Relationship of Community Behavior Factors in Waste Management to the Quality of Residential Environment in Medan Belawan District
Ismail Effendy, Asriwati Amirah, Ira Putri Lan Lubis, Endang Maryanti
Lecturer in Public Health, Helvetia Institute of Health, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
An individual's health condition can be affected by their residential environment. Poor environmental quality is the cause of various health problems. According to the garbage community is something that is not used or that is not important. Efforts to supervise various environmental factors need to be applied in accordance with the principles of sanitation that focus on environmental hygiene. This research method is descriptive analytics with Crosss Sectional design with a research sample of 112 people. Data analysis using univariate analysis and bivariate analysis with Chi square statistic test.
The results showed a relationship between predisposing factors such as education with a value of p = 0.000 (p<0.05), work with a value of p = 0.013 (p<0.0 05), income with a value of p = 0.024 (p<0.05) and supporting factors with waste management behavior with a value of p = 0.020 (p<0.05). In conclusion there is a relationship such as education, employment and income, there is a relationship between the supporting factors of inadequate facilities and infrastructure 89 (79%) with waste management behavior. It is recommended to the community to be able to manage waste so as not to pollute the environment that has an impact on health.
Keywords: education, income, facilities and infrastructure, waste management.
INTRODUCTION
The problem of waste in Indonesia is very complicated because of the lack of public attention to the consequences of waste, the lack of attention of the government in finding waste disposal provided by the government. Nature in solid, liquid or gas form. Garbage is an unwanted activity that is left after the end of the process. Garbage can be defined by humans based on the level of usability, in the natural process in fact there is no concept of garbage, only products produced after and during the natural process. After all, because in human life the concept of the environment is defined, garbage can be divided by type.
Indonesia is ranked as the second country to contribute plastic waste in the oceans. The fact that about 4.8 to 12.7 million tons of plastic waste entered the oceans in 2010. This equates to about 4,762,000,000 - 12,700,000,000 kg. by comparison, it weighs up to 1.3 times the weight of the Great Pyramid in Giza, Egypt.
In Medan the problem is more complex, this is due to the absence of intervention from policy makers today. If left unchecked, there may still be mountains of garbage in various corners of the city. It can certainly worsen environmental conditions, especially the aesthetics of the city of Medan (Lubis, 2016).
Behavior is the process of interaction between personality and environment containing stimuli (stimulus), then responded in the form of a response. This response is called behavior. Behavior is determined by perception and personality, while perception and personality are motivated by
experience. Behavior is a mental state (thinking of arguing, behaving and so on) to respond to situations outside of a particular subject. This response can be positive (without action) and active (with action) (Purwana & Hanafi, 2014; Narethong, 2020).
Its location bordering the sea makes the garbage in the area endless so it is very vulnerable to the development of diseases such as diarrhea, thypus, vomiting and so on. Although there is a waste bank, people do not necessarily turn into customers. There are still many people in the area who are not interested and leave their trash strewn. Recently, customers of waste banks have also decreased. Made me more interested in doing research in the area.
METHODS
This study uses an analytical survey approach with cross sectional design, as well as observational to see the picture of waste management, namely research conducted at the same time, to find out the relationship between free variables and bound variables. The research was conducted in Bagan Deli subdistrict of Medan Belawan in 2017. The timing of the completion of this study, starting from the initial survey to the final trial. The population in this study is all households located in the neighborhood of Bagan Deli Subdistrict Medan Belawan, sampling as many as 112 households by simple random sampling.
RESULTS
The description of the implementation of waste management by conducting an initial survey.
The findings still use a simple concept that is still primitive. Garbage is more often considered a useless item by society and even industry. This is actually the wrong view if people understand and realize how much garbage has a price and can damage the environment.
