Tackling the effects of the water crisis in Surabaya : by improving domestic wastewater governance

(1)

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

As soon as I had to pick a topic, I thought of the water crisis in Indonesia. I was interested in how this could be solved in unconventional ways. Instead of looking at the water supply I was more interested how the wastewater was discharged, as this could be harmful not only for the ecosystems, but also for the human health. In Indonesia 37% of the children are stunted (The World bank, 2018). This is not only because of lack of nutrition’s, but also because of poor water quality (R1). I believe that the future generation should not pay because of the behaviour of the past. Furthermore, during my research I experienced first-hand how horrible it is to get sick of polluted water, as I got typhus. This has only motivated me more to understand the current situation and try to find suitable solutions for Surabaya.

But I could not have done this alone. First of all, I want to thank prof. dr. Eddy Soedjono and dr. Adhy Yuniato from the ITS university and Daru Setyo Rini of ECOTON for introducing me to Surabaya. Furthermore, they helped me find my respondents and thought me so much about the current situation. Further, I want to thank all my respondents in Jakarta and Surabaya and focus group participants for making this research possible, by making time for me and opening up to me. I also want to thank my supervisor, prof. dr. Robert Kloosterman, for guiding me and especially believing in my capabilities to do this research in Indonesia independently. Last but not least, I want to thank my dearest parents and my boyfriend for believing in me and taking care of me while I was sick, even though they warned me so many times. I could not have done this without them.

(4)

Abstract

This research examines the (clean) water crisis in Surabaya and how these effects could be tackled by exploring how different governance configurations can contribute to a higher level of water security through reusing, recycling or reducing domestic wastewater. To provide a comprehensive answer to this main question it has to be divided in three parts, where the current water infrastructure is described, the (waste)water governance is analysed and finally the potentials are presented.

The methods used during this research were mostly qualitative. The greater part of the results is based on the held in-depth interviews with important stakeholders and the focus groups with communities. Additionally, a mixed-methodological approach was used with ArcGIS to localise a part of the stakeholders and the community initiatives.

Results show that the current water infrastructure is jeopardizing the water security and increasing the water crisis further as; (1) only Brantas river is used as main source for the entire region; (2) the current wastewater management is polluting this source; (3) and this causing a low water quality. This development can be partly explained by several factors in the current governmental structure, such as the lack of law enforcements on all scales, causing political prioritisation in other sectors and unclear responsibilities among the governmental institutions in wastewater management. Which resulted in a large part of the residential users managing their own wastewater.

For this reason, it is important to include citizens by creating awareness and involving them in the water management through a collaborative governance. Solutions could be found on a local scale with a simple WWTP which the community can easily manage and maintain. Furthermore, this harvested water can be used as an urban common to improve the livelihoods through activities, such as gardening and food provisioning.

Keywords: Water Crisis, Water Security, Domestic Wastewater management, Water Governance, Circular Economy, community initiatives

(5)

List of Abbreviations

BAPPEDA Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Regional Development Planning Agency)

BAPPEKO Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Kota (Local/Municipal Development Planning Agency)

BAPPENAS Badan Perencanaan dan Pembanguan Nasional (National Development Planning Agency)

CE Circular Economy

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DEWATS Decentralized wastewater treatment systems

IPAL Instalasi Pengolah Air Lindi (small wastewater treatment plant)

IPLT Keputih Instalasi Pengeloloan Linbah Tinja’ Surabaya (Treatment plant for black water) ITS University Institute of Technology Sepuluh Nopember

IUWASH Indonesia Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

PDAM Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum Kota Surabaya (Local Water supplier of the city)

RT Rukun Tetangga (neighbourhood)

SDG Sustainable Development Goal

SDO Service Delivery Organisation

UN United Nations

WSC Water Sensitive City

(6)

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: Operationalization of the core concepts in this research

Table 2: Questions asked during the focus groups

Table 3: Main results research sanitation of prof. dr. Soedjono (2017)

Table 4: List of the communities visited for the focus group and observations

Table 5: List of respondents who participated the semi-structured interviews

Table 6: Used variables for observations

Table 7: Type of pollution caused incorrect wastewater management

Table 8: Recognized stakeholders in water management in Surabaya during fieldwork

Table 9: Communities treating their own wastewater

Figure 1: Location of Surabaya

Figure 2: on-site wastewater treatment

Figure 3: Off-site wastewater treatment

Figure 4: on-site Communal wastewater treatment

Figure 5: different possibilities for reused/recycled water

Figure 6: Flows of water (closing the loop) with potential applications of direct and indirect water reuse

Figure 7: Conceptual Scheme of the research

Figure 8: Embedded design

Figure 9: Map of the Surabaya river in the city

Figure 10: Study map area visualizing observations of community initiatives and important stakeholders

Figure 11: Domestic wastewater treatment in Surabaya

Figure 12: Location of the factories in the upstream area of the river before entering Surabaya

Figure 13: The community based on-site treatment system IPAL

(7)

1. Introduction

1.1 Setting the scene

Access to clean water is a fundamental human right (UNESCO, 2019: 36). Since the beginning of the Anthropocene era, driven by economic development, population growth and changing consumption patterns, water sources are being exploited. This has consequently resulted in to a worldwide water crisis. The Sustainable Development Goal number 6 on access to clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) of the United Nations (UN) recognizes the importance of this problem, as it is relevant to human health, environmental integrity and prosperity and it is mostly connected to the survival of the planet (ibid.). Today, some 1.9 billion people live in areas where water sources are severely scarce (The Economist, 2019). About 73 percent of them live in Asia.

Indonesia is seen as one of the regions with severe water stress, which is mainly the result of water mismanagement of the government (Zulfikar Rakhmat, 2018; Fauzi et al, 2018; Eneng et al., 2018). To achieve SDG 6 improvements in the divisions of planning, governance and capacity, UNESCO (2019) states that funding is required both at national and local scales. The national government of Indonesia is investing in accomplishing SDG 6. However, the focus is mostly put on access to clean water for all and making the country open defecation free (Soedjono, 2017). Access to sanitation is postponed to the long-term plan and has to be reached till 2030. Consequently, one of the biggest issues is the lack of well-functioning water treatment plants and sewage systems to treat domestic wastewater (Fauzi et al., 2018). Domestic wastewater is water that has been affected by human use in a domestic context (United Nations, 2015). Only 12 cities in Indonesia have a kind of sewage system, which only serves 2.13% of the Indonesian people (Prijandrijanti & Firdayati, 2011).

