{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02618657937806874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008183306055646482, 'mean_word_length': 5.390243902439025, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
AN ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WASTE TREATMENT IN THE TRADITIONAL MARKETS

Two different fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) collection and treatment systems have been evaluated and compared with the existing system in the largest traditional market located in Bandung city, Indonesia. In this study, greenhouse gas quantification was performed to compare the environmental impact of current landfill practices against two different options: (i) on-site composting, and (ii) on-site anaerobic digestion. In addition to this, the economic performance was also evaluated by estimating the cost-output ratio from costeffectiveness analysis and the payback period. The evaluation results were then presented in the matrix of strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) to provide an insight for the decision maker in determining the most appropriate solution for fruit and vegetable waste treatment system in the traditional markets. The results indicated that the alteration of FVW management system from the landfill to an on-site composting would decrease the cost-output ratio by 20%. Meanwhile, the implementation of an on-site anaerobic digestion showed a negative value of cost-output ratio indicating a profitable system. Furthermore, the estimation on net energy balance revealed that one ton of waste treated in a landfill, composting and anaerobic digestion would result in 3.52, 0.01 and -0.12 ton CO2-eq, with the negative sign indicating the energy production. In addition, the payback period for anaerobic digestion and composting are remarkably short; around 8 and 13 months, respectively. These two alternatives, however, would be less advantageous if the government cannot ensure the availability of target sectors that may benefit from the utilization of compost and digestate.