Research Article

Operationalizing One Health in Surabaya: Successes and Limitations of Community-Led Waste Management Technologies

Lailatul Maghfiroh1,2, Siti Shofiya Novita Sari1,3, Firdausy Kurnia Maulana1,4, Corie Indria Prasasti1,5*, Fedik Abdul Rantam1,6, Budi Utomo1,7, Laura Navika Yamani1,3

1Airlangga Disease Prevention and Research Center – One Health Collaborating Center (ADPRC–OHCC), Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; 2Master Degree Program in Veterinary Diseases and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; 3Division of Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Population Biostatistics and Health Promotion, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia; 4Doctoral Degree Program in Veterinary Science, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; 5Department of Environmental Health, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; 6Laboratory of Virology and Immunology, Division of Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; 7Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Received | October 24, 2025; Accepted | December 16, 2025; Published | January 20, 2026

*Correspondence | Corie Indria Prasasti, irlangga Disease Prevention and Research Center – One Health Collaborating Center (ADPRC–OHCC), Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Maghfiroh L, Sari SSN, Maulana FK, Prasasti CI, Rantam FA, Utomo B, Yamani LN (2026). Operationalizing one health in Surabaya: Successes and limitations of community-led waste management technologies. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 14(1):137-146.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2026/14.1.137.146

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316

Copyright: 2026 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Currently, the increasing complexity of urban public health challenges requires a multisectoral approach that integrates human, animal, and environmental health (Pratama et al., 2024; Ellwanger et al., 2022). The One Health framework provides a relevant approach in urban areas like Surabaya. Surabaya, the second largest city in Indonesia, still has urban livestock farming still persists in densely populated residential areas. Poor waste management and close contact between humans and animals increase the risks of zoonotic disease emergence and environmental degradation (Blaiotta et al., 2016; Fasya et al., 2025; Penakalapati et al., 2017). The interconnection between urban planning and public health is increasingly being recognized through system-based tools and frameworks. The One Health approach provides a more ecological perspective in designing healthy and sustainable cities (Bruno et al., 2024; Doiron et al., 2024).

Surabaya has achieved national and international recognition for its community-based solid waste management programs, which have effectively reduced waste volumes and associated public health risks (Gamaralalage et al., 2017; Mulasari et al., 2024). Similar participatory approaches in Indonesia demonstrate that community ownership can enhance the long-term sustainability of waste management interventions (Mukhlis et al., 2025). These successes reflect a broader policy orientation in Indonesia that emphasizes behavior change and engagement at the household level (Yin, 2018). In this context, Surabaya’s “Smart City” vision encourages community involvement in environmental management and offers a strategic opportunity to integrate One Health into urban sustainability agenda (Anthony, 2023; Fauziah et al., 2022; Sari et al., 2020; Soedirham, 2012).

A critical evaluation of the feasibility studies or scoping assessments that informed the adoption of decentralized waste technologies is needed to ensure their suitability and potential for large-scale implementation across urban environtments (Heryawan and Mukono, 2023; Widyatmika and Bolia, 2024). Previous research in Mojokerto city has demonstrated the viability of biodigesters for converting food waste into energy, suggesting the technology’s potential in areas with similar waste composition (Sari et al., 2024). This context warrants an examination of whether small-scale, community-based technological interventions are adequate to manage the significant waste volumes and heterogeneous waste streams present in Surabaya, particularly given the city’s aspirations for more comprehensive waste management and its limited existing recycling infrastructure (Khiawnoi et al., 2025; Setiawan and Indrianingsih, 2020).

Household waste in urban clusters in East Java has been previously assessed by municipal waste agencies and community groups, indicating that 50–70% of the waste is biodegradable, consistent with national evaluations of municipal solid waste composition (Landon et al., 2013). In Surabaya, approximately 59% of household waste is organic, with additional nutrient-rich and high-moisture inputs originating from small-scale urban livestock activities (Maulidia and Haryo, 2024). These characteristics are suitable for the operational requirements of composting systems for solid manure, biofilters for animal wastewater, and biodigesters for fresh manure. Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of household-scale biodigesters for processing high-moisture substrates (Sari et al., 2024). Furthermore, the application of biofilters in similar low-resource environments has also demonstrated substantial reductions in COD, BOD, and TSS (Sugito et al., 2024; Darwati et al., 2019).

This study assessed whether community-adapted composting, biofiltration, and biogas technologies can achieve functional waste treatment performance and meet Indonesian waste treatment standards under real urban livestock conditions. This study included an evaluation of the technologies’ successes, operational challenges, and limitations within a One Health framework.

Materials and Methods

Study design, time, and location

This study used a mixed-methods evaluation approach to assess the operational performance of three community-adapted waste management technologies: Composting, single-stage biofiltration, and small-scale biogas digestion. The quantitative method used laboratory tests to compare the results with Indonesian National Standards (SNI) and Government Regulations, while the qualitative component involved interviews with livestock farmers to understand user experiences and operational challenges. This pilot study was conducted from August to December 2024 in three urban livestock clusters: a dairy farm, a poultry farm, and a slaughterhouse in Surabaya, East Java.

