BUSINESS
PROCESS REENGINEERING OF AVIATION WASTE MANAGEMENT BASED ON ISO 14001: 2015 AT
SOEKARNO-HATTA AIRPORT
Reza Rezekia, Umi
Kaltum, Iman Chaerudin
STIE Unisahduguna,
Jakarta, Indoensia
reza.rezekia@gmail.com, umi.kaltum@fe.unpad.ac.id,
imanchaerudin@gmail.com
Abstract
Introduction: The average daily flight waste at Soekarno-Hatta Airport is 315
tons and will have an impact on passengers and the environment. This is due to
the low recycling rate of waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
Objective: This study aims to determine Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
based on ISO 14001:2015, cost efficiency, and waste management performance at
Soekarno-Hatta Airport. The method used in this research is an explanatory
survey using descriptive and verification analysis.
Results: The analytical approach uses Partial Least Square (PLS). Test the
validity and reliability as well as data processing using WarpPLS
7.0 software. As a result, the performance of BPR, ISO 14001:2015, cost
efficiency, and waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport has not been
optimal. BPR has a positive and significant influence partially on cost
efficiency and waste management performance. ISO 14001:2015 also has a
significant and positive effect on cost efficiency and waste management
performance. Cost efficiency has a positive and significant effect on the
performance of waste management. However, it does not mediate the relationship
between BPR variables and waste management performance and ISO 14001:2015 with
waste management performance.
Conclusion: BPR for aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport was
appropriate. This is proved by the management of PT AP-II already having an
eco-airport master plan. However, it has not been socialized to the smallest
unit, nor has HR training been carried out to carry out waste management.
Soekarno-Hatta Airport already has ISO 14001: 2015 certificate, so the clauses
in the form of variable dimensions ISO 14001: 2015 are by the manual or
guidelines. Cost-efficiency for aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta
Airport is not optimal considering that there is still a significant gap
between waste management costs at Soekarno-Hatta Airport and waste management
in other places. Soekarno-Hatta Airport's waste management performance is also
not optimal with indicators of low recycling rates and high waste generation.
Keywords: Business Process
Reengineering, ISO14001:2015, Cost Efficiency, Waste Management
Pendahuluan
The more several flights are directly proportional to the passengers'
number, the more garbage at the airport, both from the plane and the terminal
passengers. International Air Transport Association (IATA) data in 2017 showed
the amount of cabin debris for short-haul flights was 0.52 kg per passenger and
ranged from 0.63 to 1.81 kg per passenger for long-haul flights (International Air Transport Association, 2017). Waste
management at the airport is one of the critical environmental issues that need
more attention (Gonzalo Blanca-Alcubilla et al., 2018). (Michael Pitt, 2003) stated that
despite the rapid flights' growth at airports, the attention paid to solid
waste management was less than noise, aircraft emissions, and water consumption
(Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018). The results of
(Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018) show that cross
passenger and air cargo are expected to increase and produce a greater waste
volume at the airport. To reduce aviation's environmental impact, all
significant airports should consider introducing sustainable waste management
policies and systems by complying with the relevant waste management regulatory
framework. Successful airport waste management will have a positive impact on
the surrounding environment (Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018). (CHAERUDIN, 2021) argues that
waste management is an opportunity and not a burden (Raharjo, Matsumoto, Ihsan, Rachman, & Gustin,
2017). Waste
management at international airports is recognized as one of the critical
aspects of sustainability performance (Chor-Man Lam, Iris K.M. Yu, Francisco Medel, Daniel
C.W. Tsang & Poon, 2018).
PT Angkasa Pura II (Persero), called PT AP-II, is
a state-owned enterprise engaged in airport services and work to contact
passengers' service is committed to carrying out social responsibility to the
environment to reduce the environmental impact of airport activities and human
activities in general. Soekarno-Hatta International Airport is the largest
airport in Indonesia. Highly passenger traffic has been creating aviation
waste, so Soekarno-Hatta Airport must manage its garbage. Furthermore, the
debris coming from this flight is called airside garbage. Airside garbage is
solid waste derived from airplanes' remaining flight activities and office
activities of airside areas. It consists of tissues, plastic, paper, bottles,
etc. Airside waste is distinguished into international, domestic, and B3 debris
(PT Angkasa Pura II, 2018).
