cooperation (26.7%).

Table 6. Community swadaya in the construction of communal WWTPs.

No	Form	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Form	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Gotong royong	6	11.11	21	65.63	5	14.71	32	26.67
2.	Consumption	1	1.85	0	0.00	2	5.88	3	2.50
3.	Fund	1	1.85	0	0.00	1	2.94	2	1.67
4.	Other	4	7.41	1	3.13	1	2.94	6	5.00
5.	Gotong royong, consumption, and more	2	3.70	0	0.00	3	8.82	5	4.17
6.	Gotong royong and funds	5	9.26	0	0.00	3	8.82	8	6.67
7.	Gotong royong, funds and consumption	2	3.70	4	12.50	7	20.59	13	10.83
8.	Gotong royong, funds and more	2	3.70	4	12.50	3	8.82	9	7.50
9.	Consumption and funds	27	50.00	0	0.00	7	20.59	34	28.33
10.	No swadaya	2	3.70	2	6.25	1	2.94	5	4.17
11.	Don’t know development	2	3.70	0	0.00	1	2.94	3	2.50
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100.00	120	100.00

Participation in swadaya was also required during operations and maintenance. The majority of the community, 92.5%, contributed to the operation and maintenance of communal WWTPs through swadaya (Table 7). The remainder did not participate because they believed there were no swadaya activities or because of unawareness. Table 5 details the various forms of community swadaya participation in the operation and maintenance of the communal WWTP. The most widespread form of participation is gotong royong (mutual assistance) (50.8 percent). A community sharing gotong royong principles shares responsibility and prevents conflict in between the commu-nity members. Gotong royong can manifest itself in social activities or traditional communal work (cooperative labor), such as cleaning the environment in the neigh-borhood.³⁸^,³⁹

Table 7. Community swadaya in the operation and maintenance of communal WWTPs.

No	Form	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Form	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Gotong royong	31	57.4	21	65.6	9	26.5	61	50.8
2.	Consumption	1	1.9	0	0.0	1	2.9	2	1.7
3.	Fund	1	1.85	1	3.1	1	2.9	3	2.5
4.	Other	2	3.7	1	3.1	3	8.8	6	5.0
5.	Gotong royong, consumption, and more	2	3.7	1	3.1	2	5.9	5	4.2
6.	Gotong royong and funds	7	13.0	1	3.1	3	8.8	11	9.2
7.	Gotong royong, funds and consumption	2	3.7	1	3.1	5	14.7	8	6.7
8.	Gotong royong, funds and more	4	7.4	1	3.1	6	17.7	11	9.2
9.	Consumption and funds	2	3.7	0	0.0	2	5.9	4	3.3
10.	No swadaya activities	1	1.9	4	12.5	1	2.9	6	5.0
11.	No awareness of swadaya activities	1	1.9	1	3.1	1	2.9	3	2.5
	Total	54	100.0	32	100.0	34	100.0	120	100.0

The sustainability of communal WWTPs will require high participation in the future. This requires a commitment in the form of a future willingness to participate independently. The majority of community members who use communal WWTPs stated that they were unconditionally willing to use it (52.5 percent), followed by respondents that made their willingness contingent on the situation and circumstances (40.8 percent), and only 6.7 percent who stated that they were unwilling to use the WWTPs (Table 8). These responses provide reason to be optimistic about the the sustainability of communal WWTPs.

Table 8. Willingness to participate in swadaya activities associated with the operation and maintenance of communal WWTPs.

No	Willingness	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Willingness	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Willing	22	40.74	20	62.50	21	61.76	63	52.50
2.	Willing, depending on the situation and conditions	32	59.26	7	21.88	10	29.41	49	40.83
3.	Not willing	0	0.00	5	15.63	3	8.82	8	6.67
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Institutional aspects in the sustainability of communal WWTPs

Institutions are required to maintain and optimize communal wastewater treatment plant operations in order to ensure their sustainability. Each communal WWTP in the research area has a management agency. The majority of customers were aware of the institution’s existence (97.5 percent; Table 9). The majority of current positions (77.5 percent) were held by community members. Only a small percentage believed these positions were held by administrators (20 percent).

Table 9. Existence and institutional participation of communal WWTP.

No	Institutional	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Institutional	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Exist and being a manager	7	12.96	10	31.25	7	20.59	24	20.00
2.	Exist and become a member	46	85.19	20	62.50	27	79.41	93	77.50
3.	Unaware	1	1.85	2	6.25	0	0.00	3	2.50
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

The establishment of institutions coincided with the completion and operation of the communal WWTP. Each location had its own mechanism for establishing institutions, despite the fact that government standard operating procedures have been provided. The majority of people (55 percent) understood that the management agency was formed through discussion, followed by designation of government officials (23.3 percent) and voting (12.5 percent), while 9.2 percent were unaware of this procedure (Table 10).

Table 10. Mechanisms for establishing communal WWTP institutions.