Based on the development of the population
Calculation of the number of inhabitants after n years ahead of the population in the initial year ( P0 ). Population Growth Figures ( r) with the formula:
Pn = P0 ( 1 + r.n )
Therefore, the number of residents in Bagan Deli Medan Belawan district can currently be seen in the table below:
Table 1. Number of Household Population in medan belawan district
No Environment KK Sex Number
of People
%
Male Female
1 Environment I 244 519 431 950 7,33 %
2 Environment II 215 404 400 804 6,20 %
3 Environment III 276 545 534 1079 1,39 %
4 Environment IV 420 727 677 1404 10,8 %
5 Environment V 434 837 892 1729 13,3 %
6 Environment VI 212 537 408 945 7,29 %
7 Environment VII 395 934 839 1773 13,6 %
8 Environment VIII. 96 159 126 285 2,20 %
9 Environment IX 78 120 85 205 1,58 %
10 Environment X 192 490 467 957 7,39 %
11 Environment XI 20 40 30 70 0,54 %
12 Environment XII 226 604 599 1203 9,29 %
Univariate test
Based on tests that have been conducted by conducting an analysis describing the frequency distribution of respondents between free and bound variables
Table 1. Characteristics of respondents according to education, occupation, income, knowledge, attitude, facilities, facilities and infrastructure in waste management
NO Level of Education f %
1 Elementary School 25 22,3
2 Junior School 30 26,8
3 High School 53 47,3
4 Undergraduate 4 3,6
Total 112 100
No Employment f %
1 Civil Servant 2 1,8
2 Entrepreneur 3 2,7
3 Labor 44 39,5
4 Fishing 24 21,4
5 House Wife 39 34,8
Total 112 100
No Income f %
1 > Minimum Wage 2.529.000,- 24 21,4
2 < Minimum Wage 2.529.000,- 88 78,6
3 Total 112 100
> Minimum Wage 2.529.000,- 24 21,4
No Level of Knowledge f %
1 Good 71 63,4
2 Enough 31 27,7
3 Less 10 8,9
Total 112 100
No Attitude f %
1 Good 70 62,5
2 Enough 42 37,5
Total 112 100
No Facilities f %
1 Adequate 23 20,5
2 Inadequate 89 79,5
112 100
No Waste Bank Support f %
1 Good 86 76,6
2 Less 26 23,2
Total 112 100
13 Environment XIII 325 685 715 14 0,10 %
14 Environment XIV 266 687 513 12 0,09 %
15 Environment XV 342 796 723 1519 11,7 %
Total 3741 8084 7439 12949 100
No Waste Management Behavior f %
1 Good 23 20,5
2 Less 89 79,5
Total 112 100
Based on table 1 above, it can be concluded that of the 112 respondents the most high school education level is 53 people (47.3%), while the least is the level of undergraduate education which is 4 people (3.6%). Seen from 112 respondents who worked the most as workers were 44 people (39.5%), while the least worked as civil servants as many as 2 people (1.8%). Seen from the 112 respondents, the largest income was below MSEs 2,529,000 which is 88 people (78.6%), while the lowest income was above MSEs 2,529,000 which is 24 people (21.4%).
Bivariate Analysis
Bivariate analysis is used to analyze the influence between independent variables on dependent variables with the following results:
Table 2. The relationship between education and waste management behavior.
No Education
Waste management behavior
Total p-value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
,000 1 Elementary
School
1 4 24 96 25 100
2 Junior School 1 3,3 29 96.7 30 100
3 High School 17 32,1 36 67,9 53 100
4 Undergraduate 4 100 0 0 4 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above, between the level of education and waste management behavior, it can be found that the most respondents with high school education level is 36 (67.9%) and the lowest is S1 with not bad behavior in waste management. Based on the results of the chi square test shows that the value p = 0.000 (<0.05), this shows that there is a relationship between the level of education of respondents and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017.
Table 3. Work relationships with waste management behavior
No Employment
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
0,013
1 Civil Servant 2 100 0 0 2 100
2 Entrepreneur 2 66,7 1 33,3 3 100
3 Labor 8 18,2 36 81,8 44 100
4 Fisheries 3 12,5 21 87,5 24 100
5 House Wife 8 20,5 31 79,5 39 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above, between work and waste management behavior, it was found that respondents with their jobs as fishermen and local workers, 31 people (79.5% ) had more bad behavior in processing waste than respondents who worked as civil servants (0% ). Based on the results of the chi square test with a value of p = 0.013 ( <0.05), this indicates that there is a
relationship between the respondent's work and waste management behavior.
