Keywords

1 Introduction

The impacts of human activities on the natural environment have grown to a point where they can be detected anywhere on earth, which has been known for several decades (Thompson et al., 2004; Crutzen, 2006; Steffen et al., 2016, 2015; Baldwin et al., 2016). Through the current economic production and consumption systems (make, transport, use, dispose), the loss of natural resources is increasing (Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2018), while mismanaged products that are, e.g., neither recycled nor reused, contribute to the accumulation of waste debris thereby causing severe environmental pollution. Global solid waste generation is steeply increasing. In 2012 the global waste production was estimated to be 1.30 billion tons (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012), whereas in 2016 it reached 2.01 billion tons and it is expected to increase to 3.40 billion tons per year over the next 30 years (Kaza et al., 2018). Moreover, adequate waste management is rarely available in low-income countries, which highly rely on open dumpsites (Yang et al., 2018) as well as open waste burning (Maalouf et al., 2020). While high-income countries are responsible for the utmost per capita waste generation (Kaze et al., 2018), rapidly growing economies in the Global South, such as Indonesia are struggling with sustainable solid waste management (SWM) and therefore contribute significantly to waste debris in the environment. This is even more critical since the amount of mismanaged plastic waste per year places Indonesia second with 3.2 million tons within a global comparison (Jambeck et al., 2015: 769). The acute waste problem has resulted in several disasters in Indonesia. Examples are the Bantar Gebang, Bekasi landfill fire in 2015, and the waste landslide at Leuwigajah dumpsite in Bandung in 2005. The latter tragedy was one of the deadliest in Indonesia, causing 71 houses to be buried and 143 people to be killed (Lavigne et al., 2014).

Cities of the Global South contribute increasingly to a steep growth of waste (Myllylä, 2001: 198; Yang et al., 2018: 237). However, cities are the central settlements, where more than half of humanity is living (UN DESA, 2015: 7) and where both problems as well as solutions in environmental, social, and economic areas evolve. While urbanization in Indonesia is increasing with over half of the population already living in urban settlements (Salim & Hudalah, 2020: 179), the amount of waste, and in specific solid waste, in the urban areas, such as Jakarta, is growing substantially (Dethier, 2017: 75).

Active community engagement is recognized as one central element for SWM, especially in countries with rapidly develo** economies, such as Indonesia (Dhokhikah et al., 2015; Dhokhikah & Trihadiningrum, 2012). Newig and Kvarda (2012: 29) state that the growing interest in participative approaches can be linked to the complex and uncertain environmental and sustainability challenges. However, questions arise around the actual inclusive implementation and the limitations of participation to address environmental challenges.

Therefore, this chapter analyses how participative processes within waste management efforts in Jakarta are implemented. Thereby, the study addresses the following questions: How is participation perceived by the selected civil society organizations? What are the potentials of participatory approaches as well as obstacles and limitations within SWM in Jakarta?

2 Research Area and Methodology

Jakarta is the second largest urban agglomeration worldwide (Martinez & Masron, 2020: 1). The Special Capital Region of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota, DKI) takes up an area of roughly 664 km2 and the population is estimated to be around 10.56 million in 2019 (Martinez & Masron, 2020: 2). Including the neighboring cities, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi, the capital is being transformed into a megacity, named Jabodetabek, an acronym of all the city names including Jakarta (see Fig. 18.1).

Fig. 18.1
A map of Jakarta depicts the areas around the city and traces where the main towns and municipalities are located.

Map of Jakarta DKI and the Metropolitan Area, Jabodetabek. (Source: Designed by Syarifah using Rupa Bumi Indonesia, 2021)

Full size image

The need to improve solid waste management in Jakarta is manifested by a lack of landfill capacities, which are not able to keep up with the solid waste production. In the district of Bekasi, mountains of trash are piling up and being overloaded, as Jakarta is using the landfill Bantar Gebang in Bekasi. The landfill’s capacity is around 6.000 tons per day, however, the waste generated in Jakarta amounts to over 7.000 tons per day (Putri et al., 2018: 2141). These aggravating challenges call for “more flexible, adaptive forms of governance” (Newig & Kvarda, 2012: 29). Therefore, potentials and obstacles of participatory forms to address the struggle to manage solid waste in Jakarta are the focal point of this study.