On top of this created ‘clean’ water crisis by water mismanagement, domestic garbage is often dumped into the rivers by residents thus turning rivers into waste dumps (Zulfikar Rakhmat, 2018). This causes severe pollution of the rivers, especially in urban areas (Fauzi et al., 2018; Eneng et al., 2018). Resulting in domestic wastewater polluting some 68% of the rivers in Indonesia (Fauzi et al., 2018).

Nevertheless, the government invested 1.1 billion US dollars in 2018 to improve sanitation infrastructure and manage waste water by constructing water treatment plants (Zulfikar Rakhmat, 2018). Still, millions of households lack safe water and proper sanitation, making the investments inadequate. In Indonesia, state laws entitle local governments to collect, convey, treat and dispose wastewater of urban communities (Asian Development Bank, 2017). Resulting in only 1% of the wastewater being treated properly (Wijaya & Soedjono, 2018). This could suggest the lack of regulation on a local scale. It is important to understand how local governance configurations, such as public and private stakeholders and community-based initiatives deal with this problem. With the current water crisis, water reclamation at wastewater treatment plants could represent an important solution of sustainable waste water resource management as it cleans the polluted water for reuse/recycle and can minimize the current scarcity (Sgroi et al., 2018). Furthermore, in this region the European Commission has shown willingness to collaborate with local authorities and the EU-Indonesia Business Network to organise a Circular Economy Mission (Vella, 2018). This shows that the potential is there, making Indonesia an interesting case to look at possible solutions in waste water management through the principles of Circular Economy to enhance water security.

Therefore, this research will focus on tackling the effects of the water crisis by researching the current construction of the water infrastructure, the involved stakeholders in wastewater governance and what their role and contribution is, and finally this research aims to explore potentials in improving the wastewater management by looking at the pillars of Circular Economy.

(10)

1.2 Academic relevance

This research contributes to the existing literature on water governance and Circular Economy to improve water security in three different ways. First, the research focusses on the local governance on wastewater and how the principles of CE could improve the current situation. Not many researches have been looking at local governmental needs to succeed the implementation of recycling and reusing in the water sector to enhance water security. Secondly, this research stresses the importance of the inclusion of communities in neighbourhoods as important actors to make waste water reuse, recycle and reduce possible. Finally, this research is explorative as it looks at tackling the effects of the water crisis through wastewater management instead of water management.

1.3 Societal relevance

A big part of the households in Indonesia do not have access to clean water and sanitation (Fauzi et al., 2018; Asian Development bank, 2017). Almost 27 million Indonesians lack access to safe water and 51 million lack access to improved sanitation (Water.org, 2016). Besides, water pollution affecting and disrupting eco-systems, it is severely harmful for the human health, as it causes diseases, such as diarrhoea and may cause stunted development in children (World Health Organization, 2016). Since this is partly caused by poor (waste) water management and pollution of the river, conducting this research could suggest possible solutions in dealing with (domestic) wastewater and enhance water security.

1.4 Case Study: Surabaya

The research will be conducted in the city of Surabaya, a city located on the Northeast coast of the island Java (see figure 1). It is the second biggest city after Jakarta with approximately 3 million inhabitants (Ostojic et al., 2013). The size of Surabaya is 326 km2. It is divided in 31 big districts, subdivided in 154 subdistricts and has 8909 registered neighbourhoods. Surabaya is seen as the industrial, commercial and maritime centre of East Java with a booming population growth and is seen as one of the biggest economical hubs of Southeast Asia (Ostojic et al., 2013). This location is chosen as it is seen as one of the most sustainable oriented cities in Java with the most community-based initiatives (Ostojic et al., 2013). However, there still is a big problem in this area caused by lack of sanitation and access, which resulted in polluted water resources. Furthermore, the current infrastructure does not have a centralized sewerage system or proper wastewater treatment for the whole population (Prihandrijanti & Fridayata, 2011). Most of the wastewater is still being disposed in rivers and lakes without being treated (Wijaya, & Soedjono, 2018). This lack of public water infrastructure arranged by the government resulted in high pressure on the water provision and heavy water pollution of the city’s main water source, the Surabaya River, through the discharge of domestic and industrial wastewater upstream from the city (Lucas & Djati, 2007).

(11)

This development caused emerging self-management initiatives of the community to get access to proper sanitation (Prihandrijanti & Fridayata, 2011). Nowadays, decentralized concepts are being implemented by different stakeholders. This makes Surabaya an ideal case to conduct the research. Moreover, Surabaya represents an interesting case of how waste water is being governed in one of Indonesia’s metropoles since most of the big cities do not have a central sewage system or treatment and for this reason can inform for further research in the Indonesian context (Wijaya, & Soedjono, 2018). Finally, most of the research found about wastewater are focussed on the capital Jakarta and little academic (English) literature on cities, such as Surabaya.

(12)

2. Theoretical framework

Looking at the current situation in Indonesia, more specifically Surabaya, it is necessary to have a better understanding of the theoretical concepts that are relevant to this sector. First the concept of ‘water security’ will be explained and how this is jeopardized by the current developments. Subsequently, in the paragraph Water Governance, the possibilities of a ‘Collaborative Governance’ will be described and how this can be applied in an urban context by applying the pillars of ‘The Water Sensitive City’. In the last paragraph the current used wastewater treatment systems in Indonesia will be introduced and the concepts of ‘Circular Economy in the water sector’ will be proposed as one of the possible solutions.

2.1 Water security and water scarcity

Rapid urbanization, economic- and population growth put severe pressure on fresh water systems (Obeng et al., 2010; Lyu et al., 2016; Voulvoulis, 2018). Giving these escalating trends, the water supply will remain under threat in the future, causing severe water scarcity. The need for resilient and adaptive urban water management systems is even greater given the fact that water availability is declining while demand is growing. This imbalance has resulted in competition between different stakeholders which jeopardizes water security. The urge to protect water security and implement more sustainable governance measures to achieve this is increasing (WEF, 2011; Roger & Hall, 2011).

Water security can be described as access to clean water to maintain economic growth and human well-being in the form of health, sanitation, and food and goods production (Vörösmarty et al., 2010; WEF, 2011). It is widely regarded as most the crucial natural resource. At the same time, however, freshwater systems have been negatively affected by human economic activities (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Pollution of fresh water systems and water mismanagement, such as overuse, are the biggest threats for biodiversity loss and human security. This has caused a severe form of water stress, which means that demand by the agricultural, industrial and household sectors cannot be met by the available freshwater supply resources in that country (CE100a, 2017). The most concerning cause of water stress is the lack of access to clean water and sanitation for all households (Sgroi et al., 2018).