No	Mechanism	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Mechanism	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Discussion	39	72.22	15	46.88	12	35.29	66	55.00
2.	Vote	3	5.56	1	3.13	11	32.35	15	12.50
3.	Government officials designation	6	11.11	13	40.63	9	26.47	28	23.33
4.	Unaware	6	11.11	3	9.38	2	5.88	11	9.17
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Commitment to being a manager is an important guarantee for the sustainability of communal WWTPs. The majority of people (76.6 percent) were comitted to serve as a communal wastewater treatment plant administrator with 57.5 percent willing to participate if members elected them and 19.1 percent willing if government officials appointed them (Table 11). Only 23.3 percent indicated a lack of interest in becoming an administrator.

Table 11. Willingness to serve as a communal wastewater treatment plant administrator.

No	Willingness	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Willingness	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Willing if members elect them	38	70.37	18	56.25	13	38.24	69	57.50
2.	Willing if government officials appoint them	8	14.81	6	18.75	9	26.47	23	19.17
3.	Unwilling	8	14.81	8	25.00	12	35.29	28	23.33
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Communal wastewater treatment plant management is undoubtedly colored by its own dynamics. One of them may manifest itself as conflict. The public perception was found to be quite favorable, with majority believing there is no conflict (56.7 percent), while 11.7% believed that minor conflict existed which can been resolved (Tabel 12). Some (31.7 percent) were unaware of any conflict.

Table 12. Communal WWTP institutional conflicts.

No	Conflict	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Conflict	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	There's a small one and it's finished	2	3.70	5	15.63	7	20.59	14	11.67
2.	There is not any	20	37.04	25	78.13	23	67.65	68	56.67
3.	Do not know	32	59.26	2	6.25	4	11.76	38	31.67
4.	There is a big conflict	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

The performance of institutions in serving and managing communal WWTPs was found to be critical because it influenced the trust of the people involved and de-termined sustainability. Non-governmental organizations required members’ or users’ perceptions of their performance. Table 13 illustrates how performance was per-ceived on a scale of moderate, good, and very good, including not good.

Table 13. Perceptions of institutional performance of communal WWTPs.

No	Performance	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Performance	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Very good	41	75.93	20	62.50	18	52.94	79	65.83
2.	Good	7	12.96	6	18.75	4	11.76	17	14.17
3.	Enough	6	11.11	6	18.75	12	35.29	24	20.00
4.	Not good	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

The performance perceptions outlined above determined how satisfied communal WWTP users were. Perceived satisfaction was in a range of sufficient, satisfied, and very satisfied, and no one was dissatisfied (Table 14).

Table 14. Level of satisfaction of communal WWTP services.

No	Satisfaction	Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
No	Satisfaction	n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
1.	Very satisfied	13	24.07	8	25.00	7	20.59	28	23.33
2.	Satisfied	38	70.37	12	37.50	21	61.76	71	59.17
3.	Enough	3	5.56	12	37.50	6	17.65	21	17.50
4.	Dissatisfied	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Total	54	100.00	32	100.00	34	100	120	100.00

Economic aspects in the sustainability of communal WWTPs

WWTP management costs money to operate according to technical standards. In the study area, the user community is responsible for financing communal WWTP operations. The portion of government assistance is small and only covers operation and maintenance cost. Therefore, a community’s economic conditions, willingness to pay, and ability to pay all have an impact on sustainability of WWTP financing. This research site is a peri-urban area with a primarily non-agricultural economy. The majority of people have an average expenditure that exceeds the district’s minimum wage, which is approximately Rp. 2,000,000.00 (Table 15). As a result of this compreably high income niveau, the economic conditions were favorable for communal WWTP financing.

Table 15. Average monthly expenditure of WWTP users.

		Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
No	Expenditure
1.	<Rp. 1.000.000	0	0.0	3	9.4	2	5.9	5	4.2
2.	Rp. 1.000.000–Rp. 2.000.000	11	20.4	11	34.4	4	11.8	26	21.7
3.	Rp. 2.000.001–Rp. 5.000.000	27	50.0	12	37.5	26	76.5	65	54.2
4.	Rp. 5.000.001–Rp. 10.000.000	9	16.7	2	6.3	2	5.9	13	10.8
5.	>Rp. 10.000.000
	*Total*	54	*100.0*	32	*100.0*	34	*100.0*	*120*	*100.0*
No	Payment
1.	Monthly	47	87.0	27	84.4	33	97.1	107	89.2
2.	Unscheduled	3	5.6	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	2.5
3.	No payment	4	7.4	5	15.6	1	2.9	10	8.3
	*Total*	54	*100.0*	32	*100.0*	34	*100.0*	*120*	*100.0*

The nominal routine fees paid vary according to each manager’s policies (Table 13). The majority of nominal values are less than Rp. 10,000.00. This nominal is, of course, quite small, and affordable in comparison to aforementioned average expenditures. Whether this small nominal value is sufficient for standard communal WWTP operations determines the system’s economic sustainability.