Composting technology for poultry manure

The compost production process, as shown in Figure 1, was carried out by the Mekar Sari Farmers Group in Gubeng District using two 50 L compost bags. Fresh chicken manure was mixed with an EM4 solution (30 mL EM4 per 1 L of water) until homogeneous, and the moisture content was adjusted using a hand pressure test. Carbon-rich fillers such as rice husks or sawdust were not added, reflecting common community practice. The mixture was actively fermented for 14 days, followed by maturation for up to 2 months. During this process,

 

Table 1: Observation results during fermentation and maturation of compost.

Observation time	Color	Odor	Moisture
Day 0	Light brown; fresh mixture still visible	Strong manure odor	High (wet)
Day 14	Darkening start	Strong odor decreases; slight fermentation smell	Slightly reduced, still moist
Day 28	Darker brown	Odor becomes more stable, less intense	Moist but not wet
Day 32	Uniform dark brown	Mild earthy smell	Moisture stable–slightly dry
Day 46	Nearly black, crumbly texture	Distinct earthy compost smell	Low moisture
Day 60	Black, stable, crumbly	Natural earthy smell, no foul odor	Dry and stable

 

physical characteristics, including color, odor, and moisture content, were checked every two weeks and stirred for even distribution (Table 1). After maturation, the compost was air-dried, homogenized, and a 100 g composite sample was collected for laboratory testing. Chemical analysis followed SNI 19-7030-2004, which includes pH, moisture content, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and the C/N ratio to determine compost stabilization and compliance with organic fertilizer standards.

Biofilter technology for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater

The installation and operation of the biofilter reactor by the trained community took place at an informal poultry slaughterhouse in Ngagelrejo Village (Figure 2). The system consists of a modified plastic tank (75–80 L) containing a thick plastic divider that separates two internal chambers and is connected via PVC pipes for the waste inlet and outlet. The reactor consists of two internal chambers: a 27–30 L sedimentation chamber where coarse solids settle, and a 42–48 L filtration chamber filled with bioball media to encourage biofilm development. Wastewater enters the system by gravity, flowing first into the sedimentation chamber and then into the filtration chamber before exiting through the outlet. The hydraulic retention time was estimated at 8 hours following the poultry slaughter time. Influent and effluent samples (100 mL each) were collected once, reflecting the pilot nature of the project. Laboratory analyses were conducted according to the APHA Standard Method Baird and Bridgewater (2017), measuring TSS, BOD₅, COD, oil and grease, and ammonia. Results were evaluated against the wastewater quality thresholds established by East Java Governor Regulation No. 72/2013.

 

Biogas digester technology for cattle manure

Two fixed-drum biogas digesters with capacities of 150 L and 550 L were installed and operated by trained dairy farmers in Bendul Merisi Village. The biogas digesters were constructed from a sealed plastic drum (150 L) and a water tank (550 L) with an inlet and gas outlet on top of the drum, and an outlet on the side of the drum. The 150 L digester operated in both the dry and rainy seasons, while the community-replicated 550 L unit operated only in the rainy season (Figure 3A). Fresh cow dung was mixed with water in a 1:1 ratio to form a slurry, and approximately 30 L of slurry was fed into each digester daily. Due to the lack of instruments for monitoring temperature, pH, pressure, or gas volume, performance was evaluated based on the time to initial gas production, defined as the successful ignition of the first flame from a stove connected to the biogas outlet (Figure 3B).

 

Qualitative operational assessment (monitoring interviews)

User experiences and practical challenges were recorded through brief monitoring interviews conducted during routine evaluation visits between October and December 2024. A total of 30 participants, consisting of poultry farmers (n=15), poultry slaughterhouse butchers (n=5), and dairy farmers (n=10), were interviewed as they were directly responsible for operating the composting unit, biofilter, or biodigester.

The interviews focused on daily operational practices, difficulties encountered (e.g., compost turning, wastewater filtration, or digester feeding), and user perceptions of the benefits and limitations of each system under urban conditions. All interviews were informal, and responses were recorded as field notes. Responses were then reviewed and grouped into common themes to identify the most frequently encountered operational issues.

Results and Discussions

Evaluation of poultry manure composting

Laboratory test results showed that the poultry manure compost produced by the community contained adequate macro- and micronutrients. However, the moisture content (44.45%) and C/N ratio (46.42%) exceeded the maturity threshold set in SNI 19-7030-2004 (Table 2). A high C/N ratio indicates incomplete microbial degradation. This is consistent with the absence of filler material and irregular manual turning as reported during monitoring interviews (Table 5). High C/N values are known to slow thermophilic activity and delay compost stabilization (Cai et al., 2024; Nada, 2015). Excessive moisture was also a limiting factor, as levels above 40% reduce oxygen diffusion and inhibit heat generation during composting (Guo et al., 2012). Studies on poultry manure composting have shown that rice husks or sawdust increase porosity, enhance aeration, and accelerate microbial activity, especially when the initial C/N ratio is high (Tang et al., 2023). The absence of these materials in this study contributed to suboptimal degradation. Similar observations have been reported in rapid composting systems, where an inadequate C/N balance leads to longer maturation times, higher NH₃ emissions, and unstable final compost product (Li et al., 2022).

 

Table 2: Compost laboratory analysis results.