The most massive onset of airside waste was in November 2019, which was
10,898 tons, and the smallest volume of waste in February 2019, which was 8,684
tons. The average daily onset of airside waste is 315 tons. The operational
costs incurred for airside waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport are quite
burdensome to Soekarno-Hatta Airport and PT AP-II budget. In 2019, PT AP-II
experienced a traffic tsunami, in which air traffic movement decreased significantly.
This traffic tsunami condition caused the top management of PT AP-II to issue a
policy by publishing cost leadership instructions, which significantly impacted
its operations. Cost-efficiency is necessary due to cutting the work program
with a plan in the RKAP in the year. The Environment Unit of Soekarno-Hatta
Airport's Main Branch Office, as a technical unit directly responsible for
airside waste management, has the budget to carry out maintenance work.
Soekarno-Hatta Airport (CGK) currently produces a 14% recycling rate of the
total airside waste. Compared to Munich Airport (MUC), the value is shallow,
with a very high recycling rate, 79%. Baxter, Wild, and Sabatini (2014), in a
Munich Airport study, stated that the continuous improvement in recycling rates
was achieved by performing a strict separation from recoverable fractions with
trained staff divided into 6 (six) stations located around the airport.
Besides, logistics optimization measures are carried out by minimizing
container loads, shortening transportation lines to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions (S. Sreenath, K . Sudhakar, 2020). Gatwick
Airport (LGW) saw a 6% increase in recycling rates in 2018 to 64%, and the
remaining 36% had been converted to electric energy (Performance Report Gatwick
Airport, 2018). Gatwick Airport also became the first airport to be certified
"Carbon Trust Standard-Zero Waste to Landfill" (Gatwick Airport Limited, 2018).
The Miedico Study (2017) at Naples Airport (NAP)
stated that through the application of sorted garbage collection and recycling
rates of 62%, the remaining 38% is handed over to third parties for energy
production (Bernadette Biondi, George J Kahaly, 2019). According to
the Heathrow 2.0 Sustainability Progress 2018 report, Heathrow Airport's
recycling rate (LHR) reached 47.7%, increasing from 39.7% the previous year.
LHR has a target of 70% for the recycling rate by 2020 (Airport, 2019). Hong Kong
Airport (HKG) has a recycling rate of about 46% of the total waste produced,
mostly food waste and paper. HKG set a target of achieving a recycling rate of
50% of the complete waste in the terminal by 2021 (Chor-Man Lam, Iris K.M. Yu, Francisco Medel, Daniel
C.W. Tsang & Poon, 2018).
In his study, (Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018) stated that the
Copenhagen Airport (CPH) has defined and implemented policies to ensure
sustainable development at the airport. Copenhagen Airport has achieved a
significant increase in the recycling rate of 28% (Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018). (Glenn Baxter & , Panarat Srisaeng, 2018) in a research
study of Kansai Airport (KIX), stated that the Kansai airport recycling rate is
about 13% of the total arising garbage. This figure is only slightly below the
Soekarno-Hatta airport recycling rate of 14%. However, Kansai Airport is still
superior in terms of having incinerators. It installs incinerators with
fluidized bed combustion (FBC) system. The incinerator's remaining gas
precipitator-filtered are the catalysts to reduce NOx emissions of wet ash
stabilization technology (Baxter, Glenn, 2018). Sarbassov, Venetis, Aiymbetov, Abylkhani, Yagofarova, Tokmurzin, Anthony,
and Inglezakis (2020), in the study of Astana Airport
(TSE), stated that although recycling rates are meager 11.5%, the composition
of recyclable waste reaches 54%, which is comparable to some other airports (Yerbol Sarbassov, Christos Venetis, Berik Aiymbetov,
Bexultan Abylkhani, Almira Yagofarova, Diyar Tokmurzin, Edward J. Anthony,
2020). Astana
Airport recycling rate is lower than Soekarno-Hatta Airport, but the
coefficient used is 0.24 kg per passenger. In comparison, Soekarno-Hatta Airport
uses 0.52 kg per passenger concerning IATA Cabin Waste standard. Table 1 shows
the comparison of waste management performance with recycling rate indicators
at several airports in other countries, including Indonesia.