All communal WWTPs charge a monthly fee on a consistent basis. Most peo-ple (89.2%) paid on time, followed by 2.5 percent who paid but not on time, and 8.3 percent who did not pay or are unable to pay (Table 16).

Table 16. Payment mechanism for communal WWTP contributions.

		Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
No	Nominal fees (monthly)
1.	1.000–5.000	36	72.0	13	48.2	6	18.2	55	50.0
2.	>5.000–10.000	8	16.0	11	40.7	26	78.8	45	40.9
3.	>10.000–15.000	1	2.0	3	11.1	1	3.0	5	4.6
4.	>15.000–20.000	4	8.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	4	3.6
5.	>25.000	1	2.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.9
	*Total*	50	*100.0*	27	*100.0*	33	*100.0*	*110*	*100.00*
No	WTP
1.	Depending on economic ability	5	9.3	2	6.2	6	17.6	13	10.8
2.	All pay the same	48	88.9	30	93.8	27	79.4	105	87.5
3.	Ready, sincerely	1	1.9	0	0.0	1	2.9	2	1.7
4.	Not willing	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.00	0	0.0
	*Total*	54	*100.0*	32	*100.0*	34	*100.0*	*120*	*100.0*

Economic contribution is not only a requirement; it is also a motivation to ensure sustainability. Monthly fees and incidental fees in event of damage or major mainte-nance needs are types of fees that users must be prepared to pay. All respondents in-dicated a willingness to pay monthly fees (Table 15). Among the variations in will-ingness, there were those who were willing according to their economic status (10.8 percent), those who were willing to pay the same amount (87.5 percent), and those who were sincerely willing (1.7 percent).

Unexpected expenses that cannot be met through monthly contributions required in-cidental contributions on an as-needed basis. In contrast to their willingness to pay monthly fees, some users stated that they were unwilling to pay incidental fees, regard-less of how small they were (5.0 percent). The remainder were mostly agreeable, with 48.3 percent proposing a flat or equal pay, 31.7 percent sincerely, and 15.0% based on economic status (Table 17).

Table 17. Willingness to pay (WTP) and ability to pay (ATP) for required incidental contributions on an as-needed basis.

		Depok		Mlati		Ngaglik		Total
		n	%	n	%	n	%	N	%
No	WTP
1.	Depending on economic ability	8	14.8	4	12.5	6	17.6	18	15.0
2.	All pay the same	25	46.3	19	59.4	14	41.2	58	48.3
3.	Ready, sincerely	21	38.9	4	12.5	13	38.2	38	31.7
4.	Not willing	0	0.0	5	15.6	1	2.9	6	5.0
	*Total*	54	*100.0*	32	*100.0*	34	*100.0*	*120*	*100.0*
No	ATP
1.	Current level	42	77.8	21	65.6	19	55.9	82	68.3
2.	Bigger	12	22.2	11	34.4	15	44.1	38	31.7
3.	Smaller	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.00
	*Total*	54	*100.00*	32	*100.00*	34	*100.0*	*120*	*100.0*

Following the willingness to pay, a commitment to the ability to pay (ATP) is required to ensure economic sustainability. 68.0 percent indicated they would be able to pay if the contribution remained same as it is currently, and 31.7 percent indicated they would still be able to pay if the contribution increased. No one declared incapability to avoid paying dues.

Other analysis

Other analysis was conducted on sentiment based on expectation and feedback from participants. Participants was asked about their expectation and feedback from fellow users of the communal WWTPs, from managers of the communal WWTPs, and from government. Figure 2 depicts participants’ responses to question regarding their expectations from and feedback for fellow users. The word IPAL which was translated WWTP appears as dominant word. It reflects the importance of WWTP for users and their expectations that the plant was kept as communal assets. Some participants express their expectation that other fellow users keep the WWTP clean.

Figure 2. Word count of participants’ response on expectation and feedback to fellow communal WWTPs users.

Source: Primary data, authors’ analysis.

Other significant words that appear are saluran (canal) and sampah (non-water waste). Many participants have concern regarding inappropriate practice by other fellow users who throw some waste on canal of the WWTP. It indicates that some users have not been fully understood the importance of canal cleaness for sustainability of the communal WWTP.

Figure 3 describes the results of word count based on participants’ response on expectation and feedback to communal WWTPs mangers. The word IPAL also appears to be dominant which reflect its importance in this context. The word saluran and sampah also appear as indication of users concern about the importance of managers’ task in handling the cleaness of WWTPs. Among words that highly related with managerial task were saling (reciprocal) and kompak (unified). Participants view managerial task should be handled in a well-organized team. The unity of managerial team in handling issues related to the communal WWTP is considered important. This finding is in line with the relatively calm or free of conflict as indicated before.

Figure 3. Word count of participants’ response on expectation and feedback to communal WWTPs mangers.

Source: Primary data, authors’ analysis.