Parameter	SNI Standard (%)	Result (%)
pH	6.8–7.49	7.55
Moisture	<16	44.45
Carbon (C)	9.80–32	33.89
Nitrogen (N)	>0.4	0.73
Phosphorus (P)	<0.10	0.31
Potassium (K)	0.20	0.65
C/N Ratio	10–20	46.42

 

In addition to these indicators, the compost pH was 7.55, slightly above the SNI standard range of 6.8–7.49. The slightly alkaline pH may have resulted from the release of uric acid and ammonia during poultry litter decomposition, a phenomenon also documented in studies of chicken manure composting in Indonesia (Dewi et al., 2017). Similar pH elevations during poultry manure composting have also been reported in other studies, where nitrogen mineralization and ammonia volatilization contributed to an alkaline shift in the compost matrix (Hwang et al., 2020).

The phosphorus (P) content reached 0.31%, which exceeded the SNI standard of <0.10%. This elevated P level is consistent with the naturally high phosphorus load of poultry manure, as poultry litter typically contains substantial amounts of mineralized P due to the poultry diet and limited nutrient dilution (Bernal et al., 2009). The absence of carbon-rich bulking agents likely contributed to this concentration, as these materials are known to dilute nutrient levels and improve stabilization during composting (Mushtaq et al., 2019). This deviation indicates that the compost had not yet reached full maturity and may require improved aeration, a longer curing period, or the addition of lignocellulosic materials to achieve nutrient balance.

This study indicates that although community-adapted composting is feasible, the product may not meet Indonesian National Standards (SNI) without improvements. Improvements such as regular turning, optimized aeration, and the addition of carbon-rich fillers are needed to meet existing standards (Gani et al., 2021).

Evaluation of biofilter for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater

A simple biofilter system using bioballs was implemented to reduce the environmental impact of wastewater from a

 

Table 3: Wastewater laboratory analysis results.

No	Sampling Point	TSS (mg/L)	BOD (mg/L)	COD (mg/L)	Oil & Grease (mg/L)	Ammonia (mg/L)
1	Inlet (raw wastewater)	938	4054	7702	1840	1666.8
2	Biofilter 1	832	3896	7429	360	3333.6
3	Biofilter 2	828	4290	8179	780	1738.8
4	Outlet (control tank)	592	3610	6884	220	1436.4
Standard	Regulatory Limit (East Java Governor Regulation No. 72/2013)	<100	<200	<100	<15	<25
Pollutant removal efficiency	% Reduction (Inlet–Outlet)	14%	11%	11%	88%	14%

 

Table 4: Biogas production volume and seasonal variations in small-scale digesters.

ID	Volume (L)	Season	Ambient temperature*	Time to first ignition	Observation
D1	150	Dry (Sep-Oct)	34-37o C	2 weeks	Faster gas onset; warm ambient temperature supports anaerobic activity
D1	150	Rainy (Nov-Dec)	24-30 o C	4 weeks	Slower gas formation due to cooler temperature and higher moisture
D2	550	Rainy (Nov-Dec)	24-30 o C	4 weeks	Large volume + rainy season reduce heat retention → slow onset

 

Note: *Data were obtained from BMKG (2024)

 

poultry slaughterhouse (Dewi et al., 2022; Hasanah and Sugito, 2017). Laboratory tests of the treated wastewater showed that the biofilter was ineffective as a standalone treatment unit because pollutant reductions were minimal and the effluent exceeded government regulatory standards. Although oil and grease reduction was quite high (88%), it showed minimal reductions in BOD₅ (11%), COD (11%), TSS (14%), and ammonia (14%), resulting in effluent concentrations above the discharge limits stipulated in East Java Governor Regulation No. 72/2013 (Table 3). This pattern is consistent with evidence that single-chamber biofilters lack sufficient retention time and biological surface area for significant organic removal in slaughterhouse wastewater (Fan et al., 2025). Previous studies have shown that multistage or hybrid systems combining sedimentation, anaerobic-aerobic biofiltration, and constructed wetlands can achieve BOD and COD reductions exceeding 70% (Saha et al., 2025). This highlights the limitations of the single-stage design used in this study.

This study showed anomalous results in the concentrations of BOD, COD, and oil and grease in Biofilter 1 and Biofilter 2 that increased compared to the inlet, indicating that the mid-stage biofilter units were not operating effectively. Temporary rises in soluble organic matter have been reported in fixed-film systems when particulate organic matter becomes trapped in the media and undergoes hydrolysis, releasing dissolved COD and BOD back into the effluent (Alvarado et al., 2021; Morgenroth et al., 2002). Interview results (Table 5) indicated user difficulties with clogging, media cleaning, and inconsistent flow regulation. These operational issues are known to reduce biofilm stability and hydraulic efficiency, which can lead to an increase rather than a decrease in organic pollutant concentrations (Achmadi et al., 2020; Hayder et al., 2017; Rehman et al., 2021). A similar anomaly occurred in the ammonia concentration, which doubled in Biofilter 1. This pattern is consistent with ammonification, in which organic nitrogen retained in the media is mineralized into ammonia. Under conditions of limited oxygen transfer or suppressed nitrifying activity, nitrification cannot proceed effectively, leading to ammonia accumulation (Simsek et al., 2012; Tiquia, 2002).