Several studies show that implementing Circular Economy (CE) measures may enhance and protect water security. CE, here, refers to the implementation of policies to reduce, reuse and recycle waste water to reclaim water for agricultural, industrial and municipal use (WEF, 2011; CE100a,2017; CE100b; 2018; Lyu et al., 2016; Voulvoulis, 2018, Sgroi et al., 2018).

2.2 Water governance

2.2.1 Collaborative water governance

A water crisis can be seen as a crisis of governance, as the water resource is not conscientiously used to meet the requirements, without being exploited (Rogers & Hall, 2003). During the World Water Forum in The Hague, the necessity of improving water governance was translated into a recommendation to govern water more wisely through good governance by involving the public and all other stakeholders to manage water resources (Rogers & Hall, 2003). It is especially important to diminish unnecessary exploitation and pollution of water resources. The Global Water Partnership defines water governance as follows:

‘’Water governance refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of

(13)

There is a distinction to be made between meta-, first and second governance (Swyngedouw, 2005). Meta-governance refers to the parties that define the grand principles of the government. The first order governance are institutions that codify and formalise these principles in regulation. The second order governance actually implements the regulation. Yet, with the increased attention being paid to the role of civic society in governance configurations, the notion of “governance-beyond-the-state” has been introduced to refer to the active involvement of non-governmental actors in the policymaking and implementation process. By organising a horizontal network where private companies, state actors and members of the civic society are recognized and reconsidered during management, collective benefits and common purpose can be better accomplished (Roger & Hall, 2003; Foster, 2006). This polycentric ensemble in rule-making has been applied to all spatial levels, but seems most visible at the urban scale.

To make implementation of policies successful, it is important to recognize and involve innovative networks within cities as the second order of governance (Foster, 2006). These urban networks are communities on the local level which may generate significant benefits. It is, as Foster (2006) calls it, the ‘civic fauna’ of an urban area which makes successful governance possible. Each community defines the quality of the neighbourhood life. All these neighbourhoods and their communities together develop a wider interpretation and definition of the quality of the city life. The concentration of polluted water sources jeopardizes not only environments in an ecological sense, but also directly impacts the livelihood of people, such as cooking, washing and also regarding their work and transport. Traditional resource management ignores the complex synergies and interdependencies of various components and stressors of the social ecosystems (Foster & Iaione, 2018).

Public agencies and private stakeholders are addressing mutual resource concerns of wastewater created in the urban context (Lyu et al., 2016; Obeng et al., 2010). Including citizens in the wastewater management could make domestic wastewater an urban common, where citizens are included in the responsibility for proper wastewater treatment and can also enjoy the benefits of the treated water. To govern wastewater as an urban common, the strong spatial heterogeneity of natural and social components in the urban system should be taken into consideration (Pickett et al., 1997; Foster & Iaione, 2018). These can diverse strongly on a local level, looking at the different social capitals of different neighbourhoods. These so-called ‘patch dynamics’ are the local-scale interactions that characterize a certain area based on the social, geological, economic and political variables (Pickett et al., 1997). To fully understand the effect of implementing the components of CE in city policies, the diversity in the composition of these different patches should be recognized. Integrating policies on a higher scale can disturb these urban communities. Therefore, solutions should be implemented based on the local differences and then up-scaled to a national level (Foster, 2006). By creating a collaborative governance in managing water resources, national management actors may work together with local stakeholders from diverse neighbourhoods. Involving local communities in managing the resource, is an important recognition of the local expertise in natural resource management. It is the combination of (inter)national law with the creativity of local expertise which can provide the solution for water scarcity (Foster, 2006).

2.2.2 Water sensitive cities: How to govern water in an urban context

To provide a fitting service in waste water governance in an urban context, the Wastewater Management or Sewerage Regulation and Sanitation Codes on a national level, should be adopted and further specified by the local government in the specific region (Asian Development Bank, 2017). When implementing this through the local government, it is important to bear in mind that a regulation of this kind should govern the relationship between the local government and/or its service delivery organisation (SDO) and the service users, establishing the rights and obligations of all included parties, creating an inclusive management system. This collaborative approach will minimize the chances of the ‘yuck-factor’ and enhance the chances of acceptability (Garcia & Pargament, 2015; Voulvoulis, 2018). Yuck is the instinctive response from

(14)

consumers to new technologies, especially related to waste reuse and recycle. Finally, this approach enhances the public awareness of all the actors and reduces the polluting behaviour (CE100a, 2017; Voulvoulis, 2018; Lyu et al., 2016).

These failures partly arise because of infrastructural and institutional compartmentalisation of water supply and the continuing investment in conventional, large-scale, top-down and complex technologies, which do not seem to work in these areas. The reason for this is these infrastructures require large investments and outsourcing of tasks which are based on old technologies that can cause lock-in (Wong & Brown, 2009). Lock-in causes institutional and technological barriers to more sustainable solutions in, this case, water management. Therefore, the Australia-Indonesia centre (2017) suggests that leapfrogging would be the solution for developing countries, such as Indonesia. This means that conventional approaches causing lock-in have to be overcome to make a city truly resilient to future challenges. Instead of lock-investlock-ing lock-in massive centralised sewage systems, it is preferable to implement decentralized, efficient and cost-effective treatment and recycling systems at a neighbourhood scale, leading to an accelerated developmental pathway towards ‘the Water Sensitive City’ (WSC) (Wong & Brown, 2009; Australia-Indonesia Centre, 2017). The concept of the WSC rests upon three key pillars. The first pillar stresses the importance of a variety of water resources and a variety in centralised and decentralised distribution infrastructure. Depending on only one source and only one distribution system, makes a city extremely vulnerable and jeopardizes the water security (Wong and Brown, 2009). The resilience of urban areas can be improved through harvesting alternative resources, as recycled waste water, which can be obtained within the city boundaries (Wong & Brown, 2009; Garcia & Pragmant, 2015; Wilcox et al., 2016; Sgroi et al., 2018). By harvesting water resources through recycling waste water cycles are closed and water loss is being minimized. This also reduces the financial costs and the environmental impact of water use (Wilcox et al., 2016; Wong & Brown, 2009). The second pillar emphasises the importance of provisioning ecosystem services within cities. The local government has to introduce a city design where regulations and technologies make the water provision resilient to impacts as climate change, which retains the water security. A holistic approach is needed where urban communities and natural environments come together in a green infrastructure throughout the whole city (Wong & Brown, 2009: 678). The third pillar stresses the need of strong institutional capacities. To make the transition towards a WSC successful, it should be socially accepted. This means it is necessary to obtain political support and community acceptance (Wong & Brown, 2009: 679). It requires a new collaborative governance with all involved actors (Foster, 2006; Wong & Brown, 2009; Brown & Clarke, 2007). Moreover, to implement new technology or introduce infrastructural changes, often represents a radical change, demanding fundamental changes in institutional capacity at various levels including new (creative) knowledge and skills, organisational systems and relationships, policy frameworks and regulatory rewards and penalties (Brown & Clarke, 2007).

