Does the Environment Matter?

Assesing
Indonesia Public Service Innovation Towards
Environmental Issues

M. Rizki Pratama(B) , Arik Prasetya, Anni Rahimah, and Yudha Prakasa

Faculty of Administrative Science, Universitas Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia

[email protected]

Abstract. Environmental issues in the Sustainable Developments Goals (SDGs)

create complexities such as increasingly limited resources, ambitious goals, and
dispersed interests. The government remains a vital determinant in efforts to over-
come environmental degradation in achieving the SDGs. In the notion of public
sector innovation, it is crucial to overcome environmental problems with vari-
ous challenges, namely using new approaches to increasingly complex problems.
Therefore, this study looks at various patterns of public service innovation related
to environmental issues. This study is in the context of Indonesia, which has so
far struggled to achieve the SDGs goals. The researcher then analyzed the Pub-
lic Service Innovation Competition report document from 2014 to 2021, which
became Indonesia’s sole representation of public sector innovation data. In the end,
it was found that public service innovations in Indonesia tended to be less focused
on environmental issues. However, at every level of government, both Ministries
and Regional Governments, innovations related to the environment have emerged.
On the other hand, most institutions tend to create innovations regarding waste
management, but only a few other sectors, such as energy and clean water. In
the spatial domain of institutions, local governments with a rural character tend
to create more innovations related to the environment than local governments
with an urban character. In the spatial area of Java and Outside Java, it turns out
that local governments outside Java have created more innovations related to the
environment than local governments on the island of Java.

Keywords: environmental policy · environmental issues · public service

innovation · sustainable development goals

1 Introduction
Environmental degradation is a old problem that must be resolved collectively. However,
as the principal inhabitants, humans should be able to preserve the environment, not the
other way around. The human artifact entity to come together to manage and organize
together is the state through various public policies. The government bears a big respon-
sibility for public policies that can reduce the risk of environmental damage or even have
entirely solved the problem. Governments in global regimes have agreed and struggled

© The Author(s) 2023

Y. A. Yusran et al. (Eds.): BIC 2022, AEBMR 235, pp. 127–135, 2023.
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-140-1_13
128 M. R. Pratama et al.

to resolve environmental issues through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

and continued with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both of which require
policy coherence which is not easy to achieve [1]. Various studies also show that public
administration leads to sustainable public administration in which the environment is an
important determinant [2].
When placed in the SDG’s framework, environmental problems have created com-
plexities, such as the reality of limited resources and ambitious achievement goals for
various dispersed interests [3]. Various countries that have agreed to achieve the SDGs
have also experienced dilemmas and trilemmas in their environmental policies [4, 5].
Both developed and developing countries are experiencing the increasingly complex
implementation of environmental policies that old approaches cannot solve; we all need
new approaches to solving public problems through innovation.
Public sector innovation and the environment have a strong relationship. This rela-
tionship is shown by the premise that innovation exists because of human needs. At the
same time, environmental degradation is a mandatory requirement in this era to be imme-
diately fulfilled and problems resolved. The government’s hard work can be seen in its
efforts to solve various public problems in conventional and non-conventional ways [6].
Classical and modern problems get much more attention using non-conventional meth-
ods through innovation. Including a higher chance of successful problem solving because
innovation is considered capable of penetrating excessive bureaucratization gaps, specif-
ically in the context of SDGs, shows that achieving SDGs requires inter-sectoral and
multi-stakeholder innovation [7, 8].
This study looks at the pattern of public service innovations in Indonesia related
to environmental issues such as public service innovations that preserve nature, energy
conservation, waste management, and so on. Thus, it can be seen the extent to which
public service innovations are related to the environment and its distribution in various
government institutions and their spatial aspects. However, Indonesia does experience
various problems in implementing the SDG’s achievements; even in 2021, Indonesia
will only reach 82 out of 193 countries [9], so it is crucial to see the extent of the role
of government innovation in various levels to increase its impact. In addition, the study
of public service innovation in Indonesia shows various patterns of innovation, such as
inequality of innovation from spatial and organizational aspects to various progress and
challenges so far [10, 11]. Specifically, the pattern of innovation can be seen from studies
on the inclusiveness of innovation but has yet to emerge about other specific aspects, so
further studies are needed in more specific topic [12].

