Green Budgeting Strategy for Waste Sector Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: A QSPM-Based Approach in Bogor City

Ridwan Adithiansyah; A. Faroby Falatehan; Sri Mulatsih

doi:10.59261/jbt.v7i3.731

Authors

Ridwan Adithiansyah IPB University
A. Faroby Falatehan IPB University
Sri Mulatsih IPB University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59261/jbt.v7i3.731

Keywords:

Climate Change Mitigation, Cost-Effectiveness, Green Budgeting, QSPM, Solid Waste Management

Abstract

Background: The waste sector is a local authority emission source whose mitigation depends on structure of public expenditure rather than its size alone.

Objective: This study formulates a budget allocation strategy for the Bogor City Environmental Agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup [DLH]) to support greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction in the waste sector.

Methods: Spending data from 2017–2024 were functionally reclassified into core mitigation, downstream operational, and supporting components to ensure comparability across the 2021 fiscal nomenclature transition. The analysis combined descriptive methods, exploratory multiple linear regression with a COVID-19 dummy variable and a two-year lag (n = 6), and a strategic management framework comprising the Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) matrix, External Factor Evaluation (EFE) matrix, Internal–External (IE) matrix, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, and Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) assessed by nine purposively selected expert respondents.

Results: Core mitigation activities absorbed only approximately one-sixth of total mitigation spending, while downstream operations dominated budget allocation, and proportion allocated to core mitigation tended to shrink after 2018. Exploratory regression indicated that each additional million rupiah allocated to core mitigation was associated with an approximately 3.2-ton reduction in CO₂-equivalent (CO₂eq) emissions two years later (p = 0.021). The strategic position analysis placed DLH in a hold-and-maintain quadrant. Among seven identified strategies, large-scale organic waste processing through partnerships received the highest QSPM score, with the top four strategies forming a complementary priority cluster.

Conclusion: The findings indicate allocative quality, rather than budget volume alone, determines the effectiveness of mitigation spending.

References

Adewuyi, A. O. (2016). Effects of public and private expenditures on environmental pollution: A dynamic heterogeneous panel data analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 65, 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.090

Anggraini, U., Wijaya, S., & Lathif, S. (2023). Tinjauan Kebijakan Pendanaan Perubahan Iklim Di Indonesia. Journal of Law, Administration, and Social Science, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.54957/jolas.v3i1.411

Ariani, M., Setyanto, P., & Ardiansyah, M. (2016). Biaya Pengurangan (Marginal Abatement Cost) Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca(GRK) Sektor PErtanian di Kabupaten Grobogan dan Tanjung Jabung Timur. Jurnal Ilmu Lingkungan, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14710/jil.14.1.39-49

Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan, Riset dan Inovasi Daerah Kota Bogor. (2023). Rencana Aksi Daerah Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca Kota Bogor.

Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policy making. Palgrave Macmillan.

David, F. R., David, F. R., & David, M. E. (2017). Strategic Management: A Competitive Advantage Approach, Concepts and Cases (16th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kota Bogor. (2019). Rencana Strategis Dinas Lingkungan Hidup Kota Bogor Tahun 2019–2024.

Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic Econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Halkos, G. E., & Paizanos, E. A. (2017). The channels of the effect of government expenditure on the environment: evidence using dynamic panel data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1145107

Hocherman, T., Trop, T., & Ghermandi, A. (2025). Time lags in environmental governance: A critical review. In Ambio (Vol. 54, Number 12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02211-y

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. In What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. https://doi.org/10.1596/17388

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Volume 5—Waste.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. IPCC.

Jin, Y., Tang, Y. M., Chau, K. Y., & Abbas, M. (2022). How government expenditure mitigates emissions: A step towards sustainable green economy in Belt and Road Initiative project. Journal of Environmental Management, 303, 113967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113967

Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., Van Woerden, F., & Levine, D. (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. In What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0

Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1991). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Lesmana, S. (2014). Kerugian Ekonomi dan Kebutuhan Vegetasi Untuk Menurunkan Emisi Karbon Kendaraan Bermotor di Kota Bogor. [Master’s thesis]. IPB University.

Lopez, R., Galinato, G. I., & Islam, A. (2011). Fiscal spending and the environment: Theory and empirics. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.03.001

Magno, R. B., Hakim, A., & Domai, T. (2015). Pengaruh Pengelolaan Anggaran Terhadap Kinerja Organisasi Pemerintahaan. Jurnal Unitri, 5(2).

McKinsey & Company. (2009). Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve. McKinsey & Company.

Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

OECD. (2020). Paris collaborative on green budgeting: OECD green budgeting framework. OECD Publishing.

Pambudi, A. S. (2024). Evaluasi Efektivitas Perencanaan Pusat-Daerah Terkait Pembangunan Bidang Lingkungan Hidup Berbasis Anggaran Dana Alokasi Khusus. Jurnal Litbang Kota Pekalongan, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.54911/litbang.v22i2.328

Prihartono, R., Falatehan, A. F., & Widyastutik. (2024). Strategi Adaptasi Dan Mitigasi Penurunan Emisi Gas Rumah Kaca (GRK) Melalui Sektor Transportasi Di Kota Bogor. Risalah Kebijakan Pertanian Dan Lingkungan Rumusan Kajian Strategis Bidang Pertanian Dan Lingkungan, 11(3), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.29244/jkebijakan.v11i3.60430

Qodriyatun, S. N. (2021). Pembangkit Listrik Tenaga Sampah: Antara Permasalahan Lingkungan dan Percepatan Pembangunan Energi Terbarukan. Aspirasi: Jurnal Masalah-Masalah Sosial, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.46807/aspirasi.v12i1.2093

Rangkuti, F. (2016). Analisis SWOT Teknik Membedah Kasus Bisnis, PT. Gramedia, Jakarta. In Academia. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Rubin, I. S. (2020). The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing. In SAGE Publication: Ninth Edit.

Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Suharyono. (2025). Penerapan Green Budgeting: Strategi Pemerintah Daerah untuk Pembangunan Berkelanjutan. Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, 2(May).

Suparman, N. (2021). Dampak Pandemi Covid-19 terhadap Pengelolaan Keuangan Negara. Indonesian Treasury Review: Jurnal Perbendaharaan, Keuangan Negara Dan Kebijakan Publik, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.33105/itrev.v6i1.261

World Bank. (2021). Environmental public expenditure review (EPER): Guidance and framework.

World Health Organization & UNICEF. (2021). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000–2020.