2.3 Waste water treatment in the domestic sector

2.3.1 Domestic wastewater treatment in Indonesia

Because of the big differences in systems and functions of urban and rural areas, the District Governments of Indonesia have developed different approaches to provide services to treat wastewater in Indonesia (WASH Indonesia, 2014). In rural areas a community-based approach is favoured whereas in the urban areas an institution-based approach. The so-called community-based approach seems to be most suitable in rural areas, as it is characterised by an active involvement of the community throughout the whole wastewater treatment process. This is necessary, because the institutional capabilities seem to be limited in these areas. The institution-based approach is common in urban areas, where the wastewater services are provided by a Public agency or new institution dedicated to wastewater management and a strong dedication of the

(15)

community is not seen as needed here. The aim of the national government is to slowly transition to an institution-based approach nation-wide.

In Indonesia there are three types of wastewater treatment systems recognized: the on-site system, the communal system and the off-site system (WASH Indonesia, 2014; Asian development Bank, 2017). It depends on the urban-rural setting which of these systems are most appropriate to use.

An on-site system, displayed in figure 2, is commonly used in rural areas and is characterised by the community-based approach (WASH Indonesia, 2014). The system covers large areas, there are limiting institutional capabilities and often only one or several households connected. Beginning from the toilet, the wastewater is transferred to a septic for a primary treatment. Most of these tanks are not designed to treat wastewater for a safe disposal into the river. For this reason, the sludge must be further transported to a sewage treatment plant called ‘Instalasi Pengeloloan Linbah Tinja’ (IPLT), where the wastewater is being treated properly. When this process is completed, the treated water is being discharged safely into the nearest water source, such as the sea or a river. For on-site systems, the responsibility for maintenance falls into the household’s owner. The transportation, treatment and disposal are the responsibility of the public domain.

Figure 2: on-site wastewater treatment

(Source: WASH Indonesia, 2014)

As mentioned in the introduction, the biggest part of country is lacking a centralized sewage system (Prijandrijanti & Firdayati, 2011). Only thirteen highly populated cities in Indonesia have a type of centralized sewage system, also called an off-site system found on the institution-based approach (Fauzi et al., 2018). Most of these systems are in poor condition and were constructed in the colonial era. The chain, as presented in figure 3, starts with the effluents of the wastewater going straight to the sewerage systems. Through the sewerage systems, the wastewater is being transported to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment and being disposed safely or recycled in different sectors. Within these systems, the household is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the on-site sewerage pipes and the toilets. It is the responsibility of different public stakeholders to install, manage and maintain the off-site sewerage networks, sludge central treatment facilities and effective recycling/disposal of the produced bio-waste.

(16)

Figure 3: Off-site wastewater treatment

(Source: WASH Indonesia, 2014)

Finally, the communal systems are mostly implemented by low-income neighbourhoods located in both rural as urban areas with no sewerage system (Asian Development Bank, 2017). These systems have a higher household coverage, more advanced sludge treatment technology and a high rate of community involvement as the responsibilities of managing these systems are much higher as it covers up to 400 households. As showed in figure 4, the wastewater from all the connected households are conveyed to a nearby treatment, using neighbourhood sewerage pipes (WASH Indonesia, 2014). Within this process the sludge is being pre-treated or is completely treated for a safe disposal in to a river. When being treated primarily, it will be transported with trucks to an IPLT for further treatment and safe discharge. However, if the septic tank of this communal system is directly connected to an off-site system for treatment it could be seen as a useful stepping stone between on-site and off-site systems. The reason for this is if it is connected to a sewerage network with a completed WWTP, some 5.000 households may be served.

Figure 4: on-site Communal wastewater treatment

(17)

Two types are recognized (WASH Indonesia, 2014; Asian development Bank, 2017). First looking at the communal systems, the management of neighbourhood sewers, primary treatment, desludging and conveyance, sludge treatment at an IPLT and sludge disposal/recycling all fall under the responsibility of public agencies. Nonetheless, it is not clearly defined which actor is responsible for repairing the system. This differs completely to the SANIMAS systems, where the community carries the responsibility from the system management to the primary treatment of the effluents. The management of this process is facilitated by a community-based organisation (CBO) with members of the community, whom take responsibility for the tasks and collect fees from users to finance operation and maintenance costs. Ideally the maintenance and costs of all the systems should fall under the responsibility of a public agency, nevertheless the issue of asset transfer to these public agencies often constrain agency allocation of budget for repairs, which seems to be difficult to realize.

2.3.2 The principles of Circular Economy in waste water treatment

Harvesting alternative water resources could be achieved by using the principles of CE (Voulvoulis, 2018). The notion of CE is based on a fragmented collection of ideas from different academic strands, and can be considered as lacking a clearly circumscribed terminology (Kirchherr et al., 2017). As the term has emerged in the scientific research in recent years, there remains doubt on how to analyse specific developments in different cases. Even though, the popularity of this term is expanding rapidly in academics and applied research, while it offers a solution for sustainable resource management, there still seem to be differences in the description of the term (CE100a, 2017; CE100b, 2018; Kirchherr et al., 2017, Nizami et al., 2017, Garcia & Pargament, 2015). This has led to several definitions (Kirchherr et al., 2017). That is why CE can be seen as an umbrella concept, which can be specified depending on which scale and which resource research is conducted. The global thought leader of the CE, The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, gives the following definition:

‘‘Circular economy is an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design and aims to keep products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. It is conceived as a continuous positive development cycle that preserves and enhances natural capital, optimizes resource yields, and minimizes system risk by managing finite stock and renewable flows.’’ (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2012:7).

In the literature study of Kirchherr et al. (2017),114 different definitions have been compared to better understand the main principles of CE. The most important aims are to maintain environmental quality, ensure economic prosperity, provide social equity and all this without limiting future generations. The term CE is used as an advanced continuation to define sustainable development, with decoupling economic growth and urbanization of the limiting resources as main focus (Nizami et al., 2017). This can be achieved by closing the loop of a production process. How to conduct CE is based on the R-framework, which should be implemented first in policy and then in the production process to close the loop (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2012; Casiano et al., 2018; CE100a, 2017; Eneng et al., 2018; Voulvoulis, 2018). Closing the loop means that all the used resources remain in the production process without creating unusable externalities. The main Rs used in scientific research are Recycle, Reuse, Reduce and Recover (Krichherr et al., 2017). These Rs should provide the following principles of CE: 1) design out waste externalities; 2) keep resources in use; and 3) regenerate natural capital (CE100b, 2018).