Table 1. Comparison
of Recycling Rates at International Airports
|
International Airport |
Code Letter IATA |
Country |
Recycling Rate (%) |
|
Munich |
MUC |
Germany |
79 |
|
Gatwick |
LGW |
England |
64 |
|
Naples |
NAP |
Italy |
62 |
|
Heathrow |
LHR |
England |
47.7 |
|
Hong Kong |
HKG |
Hong Kong |
46 |
|
Copenhagen |
CPH |
Denmark |
28 |
|
Soekarno-Hatta |
CGK |
Indonesia |
14 |
|
Kansai |
KIX |
Japan |
13.2 |
|
Astana |
TSE |
Kazakhstan |
11.5 |
Source: Sarbassov et al., Gatwick
Report, Heathrow 2.0, PT AP-II 2020,
data
re-processed
It is suspected that the cause of the recycling rate of 14% is unprepared
human resources both in terms of knowledge and working procedures that have not
been socialized to the smallest units. The recycling rate is related to
employee's behavior aspect with a lack of concern for shared responsibility.
Coordination between related teams in waste management is still fragmented in
different organizations, making it challenging to coordinate hygiene operations
governance. Poor internal communication affects external relations due to
different understandings and information of both individuals and related work
units. Besides, the lack of training is also another inhibitory factor for
efficient operation. PT AP-II has not focused on cost-efficiency related to
waste management, which can be a domino effect not only on passengers but also
on the environment.
With the comparison stipulated earlier
and listed in the table above, it is suspected that the performance and
business processes of waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport have not been
effective and efficient. This condition is a challenge for waste management at
Soekarno-Hatta Airport, which will be used as a pilot project for other
airports in the environment of PT AP-II. There is a gap related to waste
management between Soekarno-Hatta Airport and waste management that should be
done, especially at the airport. Therefore, it is interesting to review BPR and
ISO 14001:2015 on cost-efficiency and waste management performance.
Metode
The research method is a scientific way to obtain data with
specific purposes and uses (Sugiyono,
2017). The type of research
used is quantitative and descriptive. The methods used in this study are the
census and explanatory research methods. Explanatory research can be conducted
through surveys and experiments. The descriptive method is used to get an
overview of Business Process Reengineering, ISO 14001:2015, cost-efficiency,
and flight waste management performance at Soekarno-Hatta Airport to answer the
first research points' purposes. This study consists of 2 (two) exogenous
variables, namely Business Process Reengineering and ISO 14001:2015. At the
same time, endogenous variables are Waste Management Performance and
intervening variables, namely, Cost Efficiency, as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Research Paradigm
Descriptive
Design Analysis
Descriptive analysis is used for qualitative variables and includes
exploring the causative factors' behavior and answering the first research
objectives. This analysis is presented in graphs, tables, and statistical
measures, for example, the average index. The calculated average index is used
to test descriptive hypotheses referring to the Likert scale using the ordinal
scale. Syofian, Setiyaningsih,
and Syamsiah (2015) stated that the Likert scale was
related to agreeing or disagreeing with something. Hence, the questionnaire's
neutral statements were eliminated to avoid mistakes made in analyzing data for
respondents who answered neutrally (Suzuki
Syofian & Syamsiah, 2015). Based on research experience at Soekarno-Hatta Airport,
respondents often answer neutral or enough. To avoid such respondents' answers,
a value range of 1 to 4 was employed. Table 3.3 shows the value categories for
the following descriptive analysis with value intervals.