2 Method
This study applies content analysis to analyze the public service innovation competition
report (KIPP) document by the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform
(Kemenpan-RB). The data is downloaded directly from the Kemenpan-RB website with
the results of the Top 99 public service innovations from 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
2019, 2020, and 2021. In addition, the report ranks the 99 Best Public Service Innovations
in one year [13–20].
In the context of the competition, Kemenpan-RB is the only institution that con-
ducts competitions and evaluates public service innovations in Indonesia. However, in
 Does the Environment Matter? Assesing Indonesia Public Service Innovation 129

determining the ranking of Public Service Innovations, Kemenpan-RB still refers to

the results of the assessor team consisting of academics and public sector practitioners
whose independence is guaranteed.
Researchers use content analysis because it can provide an overview of the pattern of a
phenomenon based on particular texts or documents [21]. The content analysis procedure
is carried out by: They are first coding a protocol to analyze the content of the annual
report, namely creating keywords that are in the domain of environmental issues, such
as “Environment,” “Green,” “Sustainable,” “Energy,” “Waste,” and “Garbage”. Second,
run the coding of the protocol on the report every year. Third, tabulate the coding of the
protocol. Fourth, re-checking the application of the coding protocol alternately with other
researchers to avoid data tabulation errors and show data consistency. Fifth, interpret the
results of the tabulation. After the tabulation results appeared to see which innovation
programs could be classified as innovations related to the environment, the researchers
re-classified the data based on several categories, namely: First, classification based on
the type of government institution. Second, the classification is based on the spatial
aspects of urban and rural areas. Third, the classification is based on the spatial aspects
of the island of Java and outside the island of Java. Fourth, classification is based on
the field of environmental linkage with innovation. An example of an analysis of these
four classifications can be seen in Table 1 as an example of document analysis results in
2014.

3 Results and Discussion

The analysis results show that there are always public service innovations supporting the
reduction of environmental damage from 2014 to 2014. Figure 1 shows the development
of the number of innovations starting from 2014 with three innovations, 2015 with eight
innovations, 2016 and 2017 each with 11 innovations, in 2018, 2019, and 2020 with
six innovations each, and finally in 2021 with seven innovations. Therefore, the total
innovations that emerged were 58 innovations from 2014 to 2021. Thus, compared with
the total number of innovations per year, 99 innovations, the trend of innovation related
to environmental issues is an average of 7.25 innovations per year or about 7%. The data
shows that environmental issues tend to be optional in creating innovation by all levels of
government. In various cases, it takes work to create innovations related to environmental
issues. Public sector innovations to support sustainable development goals face various
obstacles such as innovation capacity, human resources, finance, communication, and
governance [22].
A more detailed analysis can be shown from the development of the number of
public service innovations related to the environment through the levels of government,
namely the Ministry, Provincial Government, Municipal, and Regency Governments in
Indonesia. Figure 2 shows that from 2014 to 2021, there will be different trends between
these institutions. Each year, each level of government is almost all capable of creating
innovations related to environmental issues. The Ministry had to be absent in 2015
and 2016, the Provincial Government was absent in 2015 and 2016, and the Municipal
Government was absent in 2018 and 2019. It is precisely the Regency Government that
continues to maintain consistency and create innovations related to environmental issues.
130 M. R. Pratama et al.

Table 1. Analysis of KIPP 2014

No. Year Innovation Level of Urban/Rural Java Sector

Government Island/Outside
1. 2014 Taman Terapi dan Toilet Ministry of Urban Java Enviromental
Kebun sebagai De-Stress Health Health
Corner (Therapeutic
Garden and Garden
Toilet as De-Stress
Corner)
2. 2014 Pelayan Pendidikan Padang Rural Java Education
Bermutu dengan Pariaman
Program Penampilan Regency
dan Prestasi Sekolah
(P2S) Melalui
Pendekatan Sekolah
Ramah Lingkungan,
Ramah Sosial, dan
Berbudaya Mutu
(Quality Education
Servants with a School
Appearance and
Achievement Program
(P2S) Through an
Environmentally
Friendly, Socially
Friendly, and Quality
Cultured School
Approach)
3. 2014 Gerakan Masyarakat Banyuwangi Rural Java Enviromental
Mencintai Lingkungan Regency Health
(Gemilang) wilayah
kerja Puskesmas
(Community Movement
to Love the Environment
(Gemilang) in the work
area of the Puskesmas)

