Transforming Landfill Compensation Policy in Bantargebang, Indonesia: An Environmental Justice Perspective

Abstract

This study explores the environmental justice issues associated with landfill compensation policies in Bantargebang, Indonesia. Although compensation programs have been implemented for many years, communities living near landfills continue to experience ongoing environmental damage and significant health concerns. Using a qualitative descriptive method, this research explores systemic barriers through in-depth interviews, observations, and water quality analysis. The findings indicate that labeling the program as “Social Assistance” within the Local Government Information System (SIPD) redefines ecological compensation as a fixed form of charity, rather than as a mechanism for genuine environmental restitution. Laboratory data show severe bacteriological contamination, with Total Coliform levels reaching 95%, forcing residents to bear substantial “hidden costs” for clean water, perpetuating a cycle of financial dependence. The growing normalization of health hazards is evident in over 5000 annual cases of acute respiratory infections, and the deadly landslide in March 2026, in which claimed seven lives and injured six others. These incidents underscore the failure of existing remediation approaches to safeguard human dignity and well-being. To address these shortcomings, this study proposes the adoption of an Integrated Compensation Model based on Green Social Work. This model emphasizes structural investment, spatial risk-based indices using quantitative data, and budget coding adjustments within the SIPD. This approach highlights the urgent need to move beyond temporary charitable assistance and instead pursue meaningful environmental justice, while positioning social workers as “Social-Ecological Brokers” who help restore dignity and well-being in communities often treated as “sacrifice zones.”

1. Introduction

Waste management has become an important concern in efforts to protect public health, safeguard the environment, and support global sustainability, particularly in developing countries that are undergoing rapid urban growth [1,2,3,4,5,6]. In the context of urban areas, this issue is intertwined with the challenges of meeting other essential needs, such as access to and availability of clean water, sanitation, and ensuring community health and well-being [7]. The global population is projected to surpass 10 billion by 2057. At the same time, changing consumption habits are expected to significantly increase the amount of solid waste produced in urban areas [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. These trends place growing pressure on waste management systems, which are increasingly strained and deteriorating [15,16]. According to the Trends in Solid Waste Management report, the total amount of waste generated worldwide has reached approximately 2.01 billion tons annually, and this figure is expected to rise to around 3.40 billion tons by 2050 [17]. Data shows a significant upward trend since 2016, with global waste volume reaching 1.8 billion tons in 2020 [18,19]. Economic expansion, population growth, and accelerating urbanization are expected to drive waste levels approximately 3.8 billion metric tons by 2050 [20]. It is further predicted that by 2050, waste generation will increase by 40% in developing countries and 19% in developed countries [21].

Rapid urbanization, particularly in developing countries in the Global South, has emerged as a major driver of urban waste management challenges, making these issues increasingly severe and persistent over time [22,23,24,25,26]. Inefficient waste management systems have a significant impact on environmental degradation and increased public health risks [23,27]. Moreover, waste management is widely recognized as a sector requiring substantial financial resources, often accounting for 20% to 50% of a city government’s total budget allocation [3,10,12,28,29,30]. One major contributor to this problem is food waste, with an estimated one-third of global food production being wasted annually [31,32].

Currently, waste management in many developing countries is still largely characterized by unsustainable practices such as open dumping and open burning. Approximately 33% of waste is discarded in open areas, while about 40% ends up in landfills [3,18,33]. These practices has an impact on resource scarcity and a decline in groundwater quality [34,35]. Numerous studies indicate that conventional landfill systems can endanger both human health and the environment due to the generation of leachate and the release of methane gas emissions [28,36,37,38,39]. Methane is a chemical with a global warming potential 21 to 25 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO₂) [40,41,42,43]. The waste sector contributes about 5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions [44,45,46,47,48].

In principle, waste management involves a series of processes, starting with efforts to reduce waste generation and extending to safe final treatment and disposal [49,50,51,52,53,54]. However, of the reliance on open waste disposal (landfilling) creates an unbalanced ecological and social burden on the environment [41,52,55,56,57]. This imbalance results in environmental injustice, as communities living near landfill sites tend to face higher health risks and exposure [58].

The waste problem in Indonesia has also increased due to the phenomenon of urbanization, especially in urban areas [59,60,61]. The country is currently facing several significant challenges, including an escalating landfill crisis and limited financial resources for waste management [62]. From a national regulatory perspective, based on Law No. 18 of 2008, waste management is principally aimed at reducing negative impacts on the environment and health [63]. In 2024, Indonesia generated around 36 million tons of waste, with approximately 60–70% still sent to landfills [64,65,66]. This challenge is particularly acute in the Jakarta megacity, where more than 8000 tons of waste are transported to the Bantargebang Integrated Waste Management Site (TPST Bantargebang) in Bekasi City. Since 1989, this site has been used to serve Jakarta and is located in the subdistricts of Cikiwul, Ciketing Udik, and Sumurbatu within Bantargebang District [67].

Although Presidential Regulation No. 35 of 2018 has designated Jakarta as one of 12 priority cities for the accelerated development of waste-to-energy facilities (PLTSa), the volume of waste sent to Bantargebang remains extremely high. This on-the-ground reality contradicts the mandate of Article 20 of Law No. 18 of 2008, which requires waste reduction through source reduction, recycling, and reuse. By comparison, cities such as Bandung have sought to optimize community-level waste banks to promote a circular economy [62], while Yogyakarta has begun transforming toward smart waste management with active citizen involvement during the transition period leading up to the closure of the landfill [68]. The failure to implement the waste reduction mandate along the Jakarta-Bantargebang corridor highlights significant implementation gaps (execution holes) in cross-regional waste management.

The Jakarta Province, with a population of 10,677,975 in 2025 [69], has seen an increase in waste generation from 2022 to 2025, reaching 8527 tons per day (2022), 8607 tons per day (2023), and 8688 tons per day (2024) [70]. As a consequence, communities in four subdistricts, Ciketingudik, Cikiwul, Sumurbatu, and Bantargebang, experience the most significant environmental impact. In response to the environmental pollution experienced by the Bantargebang community, the Jakarta Provincial Government allocated compensation funds based on the mandate of Article 10, letter e of Jakarta Regional Regulation Number 4 of 2019 concerning Waste Management. However, the compensation provided is not the same. Residents of Bantargebang subdistricts receive IDR 150,000 per month, while those living in the other three subdistricts receive IDR 400,000 per month [71,72].

The complexities observed in Bantargebang reflect broader global challenges, where policy uncertainty can significantly impact total green factor energy efficiency in urban areas [73] and hinder the transition to renewable energy [74]. Furthermore, the lack of standardized ecological compensation mechanisms in Indonesia creates policy risks similar to the impacts of carbon emissions trading schemes on urban carbon efficiency [75] or the performance challenges faced by cities that have exhausted their resources due to inconsistent policy measures [76]. Navigating these environmental risks requires a transformation in risk perception, as policy uncertainty is now fundamentally reshaping how institutions foster sustainability and green innovation [77], as mapped out in the latest global energy transition trends [78].

This study seeks to examine the policy governing the distribution of compensation by applying an environmental justice perspective, which includes the dimensions of distribution, procedure, and recognition. Through this perspective, the study will examine how administrative barriers and the nomenclature of “Social Assistance” in the government’s financial nomenclature system have undermined the ecological rights of residents affected by waste management. In addition, this study proposes a policy transformation toward a more equitable and integrated compensation model that can sustainably restore the rights and dignity of these communities. Based on the description of the problems and theoretical gaps, this study focuses on an in-depth review and transformation of the compensation model. Ultimately, in the context of climate policy, the failure of landfill management in Bantargebang not only exacerbates local pollution but also represents a failure in integrating local environmental justice with global climate mitigation goals. This is supported by exploring the following two research questions: First, how is the policy of financial compensation distribution for affected communities in the Bantargebang Landfill area, and what are the systemic obstacles that accompany it? Second, to what extent is the current compensation model uphold the principles of environmental justice, and what path should its transformation towards a more equitable welfare model?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Environmental Justice: A Tripartite Framework

Historically, the environmental justice movement emerged in response to social mobilization against the siting of hazardous waste facilities in marginalized communities. In 1982, the rural community of Afton, Warren County, North Carolina, protested the presence of a hazardous waste landfill in their area [79,80]. The conceptualization of environmental justice refers to the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and risks across all layers of society, regardless of race, class, or income level [81,82]. Beyond mere distributive aspects, environmental justice demands recognition of community integrity and active participation in decision-making processes [83]. This study adopts an anthropocentric environmental justice perspective to analyze how the ecological burden of Jakarta’s waste management is disproportionately distributed to the communities surrounding the Bantargebang Landfill in Bekasi City. Recurring environmental failures are often caused by the ineffectiveness of justice principles within systematic decision-making processes [84]. This imbalance necessitates a redistribution of benefits as a form of accountability for the diminished quality of life experienced by residents [85]. Unjust distribution is a manifestation of the lack of recognition for affected groups within social and political structures [86].

Environmental justice in this study is supported by three mutually reinforcing dimensions: First, distributive justice, which examines whether the allocation of economic benefits is proportional to irreplaceable ecological losses [82,87,88]. This dimension emphasizes how environmental risks impact basic human capabilities for a healthy life [86]. In the context of Bantargebang, distributive justice must be grounded in the principle of risk proportionality, where financial compensation values are ideally calculated based on the escalation of the environmental pollution burden borne by residents. The massive daily waste tonnage and the height of the landfill signify risks that threaten both environmental and community sustainability, including significant health risks. Failure to apply this principle causes financial compensation policies—which focus only on technical targets without real distributive intervention—to exacerbate the economic burden on low-income groups [89]. This approach aligns with international practices, emphasizing financial compensation as a form of tangible restitution for environmental damage caused by inadequate waste facility management [90]. In the broader Global South context, this compensation is also viewed as recognition of the social and ecological costs borne by citizens—the inverse of “willingness to pay” for services, namely “willingness to receive compensation” for a decline in quality of life [91].