Table 2. Grade Categories and Intervals for
Descriptive Analysis
|
Categories |
Interval |
|
|
1 |
Very
Inappropriate |
1.00 1.75 |
|
2 |
Inappropriate |
1.76 2.50 |
|
3 |
Appropriate |
2.51 3.25 |
|
4 |
Very
Appropriate |
3.26 4.00 |
Verification Analysis Design
In this study, the verification
analysis used a partial least square (PLS) method. (Ghozali,
2016) state that Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) is an alternative method for
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the relationship between latent
constructs in linear or non-linear relationships and many indicators
simultaneously (Ghozali,
2016).
Hypothesis
The following hypothesis test
design is a hypothesis that is tested based on the formulation and research
objectives:
Hypothesis 1
BPR toward
waste management performance through cost efficiency in aviation waste
management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
H0: BPR (X1) does not affect waste management performance (Z) through
cost-efficiency (Y)
aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
H1: BPR (X1) affects waste
management performance (Z) through cost-efficiency (Y) in aviation waste
management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
Hypothesis 2
ISO 14001:
2015 affects waste management performance through cost-efficiency in aviation
waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
H0: ISO 14001: 2015 (X2) does not
affect waste management performance (Z) through cost-efficiency (Y) aviation
waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
H1: ISO 14001: 2015 (X2) affects
waste management performance (Z) through cost-efficiency (Y) aviation waste
management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport.
Results and
Discussion
a.
Business Process
Reengineering (BPR)
BPR in this study is
restructuring and transforming a company's business process to improve
performance and efficiency. Hashem (2020) stated that BPR has several
dimensions of management commitment, IT infrastructure, people management,
organizational readiness for change, and organizational structure . The BPR
dimensions in this study are management commitment, human resource management,
and IT support. The construction selection is based on the dimensions
suitability for measuring BPR variables at Soekarno-Hatta Airport. The
respondent's opinion regarding the management's commitment to improving waste
management aligns with the company Eco-Airport Master Plan. Its Plan is
concerning with the airport environment (airport environmental plan) both by
airport operators and stakeholders by complying with applicable environmental
laws nationally and internationally. Human resource management still did not
follow the objectives of repair and waste management. This is indicated by most
respondents who stated that it was not appropriate. Performance in waste
management, particularly in the management of impacts arising from service
delivery and airport operation activities, cannot be separated from the ability
of the supporting equipment used, including personnel as the main element.
For this reason, human
resource development through training programs is necessary in order to obtain
competent, qualified, and accountable human resources for airport waste
management. In general, training is part of investing in human resources (human
investment) to improve job abilities and skills. Thereby, improving personnel
and work units or organizations more broadly is required. Future-oriented
environmental management training can help personnel who handle this field to
master specific skills and abilities (competencies) to support the sustainable
development of every operational activity and airport development.
By carrying out PT
AP-II's vision, namely "The Best Smart Connected Airport in the
Region," it is not suitable if it is not equipped with IT support. PT
AP-II applies the concept or model of Digital Transformation, with three main
components: Digital Strategy, Digital Leadership, and Digital Culture. The
three components work together to support the PT AP-II Digital Transformation
Model. Its implementation can be carried out up to the executive level.
However, in contrast to the respondent's opinion, the average value for the
dimension of IT support related to BPR for aviation waste management at
Soekarno-Hatta Airport was only 2.47, so the category is not suitable.
Meanwhile, the average value of management commitment was 2.63, which means the
category is appropriate, and the HR management is 2.38, which means
inappropriate.
The ISO 14001: 2015
dimensions used in this study are based on the clauses in the manual or ISO
14001: 2015 guidelines, namely Organizational Context, Leadership, Planning,
Support, Operations, Performance Evaluation, and Improvement. The following
figure shows the average value of the ISO 14001: 2015 variable dimensions. The
operating dimension has the highest average value, which is 2.72.
Figure 2. ISO
14001:2015 Variable Dimension Mean Value
Source:
Data re-processed, 2020
The most suitable dimension for calculating the cost efficiency variable
at Soekarno-Hatta Airport is the concept of Yang et al. (2014), namely,
obeying, sorting, and transporting to measure the dimensions of the cost level
indicator and the level of waste maintenance costs.