The study used an explorative approach by conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews. Civil society organizations concerned with waste or waste management in Jakarta have been selected for the research study. This target group has been chosen due to their increasing number in recent years and their prominent role in urban environmental topics as well as for community involvement (Gemmill & Bamidele-Izu, 2002). Therefore, representatives out of three different waste bank types (community, government, and religious), an actor from Ikatan Pemulung Indonesia (IPI) (translated: scavenger association), three NGOs, and three social enterprises that work closely with the local communities to implement measures addressing waste management challenges in Jakarta, participated in the research study. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions, except for one, the interviews have been conducted as video interviews. The interviews were structured as follows: At the beginning of each conversation, an introduction of the researcher, the research, and the purpose of the interview was given as well as ethical considerations have been addressed. The questionnaire was divided into three sections, to gather input about (a) the organization and the actor, (b) the perceptions of participation, sustainability/sustainable development, and the relevance of community participation for sustainable waste management. The main section (c) asked about the participative process, including the strategies and activities to achieve sustainable waste management, the participating actors, organizations and groups, their collaborations and challenges to involve different actors (e.g., citizen, industry, government) as well as the requirements to overcome these. Finally, the respective representatives have been asked about the contribution of participation to sustainable waste management and the legal regulations for SWM, which could support the involvement of different actors. Through this structure, a baseline for the data analysis was provided (see Appendix). However, the research conducted within this study does not claim to be representative for Jakarta.

The approach of video interviews helps to overcome geographical boundaries, it is cost-effective, time-efficient, and allows more flexibility for the participants as well as the researcher since no one has to travel to a certain location. Besides accessibility to participants, another advantage is the option of being in a comfortable space that helps the interviewee to talk more openly about certain topics. However, being able to choose one’s own space may lead to more distractions or less privacy. Further disadvantages include technical difficulties and poor internet connection. Moreover, by conducting video interviews, the researcher is limited in observing physical response to body language and emotional hints (Gray et al., 2020: 1297 f.). Additionally, the reliability of qualitative research is weakened, since the procedure depends on the prior knowledge of the interviewee, thereby challenging the assessment of the reliability (Carr, 1994: 719). Therefore, a comprehensive preliminary analysis of the topic and thus extensive preparation for the investigation has been carried out. Furthermore, the socio-linguistic interview situation being conducted in either English or Bahasa Indonesia due to the interviewer’s language competencies might have influenced the findings.

The method of qualitative content analysis has been chosen to analyze and discuss the empirical data collected through the interviews. By applying a qualitative content analysis, the interview transcripts have been categorized using deductive as well as inductive categories. Mayring (2014) argues that the method thereby follows a mixed methodology approach. The qualitative content analysis focuses on outlining “meaning in context” (Schreier, 2014: 174) and develo** a category system (Kuckartz, 2018: 29). The categories are selected, defined, structured, and in a later step revised as well as summarized into main categories and subcategories, which represent the most relevant results.

3 Conceptual Framework

Addressing environmental challenges within the concept of governance is not only a further task placed on governments. In particular, Lemos and Agrawal (2006: 298) explain that environmental governance includes “national policies and legislations, local decision-making structures, transnational institutions and environmental NGOs”. As environmental governance in a democratic system is an integrative system, it operates in a – preferably balanced – collaborative manner “to drive sustainable living” (Wijayanti & Suryani, 2015: 173). In a relatively newly established democracy, such as Indonesia, civil society groups can play a key role in promoting change (Antlöv et al., 2010: 420). In terms of reducing waste pollution in Jakarta, a similar observation can be made, since the organizations interviewed only represent some examples. There are several waste banks, NGOs as well as social enterprises and start-ups evolving with the objective to address environmental problems such as waste pollution. However, the involvement of civil society actors in governance in Indonesia depends highly upon political will. Hence, opportunities for the engagement in governance by NGOs and other civil society organizations can evolve, when government staff, from the executive or legislative branch, are inclined to engage with citizens (Antlöv et al., 2010: 436).

