The social capital strengthening and its development alternatives of waste banks in Java

The waste bank (WB) is a government program encouraging community participation in managing waste with social engineering principles. Since its establishment in 2008, only 5% of active customers remain. This study evaluates the management of WB sustainably and the most optimal future alternatives. The research is qualitative and quantitative with a sequential exploratory approach. Data from 35 WB in four provinces (East Java, Central Java, West Java, and DI Yogyakarta) involved 680 respondents. The data was analyzed using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to select the optimal alternative. This study found that the three main problems in WB management are institutional (community proactiveness, training, outreach, and capacity building), waste bank capital (triple helix, youth education, and communication forums), and marketing (old selling products, price fluctuations, and market access). Strengthening social capital-based institutions is the main topic of improvement and sustainability, especially networks and trust. The role of government, NGOs, and the community is needed to encourage the sustainability of the WB. The main strategy for solving the problem is strengthening social capital-based institutions, especially networking and value (trust, convenience, and relationships). Assistance is needed from the government or NGOs in managing WB by prioritizing institutional strengthening based on social capital. In addition, encourage all parties to develop an independent waste bank model with reinforcements, especially in institutions, capital, and marketing.

The two main problems with MSWM are the way it is collected and processed (Priti & Mandal, 2022;Xiao et al., 2020). Both pose challenges such as no segregation at source, complicated collection processes, and open landfills (Fedotkina et al., 2019;Kubota et al., 2020). Several factors affect the quality of waste management services by the Government, including the need for government strategic policies, coordination, financial support, low private participation, inefficiency, and low public awareness. These factors contribute to low levels of service (Kubota et al., 2020;Kurniawan et al., 2021;Meidiana, 2010).
Waste is a complex and multidimensional problem because it deals with society's social and economic aspects (Leder et al., 2020;F.-M. Tsai et al., 2021;Xiao et al., 2020). The yearly increase in the amount of waste generated is a phenomenon that needs serious handling. Waste management needs to be carried out comprehensively and integrated from upstream to downstream so that it provides economic benefits, is healthy for the community, is safe for the environment, and can change people's behavior (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, 2012;Leder et al., 2020;F.-M. Tsai et al., 2021).
One of the best practices that can be carried out that leads to sustainability is the waste bank (WB) system (Fatmawati et al., 2022;Ulhasanah & Goto, 2018). The WB provides benefits for collectors and administrators who can guide and motivate the behavior of all members of the waste bank. The administrators can also capture positive cooperation with the Government and other agencies in achieving sustainability goals (Fatmawati et al., 2022;Kristina, 2012;Ulhasanah & Goto, 2018;Wulandari et al., 2017).
A WB is a place for sorting and collecting recyclable or reusable waste with economic value (Fatmawati et al., 2022;Ulhasanah & Goto, 2018). Reduce, reuse, and recycle (3R) activities are all activities to reduce everything that can generate waste, reuse activities waste that is fit for use for the same function or other functions, and activities to process waste for made into a new product (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, 2012).
The development of WB in Indonesia shows an increase every year. In 2016 there were 4,280 units recorded, increasing to 5,244 (2017) and 8,036 (2018) throughout Indonesia. This growth is expected to help control waste production, especially from domestic (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan, 2022;Medcom.id, 2021).
WB provide economic benefits as well as social impacts for the community. Moreover, it acts as a social engineering process in waste management. WB are an option for implementation in the future (Fatmawati et al., 2022;Mitchell, B., Setiawan, B., dan Rahmi, 2007;Ulhasanah & Goto, 2018;Wulandari et al., 2017). The handling of WB is based on applying social capital, including trust, norms, networks, reciprocity, and values (Pargal et al., 1999;Yudiatmaja et al., 2021). Social capital and informal values provide opportunities for community involvement in solving waste problems. Social capital is an informal value that the community can achieve for collective purposes. Informal values are the glue that can maintain the cohesiveness of group members collectively. According to Kristina (2012), the maintenance of a community empowerment system by stakeholders is a key factor in the sustainability of the waste bank system. Social capital is the relationships created and the norms that shape the quality and quantity of social relations in society in a broad spectrum, namely as a social link that keeps members of the community (nation) together (Anggraeni & Saikhu, 2021;Frick, JE., Eriksson, LT., Hallen, 2012;Fukuyama, 2000;Jones et al., 2011;Pargal et al., 1999Pargal et al., , 2000T. H. Tsai, 2008;Wulandari et al., 2017;Yudiatmaja et al., 2021). Social capital is transmitted through cultural mechanisms, such as religion, tradition, or historical customs (Fukuyama, 2000). The concept of social capital has been considered by research in various (multidisciplinary) fields in the last few decades. Social capital is a link in creating norms and trusts in network structures (Frick, JE., Eriksson, LT., Hallen, 2012). The implementation of community (economic) empowerment in many countries, including Indonesia, places too much emphasis on the role of natural capital and modern economic capital (such as human-made capital goods, technology, and management) but often ignores the social capital, such as institutions. In the case of social capital that relies on trust and expectations, someone who is considered honest and has a good reputation will be easier to get respect than individuals who do not have credibility, for example, in terms of getting credit (Mawardi, 2007).
Before there was a waste bank, the community had already developed a management system, namely TPS3R (Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle Waste Management Site). However, about 50% of TPS3R needs to run optimally (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum, 2016). The presence of a WB creates an alternative option for reducing waste transported to landfill. The WB focuses on inorganic waste management, while the TPS3R focuses on organic waste. Future development should include self-management of inorganic and organic waste (Type 1), TPS3R (Type 2), and the merger of waste banks into TPS3R (Type 3).
Each alternative must be studied for its feasibility and implications regarding regulation, operations, technical institutions, financing, and public acceptance (Iswanto, 2016). The most optimal alternative is determined by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), a decision-making method used to analyze the best alternative based on certain criteria/aspects (Kusumadewi, S., Hartati, S., Harjoko, A., 2006). The criteria to determine priority options include compliance with applicable regulations, availability of institutions/interested parties, technical operations, service efficiency, and community acceptance.
This study aims to determine the WB management problems related to its sustainability. It is used to regulate the main priorities and strategies needed to solve problems in WB management and the most optimal w development alternatives to be applied in the future.