Figure 3. Soekarno-Hatta
Airport Waste Management Fee
(IDR/Ton/Day)
Source:
Data re-processed, 2020
The picture above shows that aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta
Airport is IDR 144,000/ton/day. If the process of improving waste management
were carried out with the BPR, it would get a waste management fee of IDR
94,135/ton/day. Consisting of transportation costs of IDR 66,835/ton/day, costs
of sorting and packing IDR 525/ton/day, maintenance costs of trash IDR
273/ton/day, and a waste collection fee of IDR 26,150/ton/day. Thus, the
resulting cost efficiency was 34.6%.
d.
Waste Management
Performance
Referring to the concept of Rodrigues et al. (2018), the waste management
performance dimension consists of environmental, economic, and social.
Meanwhile, according to Tsai et al. (2019), the dimensions of waste management
performance include financial support, economic benefits, sustainable
stakeholders' cooperation, eco-efficiency, environmental performance, and
innovation capacity. Adopting these two
studies, the dimensions of waste management performance deemed appropriate to
Soekarno-Hatta Airport's conditions are economic, social, environmental, and
eco-efficiency. The dimensions of waste management performance deemed
appropriate to Soekarno-Hatta Airport's conditions are economic, social,
environmental, and eco-efficiency. The economy has 4 (four) indicators: budget,
investment, costs, and economic benefits. The social dimension consists of
management and competenceindicators of waste handling and environmental
impacts for environmental dimensions. Meanwhile, eco-efficiency has indicators
of waste produced and the rate of recycling.
Figure 4. Waste Management Performance
Variable
Dimension Mean Value
Source:
Data re-processed, 2020
In 2019, there was a significant decrease in the number of passenger
movements by 20.5%. The recycling rate in 2019 increased to 14% but remained in
the inferior category. The highest recycling rate performance occurred in May
2019 at 16%, with the lowest generation, which was directly proportional to
passengers' movement. The lowest recycling rate of 12% occurred in December
2019. This rate is inversely proportional to the number of passenger movements
in December, which was the highest of more than 5 million movements. Every
year, the airport will experience an increase in passenger movement, which is
directly proportional to the increase in waste generation, so it is necessary
to improve waste management performance, especially airside waste at
Soekarno-Hatta Airport
Table
3. Recycling Rate at Soekarno-Hatta
Airport in 2019
Source: Data re-processed, 2020
The following is a total recapitulation of
airside waste generation at Soekarno-Hatta Airport from 2015 to 2019. The total
generation of airside waste during those years was 4,612,399 tons.
Table 4. Recapitulation of Waste Generation
|
Years |
Waste Generation (Ton) |
|
2015 |
846,945 |
|
2016 |
907,850 |
|
2017 |
983,044 |
|
2018 |
1,024,413 |
|
2019 |
850,147 |
|
Total |
4,612,399 |
Source: Data re-processed, 2020
This test is intended to check the PLS model's feasibility using WarpPLS, whether the model is good or not. The following
table shows the data calculated by the WarpPLS for
the PLS model fit test
|
Value |
Rule of Thumb |
Result |
|
|
p=0.004 |
p< 0.05 |
Fit |
|
|
Average R-squared (ARS) |
p<0.001 |
p< 0.05 |
Fit |
|
Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) |
p<0.001 |
p< 0.05 |
Fit |
|
Average block VIF (AVIF) |
2.872 |
acceptable if ≤ 5,
ideally ≤ 3.3 |
Ideal |
|
Average Full Collinearity VIF (AFVIF) |
3.452 |
acceptable if ≤ 5, ideally ≤
3.3 |
Acceptable |
|
Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) |
0.643 |
small ≥ 0.1 medium ≥ 0.25 large ≥ 0.36 |
Large |
|
Simpson's Paradox Ratio (SPR) |
1.000 |
acceptable if ≥ 0.7, ideally = 1 |
Ideal |
|
R-squared Contribution Ratio (RSCR) |
1.000 |
acceptable if ≥ 0.9, ideally = 1 |
Ideal |
|
Statistical Suppression Ratio (SSR) |
1.000 |
acceptable if ≥ 0.7 |
Acceptable |
|
Nonlinear Bivariate Causality Direction Ratio
(NLBCDR) |
1.000 |
acceptable if ≥ 0.7 |
Acceptable |
Source: Data re-processed, 2020
f.