Within the discourse regarding participatory approaches, there are various positions. Some criticize such modes of collective decision-making (Greven, 2009; Krüger, 2021; Michelsen & Walter, 2013; Parfitt, 2004). In this regard, it is often argued that such approaches have the tendency to be heavily time-consuming (Lawrence & Deagon, 2001), while also being questionable in their achievements and effectiveness (Bora, 1994; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Contrary, other scholars promote and encourage participation (Arnstein, 1969; Dhokhikah et al., 2015; Habermas, 1981; Pretty, 1995) for many reasons. Motives for participation are manifold, ranging from empowerment to strengthening the commitment for a project, distributing the responsibility, and creating ownership (Reed, 2008; Richards et al., 2004). Thus, such authors argue that it can lead to increased resilience in the event of unintended effects while more experiences and resources of the local people as experts of their own living environment can be considered (Newig & Kvarda, 2012; Rifkin & Kangere, 2002).

There are a variety of practices, initiatives, and programs claiming to “do participation”, as nowadays, participation is used as a mainstream term, with no clear unifying definition (see Newig & Kvarda, 2012: 30–32 for further elaborations). In the attempt to specify modes and types of participation, many models and typologies have been developed, one well-known example is the ladder of participation by Arnstein (Cornwall, 2008: 270; Gaber, 2019). The ladder demonstrates the different types of participation with each step showing an increasing degree of participation. However, this typology is rather for those on the receiving end, focusing on the individual who is supposed to participate. Another topology is the one developed by Pretty (1995) (see Fig. 18.2) which is directed to the ones who use participatory methods (e.g., governments, NGOs, scientists). To understand the different perceptions and motivations for applying and adopting participatory approaches, Pretty’s typology can be used (see section five).

Fig. 18.2
A figure depicts the level of participants: self-mobilization, interactive, functional, material incentives, consultation, passive, and manipulative.

Types and characteristics of participation. (Source: Own illustration adapted from Pretty, 1995)

Full size image

4 The Role of Civil Society Actors in Solid Waste Management in Jakarta

Solid waste management in Indonesia includes both the formal and informal sectors and is being handled through a collection-transportation-disposal system (Putri et al., 2018: 2141). Municipal agencies and formal businesses are included in the formal sector, whereas activities in the informal sector are handled by small businesses, groups, and individuals (Aprilia et al., 2012: 71). These actors are neither being regulated by formal administrations, nor are these registered. Lestari and Trihadiningrum (2019) specify the technical and non-technical challenges within SWM in Jakarta. The technical issues include: (1) insufficient separation of solid waste and its transportation, (2) lack of technical elements of transport, (3) lack of sufficient recycling facilities, and (4) the declining capacity of the Bantar Gebang landfill.

The non-technical issues evolve through social problems, leading to a lack of waste separation by the communities (Lestari & Trihadiningrum, 2019: 3). Further, Shekdar (2009: 1447) highlights that “a systemic effort is necessary to improve various factors, including policy and legal frameworks, […] technology, human resource development, and public participation and awareness” for a sustainable SWM system.

For waste management, the Indonesian government has established various regulations and policy instruments. The core of the legislative framework in waste management in Indonesia is regulated in Law 18/2008 on Waste Management (Damanhuri et al., 2014). This law defines under Article 2 (1) three types of waste, namely domestic waste, domestic waste equivalents, and specific waste. Under chapter nine, article 28 the role of community is defined. In specific article 28 (2) stipulates public participation through:

“a. proposals, considerations, and suggestions to the government and/or local governmentLocal governments; b. Waste managementWaste management policiesPolicies; and/or c. Suggestion and opinion in waste dispute resolution.” (Republic of Indonesia 2008)

At the ministry level, there is a Regulation of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia 13/2012 concerning Guidelines for implementing Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (3R) through waste banks. The regulation states that the community is one of the main actors in the waste bank implementation with full support from local government. The main purpose of waste banks is to empower communities to create socio-economic independence (Shareza et al., 2020).