For this research the main focus will be on domestic wastewater, because of the lack of wastewater facilities and the pollution, which has been the result of mismanagement (Fauzi et al., 2018; Asian Development Bank, 2017). As such, the focus of CE shall be adapted to the water sector looking at reuse, reduce and recycle. When water is reused, it may be used for the same purpose or sector (Vigneswaran &

(18)

Sundaravadivel, 2004). Recycling the water appears when the water is being used for other purposes or sectors. Finally, reduce happens when the user is minimizing the use of water, due technology development or enhancing awareness.

Reused and recycled wastewater can have three different purposes, as shown in figure 5. First, the reused or recycled water can be used as a service, such as sanitation for households or evaporative cooling (CE100b, 2018). Furthermore, the reused/recycled water can serve as a source from where the black effluents out the sewage systems or septic tanks could be used for anaerobic digestion for bio-thermal energy or the water itself can be utilized to generate hydro-electric energy. Finally, the recycled source is suitable as a carrier. The present chemicals nitrogen and phosphorus could be suitable fertilizers for agricultural purposes (CE100b, 2018).

Figure 5: different possibilities for reused/recycled water

(source: CE100b, 2018)

Looking at the implementation of CE in existing domestic water systems, technological solutions in sewage systems are primarily needed to reuse or recycle waste water (Voulvoulis, 2018; CE100a, 2017; Sgroi et al., 2018). Conventional sewage treatment is not enough to recycle and to reuse waste water, as it does not purify the wastewater enough and thus can be dangerous (Voulvoulis, 2018). Traditional sewages remove predominantly larger floating and suspended materials. It removes approximately 55 percent of the suspended solids. Then, a secondary treatment consisting of a biological process of micro-organisms which removes biodegradable organic waste, is needed. This process removes around 95% of the biochemical oxygen demand, heavy metals and certain organic compounds. This process produces effluent dischargeable water, as visualized in Figure 6. This means the water can be disposed safely in the nearest water source.

(19)

For water reuse or recycle a tertiary and ‘advanced’ treatment is needed to remove microbial pathogens, particulates and unnecessary nutrients to recycle water for irrigation use (carrier function) or energy use (as a source of energy). To reuse the water for potable purposes (direct), the reclaimed water should meet national health requirements (Voulvoulis,2018; Wilcox et al., 2016). The national requirements in Indonesia provide potential health concerns (Wilcox et al., 2016). It differs from Western requirements, as not all biological and chemical pollutants are taken into consideration. For this reason, this research will not take potable use of recycled water into consideration.

Figure 6: Flows of water (closing the loop) with potential applications of direct and indirect water reuse

(source: Voulvoulis (2018))

To ensure a successful technological water reuse transition, there is a need for adaptive governance mechanisms (Wilcox et al., 2016; Sgroi et al., 2018; Garcia & Pargament, 2015). That is why it is necessary to reconsider the localised political, environmental, social and economic factors of the area (Wilcox et al., 2016; Sgroi et al., 2018). Wastewater treatment systems can be centralized and decentralized (Sgroi et al., 2018; Lyu et al., 2016). Centralized water treatment systems benefit from economies of scale. Decentralized treatment systems operate on a small scale, such as several households. The latter seems to be more sustainable as it provides a higher resiliency and reduce costs of infrastructure replacements (Wong & Brown, 2009). On top of this, it is more suited to local conditions where top-down, state-led solutions are not very feasible. These mechanisms should encourage successful pilot schemes and demonstration programs on a local level, supported by the community as a stakeholder, before it can be up-scaled (Foster, 2006).

(20)

3. Research questions and methodology

3.1 Problem statement

As mentioned in the introduction, the current water stress in Indonesia is mostly caused by water mismanagement. The lack of involvement of the local government and the missing knowledge of the community in wastewater management is one of the problems. Water reclamation through good functioning wastewater management could represent an important solution to enhance water security. Although the European Commission has shown willingness to collaborate with the Indonesian government to organise Circular Economy Missions, not much research has been done on implementing these principles in the wastewater management in East-Java. However, the lack of governance in the water systems seem to be recognized as much research has been done on the principles of the WSC in the region. Even though a big part of the research will be complementary to previous research on the WSC-concept, this research can still be seen as exploratory, as the possible solutions through the principles of CE in wastewater management will be implemented in the research.

3.2 Research Questions

With this research the aim is not to provide a unique answer to one question. Preferably, the aim of this research is to better understand the situation in Surabaya and explore the possibilities by answering several sub questions.

Descriptive question

The first step is to get a clear overview and understanding of the current water infrastructure of the city of Surabaya and how these different water utilities are distributed geographically in the area, by answering the following question:

1. How is the (waste) water infrastructure geographically arranged, looking at the source, supply and waste water collection and what techniques are being used?

Analytical question

For the second question, the involved stakeholders will be identified, together with their resources, the relationship towards each other and what hinders or assists efficient domestic wastewater management. Therefore, the following sub-question is formulated:

2. Which actors are involved in the (waste)water management in Surabaya, what are their resources and what are their interests in topic? Furthermore, which governmental factors assist or hinder efficient domestic wastewater management?

Synthetic question

Finally, an attempt will be made to examine what the potentials are for the principles of CE in the current situation by asking for the respondents their expertise and knowledge of what they think would be viable in the region of Surabaya, with the question:

3. What are the potentials in reuse/recycle/reduce in the current setting to improve water security in Surabaya?

The answers of these questions altogether will provide an answer on the following main question: How can governance configurations contribute to a higher level of water security through domestic

(21)

3.3 Operationalization of the core concepts

The operationalization scheme entails devising measures, where the core concepts of the research are made applicable for the study of the researcher (Bryman, 2012). The chosen core concepts are: Water infrastructure Surabaya, Governance configurations and Potentials in improving water security through wastewater management. The dimensions are defined by the used literature, providing the variables of the research and the indicators are the questions that where are used as a guideline in the semi-structured interviews.

Concepts Dimensions Variables Indicators/ Questions

Water infrastructure Surabaya

Water sources • Types of sources

• Monitoring

• What are the water sources in the region of Surabaya? • Is the water source being

monitored on quality? Water Supply

Distribution – Access and provision water

• Accessibility • Infrastructure:

Technology/ Monitoring/ Maintenance

• Do all households in the selected area have water supply?