Validity and Reliability
Tests
The results of
the validity test consisted of convergent and divergent. For convergent
validity requirements used in this study, the loading value must be > 0.4
and the p-value < 0.05. Another requirement for convergent validity is that
AVE's value (Average Variance Extracted) must be greater than 0.5. Meanwhile,
the discriminant validity is determined based on the square roots AVE value
> 0.5. The overall type of indicator for the BPR variable is reflective. The
calculation results show that these indicators have a more significant loading
factor than the value of 0.7; besides that, it also has a high significance
because of the p-value <0.001.
Another
validity requirement is to compare the t-value (stat) with the t-table.
Referring to the table above, the t-stat is greater than the t-table value,
which is 1.96. The same applies to the variable ISO 14001: 2015, cost
efficiency, and waste management performance. Therefore, all variable
indicators used in this study meet the convergent validity requirements.
Meanwhile, discriminant validity compares the square roots AVE value between
variables and conformity with the validity requirements, namely> 0.5. Therefore,
all indicators of variables used for this study are valid, both convergent and
discriminant. For the value of AVE and square roots, AVE can be seen in the
following table
Table
6. AVE dan Square Roots AVE Value
|
|
BPR |
ISO 14001 |
CE |
WMP |
|
AVE |
0.505 |
0.521 |
1.000 |
0.583 |
|
Square Roots AVE |
0.710 |
0.722 |
1.000 |
0.764 |
|
Rule of Thumb |
AVE > 0.5 |
|||
|
Validity |
Valid |
Valid |
Valid |
Valid |
Source: Data
re-processed, 2020
Reliability
test dimensions and indicators in measuring the research variables were
determined based on the composite reliability value and Cronbach's alpha
value> 0.7. For the composite reliability value, the research variables were
BPR 0.889, ISO 14001 0.957, cost efficiency 1, and waste management performance
0.931. Meanwhile, Cronbach's alpha's value is BPR 0.856, ISO 14001 0.952, cost
efficiency 1, and waste management performance 0.915. The overall value of each
variable for composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha value> 0.7 so that
all variables and indicators used in this study are reliable. The following
image shows data on composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha in the form of a
bar chart.
The figure
below is a model of the analysis results using the WarpPLS
7.0 software. This figure shows the number of each indicator making up the
latent variable, the path coefficient value, and the p-value between the latent
variables used in this study. A significance value or R-squared of running on
the correlation between latent variables is also shown.
Figure 5. PLS Model Analysis Results (WarpPLS 7.0)
Source:
Data re-processed, 2020
The Effect of BPR on Waste Management Performance
through Cost Efficiency
This hypothesis examines the BPR
variable's indirect effect on the waste management performance variable through
cost efficiency with the following results:
Figure 6. Indirect Effect of BPR on Waste Management
Performance through Cost Efficiency
After conducting mediation testing with the WarpPLS
7.0 program, as shown in Figure 6 above, the correlation between BPR and waste
management performance was 0.34 and significant with a p-value <0.01.
Meanwhile, the direct effect between BPR on waste management performance
without involving the intervening cost-efficiency variable was 0.57. There was
a decrease between the direct effect = 0.57 and the indirect effect = 0.34. Thus,
it can be concluded that mediation is in partial form (partial mediation). This
is because the path coefficient value decreases. However, in more detail, it is
necessary to calculate the amount of the indirect effect variance by using the
Variance Accounted For (VAF) formula. The VAF value interval is between 0 and
1. The higher the VAF value, the higher the effect of the mediating effect. The
formula to calculate VAF:
The magnitude of BPR's indirect effect on waste management performance
through the variable cost-efficiency is only 0.02 or 2%. Therefore, it is
concluded that there is no mediating effect of the cost-efficiency variable to
BPR's indirect effect on waste management performance. This result is because
BPR does not directly reduce aviation waste management costs but covers the
costs incurred with aviation waste processing profits.