Second, recognition justice focuses on the status, identity, and dignity of citizens as sovereign legal subjects rather than mere objects of impact [82,92,93]. The phenomenon of misrecognition, taking the form of stigmatizing Bantargebang as a “waste” territory, hinders the realization of procedural participation and distributive justice [83,86,89,94,95]. In the history of large-scale urban waste management, recognition failure often creates “sacrifice zones,” where one region is sacrificed for the aesthetic and health interests of other politically and financially dominant areas [94]. Compensation system failures frequently occur because policies remain “blind” to the specific identities and vulnerabilities of local communities [89]. This recognition dimension complements distribution by ensuring that financial compensation is not treated as a mere economic transaction but as a form of moral respect for psychosocial harm and the destruction of social identity and living spaces. Thus, the distribution of compensation must be analyzed to ensure that the process does not treat citizens as passive “charity” recipients but as sovereign subjects whose rights and dignity are recognized by the Provincial Government of Jakarta and the Bekasi City Government. This recognition is crucial, as economic compensation psychosomatically affects public acceptance and how citizens attribute the risks and losses experienced due to waste projects.

Third, procedural justice emphasizes meaningful participation and transparency of data regarding environmental impacts [79,82]. Implementing a procedural framework from the early stages of planning is essential to uncovering hidden social risks [89]. If the participation of affected communities is merely a formality without real power to influence decisions, it remains a form of procedural injustice [86]. Specifically, this dimension analyzes whether the compensation disbursement mechanism—from determining nominal values in the Cooperation Agreement (Perjanjian Kerja Sama/PKS) to fund disbursement at the household level—involves the active participation of affected citizens and guarantees environmental data transparency so that compensation functions as an ecological recovery instrument rather than just a tool for suppressing social tension.

An ideal compensation policy must ensure that the responsible party—in this case, waste-producing entities—invests directly in ecological recovery rather than merely providing consumable financial compensation [96]. Without integrating these three dimensions, compensation policies only produce “pseudo-justice” [93], where distributive justice without recognition degrades citizen dignity, and recognition justice without inclusive procedures fails to produce real structural change. Therefore, a transformative intervention framework is required to translate environmental justice principles into sustainable social welfare recovery practices, referred to in this study through the concept of GSW (Green Social Work).

2.2. Green Social Work: A Supportive Framework for Transformation

In responding to environmental crises in waste-affected areas, the Green Social Work (GSW) approach offers a critical view that integrates social justice with ecological recovery and environmental sustainability [97]. GSW asserts that human social welfare is difficult to achieve if the physical environment undergoes permanent degradation; thus, environmental advocacy must be an integral part of human welfare interventions [7,98]. This approach explicitly criticizes conventional charitable and remedial cash assistance. Labeling financial compensation as “social assistance” fails to address the root of the “hidden costs” that slowly impoverish residents.

Through the GSW lens, policies at the Bantargebang Landfill are directed to transform the bargaining position of the local community from passive objects to active, sovereign subjects. This transformation involves redesigning the cash distribution model into an Integrated Compensation Model. This model proposes redefining compensation values based on risk proportionality, hidden costs, and the permanent provision of basic infrastructure services, such as clean water networks and health insurance. The goal is to break the “vicious cycle” of resident dependency on consumable cash funds that are insufficient to restore ecosystem damage. Consequently, GSW functions to build the socio-ecological resilience of the community as a more dignified form of ecological restitution [99].

Through the lens of Green Social Work (GSW), policies at the Bantargebang Landfill are designed to shift the bargaining position of local communities from mere affected parties to autonomous actors. GSW serves as an operational tool that translates the abstract values of environmental justice into practical and structural measures. In the distributive dimension, GSW goes beyond conventional economic calculations by identifying “hidden costs”—such as the burden of clean water and healthcare expenses—to advocate for a more dignified redistribution of resources, namely through investment in public infrastructure rather than consumptive cash assistance. Concurrently, GSW strengthens recognition justice by positioning social workers as ‘socio-ecological brokers.’ This role is crucial for restoring residents’ dignity as legal subjects and erasing the stigma of the ‘sacrifice zone’ that has long been attached through the label of ‘charity recipients.’ Finally, in procedural terms, GSW facilitates active–transformative participation by ensuring transparency of environmental data and guaranteeing that the voices of affected communities are genuinely heard in the drafting of Inter-regional Cooperation Agreements (ICAs). Through this practical roadmap, GSW not only supports the realization of environmental justice in theory but also provides a framework for concrete interventions to break the cycle of poverty and financial dependence in waste-affected areas.

2.3. Global Context of Waste Management in the Global South

Waste management in developing countries (Global South) currently faces a crisis driven by rapid urbanization, with global waste volumes predicted to surge by 70% by 2050 [3,100]. The effectiveness of waste management systems in the Global South is often hindered by limited unreliable data, making the application of sophisticated technical indicators crucial for public health safety [101]. This contrasts with models in Scandinavia, such as in Sweden, which demonstrate mature governance by minimizing landfill disposal through a combination of material recycling, biological treatment, and waste-to-energy recovery [102,103]. Such an integrated approach is an urgent necessity for industrial cities to avoid uncontrolled environmental pollution from conventional disposal methods.

Historically, the transformation of open landfills in major global cities shows that waste management is not merely a technical issue but a reflection of high consumption patterns and political disposal practices. Giant landfills often begin as public sanitation initiatives that later evolve into chronic environmental burdens for buffer zones, creating tension between urban growth and justice for local communities [94].

Lessons from the evolution of waste systems in developed nations emphasize that reliance on open landfills without radical upstream changes merely shifts ecological crises from city centers to peripheral and marginalized areas. This highlights the need for transformational policies—not just incremental fixes—in the Global South.

A global paradigm shift is occurring from linear and conventional models to a circular economy that prioritizes the 3Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) [104]. Successful community-based 3R waste management has proven to boost local welfare while reducing the volume of waste entering landfills, as seen in the success story of Barangay Holy Spirit in the Philippines [105]. This strategy aligns with the four pillars of integrated waste management: source reduction, recycling and composting, material recovery or thermal conversion, and sanitary landfilling [101,106]. Conversely, while developed nations have transitioned away from open dumping, urban areas in the Global South are still dominated by open dumping practices that cause environmental degradation, damage groundwater quality, and threaten public health [107,108,109]. Critical lessons from dumpsite closures show that technocratic policies implemented without social protection risk creating new injustices, where the living standards of vulnerable groups like waste pickers can plummet [110,111]. Therefore, transitioning toward sustainable governance requires strategies that include informal sector recognition and comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) to choose the most appropriate scenarios, whether sanitary landfilling or incineration [105,106,112]. Finally, the effectiveness of processing and collection systems depends heavily on institutional structures, whether through public or private contractors, as implemented in Singapore, Mongolia, and Nepal [113]. Global literature emphasizes that sustainability requires a multidisciplinary approach blending technical strategies with the reconceptualization of former landfills into safe, green public spaces for the people and the ecosystem [114].

2.4. Waste Management Policy and Challenges in Indonesia

Indonesia, as a developing country, faces complex challenges in national waste management. This is caused by low public and individual awareness regarding waste reduction, which is dominated by food waste influenced by household consumption patterns and retail choices [32,59,115,116,117,118]. National waste management is regulated under Law No. 18 of 2008 and Presidential Regulation No. 35 of 2018, which encourages the acceleration of Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technology and landfill gas utilization as efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [119,120,121]. However, urban waste problems still persist in Indonesia. Implementation of regulations is often hindered by limited regional budgets, weak legal enforcement, and a shortage of detailed technical regulations [63,65]. This ineffectiveness is exacerbated by frequent policy incoherence between national regulations and implementation at local (regency or city) level [122].

On the other hand, social innovations such as digital technology adaptation, Waste Banks (Bank Sampah), and waste charity (Sampah Sadaqah) have emerged as vital pillars in community-based waste reduction [123,124,125,126]. However, the long-term success of these initiatives is determined by consistent household sorting behavior and the adoption of digital technologies to accelerate decarbonization [127,128]. Beyond behavioral aspects, gender dimensions are found to be very strong in waste governance in Jakarta’s buffer zones—such as South Tangerang, Bogor, and Depok—where women tend to bear a disproportionate burden of environmental “care work” due to social mindsets that assign waste management to mothers and women [129]. Despite various social innovations and government efforts, the overcapacity of landfill infrastructure remains a serious threat to environmental sustainability, health, and resident safety in Indonesia [62,64,130,131,132]. This crisis underscores the need for enhanced community participation and fundamental policy transformation, moving from informal approaches toward formal frameworks [60,111,133,134], aligned with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve a “Zero Waste Indonesia” [68,135,136,137].

2.5. Cross-Jurisdictional Waste Management Dynamics in Bantargebang Landfill

The reality of cross-jurisdictional waste management, where waste from Jakarta is transported and dumped in the Bantargebang Landfill, reflects the interdependence of the two regions. Jakarta’s limited land makes it highly dependent on the landfill, while Bekasi City requires grant funding from Jakarta. Meanwhile, waste management effectiveness is often hampered by low waste control indices at the upstream level in buffer zones like Bekasi [138]. Although formally classified as a sanitary landfill, operational realities on the ground resemble an open dump, triggering persistent odor pollution and massive leachate treatment system failures [139,140,141,142].

