RW 8
The procedural justice aspect in RW 8 seems to be well accepted and is supported by the fact that most community representatives contribute to the development of the biogas project and express positive remarks. Involved groups in RW 8 commit to participate. They are satisfied with how the proponents respond to their voices, and the information given by the proponent is found useful according to community representatives.
Outcome fairness is well established since the community representatives participate (part of procedural justice) to build good cooperation between the bio-digester owners and the neighbors around them. They are willing to share both benefits and burdens. For instance, the bio-digester owners are not reluctant to share the bio-slurry for free with neighbors (some neighbors like growing herbs, spices, and flowers in their back/front yard so bio-slurry is quite useful) since they provide and separate the waste for the bio-digesters. Generally, favorable outcomes are reported to be: biogas production, bio-slurry, and LPG saving. However, there are still concerns regarding the stench that rises from rotten feedstock inside the bio-digester and blowers that are not durable and often break down.
The trust aspect, which covers capability, attitude, and approach of the project’s proponents, shows many positive responses. The proponents are well accepted in the community. The Cibangkong residents were approached door-to-door (considered very polite in common Indonesian culture), and the information given (part of procedural justice) positively influenced how local residents perceive the proponent’s capability.
From a gender perspective, women’s involvement is very strong in RW 8. Regarding community leaders and organizations involved, all women organizations including PKK and My Darling work together in almost all stages of the project. They are committed to the project and make sure all households are aware of the program, thus the level of acceptance is found to be higher in RW 8. Furthermore, the Head of RW 8 who is also a woman, along the Head of PKK and My Darling—and their female members—frequently attend the religious activity in a local Mosque while discussing neighborhood-associated issues. These women groups have close ties with each other and have previously collaborated in organizing several women empowerment programs such as women health care program, urban farming, and a clean neighborhood competition.
On the household level, women are very involved in the operation of the digesters, both the owners and the neighboring households. Relevant activities such as waste separation, feeding the digester, using the biogas and the fertilizers are all done by local women. Since the total gender aggregated index in RW 8 is higher, it can potentially further explain the higher involvement level. The owners of the portable digesters in RW 8 also have a mutual interaction with the local women groups since they are the members of PKK and My Darling as well. They join the same religious activity in RW 8, giving them opportunities to make contacts and discuss the project. It is also found that the portable digester owners have a higher education level or welfare. The implication is that they receive much respect from the neighboring households and in return get the food waste already separated. Gardening activities seem to be common, thus sharing the bio-slurry is favorable and will be a good incentive to educate households in RW 8 about the importance and benefits of better waste management practices.
RW 11
The results for RW11 show a slightly different picture, mainly regarding the level of participation of local officials and regarding the outcome fairness. In RW 11, community representatives like the head of the RW and the head of PKK are not active in the implementation stage. Although they attended the meetings in the planning stage, they remained in the background in the implementation stage and let the main activities be led and organized by the head of My Darling. Their position is that they are busy with their formal occupation, and that it is better to let the other organizations (referring to My Darling) that are in the field and have more time take the lead in the implementation stage. Their absence in the implementation stage leads to neutral reaction towards the “voice” parameter. However, the head of My Darling states that the proponents address the people’s voices really well. The negative responses regarding the “voice” are expressed by the local waste collector. He feels that his requests, such as one to lower the price of bio-slurry (as aforementioned, currently considered to be high in comparison to other products on the market), to increase his salary, and to add personnel to reduce his work load have never been seriously considered by the proponents and local authorities.
The negative results for the outcome fairness also originate from the local waste collector and are related to the lack of participation on the community representatives’ side (part of procedural justice). The local waste officer feels burdened with the huge task of separating waste from more than one hundred households and sees more involvement of the community representatives as crucial in raising awareness about the importance of waste separation by the households themselves. In terms of outcome favorability, though biogas and bio-slurry (benefit sides) are favorable, the local waste officer experienced many unfavorable outcomes such as inadequate salary, low bio-slurry sales, and unseparated waste. These unfavorable outcomes appear seemingly because he feels that his voice (part of procedural justice) has not been sufficiently addressed.
The trust level towards the proponents in RW 11 is not as high as in RW 8. Trust levels, especially the capability parameter is also determined by the outcome favorability. For example, unfavorable outcomes (part of distributional justice), such as dysfunctionality of the blower and fluctuating biogas yield led to the questioning of the proponent’s capability by some of the community representatives. In addition, it is also influenced by the information parameter (part of procedural justice). For example, when people feel they were well informed, they tend to feel that the proponents have good capability.