The limited performance observed raises public health concerns. Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater is known to be a reservoir of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (Savin et al., 2021; Ugbo et al., 2023). AMR E. coli has been reported in wastewater pathways and can contaminate food or community water sources (Permana and Bambang, 2019; Sudarmadi et al., 2020; Verburg et al., 2019). Furthermore, food contaminated with E. coli carries a risk of foodborne illness, which can be caused by ingesting the bacteria through contaminated food products (Maghfiroh et al., 2024; Pradana et al., 2023; Wibawati et al., 2024). Similar findings have been reported in Surabaya, where E. coli AMR was detected in chicken meat sold in traditional markets. This finding suggests that upstream contamination from farms and slaughterhouses may contribute to environmental disease spread (Sudarmadi et al., 2020). Therefore, the integration of additional filtration stages, aeration units, or constructed wetlands is recommended to enhance pollutant removal and mitigate AMR risk.

Evaluation of biogas production and seasonal variation

Adequate manure management practices are often lacking among smallholder dairy farmers in Indonesia. Limited land, high adoption costs, and perceived difficulties in implementing waste management technologies mean that more than half of farmers still discharge manure into the surrounding environment (Ariningsih et al., 2022; Navyanti and Adriyani, 2016). This can create a favorable environment for the development and spread of disease vectors. Furthermore, dairy farm wastewater contains suspended solids that are difficult to settle naturally, complicating waste treatment and increasing environmental pollution risks (Pangestika and Putra, 2020). Biogas technology has been introduced in dairy farm clusters to manage manure while generating renewable energy for household or agricultural use (Agustin et al., 2024).

In this study, daily gas yield and methane content were not measured due to the lack of compatible monitoring instruments. Biogas production varied significantly with the season. The 150 L digester produced gas effectively for two weeks during the dry season (at room temperature 28–33°C), but slowed to about four weeks during the rainy season (24–27°C). The 550 L digester, which operated only during the rainy season, also exhibited slower gas formation (Table 4). This observation aligns with previous studies showing that temperature influences anaerobic digestion, with methanogenic activity decreasing sharply below 25°C (Hupfauf et al., 2018; Kandhro et al., 2024; Sabbir et al., 2021).

In addition to temperature, inadequate insulation was identified as a major inhibitor of methane production (Castano et al., 2014). Performance could be improved through insulation, solar-heated influent tanks, or co-digestion to stabilize the C/N ratio. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of incorporating real-time monitoring systems into the design of small-scale biogas digesters for successful operation and maintenance (Issahaku et al., 2024). Although gas production was slow, the resulting biogas produced a blue flame upon combustion (Figure 3B). A blue flame indicates a higher methane content, reflecting good biogas quality (Ulva et al., 2022).

Qualitative findings from monitoring interviews

Short monitoring interviews conducted between October and December 2024 provided complementary insights into the operational performance of the three systems (Table 5). Interview results (n=30) indicated a general understanding of the basic operating procedures for the composting bags (12/15), biofilter units (4/5), and biodigesters (7/10). However, several recurring challenges were reported, including difficulty maintaining optimal compost moisture (3/15), occasional clogging or displacement of bioballs in the filtration chamber (2/5), and inconsistent slurry feeding of the digesters (4/10). These issues reflect common constraints in community-based waste management, where limited technical skills and variable environmental conditions impact system stability (Fauziah et al., 2022; Mulasari et al., 2024).

 

Table 5: Summary of key operational findings from monitoring interviews.

Theme	Key points	Community Quotes
Operational capacity	Users understood the basic operation of composting bags, biofilters, and biodigesters. Basic skills improved over time (e.g., compost turning, reassembling bioballs, adjusting digester inlet).	Quote 1:“It is sometimes difficult to keep the moisture at the right level. When it becomes too wet, the smell gets stronger and it is harder to turn.” Quote 2:“We never use rice husks or other fillers. During the rainy season the compost takes a very long time to dry.”
Main challenges	Difficulties maintaining compost moisture; bioball clogging/displacement; inconsistent digester slurry loading.	Quote 3: “When the flow becomes too strong, the bioballs shift out of place and we have to fix them again.” Quote 4: “The filter once became clogged, so we took it apart and washed the media. After that the flow improved.” Quote 5: “Sometimes we forget to load the same amount of slurry every day, so the gas production is not always stable.”
Perceived benefits	Reduced odor, cleaner livestock areas, and less visible waste accumulation.	Quote 6: “Since using the composting and biogas units, the smell around the sheds has decreased and the area feels cleaner.” Quote 7: “The waste no longer piles up like before, so the surroundings look tidier.”
Environmental/contextual constraints	System stability affected by rainfall and limited urban space.	Quote 8: “During heavy rain the system becomes unstable, and we cannot control the moisture or the flow as well as usual.” Quote 10: “Our space is very limited, so installing and adjusting the unit is sometimes difficult.”
Community collaboration	City government (site access), university (troubleshooting), farmer groups (corrective actions).	Quote 9: “The government helped us get permission to use the site, so the installation could run smoothly.” Quote 10: “When we had problems, the university team explained what to fix and showed us how to do it.”

 

Despite the challenges, most participants reported tangible benefits, including reduced odor (25/30), cleaner livestock environments (27/30), and less visible waste accumulation (22/30). These observations are consistent with previous studies showing that small-scale composting and biogas systems can improve environmental hygiene in dense urban livestock environments (Elsabbagh et al., 2025; Syaputri et al., 2024; Wisniewska et al., 2021). Field notes also documented gradual improvements in user competency, including improved compost turning practices (13/15), reinstalling the bioball chamber after clogging (5/5), and adjusting the digester inlet pipe (7/10). Although no formal skills assessment was conducted, these observations suggest that the technologies can be operated within existing community capacity. This study reflects the principles of social innovation, highlighting the importance of building community-based resilience through decentralized, locally contextualized strategies (Imperiale and Vanclay, 2023; Tahir, 2023; Van et al., 2023).