Table 4. Income relationship with waste management behavior
No Income
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
0,024
1 < Minimum Wage 13 15,1 73 84,9 86 100
2 > Minimum Wage 10 38,5 16 61,5 26 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above between revenue and waste management behavior, it is known that respondents who have income under MSEs and good waste management behavior are 13 people (15.1%), respondents who have income under MSEs and bad waste management behavior that is 10 people (38.5%), respondents who have income above MSEs and their waste management behavior is not good which is 26 people (61.5%).
Table 5. The relationship between knowledge and waste management behavior
Based on the table above, between knowledge and behavior of waste management is known that there are 57 reponden with good knowledge and bad waste management behavior (80.3%), 22 respondents who have less knowledge and bad waste management behavior (71.0%), respondents with good knowledge and good waste management behavior that is 14 people (19.7%), respondents with less knowledge and poor waste management behavior that is 10 0rang (100%).
Table 6. The relationship between attitudes and waste management behavior
No Attitude
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
0,479
1 Good 16 22,9 54 77,1 70 100
2 Enough 7 16,7 35 83,3 42 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above, between waste management attitudes and behaviors, it is known that there are 16 respondents (22.9%) with good attitude and good waste management behavior, 54 people (77.1%) who have a good attitude and good waste management behavior. There were 7 respondents (16.7%) with adequate attitude and good waste management behavior, 35 respondents (83.3%) with adequate attitude and poor waste management behavior. Based on the results of the chi square test showing that the value p = 0.479 (> α = 0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between the attitude of respondents and waste management behavior in Kecamatan Medan Belawan 2017.
No Knowledge
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
0,136
1 Good 14 19,7 57 80,3 71 100
2 Enough 9 29,0 22 71,0 31 100
3 Less 0 0 10 100 10 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Table 7. Relationship of facilities and infrastructure with waste management behavior
No Facilities and infrastructure
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
f % f % f %
0,020
1 Adequate 9 39,1 14 60,9 23 100
2 Inadequate 14 15,7 75 84,3 89 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above, it is known that respondents who have inadequate facilities and infrastructure and good waste management behavior are 14 people (15.7%), respondents who have inadequate facilities and infrastructure and bad waste management behavior of 75 people (84 .3%), respondents with adequate facilities and infrastructure and good waste management behavior of 9 people (39.1%), respondents with adequate facilities and infrastructure and poor waste management behavior of 14 people (15.7%). Based on the results of chi square shows that the value of p = 0.020 (> α = 0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between the facilities and infrastructure of the reIDRonden and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan district 2017.
Table 8. The relationship of waste banks to waste management behavior
No Waste Bank
Waste management behavior
Total p-
value
Good Not Good
F % f % f %
0,585
1 Less 4 15,4 22 84,6 26 100
2 Good 19 22,1 67 77,9 86 100
Total 23 20,5 89 79,5 112 100
Based on the table above shows supporting waste banks with waste management behavior, it is known that respondents who are less supported by waste banks and good waste management are 4 people (3.6%). Respondents who are not supported by waste banks and bad waste management behavior are 22 people (19.6%), respondents supported by good waste banks and good waste management behavior is 19 people (17%), respondents supported by good waste banks and their bad waste management behavior is 67 people (15.7).
Based on the quality of the type of waste processing use
Waste processing from the results of household activities can be processed and useful so that it does not become a public health disorder and can be worth selling by improving the community economy.
Table 9. Quality description of the type of waste processing use
No Processing Type f %
1 Planted 42 37,5
2 Burnt 62 55,3
3 Recycled 8 7,14
Total 112 100
Table 10. Based on the utilization of waste with environmental quality
No Utilization
Environment Quality
Total p-
value
Good Bad
F % f % f %
0,385
1 Less 6 28,5 22 24,1 29 100
2 Good 15 71,4 69 75,8 86 100
Total 21 18,7 91 79,9 112 100
Based on the table above shows that the relationship of waste utilization with environmental quality, it is known that respondents who underutilize with a good category of 4 people (15.4 %) while respondents who lack utilization with poor environmental quality are 22 people (84.6%), respondents who supported good waste utilization and good waste management behavior is 19 people (22.1 %), respondents who use well with the quality of their environment is not good namely 67 people (77.9 % ). Based on the results of chi square indicating that the value p = 0.385 (> α = 0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between waste utilization and quality of the environment to waste management in Medan Belawan District 2017.