This relationship reflects an imbalanced responsibility-sharing scheme in the context of transboundary pollution [143] The Bantargebang community bears a higher pollution burden compared to Jakarta residents as waste producers. Cross-jurisdictional dynamics also create governance gaps where ecological responsibility is neglected for bureaucratic interests, ignoring local community needs; a history of conflict and demonstrations occurred in 2003–2004 [67]. History records that without substantive justice reconciliation, financial compensation in cross-border waste governance risks being degraded into “quiet money”—a political instrument to suppress protests rather than restore local ecological rights [94]. Therefore, a robust technical framework is needed to quantify eco-compensation based on factual environmental risk and benefit assessments [143]. Likewise, the urgency of transforming budgetary nomenclature within the compensation distribution bureaucracy is substantive, ensuring that the meaning and philosophy of environmental pollution compensation are not reduced to mere social assistance (bantuan sosial) [144], or direct cash transfers (Bantuan Langsung Tunai), but rather serve as a just instrument for restoring community ecological rights.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

This study employs a qualitative approach with a descriptive study design to explore in depth the implementation of financial compensation policies for communities impacted by the Bantargebang Landfill [145]. This approach was selected as it allows the researcher to capture complex phenomena regarding how formal regulations interact with socio-ecological realities on the ground. The primary focus of the research is to dissect the compensation distribution mechanism through the lens of environmental justice, encompassing distributive, procedural, and recognition dimensions.

3.2. Location and Spatial Context

The research is focused on the Bantargebang District, Bekasi City, West Java, which geographically serves as the waste receptor site for Jakarta Province. The scope covers four sub-districts (kelurahan) directly affected both ecologically and administratively: Ciketing Udik, Cikiwul, Sumur Batu, and Bantargebang, as illustrated in Figure 1. The location was determined based on the spatial proximity of residential areas to the waste mountains, which have exceeded ideal operational capacity, thereby creating significant health and social risks.

3.3. Data Collection

To validate the biophysical and social conditions at the research site, data source triangulation was conducted through field observations, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. Field observations were carried out on 29 August 2025, to confirm massive waste accumulation and community interaction with the high-risk environment at primary facilities, such as the digital weighing posts, as shown in Figure 2. Primary data were further strengthened through in-depth interviews conducted from August to December 2025, involving various stakeholders ranging from government authorities to impacted residents across the four sub-districts. All interview results were documented and processed through verbatim transcription to ensure data accuracy before thematic analysis. Additionally, document analysis was performed on national regulations, Cooperation Agreements (PKS), and technical data from the Local Government Information System (SIPD) to dissect the budgetary nomenclature and compensation fund disbursement mechanisms.

3.4. Selection of Informants

Informants were selected through purposive sampling to align with the research objectives. This group includes key stakeholders from the Jakarta Provincial Government, the Bekasi City Government, and impacted residents. As shown in

Table 1. Informant Criteria and Research Objectives based on Environmental Justice.

Informant Category	Focus on Information and Theoretical Propositions	Objective
Environmental Agency (Jakarta Province and Bekasi City)	Procedural and Distributive Justice: Examining the process of drafting Cooperation Agreements (PKS), the transparency of fund allocation mechanisms, and identifying obstacles to cross-jurisdictional coordination.	Analyzing administrative accountability and inter-regional policy synchronization
Local Authorities (Subdistrict and Village Governments)	Distributive and Procedural Justice: Examining the technicalities of compensation distribution at the grassroots level, the validation of recipient data, and the effectiveness of public complaint mechanisms.	Assessing the accuracy of distribution targets and the inclusiveness of local bureaucratic procedures
Affected Communities (Residents in 4 Sub-districts around the Bantargebang Landfill)	Distributive Justice and Recognition: Analyzing the adequacy of nominal compensation for living/health costs, as well as state recognition of non-material losses (social stigma and psychological burden).	Measuring the real impact of policies on the dignity and welfare of citizens

, these informants are directly mapped to the three pillars of environmental justice.

3.5. Data Analysis and Methodological Procedures

Data analysis was conducted qualitatively following an interactive model comprising data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing [146]. The process began with the codification of interview results and field notes, which were subsequently categorized based on theoretical propositions of environmental justice to map the linkages between formal policies and the reality of the physical burden borne by residents in the four impacted sub-districts [83,86]. To ensure the transparency and reproducibility of the research, all primary data collected were systematically managed using NVivo 14 software.

This study involved a total of 83 informants selected through purposive sampling. To mitigate the risk of sample bias, informants were selected by applying strict inclusion criteria to ensure representation of the variation in duration of risk exposure as well as the diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds among the affected communities. This group of informants is divided into two main, complementary parts. First, there are 13 key stakeholders, including administrative and technical officials such as the Subdistrict Office Secretary, the Heads of the Government and Public Order Sections at the four subdistrict offices, and medical staff at Community Health Centers (Puskesmas). Additionally, the policy perspective was explored through interviews with technical officials from the Environmental Health Division at the Bekasi City Health Department, the Waste Management and Partnerships (PSKM) Division at the Bekasi City Environmental Affairs Department, and technical officials at the Integrated Waste Processing Unit (UPST) at the Bantargebang Waste Management Facility under the Jakarta Provincial Environmental Affairs Department. Second, the community perspective was represented by 70 affected residents spread across the sub-districts of Ciketingudik (18), Cikiwul (17), Sumurbatu (21), and Bantargebang (14). These community informants represent diverse backgrounds, and range in age from 25 to 65, including housewives, day laborers, and private-sector workers. They have lived in Bantargebang Subdistrict for three years, which meets the criteria and requirements set by the government for eligibility to receive compensation funds in Bantargebang District.

Data collection through in-depth interviews was halted once the study reached data saturation, at which point the information obtained began to repeat, and no new themes emerged. Subsequently, the data analysis process was conducted using a systematic thematic coding procedure in NVivo 14. This process began with open coding to categorize raw concepts related to environmental burdens and compensation mechanisms across all transcripts. The process then proceeded to axial coding to link these categories to map the correlation between regulatory failures and the decline in residents’ quality of life. Finally, selective coding was performed to integrate all themes into core propositions regarding transformative environmental justice. Through this integrative process, the analysis moved beyond administrative figures and touched on deeper dimensions, namely human dignity and the ecological rights of communities.

3.6. Trustworthiness and Ethics

Research rigor was ensured through trustworthiness criteria, including triangulation techniques to enhance the credibility of findings [139]. Data transparency was strengthened through the systematic documentation of analytical procedures within the NVivo 14, enabling verification of the themes developed in this study. All research procedures have obtained institutional ethical approval to ensure the protection of informant privacy and compliance with university scientific integrity standards. The systematic sequence of this methodology is illustrated in the research flowchart in Figure 3.

4. Results

4.1. Policy Implementation and Systemic Barriers in Compensation Fund Distribution

The application of compensation policies at the Bantargebang Integrated Waste Processing Site (TPST) reveals a gap between Jakarta’s regulatory requirements for waste management, especially those governing the allocation of financial compensation, and the conditions encountered in the field. Despite being supported by a digital system, it was found that the distribution process was caught in a bureaucratic maze that widened the gap between the ecological rights of residents affected by the TPST and the government’s obligations. This section outlines the regulatory framework that governs the distribution of compensation and presents field results that highlight the administrative and technical challenges encountered during the research process.

4.1.1. Regulatory Framework and Multi-Layered Distribution Mechanism

Regulatory records indicate that the allocation of financial compensation related to the Bantargebang Landfill is governed by three primary legal instruments: Jakarta Regional Regulation No. 4 of 2019, the Jakarta–Bekasi Cooperation Agreement (PKS) No. 19 and 160 of 2021, and the Bekasi Mayor’s Decision No. 000.7.7.1/KEP.45-DLH/I/2026 (

Table 2. Policy Mapping of Waste Management Compensation in Bantargebang.

Regulatory Instrument	Main Mandate/Key Clause	Relevance to Environmental Justice
Jakarta Regional Regulation No. 4/2019 on Waste Management	Changes in waste management towards Intermediate Waste Processing Facilities (FPSA) and technological modernization.	Distributive: Promise to reduce waste burden downstream (Bantargebang Landfill)
Cooperation Agreement among the Province of Jakarta and the City of Bekasi (2021)	Compensation in the form of financial assistance for infrastructure development, environmental maintenance, and public health for communities affected by TPA/TPST.	Procedural: Regulating the rights and obligations among regions in managing the impact of waste processing at the Bantargebang Landfill.
Decision of the Mayor of Bekasi, 2026 (Technical Guidelines for Direct Cash Assistance)	Determination of criteria for residents receiving compensation funds and administrative verification procedures, including documents such as Identity Cards (KTP), Family Cards (KK), and Bank Accounts.	Recognition: Defining residents affected by the Bantargebang Landfill as “Social Assistance Recipients” administratively.

).

Based on the PKS document (Article 5, Paragraph 2), the Jakarta Provincial Government is required to allocate financial assistance to the Bekasi City Government’s regional treasury based on a technical formula: assumed daily waste tonnage multiplied by a retribution tariff of IDR 25,000, with a volume-to-tonnage adjustment factor of 120%. Quantitatively, this mechanism generates a significant allocation; for instance, in 2025, the total funds designated specifically for direct compensation to the community reached IDR 114,066,600,000 (

Table 3. Detailed Quarterly Compensation Fund Allocation by Subdistrict in 2025.