• Are the infrastructures being monitored and maintained? Waste Water Collection

Collection – water treatment plants

• Unthreatened dumped

• Conventional Waste Water treatment

• Centralized • Decentralized

• Is the waste water being collected?

• Is this centralized or decentralized? • What happens with the

collected waste water? • Is there a waste water

treatment plant(s)?

Geographic scope • Single households

• Neighbourhood

• Part city • Municipality

• On what scale is the distribution and collection appearing?

Governance

configurations Types of actors • • Local government NGOs

• Collective/community (church, grassroots movements) • Private companies/ suppliers • University

• Which institutions are providing the distribution and collection?

• Are there collaborations between different institutions?

Scale operating • Local

• National • International

• On which scale are they operating?

Resources / Power relations • Economical

• Social • Political

• Is there a support system helping these institutions? • What type of support are

they receiving? • Is the community accepting? Potential in improving water security through wastewater management

Reduce wastewater • Public awareness • Is there information being

provided about how to minimize waste disposal and reduce water use?

Reuse/ recycle waste water • Advanced treatment

plants

• Sector and scale

• Are there any (plans for) advanced waste water treatment in Surabaya? • In which sector could this

water be reused/recycled? Table 1: Operationalization of the core concepts in this research

(22)

3.4 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework illustrated in figure 7, has been developed to demonstrate the research objectives of this thesis. The interconnectedness of water governance on the water security is clearly visualized in this scheme. The water security in Surabaya is strongly determined by how the governance configurations deal with water services within the city, divided in the used water sources, water supply and wastewater collection through the constructed water infrastructures. Governance configurations are responsible on which water resources are being used, how the water is supplied and finally how the produced (domestic) wastewater is being collected and treated. The provision of water supply depends strongly on which water resources are used and what the capacity of these resources are. If the source is being over exploited, the water supply will be endangered, which again decreases the water security.

Regarding the wastewater collection, it is a strong factor in providing water security, as treatment can provide water reclamation or pollute water resources, which endanger the water supply and water security. Looking at the chosen research area, the focus in this research will be mainly on the collection of the wastewater. The current issues will be identified and the possible solutions, regarding to water reclamation to enhance water security, will be introduced.

Figure 7: Conceptual Scheme of the research

(23)

3.5 Type of Research & Research Design

This research can be seen as explorative as it is partly a pioneering study in this field. Even though the study has a descriptive part, as it observes the current situation. This research will be mostly focussing on governance in a non-conventional way by looking at collaborative governance and WSC, where all actors should be included in the process of governing and implementation of policy, as argued by Foster (2006) and Wong & Brown (2009). Besides, looking at recycling and reusing as a solution for water security is Indonesia is not often done, as it seems not to be implemented and researched yet (Asian Development Bank, 2017). The aim was to use a mixed methods research design. Mixed methods involve both qualitative and quantitative research and data (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006; Bryman, 2012). Within the possible mixed methods design, the goal was to conduct an embedded design whereby quantitative data is embedded in qualitative data, see figure 8. The quantitative data will be seen as supportive and secondary to the qualitative data, which will be mostly used during the fieldwork.

Figure 8: Embedded design

(Source: Creswell and Plano Clark, 2006)

For the qualitative part of the research, first 15 semi-structured interviews were held with the identified key actors in the process of water management in Surabaya. Semi-structured interviews are used to answer difficult or extensive questions, which cannot be found without the interviews. It can be seen as a guide during the interviews, but there is no set way in which to respond and there is no outlined schedule (Bryman, 2012). These interviews were held following an item list of topics. The indicators of the operationalization scheme were used as the topic list. Especially more extensive questions seem important when trying to understand the governance configurations in Surabaya, on which scale they operate and if there are possible solutions to enhance water security through the pillars of CE. Next to the semi-structured interviews, eight short focus groups were arranged with several community representatives, who were treating their own wastewater in a sustainable way. A focus group is an interview with several people where the researched topic is being introduced and discussed from different perspectives (Bryman, 2012). These discussions were translated by my translator and it has given more depth and dived information about the research topic. The main questions asked during the interviews focus groups can be found in table 2, in Appendix 1.

Next to the qualitative part, quantitative research has been used to support the findings of the interviews. First, the data of the research on sanitation of prof. Eddy Soedjono (2017) is used to understand the current situation on sanitation and wastewater treatment in Surabaya. The results can be found in Apendix 1 table 3. Additionally, a study area map has been made by using GIS spatial analysis. During the fieldwork, observations have been done at the level of neighbourhoods of were the focus groups are held. Together with these observations, the most important community initiatives and stakeholders have been located on the map, using the Arc GIS collector app.

(24)

3.6 Units of analysis & the Sampling Strategy

To gain relevant information on the research topic, qualitative interviews with relevant actors were conducted. These units of analysis, the involved actors, were defined important if they have an official influence on the water infrastructure of Surabaya. Which means if they are involved in the public policy-making about water, if they have influences on the water sources or if they are involved in the distribution or collection process of the water. Unofficial actors which have a big influence on the sector but or not officially involved, were also seen as relevant.

After arriving in Indonesia, a list of potential respondents was made, together with the expert and scientist on wastewater management from the Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology (ITS) University, by using the technique of purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is a strategic way of selecting participants to ensure a good degree of variety in the sampling (Bryman, 2012). The focus was put on a diverse scale of stakeholders within the city of Surabaya as the research concentrates on the specific characteristics of wastewater management in this area.

Additionally, the snowball sampling technique was conducted to expand the list of potential respondents. Snowball sampling occurs when initially identified stakeholders suggest several names of other important stakeholders (Bryman, 2012). The newly named relevant stakeholders were added to the list and were reached out to for potential interviews. This process should be continued till no new actors are named (Bryman, 2012). However, not all the actors responded for an interview. Because of this and due to the limited timeframe of this research saturation could not be achieved. Most of the interviews were established through the ITS University and the contacts gained through Respondent 5 of the NGO ECOTON, as they were really helpful by reaching out to a big part of their network. The stakeholders who participated can be found in table 4 in Appendix 1.

Next to the involved stakeholders, a list of important communities has been identified by searching the database of Dinas Kebersihan dan Ruang Terbuka Hijau Surabaya, a municipal database centre. The neighbourhoods were visited together with a translator and the people were asked to contribute to the research. The list of communities that took part can be found in table 5 in Appendix 1.