A practical example of this collaboration occurred when the city government facilitated site access, the university team provided troubleshooting guidance, and the farmers implemented corrective actions to address blockages in the biofilter unit. By applying the penta-helix model and promoting shared ownership, this initiative exemplifies the WHO’s call to operationalize One Health at the local level (WHO, 2023). This model offers a replicable example for other urban environments seeking to transition to Smart Healthy Cities. Furthermore, a comprehensive review of urban health transformation underscores the importance of cross-sector collaboration and grassroots innovation as fundamental elements for achieving sustainable and inclusive Smart Healthy Cities (Haryono et al., 2024; Danielli et al., 2023).

Conclusions

This study found that community-based composting, biofiltration, and small-scale biogas systems can be implemented in urban livestock settings, but their performance is still limited by design constraints, environmental conditions, and operational inconsistencies. The compost did not meet national standards due to high moisture and C/N ratio, the biofilter achieved only minor reductions in key pollutants, and biogas production slowed during the rainy season. Despite these challenges, community participation enabled routine operation and provided visible environmental benefits. Overall, the findings show that decentralized waste technologies have the potential to support urban One Health efforts, but technical improvements and more robust operational guidance are needed to ensure reliable and sustainable performance.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the 2024 Kedaireka Matching Fund Program of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, in collaboration with the Indonesia One Health University Network, and funded through USAID.

Novelty Statement

This study is the first to assess community-led urban livestock waste management in Surabaya under a One Health framework, combining lab evaluation, field monitoring, and social adoption insights to reveal both the potential and limitations of decentralized composting, biofiltration, and biogas systems.

Author’s Contribution

LM: Conceptualized the study, designed the methodology, conducted the investigation, prepared the original draft, administered the project, and supervised the overall workflow. SSNS: Contributed to the conceptual design and methodology, validated the results, participated in reviewing and editing the manuscript, and supported funding acquisition. FKM: Contributed to the conceptualization, performed data curation and visualization, conducted formal analysis, and assisted in project administration. CIP: Contributed to the conceptual design and methodology, participated in investigation, provided resources, reviewed and edited the manuscript, and supervised the research process. FAR: Contributed to conceptualization and methodology, provided essential resources, validated the findings, and supervised the study. BU: Conducted data curation and investigation, and contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript. LNY: Validated the results, performed formal analysis, and supervised the research.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement

No generative AI was used for the scientific content, data analysis, and conclusions. AI tools were only used to improve language clarity, with all edits verified by the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

Achmadi I, Setya B, Ahadi A (2020). The effectiveness of the combination of seaweed (Gracillaria sp.), blood shells (Anadara granosa), and zeolite as biofilter in the reduction of heavy metal copper (Cu). J. Mar. Coast. Sci., 9(3): 106. https://doi.org/10.20473/jmcs.v9i3.22293

Agustin DP, Nurwati N, Lesmana AC (2024). Change in community behaviour in supporting sustainable development: The case of the biogas program in Ponorogo Regency. J. Sosiol. Dialekt., 19(2): 125–137. https://doi.org/10.20473/jsd.v19i2.2024.125-137

Alvarado A, West S, Abbt-Braun G, Horn H (2021). Hydrolysis of particulate organic matter from municipal wastewater under aerobic treatment. Chemosphere, 263: 128329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128329

Anthony B Jr (2023). The role of community engagement in urban innovation towards the co-creation of smart sustainable cities. J. Knowl. Econ., 15(1): 1592–1624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01176-1

Ariningsih E, Erwidodo, Irawan AR, Saliem HP (2022). Dairy cattle manure utilization by smallholder dairy farmers in West Java, Indonesia. E3S Web Conf., 361: 03013. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202236103013

Baird R, Bridgewater L (2017). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 23rd ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

Bernal MP, Alburquerque JA, Moral R (2009). Composting of animal manures and chemical criteria for compost maturity assessment. Bioresour. Technol., 100(22): 5444–5453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.027

Blaiotta G, Di Cerbo A, Murru N, Coppola R, Aponte M (2016). Persistence of bacterial indicators and zoonotic pathogens in contaminated cattle wastes. BMC Microbiol., 16: 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-016-0705-8

Bruno A, Arnoldi I, Barzaghi B, Boffi M, Casiraghi M, Colombo B, Di Gennaro P, Epis S, Facciotti F, Ferrari N, Fesce E, Ficetola GF, Fumagalli S, Galimberti A, Ghisleni G, Nissim WG, Mainardi L, Manenti R, Messina V, Negri A, Palm E, Piga BEA, Rainisio N, Tommasi N, Labra M (2024). The One Health approach in urban ecosystem rehabilitation: An evidence-based framework for designing sustainable cities. iScience, 27(10): 110959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.110959

Cai S, Ma Y, Bao Z, Yang Z, Niu X, Meng Q, Qin D, Wang Y, Wan J, Guo X (2024). The impacts of the C/N ratio on hydrogen sulfide emission and microbial community characteristics during chicken manure composting with wheat straw. Agriculture, 14(6): 948. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14060948