The results of testing Hypothesis 1 above have the following
structural model:
Z=0.006X1 +ζ1
The results of testing
for hypothesis 1
indicate that BPR had
no direct effect on waste management performance through cost efficiency with a
significance of 47% and p-values (0.478)> 0.05, so the
conclusion is that H0 is accepted. Based on the simultaneous hypothesis testing
above, BPR (X1) did
not affect waste management performance (Z) through cost efficiency (Y)
aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport. This is because BPR and
waste management performance for waste management require significant
investment costs. Personnel or employees from the strategic level to the
operational level must have the same understanding and abilities to realize
proper aviation waste management. To meet these criteria, PT AP-II requires a
budget to conduct related training or training. Therefore, BPR and cost efficiency
can affect waste management performance partially but not simultaneously. Although PT AP-II already
has an Eco-Airport master plan and ISO 14001: 2015 certification for
Soekarno-Hatta Airport, it has not prioritized BPR waste management. Because it still prioritizes aspects that are directly
related to services to passengers and airlines. Meanwhile, waste management is an aspect
that does not directly affect services and airlines. However, if it is not
given special attention, there will be a problem if an accident occurs, causing
financial loss or a bad image.
The Effect of ISO 14001:
2015 on Waste Management Performance through Cost Efficiency
This hypothesis examines the effect of the ISO 14001:
2015 variable on the waste management performance variable through cost
efficiency with the following results:
Figure 7. The Indirect Effect of ISO 14001 on Waste
Management Performance through Cost Efficiency
After conducting mediation testing with the WarpPLS 7.0 program, as shown in the picture above, the
correlation between ISO 14001: 2015 and waste management performance was 0.40
and significant with a p-value <0.01. Meanwhile, the direct effect between
ISO 14001: 2015 on waste management performance without involving the
intervening cost-efficiency variable was found to be 0.62. There was a decrease
between the direct effect = 0.62 and the indirect effect = 0.40. As for the
calculation of the VAF value, the following results were obtained.
The indirect effect of ISO 14001: 2015 on waste management performance
through variable cost-efficiency was only 0.09 or 9%. Therefore, it is
concluded that there is no mediating effect of the cost-efficiency variable on
the indirect effect between ISO 14001: 2015 on waste management performance.
This is because ISO 14001: 2015 emphasizes technical guidelines in aviation
waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport
The results of testing Hypothesis 2 above have the following structural
model:
Z=0.038X2 +ζ2
The testing results for Hypothesis 2 show that ISO 14001:
2015 did not
directly affect waste management performance through cost-efficiency with a
significance of 47% and p-values (0.365)> 0.05, so the
conclusion is that H0 is accepted. Based on the simultaneous hypothesis testing
above, ISO 14001: 2015 (X2) did not affect waste management performance (Z) through cost-efficiency (Y) aviation
waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport. This is because the waste
management performance at Soekarno-Hatta Airport has not received full
attention from PT AP-II. PT AP-II is more focused on primary and complimentary
services and facilities for passengers traveling at the airport. Meanwhile,
waste management is another supporting aspect that passengers may not
experience directly. The contribution of cost efficiency has not played a role
in waste management performance, so ISO 14001: 2015 can have a more direct
effect. This reflects PT AP-II's focus, which has not entirely focused on waste management and processing.
However, this condition cannot be ignored because the impact is not only on
passenger comfort but will also have a significant effect on environmental
conditions.
Conclusion
BPR for
aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport was appropriate. This is
proved by the management of PT AP-II already having an eco-airport master plan.