3.7 Data Analysis

The main methods used during this research were qualitative. Boeije (2010:76) defines qualitative data analysis as a process data of ‘segmenting the data into parts and reassembling the parts again into a coherent whole’. As shown in table 1, the gained data was divided into parts via qualitative coding as variables, and reassembled based on the identified core concepts. During the coding, the three distinctions of Boeije (2010) were being followed, namely open coding, axial coding and selective coding. First, all the information has been examined, compared, conceptualized and categorized. This happened to ensure all the data is read carefully and divided into codes. Afterwards, during the axial coding, the codes were ordered and merged into codes. In the final coding process, selective coding, the codes were integrated into the used concepts that constitutes mostly of the results in chapter 4.

Additionally, to the qualitative research, the visited communities were localised in the study area map using the Arc Collector app. A study area map can be used to display the spatial distribution data found and observed during the fieldwork (Chainey et al., 2008). Together with the translator, all the neighbourhood representatives who agreed to take part to the research were interviewed and their surrounding were observed by both of us, to make a distinction between the visited neighbourhoods. The variables used to make the distinction can be found in Appendix 1 table 6.

(25)

Among the interviewees that were visited on the workplace and not a public space was also implemented in the study area, to get a clear geographical representation of how the stakeholders public-, private- and community stakeholders were spread throughout the city. This data has been adjusted in the Arc Map GIS. Finally, the quantitative data of the research of prof Eddy Soedjono (2017) on sanitation were used to complete the found information during the fieldwork.

3.8 Limitations

A serious set of constraints where identified during the fieldwork. First of all, the language barrier between myself, the respondents, focus groups and my translator was a barrier, as English was not the native language of either of us. Although the English of the stakeholders was good, small details could get lost in the conversation. This happened especially when complex subjects such as CE or type of waste water treatment plants were discussed. For the semi-structured interviews did not affect the trustworthiness of the results. During the focus groups, however, the translator seemed to be summarizing long stories told by the participants. The loss of information was therefore greater. Nevertheless, the overall meaning was clear. Secondly, this study has limitations in the selection and number of interviewees. Due to the involvement of high-level political and private actors in the (waste)water sector of Surabaya, it was not possible to make appointments with all the identified stakeholders. Furthermore, the municipality rejected several attempts to talk about the wastewater issue and the water management in Surabaya. However, these limitations were partly caused because of the short fieldwork period of only six weeks.

Furthermore, only a limited number of private actors were interested to take part in the research. Only two of the 15 interviewees worked in the private sector, causing an uneven composition of the sectors. Nevertheless, these respondents and the interviewed academics were able to provide more than enough information about the private sector.

Finally, regarding to the diversity within Indonesian cities, the generalizability of this research should be considered carefully, as it focuses the context specific (waste)water governance system of Surabaya. It should be considered that it is one of the biggest cities in Indonesia with a missing central sewage system. However, in many Indonesian cities the governance on water systems are built up comparably and thus issues identified in Surabaya will likely occur in other regions. As Creswell (2014) notes, due to the small sample size and the selection of case studies in qualitative data-collection this is a common problem. However, this is not a significant issue because this was not the primary aim of the research. Indeed, the main purpose of this specific research was to gain an understanding of the social processes in the water governance specifically occurring in Surabaya, as this is contributing to the water crisis in the region. Together with the pillars of the WSC and CE the aim was to find context specific solutions. Therefore, this limitation did not hinder the research significantly but it was considered when reflecting on the process as a whole.

3.9 Ethics and Positionality

During the research, ethics were considered. According to Bryman (2012) the ethical principals in social studies have four main points which the researcher should take into consideration during the fieldwork: to whether there is harm to the involved respondent, if there is a lack of informed consent, the researcher should consider if there is an invasion of privacy and whether deception is involved (Bryman, 2012:130). To be ethical during a research, it is important to stay as honest and objective as possible. During the research, all these issues were taken into consideration. At the beginning of each interview, the respondents were asked for their consent to record the conversation. Moreover, they could refuse to answer questions if they felt uncomfortable answering them. Finally, at every meeting I gave a full explanation of my background and the nature of the research, so they did not feel misled and fully understood were the research was for.

(26)

4. Results & Discussion

In order to fully understand the mechanisms of the (waste)water governance system of Surabaya and the possibilities for improvements, it is important to fully understand the current situation regarding to the infrastructure, the governance and the possibilities for improvements. Therefore, this chapter will first provide background information on the current water infrastructure in Surabaya and the water utilities. Furthermore, in the second paragraph the identified stakeholders and their resources will be introduced and the role of the residents in Surabaya. Moreover, this paragraph will also provide information on the factors that hinder successful wastewater management. Finally, the pillars of CE and how this could be applied in the specific context of Surabaya in the third chapter. These descriptions are primarily based on data obtained through the conducted interviews and focus groups. Secondary sources have been used to verify and complement this information.

4.1 Water infrastructure Surabaya

4.1.1 Water Sources

‘It is crazy that we depend on the water of one polluted river!’ (R12) The Brantas is the longest river in the region of East Java (Lucas & Djati, 2007). Around 40 percent of the province’s population lives near the banks of the river (R5) where it provides water for approximately 16 million people (Pangare et al., 2013: 61). Next to the water’s main purpose for domestic use, the water is used for hydroelectricity, agriculture, fisheries and industries (Jasa Tirta I, 2005). After 320 kilometres the river splits in the downstream area into the Surabaya and the Porong river (Ramu, 2004: 36). The Surabaya river which runs through the city into the Madura strait, see figure 9, is the main source for the domestic water supply (R5; R6; R11; R12). The water intake stations for the supply are located throughout the city alongside the river, with the biggest one in the South. Currently about 1100 litre per seconds of the river is needed to fulfil the need of the citizen’s water use (R12). This is equal to the minimum of what the river can provide in the dry season and the demand keeps rising stressing the capacity of the river. This accounts as the biggest part of the water source used for the provision of domestic water in Surabaya. Beside the Brantas river, there is a small part of the provision of water extracted from the Umbulan spring and the Pandaan area, located 70 kilometres southeast from Surabaya (R12). This accounts for approximately 3 percent of the total water supply and provides 200-300 litres per second. Despite the high-quality of the springs, only 10 percent of the water gets utilised.

These water sources are mostly used for cleaning and washing, as it is not recommended to use the source for consumption (R4; R12). The city’s tap water does not meet the requirements for potable water. Because of this, the citizens have to rely on privatized bottled and refill-bottled drinking water for drinking and cooking. (R1; R4; R6; R12). While in the past many people used to boil tap water to make it potable, the growing knowledge and wealth of the population combined with the increasing mistrust in the quality of the local water providers, led to an increased use of bottled water (R12). Only the poor are still boiling tap water for consumption as bottled water is significantly costlier (R4; R6).