Participants’ response on expectation and feedback to the government is presented in Figure 4. The word IPAL, saluran, sampah are still among the prioritized aspects of WWTPs as viewed by users. The word dana which is translated fund appears among the dominant word. The word count for 25 times and all indicate participants expectation that the government support the communal WWTPs through specific funding. With this frequency of word dana being mentioned, it is understandable that users of communal WWTPs really have developed swadaya as cultural force in handling their environmental issues.

Figure 4. Word count of participants’ response on expectation and feedback to the government.

Source: Primary data, authors’ analysis.

Discussion

Key results

Ecological, economic, and social dimensions of sustainable urban infrastructure, such as WWTPs, are just as critical as their technological dimensions.⁴⁰ The socioeconomic dimension is frequently overlooked in development, both during planning and operationalization. Sustainability is frequently translated as cost effectiveness, despite the fact that underlying dynamics require complex interpretations, such as environmental, social, and economic dimensions.⁴¹^–⁴³

The conditions investigated herein underline social vulnerabilities of communal WWTPs at every stage. The most serious consequence is that the sustainability of community level programs are not guaranteed, frequently resulting in their termination. The distribution of power and influence in a society is at the core of numerous environmental and development challenges, implying that resolving development problems requires a participatory approach based on local appraisal.⁴⁴^–⁴⁹ Therefore, the principle of sustainability must be considered in order to meet mutually agreed-upon development criteria, namely meeting current needs without compromising future needs.⁵⁰^–⁵²

Non-technical support for communal WWTP operations is typically comprised of social and institutional participation, as well as economic contributions. This non-technical assessment of sustainability requires a multi-criteria approach in order to identify the most suitable system.⁵³ Furthermore, the higher waste pollution prevention and control index, the less work is required to protect the environment and population from pollution and its adverse effects.⁵⁴ The results of this study contributed to the identification of relevant non-technical aspects which can ensure the long-term viability of communal WWTPs. Specifically, the results describe the conditions that support the social, institutional, and economic dimensions of communal WWTP sustainability. The social dimension revealed a high and diverse level of community involvement in the management of communal WWTPs in the study area. The large participation in the form of gotong royong demonstrates the strong sense of community inherent in the Indonesian culture. Gotong royong is accomplished in a straightforward but diverse manner through the use of manpower, funds, or goods, either independently or voluntarily.

In the lives of Indonesian people, the tradition of gotong royong is a relic of the past that has been transformed generationally (traditional heritage).⁵⁵ Gotong royong is an institution tasked with the responsibility of mobilizing community solidarity and fostering social cohesion in the Indonesian nation’s life.⁵⁶^,⁵⁷ Futhermore, it is an expression of solidarity, mutual assistance, and unity that has become a habit in people’s lives.⁵⁸^,⁵⁹ Gotong royong, as the value of local wisdom, must be constantly developed and, in case of communal WWTPs, adjusted to modern realities. Besides economic efficiency; its social ties and interactions can strengthen the sustainabiliyt of communal WWTPs in Indonesia.

The social support aspect as quantified herein is motivated by public awareness that being a WWTP user is not mandatory or obligatory. This is consistent with and relevant to the finding of previous research that show attitudes and intentions have a positive and significant effect on environmental activities.⁶⁰ Previous research show that many aspect determine community acceptance of wastewater reuse.⁶¹^–⁶³ Some of these aspects are knowledge and information sources, demographic characteristics, and the importance of communication in increasing social sustainability.⁶⁴

The existence of institutional assets is also a critical non-technical aspect of communal WWTP sustainability. The research findings indicate that the institutions’ dynamics are participatory, democratic, and elicit satisfaction from community members. Infrastructure asset management provides services through the use of a fundamental framework of operating systems, management, and governance. Satisfaction with the service demonstrates an institution’s effectiveness and optimal management of communal WWTPs in collaboration with the community. These institutional conditions reaffirm previous research that suggest that sanitation or water infrastructures face governance and sociocultural suitability challenges.⁶⁵^–⁶⁷ Previous research recommended that projects and their operation should be a collaborative effort involving the government, institutions, and community. Some recommendations have also been implemented at the research site, specifically strengthening key stakeholder groups through a participatory approach to ensure success.

Sustainable water management has been identified as a critical strategic issue in the transformation process to a circular economy. Water and wastewater management are critical components of this process.⁶⁸^–⁷¹ Thus far, the linear economy has exacerbated resource depletion and pollution, resulting in environmental conflicts. Circular economy mechanisms are required for non-conflict sustainable alternatives.⁷²^,⁷³ Wastewater treatment plants urgently need to transition from a linear economy operation/design concept to a circular economy, with resource recovery and more sustainable waste management as a result.⁷⁴^,⁷⁵

Swadaya and its economic dimensions are also part of the transition to a circular economy. Swadaya is based on the willingness and ability to contribute and this study indicates a high level of willingness to contribute through regular or incidental contributions to WWTPs. This demonstrates a sense of ownership, confidence in the WWTP managers, and a sense of benefit. Hence, swadaya establishes a solid foundation for the long-term development and management of communal WWTPs. Different findings were obtained in Latin America where social and economic variables were valued lower compared to technical ones.⁷⁶ The findings of the current study suggest that the swadaya approach cannot necessarily transplanted to other regions of the world. In conclusion, the current study findings underline that whatever technology is used, it must be technically, environmentally, socially, and economically feasible.⁷⁷ This research strengthens and adds to evidence that operating communal WWTPs are not only feasible but also sustainable.