Castano JM, Martin JF, Ciotola R (2014). Performance of a small-scale, variable temperature fixed dome digester in a temperate climate. Energies, 7: 5701–5716. https://doi.org/10.3390/en7095701

Danielli S, Ashrafian H, Darzi A (2023). Healthy city: Global systematic scoping review of city initiatives to improve health with policy recommendations. BMC Publ. Health, 23: 1277. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2022.2102372

Darwati S, Hastuti E, Nuraeni R (2019). Performance of communal sanitation facility using combination of biodigester–biofilter and waste bank for domestic waste treatment. Matter. Int. J. Sci. Technol., 5(2): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.20319/mijst.2019.52.159174

Dewi IU, Azizah R, Husnina Z, Sumantri A, Qomariah N, Suhariono S, Jauharoh SNA, Latif M (2022). Effectiveness of wastewater treatment installation and liquid waste quality in Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya. J. Kesehat. Lingkung., 14(1): 45–54. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkl.v14i1.2022.45-54

Dewi PC, Setiyo Y, Aviantara IGNA (2017). Kajian proses pengomposan berbahan baku limbah kotoran sapi dan kotoran ayam. J. Beta Biosist. Tek. Pertan., 5(2): 31–38.

Doiron D, Setton EM, Syer J, Redivo A, McKee A, Noaeen M, Patel P, Booth GL, Brauer M, Fuller D, Kestens Y, Rosella LC, Stieb D, Villeneuve PJ, Brook JR (2024). Healthy Plan City: A web tool to support urban environmental equity and public health in Canadian communities. J. Urban Health, 101(3): 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-024-00855-x

Ellwanger JH, Byrne LB, Chies JAB (2022). Examining the paradox of urban disease ecology by linking the perspectives of urban One Health and ecology with cities. Urban Ecosyst., 25(6): 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01260-5

Elsabbagh YMHS, Sibak HAR, El-Sheltawy ST, El-Shimi H (2025). Advances in controlling composting odor: A review of the last decade. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 72: 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-025-00606-y

Fan Y, Qu W, Li X, Liu S, Li J (2025). Treatment of livestock and poultry breeding wastewater by multistage series system: Pollutant removal efficiency and mechanism. Water Air Soil Pollut., 236(4): 223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-025-07863-w

Fasya AHZ, Ibad M, Muna KUNE (2025). Analysis of determinant factors of carbon efficiency in Indonesia based on domestic waste management using causal machine learning. J. Kesehat. Lingkung., 17(1): 31–44. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkl.v17i1.2025.31-44

Fauziah YE, Wardiyanto B, Mardiyanta A (2022). Community participation in the implementation of waste management policies in Surabaya Main Waste Bank. J. Ilm. Ilmu Adm. Publ., 12(2): 631–638. https://doi.org/10.26858/jiap.v12i2.42953

Gamaralalage PJD, Hengesbaugh M, Onogawa K, Cabrera NC (2017). Planning and implementation of integrated solid waste management strategies at local level: The case of Cebu City. UN Environment IETC & IGES CCET. Available at: https://ccet.jp/publications/planning-and-implementation-integrated-solid-waste-management-strategies-local-level

Gani A, Widianti S, Sulastri S (2021). Analisis kandungan unsur hara makro dan mikro pada pupuk kompos campuran kulit pisang dan cangkang telur ayam. J. Kim. Riset., 6(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkr.v6i1.22984

Guo R, Li G, Jiang T, Schuchardt F, Chen T, Zhao Y, Shen Y (2012). Effect of aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content on the stability and maturity of compost. Bioresour. Technol., 112: 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.02.099

Haryono N, Rahayu AYS, Soeling PD (2024). Systemic leadership in sustainable collaborative governance: A case study of urban green space management in Surabaya. Masy. Kebud. Polit., 37(3): 329–346. https://doi.org/10.20473/mkp.V37I32024.329-346

Hasanah U, Sugito S (2017). Removal COD dan TSS limbah cair rumah potong ayam menggunakan sistem biofilter anaerob. WAKTU: J. Tek. UNIPA, 15(1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.36456/waktu.v15i1.436

Hayder G, Ahmed AN, Fu’ad NFSM (2017). A review on media clogging in attached growth system. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res., 12(19): 8034–8039.

Heryawan KF, Mukono J (2023). Analisis infrensial tingkat pengetahuan dengan tindakan pengelolaan sampah rumah tangga di DKI Jakarta selama pandemi Covid-19. Media Gizi Kesmas, 12(1): 75–83. https://doi.org/10.20473/mgk.v12i1.2023.75-83

Hupfauf S, Plattner P, Wagner AO, Kaufmann R, Insam H, Podmirseg SM (2018). Temperature shapes the microbiota in anaerobic digestion and drives efficiency to a maximum at 45 °C. Bioresour. Technol., 269: 309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.106

Hwang HY, Kim SH, Kim MS, Park SJ, Lee CH (2020). Co-composting of chicken manure with organic wastes: Characterization of gas emissions and compost quality. Appl. Biol. Chem., 63(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-019-0483-8

Imperiale AJ, Vanclay F (2023). From project-based to community-based social impact assessment: New social impact assessment pathways to build community resilience and enhance disaster risk reduction and climate action. Curr. Sociol., 72(4): 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/00113921231203168

Issahaku M, Derkyi NSA, Kemausuor F (2024). A systematic review of the design considerations for small-scale biogas digesters. Heliyon, 10(1): e24019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24019