Subdistrict	Number of Recipients	Allocationper Quarter (IDR)	Total Annual Allocation (IDR)
Bantargebang	6933	3,119,850,000	12,479,400,000
Cikiwul	7248	8,697,600,000	34,790,400,000
Ciketingudik	7045	8,454,000,000	33,816,000,000
Sumurbatu	6871	8,245,200,000	32,980,800,000
---------	28,097	28,516,650,000	114,066,600,000

Source: Primary data obtained from the Bantargebang District Office, processed by the authors (2025).

). This allocation is strictly designated for individual compensation and is distinct from other financial assistance for regional infrastructure development.

The total annual allocation of IDR 114,066,600,000 was calculated based on administrative records obtained from the Bantargebang District Office (2025) concerning the number of recipients. This total is derived from specific monthly nominals: residents in three sub-districts (Cikiwul, Ciketingudik, and Sumurbatu) receive IDR 400,000 per month per household, while those in Bantargebang Sub-district receive IDR 150,000 per month per household. These funds are disbursed on a quarterly basis, requiring extensive administrative verification at the local level to ensure data accuracy.

However, field data indicate that the administrative responsibility of the Jakarta Provincial Government becomes fragmented once the funds enter the Bekasi area. Informant 1 explained the division of authority as follows:

“… The Jakarta Provincial Government has fulfilled its responsibility to transfer the funds to the Bekasi City regional treasury promptly, in accordance with the provisions set out in the cooperation agreement between the Jakarta and Bekasi City governments. The technical aspects of transferring funds to residents’ accounts fall entirely within the authority of the Bekasi City Government…”

(Informant 1, October 2025)

Policy contradictions emerge when these technical calculations must be processed through the administrative nomenclature of ‘Social Assistance’ (Bansos). This not only limits the flexibility of fund utilization for environmental restoration but also results in delays in distribution. Under the quarterly scheme, residents frequently do not receive the funds until the fourth month, without clear notification of the exact disbursement date. This situation forces residents into a passive position, where they can only wait for the funds to be credited to their individual bank accounts without any certainty, thereby exacerbating the disconnect between their ecological rights and the bureaucratic process.

4.1.2. Nomenclature Distortion: Social Assistance and the Compensation Value Lock-In

From an administrative perspective, the distribution of compensation funds at the Bantargebang Landfill reflects a disconnect between bureaucratic procedures and the fulfillment of substantive ecological rights. Historically, the compensation distribution system, as illustrated in the bureaucratic flowchart, has undergone significant transformations to increase transparency. Informant 2 described the transition from a manual cash-based distribution system to bank transfers, a change introduced to reduce the risk of misuse, although the basis for calculating compensation amount remains unclear to residents:

“… The system was shifted by cash payments to bank transfers during the administration of Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama in an effort to eliminate opportunities for abuse… and it has continued to operate until now. The nominal amount is one million two hundred [per quarter], however, I do not understand the basis for its calculation…”

(Informant 2, October 2025)

The distribution flow, as shown in Figure 4 illustrates a multi-level bureaucratic process. The process starts with the allocation of funds by the Jakarta Government. After that, the funds are distributed to the recipients’ individual accounts through Bank Jawa Barat (BJB). This distribution is carried out only after the recipients’ administrative documents have been carefully verified and approved at the RT/RW (neighborhood association) level, the Kelurahan (village) office, the Kecamatan (sub-district) office, the Population Office, and the Environment Office. At the validation stage, several challenges frequently arise, particularly concerning the accuracy of residents’ data and population records. The Bekasi City Government must rigorously verify this information to ensure that the data truly reflects the actual conditions in the field.

Ignorance of the basis for this calculation has led to distributive injustice, where compensation is considered merely a “buffer” rather than a means of ecological recovery. This situation is further intensified by the classification of these funds as a technical result indicating that the funds are categorized as social assistance because they follow the classification set in the Regional Government Information System (SIPD), in accordance with the latest Bekasi Mayor’s Decision No. 000.7.7.1/KEP.45-DLH/I/2026 (formerly Regulation No. 460 of 2022). The use of the ‘Bansos’ budget code creates a systemic limitation in the form of a fixed value locked into a static budget ceiling. As a result, the nominal amount of IDR 400,000/month is not automatically adjusted even though the waste load has increased to exceed 8000 tons/day. Informant 3 explained the technical constraints underlying this nomenclature:

“… In the local government budget system, there is no mention of the term ‘compensation’… that’s why we say, ‘social assistance’, because that is the nomenclature in the DIPA budget. Therefore, if the term “compensation” is used, the central system (SIPD) will reject the entry because no corresponding account for that category exists in the system. Ultimately, the rights of these citizens are ‘repackaged’ as social assistance so that they can be disbursed…”

(Informant 3, October 2025)

Beyond the rigid application of certain values, the terminology used also plays a role in reshaping how citizens are positioned. Rather than being recognized as individuals entitled to ecological compensation, they are instead framed as mere beneficiaries of aid, reducing them to residual recipients of assistance. This condition creates a degradation of identity at citizen level, who feel that their dignity is lowered by this labeling. Informant 4 gave a strong testimony regarding the rejection of the stigma of poverty associated with the term Bansos:

“… We are not impoverished individuals seeking charity from the government. We are citizens who have been directly affected by environmental pollution. Yet, despite this reality, we continue to be portrayed and labeled in that way. So, it seems like we are just being given ordinary social assistance, when in fact this is our rightful compensation for air and water pollution…”

(Informant 4, September 2025)

The bureaucracy itself recognized the disconnect between the hardships experienced by residents and the inflexible nature of the administrative system. Informants 5 and 6 confirmed that the social assistance scheme was the only legally available option, even though sociologically it was not appropriately targeted:

“… In fact, officials realized that many residents were uncomfortable being labeled as recipients of social assistance, since such aid is typically intended for the poor, whereas they saw themselves as victims affected by environmental conditions, rather than beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programs. But yes, in terms of government administrative regulations, the legal umbrella that allows the money to be disbursed is only through the social assistance scheme…”

(Informants 5 and 6, October 2025)

This inconsistency indicates that the administrative system has not yet been able to adequately recognize and fulfill citizens’ rights in a dignified manner. Instead of being treated as a legitimate right to environmental restoration, it is reduced to something resembling a form of charitable social assistance.

4.1.3. Administrative Barriers: Quota Queues and Population Data Dynamics

Even though the distribution process applies a cashless system through Bank BJB to ensure transparency in disbursement, data verification in the field remains manual and must pass through multiple administrative levels, beginning with the neighborhood association (Rukun Tetangga) and continuing up to the Bekasi City Environment Agency. The findings reveal is the existence of a quota system that limits the addition of new fund recipients to only about 10% per year, even though these citizens have met all administrative requirements. Informant 7 expressed his dissatisfaction with the procedure:

“… Why does the process have to be made so difficult for years… Why are we talking about quotas? We are talking about compensation--we are the ones affected …”

(September 2025)

Another administrative obstacle arises from the regulations regarding the length of residence stipulated in Bekasi Mayor’s Decision No. 000.7.7.1/KEP.45-DLH/I/2026. The policy mandates a minimum residency period of three years for homeowners and ten years for tenants, resulting in the exclusion of some residents, who may have already experienced pollution exposure for a long time, but have not yet met the required duration.

4.1.4. Obstacles to Banking Digitalization and the Reality of Disbursement

The semi-digital system currently in use reveals a discrepancy between the efficiency of banking transactions and the reliability of fund disbursement schedules experienced by communities. The findings indicate that quarterly disbursements are often delayed until the fourth or fifth month due to slow manual validation processes at the upstream administrative levels. These delays place a considerable financial burden on residents, often forcing them to borrow money to meet essential daily expenses such as obtaining clean water and paying for medical care.

“… just three months have passed, sir… as soon as I received the money, it was gone in an instant [to pay off debts] …”

(Informant 8, September 2025)

This situation suggests that the use of digital technology in managing compensation has not yet operated fully as a mechanism to ensure fairness. Instead, it tends to function more as an administrative control system that indirectly sustains the economic vulnerability faced by the affected communities.

4.2. Ecological Realities and Risk Burdens at the Bantargebang Landfill

This section outlines the findings from field observations concerning the physical environmental conditions, potential health risks, and the everyday challenges experienced by residents living near the Bantargebang TPST operational area.

4.2.1. Physical Conditions of the Landfill and Escalation of Operational Burdens

The Bantargebang Integrated Waste Processing Site (TPST) currently processes waste transported from Jakarta, receiving an average of more than 8000 tons each day. Continuous disposal over several decades has drastically altered the area’s landscape, resulting in massive piles of garbage that now rise to heights exceeding 60 m. Through Google Earth satellite imagery and the ATR/BPN Base Map, empirical evidence of extreme spatial anomalies was found. In addition, based on aerial observations conducted on 29 August 2025 (Figure 5), spatial facts were found that reinforce the magnitude of the environmental risks faced by the surrounding community. The visual evidence shows that the landfill’s operational area lies immediately next to residential homes, with no sufficient buffer separating the two. As a result, the community is almost completely surrounded by the waste site, creating a highly vulnerable environmental condition with potentially fatal consequences.

The residents’ collective concern about the vulnerability of the waste site finally turned into a real tragedy on 8 March 2026. A massive landslide in one of the Bantargebang landfill zones claimed lives and caused injuries. This incident confirmed that the accumulation of waste had exceeded the landfill’s technical limits, reaching a critical level that endangered the fundamental human right to life. Based on field observations documented in Figure 5 and Figure 6, the peak of the waste pile has now visually exceeded the height of the nearest mosque tower, as confirmed by Informant 9, who feels physically threatened by the increasing extreme height of the landfill.