Limitations

Main limitations of this study were number of participants and lack of feedback in the form of focused group discussions. Due to budget and time constraints, this study took 120 participants from three sub-disctrict with quota sampling technique. As its nature, this technique might limit the potential population during research. Furthermore, as a study tried to capture the non-technical aspects, this study could not add focused group discussions to improve its findings. Taking pandemic situation, altough it was controlled during the researh time, these limitations are understandable. Focused group discussions with participants would require additional permissions related to health issues. On the other hand, inviting participants to a virtual meeting would not be advised since the participants were living in peri-urban locations and less appropriate in accordance with the culture they live with.

Interpretation

This study shows the importance of non-technical aspects of communal WWTPs in peri-urban in Yogyakarta. These non-technical aspects can be based on social, institutional, and economic sides that encounter users of the communal WWTPs on daily basis. This study also shows that the users have developed understanding of the importance of self-management in communal WWTPs so that they were not dependents on the government supports. On the other hand, the management team also did not play capitalistic role as sole sellers of the services. These two aspects of management indicate the capacity of communal WWTPs to sustain. However, since the benefit of such communal WWTPs exceed its users, additional contributions from the government need to be disscused for further action.

Generalisability

Generalisability of findings in this study should be limited to relevant context of the communal WWTPs. When the WWTPs are located in a peri-urban and local people are mostly Javanese, the findings of this study can potentially also be found. Swadaya and gotong royong as two main importance drivers for the enacments of many communal WWTPs in this study would be easily found in rural area or peri-urban where Javanese people in Java island live. These drivers are generally transmitted and became part of the way of their life. Thus, applying the findings of this study in different contexts could be irrelevant.

Conclusions

This study’s findings underlines the importance of non-technical sustainability as-pects toward the operation of communal WWTPs. Social dimensions positively influ-enced community participation, willingness to pay and ability to pay. The institutional dimensions influence a community’s satisfaction with WWTP performance. A major challenge is to attract qualified managers, as interest in administrative positions remains low in the studied communities. In this part of Indonesia, the gotong royong philosophy supports and influences non-technical aspects of communal WWTP’s sustainability. Starting with voluntary acceptance of communal WWTPs, understanding their benefits, trust in manager, ownership are critical for the sustainability of communal WWTPs. Gotong royong or other local wisdoms should be accounted for to support communal WWTPs in other regions or countries, especially in other developing nations.

Data availability

Figshare. Dataset for Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19612938.⁷⁸

This project contains the following underlying data:

- This dataset contains the results of questionnaires to 120 community members around the communal WWTPs in peri-urban Yogyakarta, particularly the Districts of Depok, Ngaglik, and Mlati.
- The data was collected using a questionnaire that had been approved by the Directorate of Human Resources, Islamic University of Indonesia. Respondents were collected by using uncontrolled quota sampling method.
- The number of respondents from Depok sub-district was 54 people, 32 people from Mlati sub-district, and 34 people from Ngaglik sub-district.
- Respondents answered questions regarding the social, institutional, and economic aspects of the communal WWTPs in their area of residence.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Author roles

Brontowiyono W: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation; Boving T: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing; Asmara AA: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration; Rahmawati S: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration; Yulianto A: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Project Administration; Wantoputri NI: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing; Lathifah AN: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing; Andriansyah Y: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Direktorat Sumber Daya Manusia, Universitas Islam Indonesia for funding research that this article was based on and Direktorat Pengembangan Akademik, Universitas Islam Indonesia for financial support for publishing this article. The authors also thank Local Governments of Depok, Mlati, and Ngaglik Sub-Districts, Villages in Depok, Mlati, and Ngaglik Sub-Districts, Managers of communal WWTPs in Depok, Mlati, and Ngaglik Sub-Districts for their supports during the research process.