Kandhro B, Sahito AR, Nixon J, Uqaili MA, Mirjat NH, Harijan K, Zaman RO, Kumar L (2024). Seasonal variation in biogas production in reinforced concrete dome biogas plants with buffalo dung in Pakistan. Biomass Convers. Biorefin., 14(4): 5171–5185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02654-3

Khiawnoi P, Nakudom SS, Noobutr P, Kaewzang U (2025). Empowering communities: The strategic role of community enterprise entrepreneurs in sustainable development. Sustainability, 17(12): 5483. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125483

Landon N, Mursito D, Sari TP, Bramono SE, Friedman J, Butler K, Bergita E (2013). Manajemen persampahan di Indonesia. J. Prakarsa Infrastruktur Indones., 15: 1–42.

Li D, Yuan J, Ding J, Wang H, Shen Y, Li G (2022). Effects of carbon/nitrogen ratio and aeration rate on the sheep manure composting process and associated gaseous emissions. J. Environ. Manage., 323: 116093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116093

Maghfiroh L, Effendi MH, Tyasningsih W, Witaningrum AM, Bernard AN (2024). Identification of blaTEM gene encode extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) producing Escherichia coli isolated from fresh beef. Adv. Life Sci., 11(4): 741–747. https://doi.org/10.62940/als.v11i4.1800

Maulana FK, Maghfiroh L, Sari SSN, Rantam FA (2023). A bibliometric analysis of worldwide research on One Health from 2012 to 2022. Int. J. One Health, 9(2): 159–165. https://doi.org/10.14202/IJOH.2023.159-165

Maulidia MW, Haryo PRK (2024). Analisis timbulan dan komposisi sampah permukiman sebagai upaya minimalisasi timbulan sampah menuju zero waste di RW 5 Jambangan, Surabaya. J. Teslink Tek. Sipil Lingkung., 6(2): 273–281. https://doi.org/10.52005/teslink.v6i2.399

Morgenroth E, Kommedal R, Harremoes P (2002). Processes and modeling of hydrolysis of particulate organic matter in aerobic wastewater treatment: A review. Water Sci. Technol., 45(6): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0091

Mukhlis I, Fauzan S, Rahmawati F, de Silva S, Melati IS (2025). Stakeholder dynamics and sustainable waste management in peri-urban settings: A case study of actor interactions in Indonesia. Front. Sustain. Cities, 7: 1509601. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2025.1509601

Mulasari SA, Husodo AH, Sulistyawati S, Sukesi TW, Tentama F (2024). Community-driven waste management: Insights from an action research trial in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Open Publ. Health J., 17(1): e18749445334410. https://doi.org/10.2174/0118749445334410241122102430

Mushtaq M, Iqbal MK, Khalid A, Khan RA (2019). Humification of poultry waste and rice husk using additives and its application. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric., 8: 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-018-0224-8

Nada WM (2015). Stability and maturity of maize stalks compost as affected by aeration rate, C/N ratio and moisture content. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 15(3): 751–764. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000051

Navyanti F, Adriyani R (2016). Hygiene sanitation, physical qualities and bacterial in fresh cow’s milk of X Milk Company in Surabaya. J. Kesehat. Lingkung., 8(1): 36–47. https://doi.org/10.20473/jkl.v8i1.2015.36-47

Pangestika W, Putra S (2020). Fish feed formulation with the addition of sludge of dairy wastewater and fermented wheat bran. J. Ilm. Perikan. Kelaut., 12(1): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.20473/jipk.v12i1.18110

Penakalapati G, Swarthout J, Delahoy MJ, McAliley L, Wodnik B, Levy K, Freeman MC (2017). Exposure to animal feces and human health: A systematic review and proposed research priorities. Environ. Sci. Technol., 51(20): 11537–11552. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02811

Permana A, Bambang WR (2019). Perbedaan kandungan E. coli daging ayam di pasar tradisional Keputran Selatan dan pasar swalayan “X” Kota Surabaya. Indones. J. Public Health, 14(1): 24–36. https://doi.org/10.20473/ijph.v14i1.2019.24-36

Pradana VN, Suparmi S, Ratnawati R (2023). Personal hygiene, water availability, and environmental sanitation with the incidence of stunting in toddlers aged 6–59 months in the working area of the Singorojo I Public Health Center, Kendal Regency. Amerta Nutr., 7(3): 421–426. https://doi.org/10.20473/amnt.v7i3.2023.421-426

Pratama PG, Suprihati E, Suwanti LT, Mufasirin N, Hastutiek P, Setiawan B, Puspitasari H, Indasari EN (2024). Detection of Cryptosporidium spp. in wild rats (Rattus spp.) in Surabaya, East Java. Media Kedokt. Hewan, 35(2): 71–78. https://doi.org/10.20473/mkh.v35i2.2024.71-78

Rehman A, Anees M, Sehar S, Alhewairini SS, Saroj DP, Ahmed S (2021). Simulated modelling, design, and performance evaluation of a pilot-scale trickling filter system for removal of carbonaceous pollutants from domestic wastewater. Water, 13(22): 3210. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223210

Sabbir ASMYB, Saha CK, Nandi R, Zaman MFU, Alam MM, Sarker S (2021). Effects of seasonal temperature variation on slurry temperature and biogas composition of a commercial fixed-dome anaerobic digester used in Bangladesh. Sustainability, 13(19): 11096. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911096