METHODS
This study is mixed-method research with a sequential exploration approach. It starts with a qualitative method followed by the quantitative one, and ends with an interpretation. The subjects used are 35 WB randomly selected from East Java, Central Java, West Java, and D.I. Yogyakarta. Primary data were obtained through in-depth interviews. The secondary data were from literature, scientific publications related to the WB, and related agencies such as the Cooperative and MSMEs and the Environmental Service.
This study uses the Analytic Network Process (ANP) because it allows easy identification, classification, and arrangement to influence output or decisions and allows interaction and feedback of elements inside and outside the cluster. According to Chen et al (2019), ANP is the most effective method for making multi-criteria diversity decisions. ANP is a mathematical theory that can analyze the influence of the assumption approach to solve complex problems (Chen et al., 2019; Kheybari et al., 2020;Niemira & Saaty, 2004). ANP technical analysis uses pairwise comparisons of project alternatives and criteria (Ascarya & Yumanita, 2011;Chen et al., 2019;Niemira & Saaty, 2004;Rusydiana & Devi, 2013). In the ANP network, the levels in AHP are called clusters which can have criteria and alternatives in them. The three phases carried out in ANP are model construction, model quantification, and analysis of the results. Model construction includes 1) Literature review to review related literature. By this understanding, the literature review functions as a literature review on related issues; 2) In-depth interviews are the process of obtaining information for research purposes, with or without using an interview guide; 3) Questionnaires are data collection activities carried out by providing a set of questions or written statements to respondents; 4) Construction of the ANP model, compiled based on a review of theoretical and empirical literature and questions posed to experts and practitioners.
The quantification stage of the model uses questions in the ANP questionnaire in the form of pairwise comparisons between elements in the cluster against respondents. The prepared questionnaire was then surveyed in advance by experts or practitioners to ensure the questions were fit for purpose. An expert is widely regarded as a trusted source of a particular technique or expertise whose gift is to judge and decide things correctly, precisely and understand the rules. This questionnaire's distribution is intended to determine which of the two has greater influence (more dominant) and how big the difference is through a numerical scale of 1-9. The third phase (synthesis and synthesis) brings all the parts together. The synthesis process is appropriate for generating decisions within the information constraints.
Community-based, government-and private-based sustainable waste bank development alternatives are assessed using the backcasting method. Each alternative is assessed for feasibility from regulatory, institutional, technical, financing, and community acceptance. Select the most optimal development alternative using MCDA with the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method. The steps taken are: 1) Identifying goals and sets of decision alternatives. If there are n number of alternative decisions, then alternative data is written as A= {Ai |i=1,2,….,n} 2) Identify a set of criteria (attributes). If there are k criteria, and can be written C= {Ci |i=1,2,….,k}. Then give the decision weight (w) on each criterion. 3) Develop a decision matrix and determine the suitability rating of each alternative on each criterion.
where Xij is the rating of the I-th alternative criterion against the jth criterion 4) Carry out the ranking process by determining the preference value for each alternative (Vi) using the equation: ; where r_ij is the normalized performance rating of alternative Ai on Ci criteria; i = 1, 2, …., and j = 1, 2, …., n 5) Choose the most optimal alternative based on the greatest Vi value.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Characteristic
This study was conducted in WB in East Java, Central Java, West Java, and D.I. Yogyakarta, with 35 waste banks with active (n=18) and inactive status (n=17). Table 2 shows that the occupation of WB customers (N=680) is dominated by housewives (51.8%). The others are self-employed, civil and private employees, freelance, housemaids, farmers, retirees, traders, laborers, and teachers. WB customer education is dominated by customers with high school education (55.6%). Meanwhile, 26.4% finished elementary and junior high school, and 18.0% graduated from university. Based on income, most (57.1%) of WB customers have an income of less than 1 million.