References

1. Massoud MA, Tarhini A, Nasr JA: Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management. 2009 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 90(1): 652–659. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
2. Kohler L, Silverstein J, Rajagopalan B: Predicting life cycle failures of on-site wastewater treatment systems using generalized additive models. Environmental Engineering Science. 2016; 33(2): 112–124. Publisher Full Text
3. Santos E, Lisboa I, Eugénio T: Economic Sustainability in Wastewater Treatment Companies: A Regional Analysis for the Iberian Peninsula. Applied Sciences. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 11(21): 9876. Reference Source
4. Balkema AJ, Preisig HA, Otterpohl R, et al.: Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water. 2002 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 4(2): 153–161. Reference Source
5. Cronin AA, Odagiri M, Arsyad B, et al.: Piloting water quality testing coupled with a national socioeconomic survey in Yogyakarta province, Indonesia, towards tracking of Sustainable Development Goal 6. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. 2017; 220(7): 1141–1151.
6. Fathmawati F, Fachiroh J, Sutomo AH, et al.: Origin and distribution of nitrate in water well of settlement areas in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2018 Nov [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 190(11): 628. Reference Source
7. Fajarwati A, Setyaningrum A, Rachmawati R, Prakoso BSE: Keys of sustainable community-based waste management (lesson learnt from Yogyakarta City). Haryono E, Lavigne F, Omar RC, et al., editors. 1st Geosciences and Environmental Sciences Symposium (icst 2020). Cedex A: E D P Sciences; 2020; 200. : p. 02018. Publisher Full Text
8. Brontowiyono W, Yulianto A, Utami S, Lupiyanto R: Evaluation of Decentralized Communal Wastewater Treatment in Yogyakarta. 1st International Conference on Rehabilitation and Maintenance in Civil Engineering (ICRMCE). Solo, Indonesia: 2009; p. 1–10.
9. Rahmawati I, Retno DS, Soedirham O, et al.: Confirmatory factor analyze on education characters of teenagers based on the character system theory in sexual prevention of premarital in Jember district. Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. 2019; 10(12): 1724–1728. Publisher Full Text
10. Yulianto A, Pramudita AF, Wantoputri NI, et al.: Evaluation of Post-Construction Communal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) in Sleman District, Special Region of Yogyakarta. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2021 Nov [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 933(1): 012019. Publisher Full Text
11. Padilla-Rivera A, Morgan-Sagastume JM, Noyola A, et al.: Addressing social aspects associated with wastewater treatment facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2016 [cited 2022 Mar 22]; 57: 101–113. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
12. Lancaster K, Rhodes T, Kylie V, et al.: A ‘promising tool’? A critical review of the social and ethico-political effects of wastewater analysis in the context of illicit drug epidemiology and drug policy. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2019 [cited 2022 Mar 22]; 9: 85–90. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
13. Sinsuw AAE, Wuisang CE, Chu CY: Assessment of environmental and social impacts on rural community by two-stage biogas production pilot plant from slaughterhouse wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 22]; 40: 101796. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
14. Robbins CA, Du X, Bradley TH, et al.: Beyond treatment technology: Understanding motivations and barriers for wastewater treatment and reuse in unconventional energy production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2022 [cited 2022 Mar 22]; 177: 106011. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
15. Dinas Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta: Dokumen informasi kinerja pengelolaan lingkungan hidup daerah Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta tahun 2020 [Information document on environmental management performance in the Special Region of Yogyakarta in 2020]. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Dinas Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta; 2021. Reference Source
16. Lim JY, Yoon J, Hovde C: A Brief Overview of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Its Plasmid O157. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2010; 20(1): 5–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Sleman: Profil Kesehatan Kabupaten Sleman Tahun 2020 [Sleman District Health Profile 2020]. Sleman, Indonesia: Dinas Kesehatan Kabupaten Sleman; 2020. Reference Source
18. Grimes DA, Schulz KF: An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. The Lancet. 2002 Jan 5 [cited 2022 Apr 16]; 359(9300): 57–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
19. Setia MS: Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology. 2016 [cited 2022 Apr 19]; 61(3): 261–264. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
20. Health Liaison Librarians: LibGuides: Quantitative Study Designs: Introduction.2021 [cited 2022 Apr 16]. Reference Source
21. Health Liaison Librarians: LibGuides: Quantitative Study Designs: Cross-Sectional Studies.2021 [cited 2022 Apr 19]. Reference Source
22. Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG): Peta Rupabumi Digital Indonesia [Indonesia’s Digital Topographic Map]. Indonesia Geospasial Portal.2019 [cited 2022 Apr 23]. Reference Source
23. Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG): Syarat dan Ketentuan [Terms and Conditions]. Indonesia Geospasial Portal.2019 [cited 2022 Apr 23]. Reference Source
24. Preston V: Questionnaire Survey. Kitchin R, Thrift N, editors. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier; 2009 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; p. 46–52. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
25. Rukmana D: Quota Sampling. Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; p. 5382–5384. Publisher Full Text
26. Explorable.com Quota Sampling Applied in Research - Non-Probability Sampling. Explorable; 2009 [cited 2022 Apr 18]. Reference Source
27. Cooksey R, McDonald G: How Do I Manage the Sampling Process?. Cooksey R, McDonald G, editors. Surviving and Thriving in Postgraduate Research. Singapore: Springer; 2019 [cited 2022 Apr 19]; p. 827–894. Publisher Full Text
28. Moser CA: Quota Sampling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General). 1952 [cited 2022 Apr 16]; 115(3): 411–423. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