Table.11. Retribution by residence
Based on the Cost of Waste Services denounced Medan Belawan
Table .12. Retribution based on place of business activities
Business Type Class Building Area Building Location Special Tariff/m2
(Tariff Above Basic Tariff Waste
Volume) (IDR) City Center
Basic Tariff Vol Trash up to 10
m3 (IDR)
City Center Basic Tariff Vol
Trash up to 10 m3 (IDR)
City Center Basic Tariff Vol
Trash up to 10 m3 (IDR)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A. Stores 1
2 3
Above 200 m2 101 to 200 m2 to 100 m2
49.500 38.500 27.500
38.500 27.500 22.000
38.500 22.000 16.500
38.500/m3 Idem Idem
B. Restaurant 1
2 3 4
Above 300 m2 201 to 300 m2 101 to 200 m2 to 100 m2
66.000 49.500 38.500 27.500
49.500 38.500 27.500 22.000
38.500 27.500 22.000 16.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem
C. Office 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 751 to 1000 m2 501 to 750 m2 251 to 500 m2 151 to 250 m2 to 150 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000 110.000 66.000 44.000 27.500
440.000 275.000 192.500 148.500 93.500 49.500 33.000 22.000
385.000 220.000 165.000 137.500 82.500 38.500 27.500 16.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem
Quality Size Downtown Midtown Suburbs
Street Jalan Jalan
Main (IDR)
Kol (IDR)
Link (IDR)
Main (IDR)
Kol (IDR)
Link (IDR)
Main (IDR)
Kol (IDR)
Link (IDR) LUX
Greater Than 250m2 101 s.d 250 m2 Smaller Than 100 m2
38.500 27.500 19.250
27.500 19.250 13.750
19.250 13.750 11.000
27.500 19.250 13.750
19.250 13.750 11.000
13.750 11.000 8.250
19.250 13.750 11.000
13.750 11.000 8.250
11.000 8.250 5.500 PERMANENT
Greater Than 250m2 101 s.d 250 m2 Smaller Than 100 m2
27.500 19.250 13.750
19.250 13.750 11.000
13.750 11.000 8.250
19.250 13.750 11.000
13.750 11.000 5.500
11.000 8.250 5.500
13.750 11.000 8.250
11.000 8.250 5.500
8.250 5.500 4.400 SEMI
PERMANENT
Greater Than 250m2 101 s.d 250 m2 Smaller Than 100 m2
19.250 13.750 11.000
13.750 11.000 8.250
11.000 8.250 5.500
13.750 8.250 5.500
8.250 5.500 4.400
8.250 5.500 4.400
11.000 8.250 5.500
8.250 5.500 4.400
5.500 4.400 3.300
D. Workshop / Show
Room / Doorsmeer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 751 to 1000 m2 501 to 750 m2 251 to 500 m2 151 to 250 m2 to 150 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000 110.000 66.000 44.000 27.500
440.000 275.000 192.500 148.500 93.500 49.500 33.000 22.000
385.000 220.000 165.000 137.500 82.500 38.500 27.500 16.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem E. Entertainment
Services / Massage Parlors / Trim / Salon / Steam Bath
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 751 to 1000 m2 501 to 750 m2 251 to 500 m2 151 to 250 m2 to 150 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000 110.000 66.000 44.000 27.500
440.000 275.000 192.500 148.500 93.500 49.500 33.000 22.000
385.000 220.000 165.000 137.500 82.500 38.500 27.500 16.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem F. Land Transport Pool
/ Mop. Air/ Sea and Warehousing
1 2 3 4 5
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2 to 100 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000 110.000
275.000 192.500 148.500 93.500 49.500
220.000 165.000 137.500 82.500 38.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem
G. Hotel/ Inn 1
2 3 4 5 6 7
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2 251 to 500 m2 101 to 250 m2 to 100 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000 110.000 66.000 27.500
440.000 275.000 192.500 148.500 93.500 49.500 22.000
385.000 220.000 165.000 137.500 82.500 38.500 16.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem H. Shopping Center 1
2 3 4
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 to 1000 m2
495.000 330.000 220.000 165.000
440.000 275.000 192.500 148.500
385.000 220.000 165.000 137.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem I. Industry / Factory /
Convection 1
2 3 4 5
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2 to 500 m2
550.000 400.000 300.000 200.000 150.000
500.000 350.000 250.000 175.000 135.000
450.000 300.000 200.000 150.000 100.000
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem
Table 13. Retribution based on commercial social activities
Type of Business Class Building Area Building Location Special Tariff/m2
(Tariff Above
Volume of Basic Tariff
Waste) (IDR) City Center