“… It feels like it’s getting closer to a garbage mountain. Of course, we are afraid, afraid of landslides… It’s already very high, so we are very afraid …”

(September 2025)

Activities and observations at the crest of the landfill show that, in addition to several heavy equipment operators, scavengers are also seen working there on a daily basis. Satellite imagery from Google Earth (Figure 7a), reveals a large buildup of waste that has gradually created a landscape resembling an artificial mountain. Visually, the texture and density of the waste pile indicate the saturation of capacity in certain zones, which increases the risk of landfill slope instability. Likewise, when the satellite imagery is aligned by the ATR/BPN Base Map (Figure 7b), significant spatial irregularities are revealed. This spatial data clearly proves that the operational boundaries of the landfill directly encroach upon adjacent residential areas, with insufficient buffer zones as required by technical standards.

Besides concerns related to height, observations of proximity and zoning indicate that the active landfill area is located very close to nearby residential settlements. In several locations, the landfill and the housing area are separated only by a narrow wall or a small road. Heavy equipment operations, such as excavators operating 24 h a day at the landfill crest, can be clearly seen directly from residents’ yards (Figure 6). This situation leads to a persistent physical hazard, as the landfill structure becomes increasingly susceptible to landslides, particularly during periods of heavy rainfall. Informant 10 expressed the collective concerns of residents living right at the foot of the garbage mountain.

“… Those of us below are always worried when there is heavy rain. If the garbage mountain collapses, it could immediately bury the houses of residents on the border …”

(Informant 10, September 2025)

On 8 March 2026, long-standing concerns regarding the landfill’s stability materialized in a devastating landslide that resulted in seven deaths and six injuries. This tragic event changed the risk status from a mere ‘theoretical threat’ into a profound ‘humanitarian tragedy’ (Figure 8). This event served as clear evidence that the increasing operational burden, surpassing the facility’s technical capacity and reaching more than 8000 tons per day, had pushed the system to a dangerous and ultimately fatal threshold. Furthermore, this incident underscores that the absence of an adequate buffer zone and the height of the waste pile exceeding safe limits are not merely environmental and aesthetic issues, but a direct and real threat to the fundamental right to life of the affected communities.

Besides the threat of landslides, observations in the field indicate that methane gas buildup inside of the waste piles also poses a serious fire hazard. Such fires can be particularly difficult to control, especially during the dry season. This often results in toxic smoke pollution that severely disrupts residents’ respiratory health.

4.2.2. Manifestations of the Bantargebang Ecological Crisis

Environmental conditions in the affected area reveal a severe level of degradation. Pollution is no longer merely a technical or environmental issue; it has become a persistent daily hardship that gradually undermines the well-being and livelihoods of residents. Research data identifies two main routes of daily pollution exposure, namely through groundwater and air. Data on groundwater conditions indicate that well water in the surrounding area has experienced ongoing deterioration. The water has changed in appearance, becoming yellowish and slimy, and it emits a strong, rust-like odor. The condition of the water, which has exceeded reasonable limits, is consistently described by the affected residents through the following narrative. According to some key informants:

“… The well water is currently not suitable for use. It appears yellowish, and when stored in a tank for some time, a slippery and oily-like layer forms at the bottom. In addition, the water produces a strong, unpleasant odor similar to rusty iron and a fishy smell. The majority of residents here experience the same thing: well water can no longer be taken from natural sources for consumption, so we are forced to buy water. The water also gives off an unpleasant smell when used for daily activities such as washing clothes, cleaning dishes, and bathing. In addition, it often causes irritation and itching on the skin. In addition to the water, the air is also severely affected, especially by the pungent smell of garbage, which disrupts our daily activities…”

(Informant 4, 7, 11, 12, September–October 2025).

The statements provided by the informants indicate that groundwater pollution has reached a severe level, surpassing acceptable physical and aesthetic standards. As the natural environment can no longer fulfill its function in providing essential resources, residents have been compelled to depend entirely on purchased water supplies to safeguard their health and maintain their quality of life.

Residents’ subjective complaints regarding water quality are empirically confirmed by laboratory test data by the Bekasi City Health Office in 2025 based on 60 samples of affected household water in the Bantargebang District (

Table 4. Summary of Household Water Quality Laboratory Test Results in the Bantargebang Landfill Affected Areas (2025).

Parameter	Specific Parameter	Standard (Permenkes No. 2/2023)	Total Samples	Not Meeting Standards (TMS)	Percentage (%)	Parameter Category
Bacteriological	Total Coliform	0 CFU/100 mL	60	57	95%	High risk of gastrointestinal infections
	Escherichia coli	0 CFU/100 mL	60	39	65%	Direct evidence of fecal/leachate contamination
Chemical	pH (Acidity)	6.5–8.5	60	45	75%	Corrosive water causes skin irritation/itching
	Manganese (Mn)	0.1 mg/L	60	24	40%	Slimy texture, metallic odor, and staining
	Iron (Fe)	0.2 mg/L	60	3	5%	Turbidity and brownish-yellow discoloration
Physical	Color/Turbidity	3 NTU (Turbidity)	60	8	13%	Aesthetic degradation and visible pollution

Source: Secondary data from the Bekasi City Health Office, processed and re-analyzed by authors (October 2025) based on Environmental Health Quality Standards in Permenkes No. 2/2023.

). The analysis revealed an extremely high level of bacteriological contamination. Approximately 95% of the samples (57 households) failed to meet the required standards (TMS) for the Total Coliform parameter, while 65% of the samples (39 households) tested positive for E. coli bacteria.

These findings are material evidence of leachate seepage into the shallow aquifer used by residents. In addition to biological contamination, chemical degradation was also found: 75% of samples by pH levels below standard (acidic), and 40% of samples exceeded the manganese (Mn) threshold. This level of contamination is critical as it violates the zero-tolerance limit for bacteria and chemical safety standards set by Permenkes No. 2 of 2023. Elevated manganese concentrations combined with low pH levels, provide a technical explanation for the observed characteristics of the water—namely its t yellowish discoloration, rust-like odor, and skin irritation (itchiness) frequently reported by the local community.

Environmental degradation in the affected areas was not limited to the water crisis alone; it also expanded into respiratory health risks as the quality of the air continues to decline. Field observations showed the presence of a persistent pungent odor or “smog” whose intensity increases sharply after rain. This condition is not solely the result of the decomposition of organic waste; it also suggests the presence of chemical pollutants produced by landfill gases that infiltrate nearby residential environments. Informant 11 noted that at certain times of the day, there was an unusual gas-like smell or the smell of burnt wire that differs from the typical smell of garbage:

“…The smell of garbage is really pungent… but sometimes at night or in the morning, there is a smell of gas, or a smell like burnt wire, I don’t know where it comes from, whether it’s from inside the garbage or elsewhere…”

(Informant 11, October 2025).

Consistent with these results, Informant 13 also reported that a smell resembling burning cables was typically detected after 11 p.m. This situation generated collective anxiety among residents regarding the risk of chronic diseases such as respiratory infections, shortness of breath, and skin allergies:

“…Every day we feel that the air here is very smelly… We are worried about cooking and drinking very poor water quality from wells… worried about coughing, shortness of breath, and skin allergies …”

(Informant 13, September 2025).

Air pollution has also begun to intrude into the most personal aspects of daily life. Residents explain that the odor of waste frequently clings to clothes hung out to dry, leaving a persistent smell even after they are taken inside.

4.2.3. Disease Prevalence and Hidden Costs

Based on the available public health records, a clear trend shows that the rise in chronic illnesses is directly associated by the worsening condition of the environment. Informant 14 confirmed that acute respiratory infections consistently dominate the list of major diseases in areas affected by poor air quality. Local public health records further quantify this dominance, showing an accumulation of more than 5000 ARI cases annually within the affected administrative areas. Informant 14 noted:

“…. the disease that still dominates the 20 most prevalent diseases is ARI, respiratory tract infection…the measurement result (air particulates) is almost all above the threshold value …”

(Informant 14, September 2025)

However, the impact experienced by residents is not limited to health issues alone; they also face financial strain due to indirect or hidden expenses. Data on massive water quality failures (95% TMS Coliform) systematically forces residents to externalize the cost burden. Systematically organized interview data indicate that these implicit costs consist, on average, of monthly expenditures of IDR 200,000 to IDR 250,000 for clean water, approximately IDR 100,000 per month for electricity to operate satellite pumps due to declining accessible groundwater levels, and around IDR 50,000 per month for health supplements and vitamins.

In addition to these recurring expenses, significant capital costs were also identified for independent infrastructure adaptation. In severely affected areas, residents are required to drill deep wells (up to 70 m) to access cleaner and safer water for daily use, at a cost exceeding IDR 2,000,000—an amount nearly twice the total quarterly compensation fund (IDR 1,200,000). When the government is unable to ensure access to water that meets acceptable health standards, residents are compelled to redirect their compensation assistance, officially labeled as “Bansos” (social assistance), to purchase bottled water simply to meet their basic survival needs. Informant 15 explained how the compensation funds were actually reabsorbed for these basic needs:

“… If the IDR 400,000 per month is allocated to purchasing gallon water… that is only sufficient for water consumption, not including vitamins, medicines, or milk… supplements are necessary, or maybe milk and other things…”

(Informant 15, September 2025).