Of particular note is the narrative that “instead of promoting the city for the people from a top-down perspective, a more sensible way of city-building is empowering people and supporting their initiatives” (Cabannes et al., 2018: 35). Consequently, the involvement of civil society organizations in urban environmental governance is regarded as important. At the same time, for civil society actors to realize and contribute to transformation at a higher scale, they need to participate in governance and politics (Court et al., 2006: 10; Antlöv et al., 2010: 419 f.; Pomponi and Mencaster 2016; Prendeville et al., 2018).

The range of persons involved in civil society is broad, including individuals, groups, religious, political, and academic institutions as well as NGOs and social enterprises. Among the key actors in environmental governance concerning SWM in Indonesia are NGOs, social enterprises, and waste banks. Foo (2018: 76) argues that “nongovernmental organizations have taken on prominent roles in delivering environmental services in cities”. In Indonesia, NGOs are involved in various parts of governance, ranging from facilitators of meetings organized by the government to collaborations with governments “to draft new laws and regulations, to independent advocacy campaigns on a variety of public issues” (Antlöv et al., 2010: 429). Social enterprises, a relatively new concept (Stratan, 2017: 20), are motivated by social purposes for their economic engagement and business activities (Laville et al., 2015: 6; Nascimento & Salazar, 2020). Through their two-folded purpose, providing social benefits and economic growth, social enterprises can support communities to build up financial growth while addressing local issues (Seelos & Mair, 2005; Kim & Lim, 2017: 2). The third actor group, waste banks, provides a structure, where people can sell their collected and sorted solid waste (such as paper, plastic, metal) for a certain amount of money (Rahmasary et al., 2021). In Jakarta waste banks are being promoted, as they are considered “to become a feasible option to improve the recycling rate and waste management in the city” (Putri et al., 2018: 2140).

5 Participation: A Tool for Transformative Solutions?

To address the research questions, core categories have been defined (see Table 18.1). First, the perceptions of participation are displayed and discussed. Hereby, the collaborations with other actors are incorporated. Second, the perceived potentials of participatory approaches for the activities of the civil society organizations are elaborated and third, obstacles and limitations for SWM in Jakarta are discussed.

Table 18.1 Code system with main and subcategories
Full size table

5.1 Perceptions of Participation

The results regarding the perceptions of participation show the vague meanings of the term. Most of the interviewees understood participation similarly, e.g., as “taking part in something or being involved in an activity or initiative or any idea. And not only participating but also contributing to reaching the objectives for the goal of that certain activity” or “participation means you get involved”. One of the waste bank representatives had an advanced understanding or definition of participation, which implied going beyond the involvement within an event or initiative and being part of the reflexive process, e.g., after a program has ended. When linking participation to waste management, it was described as being: “about how the communities segregate their waste. […] And then how is the awareness also, they’re not using plastic […], they have their own tumbler, and […] they bring their own containers.”

This quote highlights two aspects of participation in waste management, not only that the current end of the product cycle is managed properly through segregation, but also the matter of using more sustainable products to reduce and avoid waste.