Basic Tariff Vol Trash to 10 m3(IDR)
City Center Basic Tariff Vol Trash to 10 m3
(IDR)
City Center Basic Tariff Vol Trash to 10 m3
(IDR)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Hospital 1. Private Medical
Center
1. Government / BUMN / BUMD
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2 to 500 m2
Above 2000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2
385.000 275.000 220.000 110.000 55.000
110.000 82.500 55.000
275.000 220.000 110.000 55.000 27.500
110.000 82.500 55.000
220.000 110.000 55.000 27.500 16.500
110.000 82.500 55.000
27.500/m3 Idem Idem Idem Idem
Idem Idem Idem
1. Schools / Colleges / Educational Institutions Outside Schools
1. Private
1. Government
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2 to 500 m2
Above 2000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2 501 to 1000 m2
275.000 220.000 165.000 110.000 55.000
110.000 55.000 27.500
220.000 165.000 110.000 55.000 27.500
110.000 55.000 27.500
165.000 110.000 55.000 27.500 16.500
110.000 55.000 27.500
Idem Idem Idem Idem Idem
Idem Idem Idem 1. Meeting Hall
1. Private
1. Government
1 2 3
1 2 3
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2
Above 3000 m2 2001 to 3000 m2 1001 to 2000 m2
220.000 165.000 110.000
165.000 110.000 55.000
165.000 110.000 55.000
110.000 55.000 27.500
110.000 55.000 27.500
55.000 27.500 16.500
Idem Idem Idem
Idem Idem Idem
Based on Above data related to waste financing, there is still a discrepancy in the payment of public levy and the unconsciousness of citizens to sort the garbage collected and sort out organic and organic waste that can increase recycling.
DISCUSSION
In general, household waste in Indonesia dumps its waste directly into sewers (46.7 percent) with a distance of < from 10 meters from clean water sources and without shelter (17.2 percent). Only 15.5 percent used enclosed shelters in yards equipped with SPAL (sewerage), 13.2 percent used open shelters in the yard, and 7.4 percent of shelters were outside the yard. Access to wastewater treatment services in 2017 amounted to 62 percent. According to the residence the percentage of homes that have wastewater sewerage is higher in urban areas by 77.15 percent, compared to the percentage of households that have sewerage in rural areas by 44.74 percent but the channels created < 10 meters from the distance of clean water sources (Rahman, 2013).
The results of this study were obtained that the value of p = 0.000 (p <0.05), this shows that there is a relationship between the level of education of respondents and waste management behavior in Environment III Belawan Sicanang Village, Medan Belawan District 2017. According to Green in Notoatmodjo, analyzing human behavior from a health level, by realizing it through a health promotion program known as thePrecede Proceed Model. This model examines the problem of human behavior and the factors that affect it, and how to follow up by trying to change, nurture or improve that behavior in a more positive direction. The behavior is determined or formed from predisposing factors (or factors from within this individual including knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and values and norms embraced.), supporting factors (health facilities, affordable health facilities, health regulations and health-related skills) and driving factors (family, teachers, peers, health workers, community leaders / influential people, and decision makers).
The results of this study also showed that there is a relationship between the work of respondents and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017 with a test value of p = 0.013 (p <0.05), Work is a routine activity that must be done especially to support his life and family life. More work is a way of making a living whereas work is generally a time-consuming activity. Working especially for the family will have an influence on his family life.
Income in a family will support the need for availability in waste management, based on household
income that is less still under Minimun so that the ability to meet the needs of the family will also be low. Based on the results of the study obtained more respondents who work as workers who of course the income earned is not affordable because for waste management in the environment there is a levy issued every month.