This situation indicates that the compensation funds fail to generate meaningful economic value. Rather than improving local welfare, the funds are mainly used to cope with the consequences of environmental damage. As a result, a cycle of ecological poverty emerges, in which financial support is largely spent on coping with the consequences of environmental degradation, leaving little opportunity to enhance residents’ quality of life or support upward social mobility. This proves that the IDR 400,000 monthly compensation fund does not function as an instrument of welfare, but is immediately spent on independent recovery costs for basic rights that have been taken away by pollution. This condition is further worsened by evidence of risk normalization, whereby community members gradually come to perceive respiratory problems and strong, unpleasant odors as a routine part of their daily lives. This is a form of forced adaptation to a toxic environment, as described by Informants 16 and 17:

“… it’s like we no longer notice the invisible air pollution. If there are newcomers who come here, they will definitely be surprised that the people here [still survive]”

(Informants 16 and 17, September 2025).

When this normalization of risk is connected to the landslide disaster that occurred on 8 March 2026, it reveals the lowest point of the community’s vulnerability. Residents are not only forced to adapt to pollution that slowly damages their health (slow violence), but also to live under the constant threat of catastrophe due to the instability of the landfill structure.

4.3. Transformation Towards an Integrated Ecosocial Compensation Model

In response to the systemic barriers and environmental injustices identified in the field, this study proposes a policy transformation framework grounded in the perspective of Green Social Work (GSW). This transformation is aimed at changing the bargaining position of the community from passive administrative objects to sovereign subjects engaged in ecosystem restoration and socio-economic independence.

4.3.1. Redefining Nomenclature: From Social Assistance to Ecological Restoration Rights

The first stage of this transformation model begins with a technical restructuring of bureaucratic processes, especially those related to budget coding within the government system. The findings indicate that the concrete solution required is to change the budget account classification in the Regional Government Information System (SIPD) of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia from “Social Assistance” to “Ecological Rights Recovery Fund.”

The urgency of changing this label lies in of its potential to transform the power dynamics between the state and its citizens, shifting from a charitable relationship (between a donor and a recipient of aid) to one based on the state’s responsibility to protect and fulfill ecological rights. This shift in nomenclature is intended to redefine the interaction between government and citizens, shifting away from a charity- and aid-based framework toward a legal framework centered on the protection and fulfillment of rights. Informant 18 emphasized that such a paradigm shift is crucial to end the pattern of financial dependence that has long obscured the long-term impacts of environmental damage.

“… yes, it becomes dependency-inducing aid. In the end, the community depends on that 400 thousand… they forget about the long-term negative impacts they will face. They forget, and it is deliberately designed that way. It’s not about the amount, but about transforming the community’s way of thinking to safeguard the next generation…”

(Informant 18, October 2025)

Implementing this nomenclature shift requires strategic administrative adjustments, particularly in budget classifications under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ regulations (Permendagri). The primary focus is on aligning terminology within the state financial system and the Local Government Information System (SIPD), while consistently using the terms “compensation” or “reimbursement for ecological losses.” This codification adjustment is crucial to ensure that funding allocations from the DKI Jakarta Provincial Budget, channeled to affected communities through the Bekasi City Government, are not reduced to mere charitable social assistance. With the proper legal nomenclature, this funding will have a mandatory and accountable legal status as an instrument for restoring community rights and upholding human dignity, in accordance with the mandate of environmental protection and the principles of human rights.

Through this shift in terminology, compensation funds are no longer perceived as mere “handouts.” Instead, they are recognized as flexible instruments whose value can be adjusted in response to the increasing waste volumes and the degree of ecological damage that may arise in the future. This provides space for the government to move away from the rigid ceiling of social assistance regulations that have hitherto hampered the adjustment of more proportional compensation amounts.

4.3.2. Deconstructing Dependency Through an Integrated Compensation Model

The Green Social Work (GSW) model developed in this study seeks to reduce the risk of dependency that can weaken community potential by transforming the existing compensation distribution approach. Field data shows that in order to break the vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation, communities need to shift from simply receiving disposable cash assistance to an integrated compensation model. Based on the combined insights of community aspirations and field-based needs analysis, the integrated model is structured around three primary pillars:

As the first pillar, the findings underscore the need to redesign the structure of cash distribution to ensure proportionality and fairness. Under this approach, the calculation should no longer rely on an equal allocation for each household head (Kepala Keluarga), but calculated dynamically based on the number of individuals in the household and the spatial proximity of the residents’ residences to the landfill site. This approach is intended to ensure that the funds distributed correspond to the actual level of physical risk experienced by individuals living in the affected area. Informant 19 emphasized that the current compensation amounts are not commensurate with the extent of environmental damage suffered:

“…we expect an increase in the compensation amount to be more commensurate with our losses due to the impact of this waste. Furthermore, the distribution system must be improved so that it becomes more transparent, delivered on time, and not hindered by administrative procedures that create difficulties for residents.”

(September 2025)

Meanwhile, Informant 20 emphasized that the nominal amount should not be the same for all residents, as those who live only 100 m away from the Bantargebang landfill should not receive the same amount as residents who live more than 5 km away. He said:

“… In my view, the principle of fairness should not be understood as requiring that every resident receive an identical amount of compensation. There should be a distinction based on the distance between their residence and the Bantargebang landfill. For instance, it would be unreasonable if residents living only about 100 m from the landfill received the same amount of compensation as those residing more than 5 km away …”

(Informant 20, September 2025)

As an operational framework for this principle of distributive justice, this study proposes the establishment of a Spatial Risk Radius, with particular priority given to critical zones within a 500 m radius. Referring to international practices such as the Environmental-Adverse-Effect Zone (EAEZ) model (Hong et al., 2012), residents within this radius must be prioritized in the compensation fund distribution scheme in line with the standards for ecological buffer subzones as explicitly stipulated in the Ministry of Public Works Regulation No. 19/PRT/M/2012 [147].

In the context of spatial recovery measures that have not yet been fully implemented, compensation values in these critical zones must be calculated proportionally based on the actual ecological losses borne by residents. This calculation must no longer be confined to a purely technical-bureaucratic approach, such as merely the total tonnage or daily volume of Jakarta’s waste transported to the Bantargebang Waste Management Facility over the course of a year. Instead, compensation variables must include the costs of health restoration, the provision of permanent access to clean water, and the loss of environmental functions. This aims to ensure a fairer and more differentiated restitution of rights for communities directly exposed to extreme environmental risks within the safe radius established by the national regulation.

Moreover, the second pillar of this model emphasizes the delivery of essential services and the development of permanent infrastructure as a coordinated strategy aimed at reducing the indirect costs that residents have long been compelled to bear. This includes the construction of clean water infrastructure (pipelines) to replace wells contaminated by leachate, as well as the provision of first-class health insurance specifically for treating waste-related diseases such as respiratory tract infections.

Service-based compensation is intended to guarantee that citizens can access their fundamental rights without needing to reduce or sacrifice their monthly cash benefits. The need for a permanent solution is a top priority for citizens due to the increasing cost of living caused by environmental degradation, as stated by Informant 19:

“… For everyday needs, we can no longer depend on water from our regular wells because it has become polluted, dirty, and foul-smelling. As a result, I have no choice but to purchase bottled water for drinking and cooking. The cost of buying clean water clearly has a significant impact on our family’s monthly expenses. We hope the government will promptly resolve this clean water issue by implementing a long-term solution, such as installing a proper clean water pipeline system…”

(Informant 19, September 2025)

The landslide disaster that occurred in March 2026 highlighted the limitations of relying solely on static cash assistance (Bansos) as a compensation mechanism. It emphasized that residents living in areas closest to the disaster site require access to top-tier emergency healthcare services (VVIP) as well as disaster risk insurance to ensure better protection and support in such situations. This event shows that communities living at the foot of the garbage mountain bear a risk to their lives that cannot be compensated for by a fixed monthly payment of IDR 400,000.

The third pillar of this transformation focuses on long-term structural investment aimed at breaking the cycle of financial dependence by strengthening a circular economic empowerment system. Research findings indicate that excessive reliance on direct cash assistance can perpetuate vulnerability, particularly if such compensation programs are reduced or discontinued in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to allocate part of the compensation funds as stimulus capital for community-based economic units or Badan Usaha Milik Desa (BUMDes) [148].

The sub-district authorities acknowledge the need to dismantle this dependency as part of a broader effort to strengthen and sustain community resilience. Informant 21 emphasized ongoing efforts to encourage economic self-reliance:

“…don’t rely on compensation, because one day Jakarta will stop providing compensation funds, and we must be able to be independent, stand on our own two feet, for example, by running a shop, or whatever. We always give guidance like that… so that residents are aware that compensation is not forever”

(Informant 21, September 2025)

However, this aspiration for independence remains constrained due to the lack of systematic capacity building programs from the government. Although guidance on independence is often provided, Informant 21 acknowledged that to date, there has been no formal initiative to equip residents with the necessary technical skills:

“…has there ever been any training or capacity building program related to environmental justice issues or sustainable waste management practices? No… just yesterday there was a meeting to discuss converting waste into electricity, but that’s just a plan.”

(Informant 21, September 2025)

The current compensation framework often leaves residents as mere “spectators” on their own land, sidelined by a lack of investment in local human capacity. Both Informants 18 and 22 emphasize that genuine environmental justice cannot be reduced to monetary compensation; rather, it requires a fundamental paradigm shift toward sustained investment in human development. They argue that true compensation should be manifested through access to international-standard education and premium healthcare services. Such an approach would not only improve the community’s bargaining position but also empower them to take a leading role in sustainable waste management, thereby effectively breaking the cycle of marginalization that has so far been overlooked by policymakers in Jakarta and Bekasi.