Activities linked to participation have also been categorized by the representatives of the civil society organizations in scales, with the examples focusing mainly on a “small” scale. In this regard it was highlighted “for the small scale, we can manage our waste, like [through] composting”. Another example for a small action as a means to participate in waste management that was shared was to “reduce plastic straws”. The contribution of community participation on a larger scale was stated to contribute, e.g., “to the local system in RT [Rukun Tetangga, translated: neighborhood] or RW [Rukun Warga, translated: hamlet]. And then also we can address waste management. In the specific community groups, there are internal motivations to do sustainable waste management […]. [That] is what we are trying to address”. By focusing on internal motivations, the interviewee added “we can find the most affordable way to make community groups work on their own waste management system”. In this case participation is perceived as a way to empower people through their intrinsic motivation. While these examples of the initiated categorization leave many gaps, they can be related to the different types and levels of participation. Taking Pretty’s typology into consideration, one can argue that the perceptions and understandings of participation of the interviewees can be located mainly within the ‘passive participation’ (people get involved in existing projects/ideas) and ‘functional participation’ (people get involved to meet project aims more effectively). The organizations, which actively and collaboratively engage in creating a better environment by addressing waste management challenges can be located in ‘interactive participation’ (Fig. 18.3). Hence, map** the perceptions of participation as well as the enforced participatory activities in Pretty’s typology helps to identify the motivations of the civil society organizations who apply participatory methods. However, the presented division of different levels and types of participation is rather ambiguous, as participatory processes depend on the understanding of the participating actor.

Fig. 18.3
An overview of the perceptions of participation, which includes passive, functional, and interactive participation.

Overview of the key results regarding the perceptions of participation of the interviewees. (Source: Own illustration)

Full size image

To further understand the participatory approaches of the organizations, their collaborations for addressing waste management challenges in Jakarta have been categorized (see Table 18.1). Participation was also perceived as a “puzzle” where stakeholders can fill in their role and complement each other. It was pointed out by an interview partner that “[…] if we talk about sustainable waste management, there has to be active participation from all actors. […] Let’s say if the community has participated and the government only does their daily tasks; the waste problem won’t be solved”. Hence, the involvement with and participation of the relevant actors is recognized as key to sustainably addressing waste pollution in Jakarta. The interviews reveal that the key actors for the organizations are civil society (including NGOs, local community groups, community leaders RW/RTs, and citizens), government, private sector, industry, and academia. While all interviewed organizations mentioned that the largest participating group are local communities, it was also stated that “it depends on the project, because each project has its own specific target audience”. Therefore, there are different activities, each with different levels of involvement. Depending on the type of participation (Pretty, 1995) the participatory format used in practice can only be inclusive to a certain degree (Cornwall, 2008). This has also been documented by Turnhout et al. (2010: 4), who comment that “participation is inevitably selective when it comes to who is able to participate”. Therefore, the formats of participation cannot guarantee a meaningful inclusion of all citizens (Turnhout et al., 2010; Díaz-Reviriego, 2019). The normative claim of having to pursue the participation of all stakeholders or a fully inclusive approach can in reality be overwhelming if not impossible. This was also perceived by a representative of an NGO, who argues that each actor and actor group can conduct participation based on their capacity and role. In this regard, Pellizzoni (2003: 16) emphasizes that “the question is not how much participation, but what kind of participation, by whom, to which purposes”. Thus, a more efficient approach is to adjust the level and type of participation to a certain objective as well as local circumstances.

5.2 Map** Potentials, Obstacles, and Limitations of Participation for SWM in Jakarta

The potentials of community participation overall were rated as high by the interviewees. In the basic sense of enabling the proper segregation and delivery of waste to the waste banks, it is relevant for SWM. Furthermore, a member of a waste bank mentioned that in the introduction phase of waste banks in Indonesia, there were neither sufficient funds nor enough employees to fully start the operation. Therefore, at that stage, participation of communities and community-based networks was essential to begin. This example shows that participation at the grassroot level can have an influence to enhance or even enable government-led activities.

Beyond that, various interviewees reckon that citizens have power that goes far beyond separating household trash. Interviewees recognized that individuals and community groups have the power to apply pressure on companies and politicians by means of social media. In a society in which 56% have active social media accounts, social media is a strong platform to communicate (Ida et al., 2020) and enable community participation.