Knowledge or cognitive domain is a very important domain in shaping one's actions (Overt Behaviour). If a person accepts a new behavior or adopts a behavior based on knowledge, awareness, and a positive attitude, then the behavior will last a long time. On the contrary if the behavior is not based on knowledge and awareness then it will not last long (Setyowati & Mulasari, 2013).
The results of this study indicate that the value of p = 0.136 (p <0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between knowledge from respondents and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017. Knowledge is the result of information stimulation that is noticed, understood and remembered, the respondent's knowledge is still lacking so as to affect good waste management, where with the knowledge will provide the desire to utilize the knowledge possessed by motivating families and others so that it can implement a healthy environment (Tennant-Wood, 2003; Laurent et al., 2014; Surahma & Novita, 2017; Jufri, 2020).
Attitude is readiness to react to an object in a certain way and is an evaluative response to cognitive experience, affective reactions, wills and behaviors of the past. Attitude will affect the thought process, affection response, will and behavior next. So attitude is an evaluative response based on the process of self-evaluation, which is concluded in the form of positive or negative assessments that then crystallize as a reaction to the object (Syam, 2016).
The results of this study indicate that the value of p = 0.479 (p <0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between the attitude of respondents and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017. This shows that respondents' attitude towards waste management is still lacking, resulting in a lack of knowledge about the importance of implementing waste management and the consequences if the environment is not healthy.
This is in accordance with Harahap opinion (2018) mentions that attitudes can be formed and changed, attitudes continue to develop or increase while gaining good influence, both internal and external factors. Generally the change in attitude is always preceded by a persuasive stimulus that can be in the form of verbal communication (Harahap et al., 2018).
The relationship between facilities and infrastructure and waste management behavior. The results of this study indicate that the value of p = 0.020 (p <0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between facilities and infrastructure and waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017.
Along with population growth, the need to provide facilities and infrastructure will also increase, both through improvement and new development.
The fulfillment of the needs of facilities and infrastructure in the application of a healthy environment can not be fully provided by both the community itself and the government, so that the capacity of supporting the fulfillment of a healthy environment is still neglected so that it is not yet qualified, the unavailability of health facilities and social cultural facilities and infrastructure are adequate so that environmental slums, especially in settlements tend to be paradoxical, for people living in the environment. Tackling waste management in the community if neglected will cause an environmental pollution that will disturb the health around it.
The relationship between driving factors and waste management behavior. The relationship between supporting waste banks and waste management behavior The results of this study indicate that the value of p = 0.0585 (p<0.05), this indicates that there is a relationship between the garbage banks
supporting respondents withtn waste management behavior in Medan Belawan District 2017. Waste banks are useful to accommodate waste that comes from households before being transported and disposed of at the Final processing site or landfill.
The amount of garbage can be estimated to be between 60-70% of the total waste in the household and the rest scattered polluting the environment. Waste handling from the beginning is still minimal, resulting in all the garbage piled up in landfill. Most of the waste handling is done after the garbage appears so it is difficult to manage it (Beni et al., 2014).
The development of the concept of waste management to eliminate waste becomes one of the holistic ways out, some municipal waste handling that has been used with zero waster prinsif is a circular system with a flow rate of material is a circular system where the end of the product becomes the beginning of the product as well (nothing is wasted). The concept of comparing the flow rate of material between linear system and circular system as described below (Song & Zeng, 2015).
Rease
Linear
Reduce
Figure 1. The flow rate of the material according to the circular concept (Zero Waste) and linear.
Source: Song, Li and Zeng (2014)
The Concept of Zero Waste (ZW) was also implemented in New Zealand in 1997, supporting initiatives to minimize waste, the movement voiced an intensive system in which a product is made to be reusable, repaired and recycled, thereby eliminating waste.( 14). In 2000, Del Norte County, California became the first State in the USA to comprehensively implement the ZW plan and in 2001, the California Integrated Waste Management Board adopted the ZW goal as a strategic waste management plan (Connett, 2013). Applying ZW means eliminating all disposal in land, water or air that is a threat to the planet, human health, animals or plants (ZWIA, 2004).