“…how can we avoid becoming mere spectators? If the level of education here improves, the community could lead in waste management efforts to minimize pollution. The government is capable of providing free international-standard education… it is not about the amount [of money]. [Justice means] free quality schooling and premium healthcare—that is real compensation. This way of thinking, however, has not yet been embraced by the regional leaders in Jakarta and Bekasi City.…”

(Informant 18 and 22, October 2025)

4.3.3. Paradigm Shift: From a Vicious Cycle to a Virtuous Cycle

The environmental degradation and associated risks outlined above indicate that the existing compensation framework, still rooted in a remedial and charity-based approach, has become both outdated and ineffective. Simply distributing financial assistance in the absence of comprehensive environmental restoration measures, functions merely as a short-term relief mechanism, offering temporary comfort while leaving the underlying causes of the problem unresolved. To date, the state has effectively provided what may be termed “odor compensation” thereby normalizing ongoing pollution without a systematic strategy to restore citizens’ rights to a healthy and livable environment.

The policy reconstruction model developed in this study is grounded in actual spatial conditions observed through Google Earth satellite imagery and ATR/BPN base maps. These visual data reveal that ecological risks are distributed unevenly across the area, with certain communities residing directly adjacent to landfill boundaries and in locations that are highly prone to landslides. In response, the proposed Green Social Work (GSW) model introduces the concept of a Spatial Risk Radius variable as the main basis for determining compensation values. Through this approach, compensation is no longer distributed uniformly based on administrative considerations. Instead, it is allocated according to the levels of physical vulnerability and exposure to environmental hazards, as evidenced by empirical results derived from geospatial data analysis.

The GSW approach brings about a fundamental transformation in the role of the community. Rather than being treated merely as administrative objects or passive beneficiaries of assistance, community members are repositioned as sovereign subjects who actively participate in and play a central role in environmental restoration efforts. In this framework, the community no longer waits for social assistance handouts but are entitled to structural investment funds directed towards circular economic empowerment and long-term health protection.

Ultimately, this transformation seeks to end the cycle of dependency and instead establish a virtuous cycle that supports fairness, resilience and sustainability. As a framework for future policy transformation, the fundamental distinctions between the current charity-based model and the proposed GSW model are summarized in the comparative dimensions presented in

Table 5. Comparison of Compensation Paradigms: From the Charity-based Model to the GSW.

Comparison Dimensions	Current Conditions (Charity-Based/Remedial Model)	Proposed Model (Green Social Work/Transformative)
Philosophical Foundation	Residual-Administrative Model (Social Assistance)	Fulfillment of the right to environmental restoration (Justice)
Nomenclature	Social Assistance (Local Vernacular: “Uang Bau”/Odor-based Aid)	Ecosocial Compensation/Right to Restoration
Community Status	Administrative Object/Passive Aid Recipient	Sovereign Subjects/Environmental Restoration Actors
Distribution Unit	Household-based	Individual-based and Spatial Risk Zone (Radius)
Orientation Nature	Short-Term (For household consumption)	Long-Term Structural Investment (Economic independence, circular economy, education, and health)
Economic Cycle	Vicious Cycle (Dependency Vicious Cycle)	Virtuous Cycle (Self-Reliance and Recovery)

below:

5. Discussion

5.1. Administrative Dominance of Government and Distortion of Recognition Justice

The findings related to the use of the term “Bantuan Sosial” in the SIPD system should not be viewed solely as a technical matter concerning budget nomenclature. Instead, they reflect a deeper issue that indicates a fundamental shortcoming in the aspect of recognition justice. True justice is not solely a matter of material distribution, but also of the recognition of individuals’ status, identity, and dignity as legal subjects [93].

The systematic labeling of residents as social assistance recipients indicates a “diminishment of their legal status” as beneficiaries of compensation. Although they are physically present as victims of environmental pollution, but their rights are denied and replaced by the status of residual objects or passive recipients of charity.

This kind of misrecognition places citizens in a subordinated position where their dignity is overshadowed by bureaucratic authority. Informant 4 firmly rejected this perception, emphasizing that they are not individuals living in poverty or seeking charitable assistance, but victims entitled to restitution. This response constitutes an existential form of resistance against stigmatization.

These findings confirm Schlosberg’s argument that, without the recognition of community identity and integrity, distributive justice is impossible to achieve. The residents are not seeking charity; rather, they are insisting that their rights to the living space that was taken from them be restored. In administrative terms, the Bantargebang area has been constructed as a “sacrifice zone,” where the relationship between the state and its citizens has been distorted into one of aid giver and aid recipient, rather than protector of rights and sovereign citizens.

5.2. Distributive Justice and the Failure of Risk Proportionality

The Bantargebang landfill, towering over 60 m high, along with the widespread occurrence of respiratory infections among nearby residents, provides clear and tangible evidence of severe inequality in the distribution of environmental and public health burdens. Distributive justice demands a balance among ecological burdens and economic benefits [82,87]. However, field data shows a clear violation of the principle of risk proportionality.

From a quantitative perspective, a striking theoretical inconsistency emerges: although the volume of pollution continues to increase dynamically, reaching more than 8000 tons of waste each day, the compensation provided remains unchanged at IDR 400,000 per month. This inequality confirms the existence of an “environmental subsidy” whereby the residents of Bantargebang effectively absorb the ecological and health costs of urban consumption in Jakarta. Residents of Jakarta benefit from the convenience of living in a cleaner urban environment at a relatively low cost. However, the real ecological consequences, such as damage to aquifers, deteriorating air quality, and declining public health, are largely shouldered by the communities of Bantargebang, a reality reflected in both their physical hardships and financial burdens. Policies that focus solely on technical waste disposal targets, devoid of equivalent distributive interventions, will only deepen and perpetuate ecological impoverishment in downstream areas [89].

The phenomenon of risk normalization described by Informants 16 and 17 reflects a form of internalized oppression. Living under constant exposure to a toxic environment gradually compels residents to accept pollution and persistent unpleasant odors as something inevitable, almost as if it were simply their fate or an unavoidable part of daily life. In Schlosberg’s perspective, this condition shows that environmental risks have damaged people’s basic ability to live a healthy life, but their aspirations to reject these risks are “muffled” by an inadequate charity-based compensation system [86]. This normalization should not be understood as a healthy biological adjustment. Instead, it represents a psychological coping mechanism developed by a community living inside an unequal and unjust power structure. In this situation, residents are effectively pushed to trade their dignity for minimal compensation, an amount so small that it cannot even begin to cover the expenses needed to restore their health.

It must be emphasized that residents’ complaints regarding health risks are not merely subjective concerns, but a harsh reality rigorously substantiated by laboratory data from the Bekasi City Health Department presented in Table 3. The finding that 95% of water samples were contaminated with Total Coliforms and 65% tested positive for E. coli serves as clear evidence of leachate seeping into residents’ wells in the affected area. Technically, the high levels of Manganese (Mn) in 40% of the samples provide a scientific explanation for residents’ complaints regarding water with a slimy texture, a metallic odor, and leaving rust stains in storage tanks. This environmental degradation is exacerbated by a significant respiratory health burden documented in public health records. Based on medical records from various primary healthcare facilities in the affected area, Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) consistently rank first on the list of most prevalent diseases, with annual cases accumulating in the thousands—exceeding 5000 cases in a single administrative district alone. Although ARIs can be triggered by various urban environmental factors, the persistent dominance of this disease in areas surrounding the landfill reinforces the argument that residents bear cumulative health risks.

From a sociological perspective, this biophysical and epidemiological data confirms that compensation funds no longer serve as an economic supplement to improve well-being, but are instead entirely consumed by self-recovery costs. Analysis of the informants’ accounts reveals that these hidden costs are both substantial and varied, ranging from the routine purchase of bottled water to avoid digestive illnesses and diarrhea, to soaring electricity bills resulting from with the use of submersible pumps, as well as periodic investments in well deepening to access safer water from deeper ground water. Although the specifics of these expenses vary, the underlying pattern remains the same: this compensation funding is merely a “survival tool” to patch up environmental damage that has failed to be structurally addressed. It is this very condition that perpetuates a vicious cycle of dependency and traps communities in permanent ecological poverty.

The causal relationship between compensation policies and systemic injustice is indicated by a mechanism of forced dependency. Given that the monthly aid funds, ranging from IDR 400,000 in the three directly affected areas to IDR 150,000 in other parts of Bantargebang, are immediately consumed by urgent self-recovery needs—such as the purchase of bottled water due to high levels of bacterial contamination (95% coliforms and 65% E. coli) and increased electricity costs for water pumps due to poor water chemistry parameters (40% manganese/Mn content)—these funds effectively fail to function as instruments of welfare. This situation creates a structural pattern in which residents are forced to rely on this inadequate aid merely to sustain the most basic environmental rights that have been lost.

Consequently, this dependency triggers the neglect of residents’ ontological security and dignity, positioning them merely as passive aid recipients in an environment with conditions that can no longer be restored to their original state, rather than as right-bearing citizens entitled to ecological restoration. Thus, this systemic injustice is a direct consequence of policies that unfairly shift the burden of Jakarta’s pollution costs directly onto the already severely limited household budgets of every resident of Bantargebang.

Theoretically, these findings reveal the existence of a “justice gap,” in which the normalization of risk acts as a barrier to political recognition. This suggests that distributive failure is not merely a financial issue, but also a neglect of the community’s ontological security—a condition in which the most fundamental sense of safety regarding the everyday environment has been lost and replaced by permanent uncertainty. For years, the community have been compelled to normalize tangible impacts such as pungent odors, declining groundwater quality, and health risks.