29. Moser CA, Stuart A: An Experimental Study of Quota Sampling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General). 1953 [cited 2022 Apr 16]; 116(4): 349–405. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
30. Wilson LA: Quantitative Research. Liamputtong P, editor. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; p. 27–49. Publisher Full Text
31. Chen X: Quantitative Descriptive Epidemiology. Chen X, editor. Quantitative Epidemiology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; p. 61–89. (Emerging Topics in Statistics and Biostatistics). Publisher Full Text
32. Han F, Yang Z, Wang H, et al.: Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2011 Sep 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 180(1): 451–459. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Shen L, Chen LY, Su AT: User’s willingness to pay for natural environment conservation and protection with commitment. Landscape and Ecological Engineering. 2021 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 17(3): 339–349. Publisher Full Text
34. Salam MA, Noguchi T, Alim MA: Factors Affecting Participating Farmers’ Willingness-to-pay for the Tree Farming Fund: A Study in a Participatory Forest in Bangladesh. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2006 Jul 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 118(1): 165–178. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Al-Khateeb AJ, Al-Sari MI, Al-Khatib IA, et al.: Factors affecting the sustainability of solid waste management system—the case of Palestine. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2017 Jan 31 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 189(2): 93. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Mitsui S, Kubo T, Shoji Y: Understanding residents’ perceptions of nature and local economic activities using an open-ended question before protected area designation in Amami Islands, Japan. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2020 Aug 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 56: 125857. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
37. Altintzoglou T, Honkanen P, Whitaker RD: Influence of the involvement in food waste reduction on attitudes towards sustainable products containing seafood by-products. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021 Feb 20 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 285: 125487. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
38. Wati EP, Hidayah A: Kearifan Lokal Menjaga Lingkungan Hidup Melalui Program Gotong Royong di Kota Palembang [Local Wisdom Protects the Environment Through the Gotong Royong Program in Palembang City]. Bina Hukum Lingkungan. 2017 [cited 2022 Apr 19]; 2(1): 57–69. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
39. Rahman F, Lestariono W: Keteraturan Sosial dalam Bentuk Gotong Royong Mengelola Kebersihan Lingkungan di Kelurahan Menteng Kecamatan Jekan Raya Kota Palangka Raya [Social Order in the Form of Mutual Cooperation in Managing Environmental Cleanliness in Menteng Village, Jekan Raya District, Palangka Raya City]. Jurnal Sociopolitico. 2020 [cited 2022 Apr 19]; 2(2): 70–82. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
40. Schinkel U, Becker N, Trapp M, et al.: Assessing the Contribution of Innovative Technologies to Sustainable Development for Planning and Decision-Making Processes: A Set of Indicators to Describe the Performance of Sustainable Urban Infrastructures (ISI). Sustainability. 2022 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 14(4): 1966. Reference Source
41. Balogh JM, Mizik T: Trade-Climate Nexus: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Economies. 2021 Sep [cited 2021 Oct 29]; 9(3): 99. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
42. Kim J: Social dimension of sustainability: From community to social capital. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science. 2018 Apr 3 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 28(2): 175–181. Publisher Full Text
43. Choi S, Ng A: Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on Consumer Responses. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011 Dec 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 104(2): 269–282. Publisher Full Text
44. Azapagic A: Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2004 Aug 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 12(6): 639–662. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
45. Kemp D: Mining and community development: problems and possibilities of local-level practice. Community Development Journal. 2010 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 45(2): 198–218. Publisher Full Text
46. Watson RT, Boudreau MC, Chen AJ: Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly. 2010 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 34(1): 23–38. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
47. Scott CA, Kurian M, Wescoat JL: The Water-Energy-Food Nexus: Enhancing Adaptive Capacity to Complex Global Challenges. Kurian M, Ardakanian R, editors. Governing the Nexus: Water, Soil and Waste Resources Considering Global Change. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; p. 15–38. Publisher Full Text
48. Polasky S, Kling CL, Levin SA, et al.: Role of economics in analyzing the environment and sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019 Mar 19 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 116(12): 5233–5238. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
49. Wang C, Cardon PW, Liu J, et al.: Social and economic factors responsible for environmental performance: A global analysis. PLoS One. 2020 Aug 27 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 15(8): e0237597. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
50. Meacham B, Bowen R, Traw J, et al.: Performance-based building regulation: current situation and future needs. Building Research & Information. 2005 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 33(2): 91–106. Publisher Full Text
51. Davis AP, Hunt WF, Traver RG, et al.: Bioretention Technology: Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2009 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 135(3): 109–117. Publisher Full Text
52. Speakman JR, Blount JD, Bronikowski AM, et al.: Oxidative stress and life histories: unresolved issues and current needs. Ecology and Evolution. 2015 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 5(24): 5745–5757. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Starkl M, Brunner N, Das S, et al.: Sustainability Assessment for Wastewater Treatment Systems in Developing Countries. Water. 2022 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 14(2): 241. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