Problem priority
The WB problem priority (Table 3) in the production facilities of an active waste bank is the limited access to sales of products, use of raw materials, and limited availability by 66.1%, 46.4%, and 19.6%, respectively. Meanwhile, inactive WB main priority problem is the limited availability of land, access to sale products, and raw materials used by 69.8%, 49.1%, and 30.2%.
Regarding marketing for active WB, limited market access occupied the greatest problem at 55.4%, followed by high price fluctuations and old unsold products at 44.6% and 25%. For inactive WB, limited market access, and unsold old products, each occupied the main problems at 45.3%. The active WB capital shows a business relationship of 71.4%, followed by financial assistance and available manpower by 51.8% and 19.6%. Meanwhile, the priority problem for the inactive WB social capital component is the existence of financial assistance by 75.5%, followed by limited manpower and the existence of business relationships by 41.5% and 20.8%. For institutions, the priority problem is that the initiative of group members still needs to be higher at 41.1%, with weak managerial and inexperienced workers at 33.9% and 32.1%, respectively. Meanwhile, managerial weakness, low initiative, and lack of experience for inactive WB were 26.4%, 30.2%, and 79.2%.

Solution priority
Production facilities at an active WB indicate a joint product development (organic fertilizer) of 57.1%, provision of quality raw materials, and land in good condition by 73.2% and 26.8%. Meanwhile, in the inactive WB, product development (organic fertilizer) was 26.4%, the land was in good condition by 35.8%, and the provision of quality raw materials was 28.2%.
The priority of solutions inactive WB marketing is the existence of networks and information on the market by 73.2%, the handling of raw materials by 85.7%, and increased marketing to improve product quality and development by 76.8%. Inactive waste bank marketing indicates the existence of networks and information on the market by 41.5%, the handling of raw materials by 41.5%, and increased marketing product quality and development by 60.4%.
The priority of solutions for active WB capital shows that there is education for young people with a percentage of 85.7%, forming a Communication Forum by 80.4%, and creating a triple helix relationship between academics, business, and government at 76.8%. Meanwhile, in inactive WB, there is education for young people by 41.5%, with the Formation of Communication Forum by 39.6%, creating a triple helix relationship between academia, business, and government by 41.5%.
The priority of solutions in an active WB institution shows an increase in management capacity (ability) by 83.9%, which provides training and outreach to the workforce and the surrounding community by 89.3%.
Institutions increase the proactive action of the WB group members by 82.1%. Meanwhile, in an inactive WB, there was an increase in management capacity by 39.6%, training and workforce socialization in the surrounding community by 60.4%, with an increase in the WB group members' proactive action by 64.2%.