From a gender perspective, the situation in RW 11 is different in comparison to RW 8. Regarding community leaders and organizations involved, the Head of RW 11 is a man who works for almost 10–11 h a day, does not often communicate with the women organizations, and is less involved in the implementation of the project. Furthermore, the Head of PKK and My Darling in RW 11 (both are women) tend to have less interaction, partially because the Head of PKK has to work as a teacher in other area far from Cibangkong. There are also fewer joint ventures by PKK and My Darling groups in RW 11.
One reason could be the economic gap between PKK and My Darling groups in this RW. The Head of My Darling in RW 11 is, in fact, the wife of the waste collector and the initiator of My Darling in Cibangkong. She and other members of the group are considered below the poverty line (some of them are unemployed), and their incomes are less than US $100 a month. Due to their lower welfare, which leads to lower social status, they are mostly involved in sanitation activities (e.g., collecting waste from streets), while PKK members, who have a better social image, are more active in upper class-related activities such as child vaccination programs. In this RW, thus, My Darling has little influence over increasing participation in solving the waste issues due to their lower social status. On the other hand, PKK groups seem to be reluctant to be more involved despite their higher capacity in raising awareness. On a household level, since in this management model there is no direct involvement of households and in the absence of awareness regarding the importance of waste separation—a responsibility of the women in the households, most of the work is left to the community waste collector. Furthermore, the total gender aggregated index in RW 11 is higher than in RW 8 and may further explain the lack of participation in this RW. This, however, needs to be further studied.
To summarize, regarding community acceptance in the location of study, barriers that are reported include both technical (e.g., inefficient blowers, uneven biogas yield) and non-technical (e.g., lack of participation by women-based local officials, lack of voices being heard) elements. Both affect the different aspects of community acceptance. While the technical barriers are reported in both RWs, the non-technical barriers are found mainly in RW 11, especially the inadequate cooperation between women organizations, inadequate waste separation on a household level and the subsequent dissatisfaction of the waste collector. As such, an important finding is that differences in the level of community acceptance can be seen between the two RWs. This can be attributed to the different management models and the non-technical barriers evolved around both RWs. In RW 8 with smaller bio-digesters that are being operated on a smaller scale by few neighboring households, with strong involvement of women, the level of involvement in the operation of the digesters and satisfaction from the process is higher than in RW 11 with a bigger scale bio-digester and more centralized management model. For example, the waste collector’s dissatisfaction from his increased task of separating the waste and feeding the bio-digester while he is not being well compensated. This is caused by waste not being separated by the households themselves (thus increasing his work load) and by his feeling that his voice is not being heard with regards to his income. The unseparated waste is a manifestation of the lack of collaboration between relevant organizations, which in this case are women organizations, and as a result, lower awareness and active involvement of women in the households regarding waste separation. It is also found in this research that the bio-digester size/scale effects the management scheme which effects the level of acceptance thus, if and when bigger scale bio-digesters are introduced, further steps may be needed (such as more involvement of community leaders, more effort in getting households—meaning women within these households—to separate waste at the source, and better financial compensation for waste collectors) if the level of acceptance is to be higher.
In
Figure 6, the community acceptance and how it can be constructed from its components is illustrated. There are some important notes regarding this schematic diagram. All lines in the picture only represent the indication of influence, not its significance. The connections between the components are elaborated based on statements and opinions collected during the data collection. It needs more quantitatively statistical analysis to prove the correlation and its significance. Furthermore, the analysis only scopes the interaction between one component in one particular aspect to another component in a different domain area (for instance, participation in the procedural justice aspect may influence outcome fairness in the distributional justice aspect). An interaction between components in one particular aspect (for example, participation against voice) may possibly occur. However, it is out of the research boundaries and may be studied in any further research. This can thus be seen only as an indicative finding.
Regarding some of the barriers related to community acceptance which are found in this research, possible solutions may include strengthening the participation of officials from local women’s institutions (PKK and RW), giving better opportunities to all voices, especially the waste operator (RW 11), and sharing the incurred burdens as the communal entity to guarantee a fair distribution of outcomes. Along with non-technical solutions, improvement on the quality of the blower and the consistency of the biogas production may also bring positive impacts as these are currently connected to a lack of favorable outcomes, and in turn, reduced trust.
Figure 6.
The construction of community acceptance in the studied case.
Figure 6.
The construction of community acceptance in the studied case.