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of research on the relationship of community behavior factors in waste management to the quality of residential environments in Medan Belawan District 2017, it can be concluded that there is an influence on community behavior based on respondents' characteristics such as education level, employment, income, while community behavior factors related to knowledge level, attitude, facilities and infrastructure as well as waste bank support affect waste management. The need for education and
Marketing Procesing
Sorting
Collection Source
separation
Design
Raw material
Manufacture
Consumption
End of life
Incineration Landfill
Recyclin g
coaching and more comprehensive socialization to various parties, especially including the planning, implementation and utilization of regional funds. Zero Waste can be a new concept in waste handling in Indonesia, so there is an awareness not to create waste, because it will provide an overview as a neglected part of a healthy environment where the living conditions and livelihoods of the community are very concerning. Concrete steps are needed to empower the potential of the community through the empowerment process so that public awareness can be realized.
REFERENCES
1. Bangun, D. W., & Diana, V. E. (2021). Factors Affecting the Decision of Patients to Utilize Health Services for Recycling. Journal La Medihealtico, 2(2), 58-68. Beni, M. T., Arjana, I. G. B., &
Ramang, R. (2014). Pengaruh faktor-faktor sosial-ekonomi terhadap perilaku pengelolaan sampah domestik di Nusa Tenggara Timur. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 12(2), 105-117.
2. Daulay, F. C. ., Sudiro, S., & Amirah, A. . (2021). Management Analysis of Infection Prevention: Nurses’ Compliance in Implementing Hand Hygiene in the Inventories of Rantauprapat Hospital. Journal of Scientific Research in Medical and Biological Sciences, 2(1), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.47631/jsrmbs.v2i1.218.
3. Jufri, R. F. (2020). The Effect of Environmental Factors on Microbial Growth. Journal La Lifesci, 1(1), 12-17.
4. Narethong, H. (2020). Environmental Governance: Urban Waste Management Model. Journal La Lifesci, 1(2), 32-36.
5. Purwana, E. R., & Hanafi, F. (2014), Factors that influence people's behavior in disposing of garbage in the High Village of Karang Anyar, Pagesangan Timur Mataram.
6. Lubis, H. (2016). Relasi Pemberdayaan Dan Partisipasi Masyarakat Dengan Kerusakan Lingkungan.
Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Dan Lingkungan Hidup, 1(1), 12-21.
7. Rahman, A. (2013). Perilaku masyarakat dalam pengelolaan sampah rumah tangga (studi kasus di Kelurahan Pasar Sarolangun). Jurnal Bina Praja: Journal of Home Affairs Governance, 5(4), 215-220.
8. Harahap, R., Jeumpa, K., & Darwin. (2018). Pengaruh keberadaan Pemukiman padat pada kawasan sungai deli dikota Medan. Usu Press
9. Setyowati, R., & Mulasari, S. A. (2013). Pengetahuan dan perilaku ibu rumah tangga dalam pengelolaan sampah plastik. Kesmas: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional (National Public Health Journal), 7(12), 562-566.
10. Song, Q., Li, J., & Zeng, X. (2015). Minimizing the increasing solid waste through zero waste strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104, 199-210.
11. Laurent, A., Bakas, I., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Niero, M., Gentil, E., ... & Christensen, T. H.
(2014). Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems–Part I: Lessons learned and perspectives. Waste management, 34(3), 573-588.
12. Surahma Asti, M., & Novita, S. (2017). Pengetahuan, sikap dan pendidikan dengan perilaku pengelolaan sampah di Kelurahan Bener Kecamatan Tegalrejo Yogyakarta. Jurnal medika respati, 12(2), 74-84.
13. Syam, D. M. (2016). Hubungan pengetahuan dan sikap masyarakat dengan pengelolaan sampah di desa loli tasiburi kecamatan banawa kabupaten donggala. HIGIENE: Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan, 2(1), 21-26.
14. Tennant-Wood, R. (2003). Going for zero: a comparative critical analysis of zero waste events in southern New South Wales. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 10(1), 46-55.
15. ZWIA. (2004). Zero Waste Definition Adopted by Zero Waste. Planning Group. Available at:
http://www.zwia.org/main/index.php/option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=37.