Strategy Priorities
The WB strategy priority (Table 5) shows the existing process used to strengthen production facilities, marketing, social capital, WB capital, and WB institutions by 82.1%, 80.4%, 82.1%, and 86%. Meanwhile, inactive WB have a strategy to strengthen production, marketing, WB capital and WB institutions by 28.3%, 32.1%, 41.5%, and 34%, respectively.

The weighting of the Waste Bank Solution
The results of the weighting of the WB solutions (Table 6) show that the main problems of the WB (sequentially) are institutions, capital, marketing, and production facilities. Three criteria in the institutional cluster (largest weight) are weak group initiative with a weight of 0.18 (rank 1), lack of experience and expertise with 0.18 (rank 2), and managerial weakness with 0.13 (rank 3).
The weights on the three criteria for the WB capital cluster (second largest) are business relationships (0.12), financial aid (0.08), and unlimited employment (0.06). The weights on the three marketing criteria are old-selling products (0.05), price fluctuation (0.07), and market access (0.05). The smallest weight is in the production facilities cluster, namely limited land (0.03), the raw material (0.03), and sales access (0.01).

Aspects of Social Capital
We grouped each aspect of social capital into two categories. Furthermore, statistical analysis (Chi-square) was carried out to determine the relationship between social capital aspects and WB's status (active and inactive). The analysis results (Table 7) show a significant relationship between network aspects and the activity of the WB (p-value = 0.0001). Likewise, the value aspect shows a significant relationship (p-value = 0.0001). Meanwhile, the other three aspects (trust, morality, and reciprocity) did not show a significant relationship.

Customer response to institutional development strategy
Customer response was assessed for three types of WB, namely independent WB (Type I), TPS3R part of WB (type II), and WB part of TPS3R (Type III). While the rules that will be applied in institutional development are presented in Table 8 Generally, waste banks are established as associations and still need legal status. Therefore, efforts must be made to comply with established regulations for development. According to the Regulation of the Minister of Environment Number 13 of 2012, every WB must be a legal entity. Legal entities can take the form of cooperatives or foundations. Independent waste management (such as a waste bank at the village level) needs to be established according to the community's wishes through a mutual agreement. Furthermore, coordination was carried out with government agencies, the community, and the business networking to create integrated waste management (Fig 1).

Figure 1: Waste Bank Coordination Flow with Others Institutions
The WB was developed to change the behavior of residents in managing waste (including burning, littering, collection, and disposal) into a system that sorts and stores waste. Social capital needs to be continuously developed to impact all levels of society to improve waste management broadly. According to Winarso & Larasati (2011), in the early stages of the innovation cycle, the situation in community groups still needs to improve, so large external support is needed for the initiators of these innovations.
Social capital started from the community. Meanwhile, developing a waste bank requires financing to ensure its sustainability. Funding can come from the government or the private sector. So to ensure the sustainability of the waste bank, three pillars of cooperation are needed: the community with its social capital, the government, and the private sector.
Apart from providing services to save waste from the community, recycling is also implemented in handicraft products. Some of the obstacles faced are limited market access. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the production process through recycled crafts for development.
To increase existing production, waste banks need infrastructure. The product produced by the waste bank at the research location is segregated waste stored by the community. Based on the interview results, it is known that waste management is limited to inorganic products due to the limited number of machines used to process organic waste. According to Suwerda et al (2019) and Handoyo et al (2020), the potential for reducing waste with waste banks is still small, both in urban areas (7%) and rural areas (5%). Limited production facilities influence the low level of waste management.
The results of this study indicate that managers and customers need to form independent waste banks in the future. Its development is an alternative solution to Indonesia's waste problem, carried out by the community as the leading actor.
From a technical point of view, the waste bank manager conducts counseling on waste sorting and storage. At the same time, the independent ones need sufficient capital to run a community-based waste bank management scheme. Furthermore, to implement an independent waste bank, it is appropriate to produce two zoning systems: independent waste banks in rural and urban areas.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
There are three main problems in waste bank management, namely institutional (proactive community, training, outreach, and capacity building), capital (triple helix, youth education, and communication forums), and marketing (product sales, fluctuating prices, and market access). For this reason, countermeasures are needed through social capital-based institutional strengthening strategies, especially in networking and trust. The involvement of the government and NGOs is needed to improve waste bank management and encourage the development of an independent waste bank model through institutional strengthening, capital, and marketing.