Heru Purwanto, Renny Nurhasana, Azizah Rohimah

Assessing the Feasibility of Small-Scale RDF Technology in Urban Solid Waste Management Using Cost-Benefit Analysis

Introduction

Assessing the feasibility of small-scale rdf technology in urban solid waste management using cost-benefit analysis. Assess small-scale RDF technology's feasibility for urban solid waste management in Jakarta via Cost-Benefit Analysis. Discover economic viability, high ROI, and crucial implementation factors.

Abstract

The development of Waste Processing Facilities based on the 3R principles (TPS 3R) with small-scale Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) technology in Jakarta aims to support waste sorting, composting, reuse, and recycling activities, with locations strategically placed as close as possible to service areas. However, its implementation faces significant challenges, particularly due to high initial investment and operational costs. This study evaluates the feasibility of four TPS 3R facilities using a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach, considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions. The results indicate that all units are economically viable, with TPS 3R Joe demonstrating the highest economic feasibility, marked by a BCR of 1.870, an NPV of IDR 25.81 billion (USD 1.60 million), and an IRR of 15.76%. The study concludes that the successful implementation of small-scale RDF technology is highly influenced by technical efficiency, institutional support, community participation, and policies that are adaptive to local characteristics.

Review

The study, "Assessing the Feasibility of Small-Scale RDF Technology in Urban Solid Waste Management Using Cost-Benefit Analysis," addresses a highly pertinent issue in urban sustainability, particularly in rapidly developing cities like Jakarta. The focus on small-scale Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) technology integrated into 3R principles (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) offers a practical approach to decentralized waste management. The authors employ a robust Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) framework, explicitly considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions, which is commendable given the complex nature of waste infrastructure projects. The abstract effectively highlights a key finding: the economic viability of the assessed facilities, with TPS 3R Joe demonstrating particularly strong financial metrics (BCR 1.870, NPV IDR 25.81 billion, IRR 15.76%). This initial finding suggests a promising pathway for addressing significant challenges like high initial investment and operational costs. While the abstract establishes a clear methodology and strong economic outcomes, there is a notable divergence between the stated multi-dimensional analysis and the reported results. The abstract indicates that the CBA considered economic, environmental, and social dimensions; however, the provided quantitative results (BCR, NPV, IRR) are solely economic metrics. For a comprehensive understanding, the full paper should elaborate on how the environmental and social aspects were quantified and integrated into the CBA, or if they were assessed qualitatively alongside the economic analysis. Clarification is needed on whether the "benefits" in the CBA explicitly include monetized environmental externalities (e.g., reduced landfill emissions) and social benefits (e.g., job creation, improved public health), or if these represent separate analytical streams. Furthermore, while the conclusion points to the influence of technical efficiency, institutional support, community participation, and adaptive policies, the abstract does not explicitly detail how these factors were either incorporated into the CBA or how their influence was quantitatively or qualitatively determined within the scope of this particular study. Overall, this study presents a valuable contribution to the discourse on sustainable urban waste management, offering empirical evidence for the economic viability of small-scale RDF technology in a challenging urban context. To strengthen its impact and clarity, the full manuscript should transparently detail the methodology for integrating or presenting all three stated dimensions (economic, environmental, social) within the CBA framework. Expanding on the specific challenges identified (high costs) and how the successful units managed to overcome these, perhaps through specific technical or institutional innovations, would also be highly beneficial. By clearly articulating the interconnections between the quantitative economic analysis and the qualitative/quantitative assessment of environmental and social factors, the paper has the potential to provide a more holistic and actionable roadmap for policymakers and practitioners considering similar waste management solutions.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.