Moreover, interviewees expressed the opportunity of community participation to make use of collective intelligence. Citizens are accepted as experts of their environment that know the resources and means of the local communities best. It was further mentioned that community participation can empower people to become independent, to find their own solutions for local problems, and to become “local leaders”. Therefore, they are no longer reliant on outside actors to identify problems and present answers. Consequently, by working with communities as well as by encouraging citizens to participate in the solution process, the organizations are providing structures that enable the local people to act as “agents of change” (Cox & Johnson, 2010: 132; WBGU, 2011: 256; Crowe et al., 2016: 114).

However, participation is not regarded as a panacea that alone can solve the enormous problems related to SWM in Indonesia (Table 18.2). It was most commonly described as a relevant part of the solution that needs to be supplemented with other procedures. A number of interviewees mentioned that basic infrastructure regarding waste management is imperative to encourage communities to participate and to continue to do so. In places that lack any kind of waste management people resign and become indifferent to the issue, starting to litter because there are no options. Padawangi (2014: 34) further highlights that “urban spaces are both social and physical. Calls to change life and society mean nothing without the appropriate space”. Thus, without a suitable structure, the SWM problems in Jakarta cannot be fully addressed.

Table 18.2 Overview of potentials of participation as well as obstacles and limitations of SWM using interview data
Full size table

Onyanta (2016: 504) further points out that the willingness to participate in SWM activities, such as recycling depends upon, e.g., information as well as local infrastructure for waste management, including the availability of facilities. Moreover, another barrier is that a sense of responsibility and the resulting willingness to act on a certain issue is mostly only carried for one’s own surroundings. An aspect that can affect the motivation of urban residents to act on waste pollution, is that they “are likely to experience directly related key impacts and threats” (Frantzeskaki et al., 2016: 1). Through direct visibility as well as perceptibility of waste debris, since they are omnipresent in day life, the chances to motivate people are relatively high. In Jakarta, the low- to middle-income settlements are located along the coastline and rivers (Edelman & Gunawan, 2020: 61), therefore, they are already vulnerable to the impacts of climate change such as sea-level rise and flooding (Padawangi & Douglass, 2015). Since pollution through waste is interconnected to many issues in daily life, especially in these city districts, including being one of the causes of flooding as well as health and sanitation concerns (Lamond et al., 2012), one can argue that through showing the connection between their everyday problems and waste pollution, people’s attention can be reached.

Additionally, the interviews reveal that although a legal framework for waste management is in place, as displayed above, there is a need to improve and strengthen the government engagement for SWM. The interview partners argued, the government doesn’t “know about the implementation, what happens in the community” and “the challenge is more about the enforcement of the law, because law doesn’t necessarily mean anything if the enforcement is not good. And […] [it] is about the issue of commitment of governments, especially local governments”. Since in practice the provincial governments enforce the laws and regulations, it was emphasized that their commitment is crucial for SWM. Additionally, the civil society representatives said that there is no regulation that specifically ensures community participation and existing regulations do not mention “how to manage it or who should manage” the waste. This issue has also been elaborated by Akenji et al. (2020: 546), who discuss the various gaps of governmental engagement in Indonesia. The authors highlight the lack of capacities of the national and local governmental agencies dealing with waste management as well as the need for evidence-based policy (Akenji et al., 2020: 546).

A commonly perceived challenge in relation to participation is also the lack of awareness of the general problem regarding waste and littering. Therefore, the lack of awareness and commitment from local communities is mentioned several times as a hindering factor contributing to the mismanagement of materials and waste. This factor is often divided into two aspects along a socio-economic line. On the one hand, the socio-economically disadvantaged people encounter severe daily challenges. Therefore, they usually do not see the relevance of environmental issues for their daily struggles and do not have the energy and time to make efforts or the education to fully understand the problems. On the other hand, the middle- and high-income community groups are usually aware of the environmental problems, but they seem to lack interest in making changes. One of the reasons described by an interviewee for that behavior is that wealthier communities have a waste management service, which is removing their waste for a fee. This usually means that people are not expected to sort their waste and it is not disposed of in a SWM system, but rather dumped in a landfill. These people regard waste management as a service that they pay for to avoid the unpleasant work of handling the waste and dealing with it in their neighborhood. A representative from an NGO elaborated regarding the issues of awareness and education in Jakarta that