Finally, the groundwater in the area is not usable as an official water source, as in most areas of Surabaya the quantity is too low for big scale extraction (R11). Besides the quantity, the source is severely polluted by biological pollutants (bacteria) caused by ‘bottomless’ septic tanks of many households and the intruding seawater (R6). However, illegal settlers, who cannot connect to the official water pipelines, use this cheap water source through pump wells (R9).

(27)

Figure 9: Map of the Surabaya river in the city

(Source: Lucas & Djati, 2007)

4.1.2 Water Supply

The responsibility for the treatment of raw water and the distribution of this water to all the households is the task of the government owned company called Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum Kota Surabaya (PDAM) (R4; R6; R11; R12). The company distributes the water through pipelines and trucks to 90% of the households (R9; R11). Besides the distribution, the PDAM is responsible for the maintenance of the pipelines to the houses or the apartments (R11). This year the PDAM started replacing the pipelines throughout the whole city (R11; R12). The implementation is a slow process because of the financial costs. Despite water supply officially being the responsibility of the PDAM, privatisation and informalisation of this sector seem to be occurring. According to national regulations, PDAM is the only institution authorized to provide the city’s residents of water (R11). Nevertheless, within these 90% a part of the process seems to be privatised as other institutions involved in the water supply. The private housing developers in the Western part of Surabaya have permits to supply their own water utilities to their residents (R7). These permits were given in a period when the PDAM did not have the capacity to supply water to fast-growing and rich areas in the West of the city, such as Pakuwon and Ciputra. Private companies were allowed to provide the areas of water (R8). Despite the PDAM now being legally entitled and capable of providing water for West Surabaya, the whole Pakuwon and Ciputra area is still being provided of water by private housing companies. These companies have independent treatment plants and charge higher tariffs for the water than PDAM, even though this water is still not potable (R7). The government is not acting against this development to give the area back to PDAM, as it would mean great infrastructural change. The municipality is not willing to invest, because of the high financial costs.

The other 10% of the population seems to get informalised, as this part consists from informal dwellers living in Surabaya’s outskirts or within the city in immediate proximity to railway lines and river banks. The population living in the informal settlements cannot be connected to the official pipe network of the PDAM as they build their homes in areas where formal settlement is forbidden or the land belongs to other stakeholders (R9). Most of these people are forced to obtain their water through the earlier mentioned pump wells, which are highly polluted. In other cases, the water is obtained through illegal water vendors which distributes the water from PDAM in jerry cans for a much higher price (R11). The lack of access for this

(28)

group causes serious disadvantages. That is why the local government asked the PDAM to prioritize the water provision of informal settlers in collaboration with the NGO Indonesia Urban Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (IUWASH) (R9; R11). With the project ‘Master Meter’, these institutions work together to provide access to water for the informal dwellers. It is the responsibility of the PDAM to pump the tap water up to the entrance of the informal settlements (R11). The distribution of the water through the illegal settlements is the responsibility of the residents themselves. They receive help with instalments from IUWASH and financial help from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). These are companies which invest in the local society (R9).

4.1.3 Waste Water and the water treatment

The PDAM has connected more than 700.000 households to their water network. Consequently, these households should have a proper connection to a sewage system to treat the wastewater. However, the city of Surabaya does not have a centralized sewage system (R4; R5; R11). Households are expected to manage their wastewater themselves (R7). This causes severe environmental and health related issues as the domestic wastewater is not being treated and discharged properly (R5; R12). Domestic wastewater can be classified into two different categories (United Nations, 2015: 12). The first category is black water. Black water is the wastewater that comes from latrines, which consists of excreta, urine and faecal sludge. The second category is grey water, which is composed of domestic wastewater coming from the kitchen, the bathroom and the laundry. In Surabaya the effluents of restaurants, laundry services and car shops also flow into the grey water systems.

With the knowledge gained during the interviews and the observations different categories of residential users are made in a scheme on how they deal with domestic wastewater (see figure 11). The division is made in three different types: Private real estate developers, community initiatives/ apartments and single households. The red squares show which parts of the process are polluting the water systems and are harmful for the residents their health.

For the sector Private real estate Developers, the regulations seem to be strictly enforced (R6; R8; R11). Before apartments can be built by housing developers, a city resource map has to be approved by the municipality, including a WWTP in it (R15). It is expected that both black and grey water are being treated properly on-site, before a safe disposal into the river (R8). Some of the black water is going in to septic tanks and is treated by the IPLT Keputih. Furthermore, a small amount of the treated water is being reused for gardening and washing the buildings. But overall the water is being disposed to the rivers.

Regarding the second sector, community initiatives within the city and small apartments that collaborate with the PDAM have a similar process of dealing with the wastewater. The apartments are requested to treat the grey water on-site and reuse 20% to 40% of the treated water, depending on their capacity and the other treated water is being disposed safely into the river (R11; R15). Although the governmental requests, some apartment complexes still release untreated grey water through drainage systems into the river, but the amount is getting less (R12). For the black water the effluents go into a septic tank. This septic tank is being de-sludged regularly and the effluents are transported to an off-site treatment plant owned by the government in East Surabaya, called IPLT Keputih Surabaya (R13; R14). The black water is being treated and the effluents are being used in the agricultural sector and the water is being reused for the dilution process of the effluents (R13).

Localisation of treatment through community initiatives takes place in Surabaya, as several Rukun Tetanggas (RTs- neighbourhoods) in the city have decided to manage their own wastewater through. RTs install their own small scaled sewage systems, the earlier mentioned IPAL (R10). The visited and observed community initiatives can be found in figure 10. The IPAL treats grey water of approximately 250-300 households and disposes the water safely into the river or reused for several activities. A small fraction of Surabaya’s RTs are

Tackling the effects of the water crisis in Surabaya : by improving domestic wastewater governance

Acknowledgements

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables and Figures

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Setting the scene

1.2 Academic relevance

1.3 Societal relevance

1.4 Case Study: Surabaya

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 Water security and water scarcity

2.2 Water governance

2.2.1 Collaborative water governance

2.2.2 Water sensitive cities: How to govern water in an urban context

2.3 Waste water treatment in the domestic sector

2.3.1 Domestic wastewater treatment in Indonesia

2.3.2 The principles of Circular Economy in waste water treatment

3. Research questions and methodology

3.1 Problem statement

3.2 Research Questions

3.3 Operationalization of the core concepts

3.4 Conceptual Framework

3.5 Type of Research & Research Design

3.6 Units of analysis & the Sampling Strategy

3.7 Data Analysis

3.8 Limitations

3.9 Ethics and Positionality

4. Results & Discussion

4.1 Water infrastructure Surabaya

4.1.1 Water Sources

4.1.2 Water Supply

4.1.3 Waste Water and the water treatment