Fig. 1. The Number of Public Service Innovations related to the Environment in 2014–2021
 Does the Environment Matter? Assesing Indonesia Public Service Innovation 131

Fig. 2. The Number of Public Service Innovations related to the Environment in 2014–2021 based
on Government Level

Fig. 3. The Number of Public Service Innovation Sector related to the Environment in 2014–2021

The data shows that all levels of government are capable of creating innovations
related to environmental issues. However, more effort is a must to spread these inno-
vations across institutions at various levels. This effort is essential because there is a
tendency for the public to be disappointed with the government’s efforts to deal with
environmental conservation [23]. Ultimately, this disappointment will reduce trust in the
government, thus clouding the joint efforts to improve the environment.
Further analysis reveals different public service innovation areas related to environ-
mental issues. For example, Fig. 3 shows ten areas that are the domain of environmental
issues, namely: 1) Health, 2) Land management, 3) Clean energy, 4) Clean water, 5)
Education, 6) Nature conservation, and 7) Governance of Environmental data, 8) Waste
management, 9) Environmental policy, and 10) Sanitation.
These environmental sectors have become the focus of public service innovation
from 2014 to 2021, but various trends have emerged in each field that can show trends
132 M. R. Pratama et al.

Fig. 4. Total Number of Public Service Innovation Sector related to Environment 2014–2021

so far. Waste management became the area of innovation with themost number of 27
innovations, followed by environmental data management with nine innovations, clean
energy and land management with five innovations each, followed by sanitation, envi-
ronmental policy, and environmental health with two each. Innovation, then finally clean
water and nature conservation with two innovations each.
The data can show that the problem of waste is a concern of the government in reduc-
ing environmental damage amid the lack of structural policies on waste management.
However, various other public service innovations are still being treated to overcome
environmental problems because the numbers are minimal but very important, such as
clean energy and clean water (Fig. 4).
Data analysis in urban and rural spatial domains shows different tendencies. For
example, Fig. 5 shows that the Regency Government, which represents the rural char-
acter, is more actively dominating in creating public service innovations related to envi-
ronmental issues than the Municipal Government, which represents the urban character.
The Regency Government shows 30 innovations, while the Municipal Government has
11.
The data shows that at the government level with a rural character, they tend to have
more concern for the relationship between public service innovations and environmental
issues than other levels of government. This finding is slightly different from the analysis
of Muluk & Pratama [11], which shows that even though there are fewer urban areas
than rural areas, local government areas with an urban character dominate public service
innovation.
On the other hand, other findings also emerged that at the local government level,
both provincial, municipal and regency governments, if classified Java Island spatially
and Outside Java, it shows that local governments outside Java tend to produce more
innovations related to the environment than local governments in Java. Java Island.
Local governments outside Java Island were able to create 30 innovations, while inside
Java Island were 19 innovations from 2014 to 2021. This data can break the argument
that local governments on Java Island are superior in innovation to local governments
outside Java. Previous research has shown that local governments in Java are more active
 Does the Environment Matter? Assesing Indonesia Public Service Innovation 133

Fig. 5. The Number of Public Service Innovations related to the Environment in 2014–2021 based
on Urban and Rural Government

Fig. 6. The Number of Public Service Innovations related to the Environment in 2014–2021 based
on the Domain of Java Island and Outside Java

in creating innovations than local governments outside Java, especially in educational

innovation and innovation with an inclusive character [10, 12] (Fig. 6).

4 Conclusion
Environmental issues are optional in creating public service innovations by all levels
of government. However, all levels of government are capable of creating innovations
related to environmental problems. Therefore, there should be a need for policy coher-
ence in the SDGs with the competition for public service innovation in Indonesia to
encourage more public service innovations that are genuinely related to the environment.
In public service innovation related to the environment, the waste management prob-
lem is becoming the government’s attention in reducing environmental damage amid the
lack of structural policies on waste management. However, other public service inno-
vations are still needed to overcome environmental problems because the numbers are
minimal but very important, such as clean energy and clean water.
Regarding the distribution at the local government level, it shows that the local gov-
ernment with a rural character tends to have more concern for the relationship between
public service innovations and environmental issues than other levels of government.
134 M. R. Pratama et al.