“although they are aware of waste or any other phenomenon that is caused by waste, for example the annual flood. […] But they don’t know how to properly manage their waste […]. They […] don’t know what the journey of the waste is to the processing side and so on and so forth. So, it’s really important to have a very basic comprehension about waste and waste management for the residents of Jakarta.”

To address the challenge of insufficient community participation in solid waste reduction, one approach can be to create incentives and disincentives, which can motivate people to manage their waste (Dickella Gamaralalage et al., 2021). An actor from a waste bank elaborated that governmental agencies, which are involved in SWM, could provide various (economic) incentives to encourage the people and avoid waste pollution. Once more, the role of the government within the waste management system is emphasized (Budihardjo et al., 2022) not only to provide suitable infrastructure and law enforcement but also “proper incentives to ensure efficiency and added value” (Marques et al., 2018: 292). In particular, a waste bank representative pointed out that such mechanisms can strengthen the continuity of community involvement in SWM activities. However, locally suitable incentives are still to be explored.

A critical and limiting factor for participatory approaches in SWM in Jakarta has been related to the engagement of the local leaders. A representative of an NGO argued that

“they have an important role to play in addressing this issue because for example […] when we conduct [a] project, we need to ask the permission of the local leaders. Usually obtaining this permission from them can be quite a challenge because they themselves have their own idea about the waste conditions in their area and sometimes it’s a challenge to convince them. So local leaders can be both a push and a pull factor.”

Local leaders, be it the RTs/RWs, religious figures like the Imam of a local mosque or cultural figures are “very respected”, as explained by an interviewee. Consequently, the involvement of such actors can also strengthen community participation and thereby present a ‘hidden’ or at least often unused potential.

Finally, community participation is imperative to reduce the ‘mountains of waste’ and the intercorrelated problems for the environment and the people in Jakarta. Yet, it has become evident that participation can only be one part of the solution. Among others, it should be coupled with the provision of structures, an increased awareness, and enhancement of law enforcement.

6 Conclusion

Whether participation can contribute to waste management seems to be a simple question for the civil society actors. They acknowledge participation to be important to achieve a sustainable SWM. However, different types of approaches, depending on the circumstances, actors, and purpose should be implemented. The ambiguous term of participation is perceived by most of the civil society actors as the involvement and contribution to a certain project or activity. Reviewing the uses to which participatory approaches have been put, whether for empowerment, activation of local communities, awareness for the problem at hand or to achieve project objectives, it is clear that participation is not the panacea for sustainable waste management. This study displays some of the obstacles and limitations, ranging from a deficiency of infrastructure for SWM to lack of government engagement and general awareness, which can be linked to socio-economic issues. These overarching challenges reveal that to holistically approach SWM, participatory formats should be combined among others with suitable structures and balanced engagement of all relevant actors. Notably, the engagement of governmental agencies, through effective law enforcement, awareness raising, and provision of suitable infrastructure as well as further incentives, proves to be essential for sustainable SWM. Additionally, through the possibly hidden potentials of local leaders in Jakarta to promote community participation, it has also become evident that there is a need to understand and incorporate local dynamics.

This explorative research offers an impulse for a deeper analysis of participatory approaches that address waste pollution. Many questions are still open, ranging from the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of participation for efforts addressing environmental pollution to the evaluation that includes further relevant actors.

The issue of waste and its impacts prove to be a complex and multi-layered global problem. Cities such as Jakarta are facing massive waste pollution. Participatory formats, such as those applied by the civil society organizations in Jakarta, can and should be a starting point of a comprehensive approach to address SWM in cities of the Global South.