However, it has not been socialized to the smallest unit, nor has HR training
been carried out to carry out waste management. Soekarno-Hatta Airport already
has ISO 14001: 2015 certificate, so the clauses in the form of variable
dimensions ISO 14001: 2015 are by the manual or guidelines. Cost-efficiency for
aviation waste management at Soekarno-Hatta Airport is not optimal considering
that there is still a significant gap between waste management costs at
Soekarno-Hatta Airport and waste management in other places. Soekarno-Hatta
Airport's waste management performance is also not optimal with indicators of
low recycling rates and high waste generation.
BPR had no indirect effect on waste management performance
through cost-efficiency. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no mediating
effect of the intervening cost-efficiency variable on BPR's indirect effect on
waste management performance. Waste management performance was not influenced
by ISO 14001: 2015 through cost-efficiency. Therefore, it is concluded that
there is no mediating effect of the intervening cost-efficiency variable on
BPR's indirect effect on waste management performance.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airport, Heathrow. (2019).
Heathrow 2.0 2018 Sustainability Progress. London: Heathrow Airport.
Baxter, Glenn, Panarat
Srisaeng 1. and Graham Wild. (2018). sustainable Airport Waste Management: The
Case of Kansai International Airport. Recycling, 3.
Bernadette Biondi, George
J Kahaly, R. Paul Robertson. (2019). Thyroid Dysfunction and Diabetes
Mellitus: Two Closely Associated Disorders.
CHAERUDIN, IMAN. (2021). Inovasi
Disruptif Transportasi di Jakarta.
Chor-Man Lam, Iris K.M.
Yu, Francisco Medel, Daniel C.W. Tsang, Shu Chien Hsu, & Poon, Chi Sun.
(2018). Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis on sustainable food waste management:
The case of Hong Kong international airport. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Gatwick Airport Limited.
(2018). Read our sustainability reports.
Ghozali, Imam. (2016).
Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Cet . VIII. In Aplikasi
Analisis Multivariate dengan Program SPSS. Cet . VIII. Semarang: Badan
Penerbitan Universitas Dipanegoro.
Glenn Baxter, & ,
Panarat Srisaeng, Graham Wild. (2018). An Assessment of Sustainable Airport
Water Management: The Case of Osakas Kansai International Airport. Infrastructures.
Gonzalo Blanca-Alcubilla,
Bala, Alba, Hermira, Juan Ignacio, De-Castro, Nieves, Rosa, Chavarri, Perales,
Rubn, Barredo, Ivn, & Fullana-i-Palmer, and Pere. (2018). Tackling
international airline catering waste management: life zero cabin waste project.
State of the art and first steps. Detritus, 3, 159166.
International Air
Transport Association. (2017). Airline Cabin CrewTraining.
Michael Pitt, Andrew
Smith. (2003). Waste management efficiency at UK airports. Journal of Air
Transport Management. Journal of Air Transport Management, 9.
PT Angkasa Pura II.
(2018). Airport Grow Faster Grow Beyond Core.
Raharjo, Slamet,
Matsumoto, Toru, Ihsan, Taufiq, Rachman, Indriyani, & Gustin, Luciana.
(2017). Community-based solid waste bank program for municipal solid waste
management improvement in Indonesia: a case study of Padang city. Journal of
Material Cycles and Waste Management, 19(1), 201212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0401-z
S. Sreenath, K . Sudhakar,
A. .. Yusof. (2020). Technical assessment of captive solar power plant: A
case study of Senai airport, Malaysia.
Sugiyono. (2017).
MetodePenelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: PT Alfabet. Sugiyono.
(2017). MetodePenelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif Dan R&D. Bandung: PT
Alfabet.
Suzuki Syofian, Timor
Setiyaningsih, & Syamsiah, Nur. (2015). Otomatisasi Metode Penelitian Skala
Likert Berbasis Web. Jurnal.Ftumj.Ac.Id.
Yerbol Sarbassov, Christos
Venetis, Berik Aiymbetov, Bexultan Abylkhani, Almira Yagofarova, Diyar
Tokmurzin, Edward J. Anthony, Vassilis J. Inglezakis. (2020). Municipal solid
waste management and greenhouse gas emissions at international airports: a case
study of Astana International Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management,
85.