54. Odiete WE: Novel metric for managing the protection of humanity and the environment against pollution and its adverse effects. Heliyon. 2020 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 6(11): e05555. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Reference Source
55. Winardi UN: Gotong Royongand the Transformation of Kampung Ledok Code, Yogyakarta. City Society. 2020 Aug [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 32(2): 375–386. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
56. Subagyo: Pengembangan nilai dan tradisi gotong royong dalam bingkai konservasi nilai budaya [Development of values and traditions of gotong royong within the framework of conservation of cultural values]. Indonesian Journal of Conservation. 2012 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 1(1): 61–68. Reference Source
57. Suwignyo A: Gotong royong as social citizenship in Indonesia, 1940s to 1990s. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 2019 Sep [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 50(3): 387–408. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
58. Endro G: Tinjauan filosofis praktik gotong royong [A philosophical review of the practice of gotong royong]. Respons: Jurnal Etika Sosial. 2016 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 21(01): 89–111. Reference Source
59. Nainggolan FMR, Subroto TYW, Marsoyo A: The Value of Gotong-royong in the Mountainous Settlement of Kepuharjo Village at Pagerjurang Permanent Shelter in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 8(3): 93–106. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
60. Liu Q, Xu Q, Shen X, et al.: The Mechanism of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour—A Study of Jiaxing, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 19(4): 2447. Reference Source
61. Po M, Nancarrow BE, Leviston Z, et al.: Predicting community behaviour in relation to wastewater reuse: What drives decisions to accept or reject?. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO); 2007 May [cited 2022 Mar 23]. Reference Source
62. Asano T, Maeda M, Takaki M: Wastewater reclamation and reuse in Japan: Overview and implementation examples. Water Science and Technology. 1996 Jan 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 34(11): 219–226. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
63. Buyukkamaci N, Alkan HS: Public acceptance potential for reuse applications in Turkey. Resources. Conservation and Recycling. 2013 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 80: 32–35. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
64. Chfadi T, Gheblawi M, Thaha R: Public Acceptance of Wastewater Reuse: New Evidence from Factor and Regression Analyses. Water. 2021 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 13(10): 1391. Reference Source
65. Routray P, Schmidt WP, Boisson S, et al.: Socio-cultural and behavioural factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha: an exploratory qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 10 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 15(1): 880. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
66. Prescott MF, Dobbie MF, Ramirez-Lovering D: Green Infrastructure for Sanitation in Settlements in the Global South: A Narrative Review of Socio-Technical Systems. Sustainability. 2021 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 13(4): 2071. Reference Source
67. Haggerty JH, Dunn J, Gansauer G, et al.: Social memory and infrastructure governance: a century in the life of a rural drinking water system. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability. 2021 Nov [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 1(3): 035004. Publisher Full Text
68. Smol M, Koneczna R: Economic Indicators in Water and Wastewater Sector Contributing to a Circular Economy (CE). Resources. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 10(12): 129. Reference Source
69. Smol M, Adam C, Preisner M: Circular economy model framework in the European water and wastewater sector. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2020 May 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 22(3): 682–697. Publisher Full Text
70. Guerra-Rodríguez S, Oulego P, Rodríguez E, et al.: Towards the Implementation of Circular Economy in the Wastewater Sector: Challenges and Opportunities. Water. 2020 May [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 12(5): 1431. Reference Source
71. Sgroi M, Vagliasindi FGA, Roccaro P: Feasibility, sustainability and circular economy concepts in water reuse. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health. 2018 Apr 1 [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 2: 20–25. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
72. Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir R, Colantoni A, Mosconi EM, et al.: From Historical Narratives to Circular Economy: De-Complexifying the “Desertification” Debate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 17(15): 5398. Reference Source
73. Mihai FC, Minea I: Sustainable Alternative Routes versus Linear Economy and Resources Degradation in Eastern Romania. Sustainability. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 13(19): 10574. Reference Source
74. Mannina G, Badalucco L, Barbara L, et al.: Enhancing a Transition to a Circular Economy in the Water Sector: The EU Project WIDER UPTAKE. Water. 2021 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 13(7): 946. Reference Source
75. Mannina G, Badalucco L, Barbara L, et al.: Roadmapping the Transition to Water Resource Recovery Facilities: The Two Demonstration Case Studies of Corleone and Marineo (Italy). Water. 2022 Jan [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 14(2): 156. Reference Source
76. Benavides L, Avellán T, Caucci S, et al.: Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America. Water. 2019 Feb [cited 2022 Mar 23]; 11(2): 249. Reference Source
77. Betanzo-Torres EA, Piñar-Álvarez M d l Á, Sierra-Carmona CG, et al.: Proposal of Ecotechnologies for Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Production in Mexico: Economic, Environmental, and Social Implications. Sustainability. 2021 [cited 2022 Mar 17]; 13(12): 6853. Reference Source
78. Brontowiyono W: Dataset for Non-technical dimensions of communal wastewater treatment plant sustainability in peri-urban Yogyakarta, Indonesia. figshare. 2022 [cited 2022 Apr 20]. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 19 May 2022