This tendency is different from the previous pattern in that there is a tendency that in
public service innovation, in general, government capacity with an urban character is
considered better by creating more innovations. In addition, the pattern shows that local
governments in the spatial domain outside Java tend to generate more innovations related
to the environment than in the Java Island domain. This tendency also shows a different
distribution pattern because, generally, the government in Java Island is considered to
have a greater innovation capacity and the number of innovations.

References
1. Eileen de Jong, Marjanneke J. Vijge. (2021). From Millennium to Sustainable Development
Goals: Evolving discourses and their reflection in policy coherence for development, Earth
System Governance, Volume 7,2021, 100087, ISSN 2589–8116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
esg.2020.100087.
2. Gedeon M. Mudacumura, Desta Mebratu & M. Shamsul Haque. 2006. Sustainable Develop-
ment Policy and Administration. CRC Press
3. Magdalena Bexell, Kristina Jönsson. (2022) Realizing the 2030 Agenda for sustainable
development – engaging national parliaments?. Policy Studies 43:4, pages 621–639.
4. Magdalena Bexell & Kristina Jönsson (2019) Country Reporting on the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals—The Politics of Performance Review at the GlobalNational Nexus, Journal
of Human Development and Capabilities, 20:4, 403–417, https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.
2018.1544544
5. Anastasiia Gotgelf. (2022) Information governance for sustainable development: Exploring
social dilemmas in data provision for international reporting on Land Degradation Neutrality.
Environmental Science & Policy 135, pages 128–136.
6. Nafila Dwi Mutiarani & Dodik Siswantoro | (2020) The impact of local government character-
istics on the accomplishment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Cogent Business &
Management, 7:1, 1847751, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1847751
7. Enayat A. Moallemi, Shirin Malekpour, Michalis Hadjikakou, Rob Raven, Katrina Szetey,
Dianty Ningrum, Ahmad Dhiaulhaq, Brett A. Bryan. (2020). Achieving the Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals Requires Transdisciplinary Innovation at the Local Scale, One Earth, Volume
3, Issue 3, 2020, Pages 300–313, ISSN 2590–3322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.
08.006.
8. König, J., Suwala, L. and Delargy, C. (2020). Helix Models of Innovation and Sustain-
able Development Goals. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A. and
Wall T. (eds) Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71059-4_91-1
9. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Christian Kroll, Guillaume Lafortune, Grayson Fuller, and Finn Woelm.
2021. Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Action for the Sustainable
Development Goals. Cambridge University Press.
10. A.B. Pratama, “The Landscape of Public Service Innovation in Indonesia,” Innov Manag
Rev., vol. 17, no. (1), pp. 25–40, 2019.
11. M.R.K Muluk & M.R. Pratama. 2021. Public Sector Innovation in A Developing Country:
Progress and Challenges in the Competition for Public Service Innovation in Indonesia. Public
Policy and Administration. Vol. 20 (4).
12. M.R.K Muluk, M.R. Pratama, & A.H. Muzaqi. 2020. The Landscape of Inclusive Public Ser-
vice Innovation in Indonesia Local Government. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International
Conference on Public and Business Administration (AICoBPA 2020).
 Does the Environment Matter? Assesing Indonesia Public Service Innovation 135

13. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2014. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
14. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2015. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
15. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2016. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
16. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2017. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
17. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2018. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
18. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2019. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
19. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2020. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
20. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. 2014. Laporan Top
99 Inovasi Publik tahun 2021. Kemenpan-RB: Jakarta.
21. K. Krippendorf. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction To Its Methodology. London: Sage
Publication.
22. Katarzyna Kozioł-Nadolna, Karolina Beyer. 2021. Barriers to innovative activity in the sus-
tainable development of public sector organizations, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 192,
2021, Pages 4376–4385, ISSN 1877–0509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.214.
23. Edelenbos, J., & van Meekerk, I. (2011). Institutional evolution within local democracy-local
self-governance meets local government. In Interactive policymaking, metagovernance and
democracy (pp. 169–186). ECPR Press. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19915735.pdf

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.