Legal Analysis of the Effectiveness of Waste Management Law in Indonesia Using the Ottawa Charter Health Promotion Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of Law No. 18 of 2008 concerning Waste Management, especially in internalizing the obligation to sort waste from source, by adopting a transdisciplinary approach through the integration of the Ottawa Charter paradigm. Using normative legal research methods, this study examines the applicable positive legal framework and reconstructs its effectiveness based on the five main pillars of the Ottawa Charter. The results of the study indicate that although normatively the waste management policy has reflected the Build Healthy Public Policy principle, its implementation has not been optimal due to weak infrastructure support (Create Supportive Environments pillar) and low community participation (Strengthen Community Action). This inequality creates a legal paradox in which the state demands citizens' obligations without providing adequate support for their fulfillment. The main contribution of this study lies in the development of an adaptive and participatory waste management legal reform model, by making the law a facilitator of collective behavioral change that is ecologically just through a contextual cross-sectoral approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".