Saha S, Roy MB, Mandal R, Roy PK (2025). Hybrid constructed wetlands for multi-source wastewater treatment: Performance analysis and design insights from urban and industrial wastewater sources. Next Res., 2(3): 100649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexres.2025.100649

Sari DN, Rahmadani DZ, Wardani MY (2020). Implementasi kebijakan Pemerintah Kota Surabaya dalam mewujudkan inovasi smart city. J. Gov. Innov., 2(2): 112–130. https://doi.org/10.36636/jogiv.v2i2.435

Sari MM, Afifah AS, Suryawan IWK (2024). Implementing biodigester technology for sustainable waste management in Mojokerto city, Indonesia. Indones. J. Chem. Anal., 7(1): 53–63. https://doi.org/10.20885/ijca.vol7.iss1.art6

Savin M, Gabriele B, Judith K, Ricarda MS, Sib E, Schmoger S, Käsbohrer A, Hensel AJ (2021). Clinically relevant Escherichia coli isolates from process waters and wastewater of poultry and pig slaughterhouses in Germany. Microorganisms, 9(4): 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040698

Setiawan P, Indrianingsih R (2020). Innovation-based community empowerment program in rural area. Int. J. Res. Commun. Serv., 1(4): 234–240.

Simsek H, Kasi M, Wadhawan T, Bye C, Blonigen M, Khan E (2012). Fate of dissolved organic nitrogen in two stage trickling filter process. Water Res., 46(16): 5115–5126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.06.042

Soedirham O (2012). Kota sehat sebagai bentuk sustainable communities best practice. Kesmas: J. Kesehat. Masy., 7(2): 51–55. https://doi.org/10.21109/kesmas.v7i2.9

Sudarmadi AAM, Prajitno S, Widodo ADW (2020). Antibiotic resistance in Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus from retail chicken meat in Surabaya, Indonesia. Biomol. Health Sci. J., 3(2): 109–113. https://doi.org/10.20473/bhsj.v3i2.22170

Sugito S, Ratnawati R, Laba VF (2024). Combined treatment of landfill leachate using coagulation–flocculation and anaerobic–aerobic biofilter with bioball. J. Bioteknol. Biosains Indones., 11(2): 366–375.

Syaputri MD, Yusuf R, Wardani MY (2024). Membangun kota sehat: Upaya Pemerintah Kota Surabaya dalam mencapai target Open Defecation Free (ODF). Refleksi Huk., 8(1): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2024.v9.i1.p41-64

Tahir S (2023). Community and village empowerment service efforts to grow innovation. J. Soc. Humanit., 1(2): 36–43. https://doi.org/10.59535/jsh.v1i2.58

Tang R, Liu Y, Ma R, Zhang L, Li Y, Li G, Wang D, Lin J, Li Q, Yuan J (2023). Effect of moisture content, aeration rate, and C/N on maturity and gaseous emissions during kitchen waste rapid composting. J. Environ. Manage., 326(Pt A): 116662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116662

Tiquia SM (2002). Microbial transformation of nitrogen during composting. In: Insam H, Riddech N, Klammer S (eds), Microbiology of Composting, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-08724-4_20

Ugbo EN, Jacob JI, Effendi MH, Witaningrum AM, Agumah BN, Ugbo AI, Moses BI (2023). Poultry slaughterhouse wastewater as reservoirs for spreading extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli in Abakaliki, Nigeria. Biodiversitas, 24: 4960–4966. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d240939

Ulva SM, Damayanti P, Syukur MSA (2022). The analysis of calorific value based on biogas fuel using the cow dung based ethnoscience. J. Pendidik. Fis. Tadulako Online, 10(1): 64–69.

van Niekerk L, Bautista-Gomez MM, Msiska BK, Mier-Alpaño JDB, Ongkeko AM Jr, Manderson L (2023). Social innovation in health: strengthening community systems for universal health coverage in rural areas. BMC Public Health, 23(1): 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14451-8

Verburg I, Garcia-Cobos S, Leal LH, Waar K, Friedrich AW, Schmitt H (2019). Abundance and antimicrobial resistance of three bacterial species along a complete wastewater pathway. Microorganisms, 7: 312. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7090312

Wibawati PA, Chrismonica Y, Susanti RB, Himawan MP, Devy AHS, Nirmalasari JA, Abdramanov A (2024). Microbial contamination in chicken meat in traditional markets in Banyuwangi. J. Medik. Vet., 7(1): 41–47. https://doi.org/10.20473/jmv.vol7.iss1.2024.41-47

Widyatmika MA, Bolia NB (2024). Unveiling segregation and composting behavior in urban communities: A study case of Sarbagita Municipality, Indonesia. Evergreen J. Nov. Carbon Resour. Sci. Green Asia Strategy, 11(2): 612–623. https://doi.org/10.5109/7183318

Wisniewska M, Kulig A, Lelicińska-Serafin K (2021). Odour nuisance at municipal waste biogas plants and the effect of feedstock modification on the circular economy: A review. Energies, 14(20): 6470. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14206470

World Health Organization (2023). Local-level policy recommendations: Operationalizing a One Health approach. WHO European Healthy Cities Network.

Yin RK (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th edn. SAGE, Los Angeles, USA.