This analysis further indicates that the provision of compensation funds is often used as a tool to neutralize environmental issues without addressing their root causes. This situation is exacerbated by the absence of any substantive role for the community in determining the compensation amount, which is currently determined unilaterally based on the total volume of waste transported from Jakarta to Bantargebang in the previous year—specifically, the daily waste volume multiplied by 365 days in a year. This further underscores the fact that the principle of distributive justice has not been fully realized, as it disregards the aspirations of the affected right-bearing citizens.

5.3. Green Social Work Criticism of the Charitable Model

Informant 18’s critical remark referring to compensation as “money for dependency-inducing aid” (Section 4.3.1), represents a strong critique of the remedial intervention model, an approach that is clearly rejected within the Green Social Work (GSW) framework [97]. Substantial social welfare cannot be achieved if the physical environment in which individuals live undergoes continuous degradation [98]. In Bantargebang, the existing compensation scheme remains embedded in a charitable framework that effectively “depoliticizes the issue.” Through the distribution of cash payments, the government appears to have met its responsibilities and treats the matter as settled. However, the underlying ecological crisis, characterized by massive piles of waste that continue to decompose and contaminate the aquifer, remains unaddressed through any comprehensive or systematic restoration efforts.

This charitable model only serves to cover hidden costs (such as clean water and medicine), as explained by informant 15, but fails to address the deeper dimension of justice. Rather than empowering local residents, this program sustains a cycle of dependency. While it ensures that biological survival, it leaves residents socially and politically disempowered, limiting their ability to advocate for better environmental conditions. The state implicitly engages in a “transaction” where residents’ health is exchanged for a nominal amount that is quickly absorbed by daily consumption.

In this context, GSW transforms from remedial assistance model into a framework for structural emancipation. It provides a conceptual blueprint for transitioning from dependency-inducing aid toward rights-based ecological restoration and participatory compensation management. Comparatively, the failure of cash-based schemes in Bantargebang mirrors patterns in the Global South, such as at the Payatas Landfill in the Philippines, where economic dependence and groundwater degradation remain chronic burdens [107,149]. At the local level, the adjacent Sumurbatu landfill further highlights policy inconsistencies, as residents there receive no compensation despite facing similar ecological risks. To address these discrepancies, this study proposes the Spatial Risk Radius model, inspired by South Korea’s Environmental-Adverse-Effect Zone (EAEZ) system, which ensures proportional aid distribution based on geospatial vulnerability [147].

Furthermore, this study advocates for fiscal reform through the revision of compensation terminology within the Local Government Information System (SIPD). Strategic collaboration between the Ministry of Home Affairs and regional governments is essential to harmonize budget nomenclature with Law No. 18/2008, thereby preventing “compensation” from being misinterpreted as “social assistance.” Supported by the success of ecological fiscal transfers in China [150], this research integrates GSW and Environmental Justice to transform social workers into socio-ecological brokers capable of breaking the cycle of ecological poverty [151]. Ultimately, compensation must transcend financial transactions to restore environmental integrity and community well-being.

The transformation model presented in this study seeks to incorporate environmental advocacy into existing welfare programs [7]. GSW demands a shift from merely providing assistance toward building community capacity, so that communities are “empowered to restore their lives.” This involves directing investment toward sustainable public infrastructure and promoting a circular economy to reduce patterns of financial dependency while strengthening independent social and ecological resilience [91]. Justice does not mean allowing citizens to live alongside environmental degradation indefinitely in exchange for monetary compensation, but rather ensuring they have the power to transform their own environmental conditions.

5.4. Reconstruction of Rights: Towards VVIP and International Standards as Justice

Informants 18 and 22 expressed hopes for the provision of internationally standardized schools and VVIP-level healthcare services for affected residents, reflecting a demand for meaningful and substantive environmental justice. From a GSW perspective, this demand should not be interpreted as an excessive luxury, but rather as a form of “Ecological Restitution.” Given that the Bantargebang community has endured decades of health risks and ecological harm to maintain the capital’s cleanliness, the state carries both a moral and legal responsibility to compensate them by providing the highest standard of public services. The state should no longer provide substandard services, such as inadequate PBI (Health Insurance Contribution Recipients) standard health facilities, because the risk that residents have borne is a “first-class” burden that directly threatens their lives. GSW emphasizes that compensation should not merely be regarded as assistance to cover living costs, but rather as a meaningful and transformative investment in people.

The demand for free, internationally standardized education, so that the children of Bantargebang residents are not reduced to being mere “spectators” (Informant 22) in the face of growing environmental degradation, represents a struggle to reclaim citizens’ sovereignty over the spaces in which they live. This is based on the argument that participation devoid of real power, in this case, intellectual and economic power to influence strategic compensation decisions, is a form of pseudo-justice [86]. Devoid of access to quality education, residents risk remaining in a persistently disadvantaged position when dealing with bureaucratic authorities and the waste management industry.

In this context, the aspiration for “VVIP” standards of service reflects the community’s deeper yearning for the principle of Justitia, a form of justice that is not constrained by administrative barriers or strict budgetary limitations. This is an effort to restore human dignity that has long been degraded amid the encroachment of waste. The GSW model, which offers long-term structural investment, provides a framework for translating the principle of restitution into dignified recovery practices [93].

Justice can be considered fulfilled when children living beside towering waste dumps are granted the same educational opportunities as those growing up in the heart of Jakarta. Such equality would serve as a form of recompense for the polluted air they breathe and the contaminated water they have endured for so long.

5.5. Seeking Justice Amidst the Paradox of the Absence of GSW Practitioners

A significant and troubling finding of this study is the absence of social workers operating in the affected areas of Bantargebang. For many years, the responsibility for mediating ecological conflicts has rested solely with a rigid government bureaucracy (Section 4.1.1), an institution that tends to prioritize administrative procedures rather than actively protecting and advocating for community rights. The absence of social workers has led to an “advocacy gap,” where the complaints, suffering, and aspirations of residents are left on the administrative desks of the sub-district office, without ever being transformed into strong legal demands or substantial national policy change.

Therefore, the proposed GSW model calls for the development of a renewed role for social workers, consistent with the responsibilities envisioned in the foundational principles of the discipline [97]. In the future, social workers in Bantargebang should no longer operate merely as “social assistance” officers focused on verifying poverty data, but should instead assume the role or “Social-Ecological Brokers.” This hybrid role demands the ability to understand technical information, such as laboratory results on water and air contamination, and convert it into clear, evidence-based advocacy messages.

In their role as Social–Ecological Brokers, social workers are expected to facilitate connections among stakeholders within the Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration Forum while also promoting transparency in pollution data, in line with the principles of procedural justice [79]. Their presence is an absolute requirement for advancing the redefinition of citizens’ rights at the level of central policy makers and overcoming the persistent communication gap between citizens and the state.

Without the support of capable ecological advocates, the transition from a vicious cycle of dependency to a virtuous cycle of empowerment will remain merely a theoretical concept rather than a practical reality. The presence of social worker practitioners is therefore crucial to achieving true Justitia, a form of justice that is not only written on regulatory paper but is directly experienced through the restoration of both the dignity and environmental quality of the residents of Bantargebang.

6. Conclusions

This study finds that compensation management at the Bantargebang landfill is caught in a digitalization paradox that ultimately reinforces and prolongs the ongoing environmental justice crisis. The use of the nomenclature “Social Assistance” in the SIPD system has distorted ecological compensation rights into charitable assistance, triggering processes of silent ecological impoverishment and the normalization of risk within “sacrifice zones.” This administrative distortion, in principle, clearly demonstrates the disregard for human rights as absolute limits, as it reduces the dignity of citizens from sovereign legal subjects to mere passive recipients of assistance [152]. The shortcomings of this remedial approach perpetuate a vicious cycle of financial dependence, as available cash resources are repeatedly spent merely to address environmental impacts. Over time, this situation weakens the community’s ability to act critically and erodes citizen sovereignty when confronting bureaucratic structures.

The tragedy of the 8 March 2026 landslide is bitter proof of this systemic failure and underscores the urgency of a transformation towards an Integrated Compensation Model based on Green Social Work (GSW). Citizens’ demands for “VVIP” healthcare services and “international-standard” education should be understood as a form of ecological restitution aimed at restoring human dignity. In practical terms, the government must reform the SIPD system by introducing a new nomenclature specifically designed to regulate the distribution of financial compensation funds for the Bantargebang landfill context. In principle, the ideal nomenclature is “Ecological Rights Recovery Fund” to ensure the status of Bantargebang residents as “rights-bearing subjects” in the context of environmental pollution issues. In addition, the basis used for distributing compensation must be revised. Instead of relying on uniform allocations per household, the calculation of compensation should consider each individual’s spatial vulnerability—particularly their proximity to the TPST Bantargebang landfill and exposure to environmental risk.

This transformation must be accompanied by long-term supporting infrastructure, including the development of clean water pipeline systems, as well as strengthening investments in human capital development, so that residents are no longer positioned as passive “spectators” but as active and independent participants in the circular economy. Ultimately, true environmental justice can only be realized when the state ceases to treat ecological damage as an exchangeable commodity and begins to position ecological restitution for affected communities as a mandatory legal obligation [153].

Finally, this study highlights the critical need for the presence of social work practitioners acting as Social-Ecological Brokers, capable of conducting evidence-based advocacy and facilitating cross-jurisdictional collaboration. Their role is essential to realize Justitia, a form of environmental justice that not only exists in regulatory frameworks but is tangibly realized through the restoration of dignity, rights, and environmental quality. Through such transformation, a more equitable and sustainable future for the Bantargebang community can be achieved.