• Walang Nahanap Na Mga Resulta



Academic year: 2023



Buong text



ALEJANDRO O. ANAS, APRIL 2012. Solid Waste Management Practices in Barangay Cruz, La Trinidad Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet.

Adviser: Erlinda B. Alupias, PhD


The study was done to determine the level of awareness in the implementation of the solid waste management in the barangay under RA9003; document the solid waste management practices by each household; and determine problems encountered in compliance of the solid waste management program in the barangay. The researcher used survey questionnaires and key informants interview to gather the data. The study was conducted in the barangay Cruz, La Trinidad Benguet, specifically covering the 7 sitios of Kangas, Lower Cruz, Oliweg, Upper Cruz, Samoyao, Atta, and sitio Ba-ayan. Respondents were given a survey questionnaire with a total of 160 respondents in 7sitios of the barangay Cruz, including 20 respondents which are the key informants, (20 respondents per sitio).

The profile of the respondents most of were at the middle ages; were females; and most of them were married; had college education; were employed by non-government or self-employed. Twenty (20) key informants in the barangay Cruz, as the implementers were purposely selected. Most of them belonged to the ages 25-65 years old.

Awareness of the solid waste management shows that majority of the respondents


like segregated their waste into biodegradable, non-biodegradable, recyclable, and reusable material. The most serious problem encountered by the respondents in waste management was: no space for composting area and whereas the other problems were classified as least serious. The respondents had suggestions, comments and recommendation for the solid waste management in the barangay Cruz to promote development in the barangay. The general assessment of the implementation of solid waste management in the barangay assess by the key informants appeared that in terms of waste problems, had fully implemented.

Moreover, the barangay continues campaigning regarding waste management program helped in getting the attention of the community to have an efficient and effective solid waste management system that will address the needs of developing barangay, for a clean and healthy barangay for all generations.



Characteristics of the Respondents

Self-reliance, participation, cooperation and self-discipline are the cornerstone of development process. This study is an evaluation to the implementation of solid waste management under RA 9003 in the barangay Cruz, La Trinidad Benguet. This has been purposely undertaken to learn waste management practices, to reduce problem encountered in waste management and to be fully aware to the solid waste management problems.

The socio demographic profile of the respondents as to age, sex, civil status, educational attainment is seen in Table 1.

Age. This implies that the ages of the respondents were distributed from the age (15-65);

most of them were at the middle ages.

Sex. Majority of the respondents were females (57.14%) this is because it is usually the females who were in charge of the waste disposal in the households.

Civil Status. Most of the respondents were married (52.26%) and the single were (47.14%).This shows that booth married and single respondents were concerned about waste management.

Educational Attainment. Majority of there respondents had college education (57.14%) followed by these with high school education (31.43%), the rest had only elementary education and vocational, (8.57&2.86) respectively.

Occupation. Most of the respondents were employed by non-government or self-employed, (74.29%), followed by government employee (25%).


Table 1. Socio –demographic profile of the respondents


( % ) Age

15-25 28 20

26-45 88 63

46-55 16 11

56-65 8 6

TOTAL 140 100


Male 60 43

Female 80 57

TOTAL 140 100

Civil Status

Single 66 47

Married 74 53

TOTAL 140 100

Educational Attainment

Elementary 12 9

High school 44 31

Vocational 4 3

College 80 57

TOTAL 140 100


Government Employee 35 25

Non-Government Employee 104 74

Farmer 1 1

TOTAL 140 100


The Key Informants

On the other hand 20 key in formants were purposely selected from the barangay, they are the barangay officials including the barangay Captain, Kagawads, BFATS, BHW. Utility workers and citizens of the barangay Cruz .that serve as the implementers of the implementation of the solid waste management in the barangay

Most if the belong to the ages 25-65 year old majority were males, mostly married and it shows most of them finished a college degree . The result shows that majority were employed in the government and none government .they are designed to assess the implementation of waste management program in the barangay Cruz.

Table 2. Socio –demographic profile of the key informants




15-25 2 10

26-35 3 15

36-45 5 25

46-55 4 20

56-65 6 30

TOTAL 20 100


Male 17 85

Female 3 15

TOTAL 20 100


Table Continued…


Civil Status

Single 8 40

Married 12 60

TOTAL 20 100

Educational Attainment

Elementary 5 25

High school 7 35

Vocational 0 0

College 8 40

TOTAL 20 100


Government Employee 7 35

Non-Government Employee 9 45

Farmer 4 20

TOTAL 20 100

Awareness of the Solid Waste Management

In Table 3 represents the level of awareness in the implementation of solid waste management. It shows that the awareness on the solid Waste management Program to the respondents, found out that majority were very aware, with a mean of (4.0).


On the other components of waste segregation practices such as composting with a mean of (3.07), recycling with a mean of (3.31), and re-use with as mean of (3.04), likewise the solid waste management program components are moderately aware.

About the scheduled of garbage disposal to the collection center which has a mean of (3.36), respondents are moderately aware of this practices based on the data gathered.

On other hand penalties and policies of solid waste management, with a mean (2.96) still the result is moderately aware.

According to Thurgood (1999), the problem in awareness of solid waste management has become major concern of the nation the rapidly swelling population and intensifying economic activities have all contributed to the generation of waste especially in schools and urban areas (Presidential task force on waste management 1996 ) despite the government is introducing of the zero waste management program or system incorporation of the waste management lessons in the school curricula and the lunching of war on waste projects , rapid accumulation of waste has pervasively continued especially with non- recyclable disposable materials being constantly produced .

Likewise, the respondents were moderately aware on the policies and penalties on SWM, with a mean of (2.96%), for one respondent said that penalties or sanction it were not much felt because it is mostly done in verbal.


Table 3. Level of Awareness in the implementation of the SWM


1. Awareness on solid waste management program 4.00 VA 2. Waste Segregation practices;

Composting 3.07 MA

Recycling 3.31 MA Re-use 3.04 MA 3. Disposal 3.36 MA 4. Penalties and Policies of SWM 2.96 MA

Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

4.20 - 5.00 Extremely Aware

3.40 - 4.19 Very Aware

2.60 - 3.39 Moderately Aware

1.80 - 2.59 Slightly Aware

1.00 - 1.79 Not Aware

Strategies Employed to Informed the Community

On the other hand, Table 4 shows how respondents were able to know the implementation of the program. Majority (54%) responded that they have known the implementation through distributed fliers, memorandums, leaflets and through: neighbor and friends by words of mouth (51%). This caught their attention to follow waste segregation. Others claimed that door to door dissemination of barangay officials 40%, seminars/meetings were


conducted, (39%); radio announcement (24%); and community organization like PTA (17%).This shows the different strategies were employed in the implementation of the S.W.M .program

Table 4. Strategies employed to informed the communities



Seminar/meetings conducted by the barangay 54 39

Door to door dissemination by barangay officials 56 40

Fliers, memorandums, leaflets that were distributed by LGU 76 54

Community organization, PTA 24 17

Neighbors and friends by word of mouth 71 51

Radio announcements by LGU 33 24

*Multiple responses

Solid Waste Management is Introduced by the Barangay.

Table 5 shows that the awareness of the respondents towards the practices that were introduced by the barangay. Majority (81%) of the respondents claimed that they were taught to segregate their garbage at the household level. This is the responsibility of every household or every individual in the solid waste management program. Other practices introduced were recycling of their waste materials (61%); Composting at the (47%); used of common MRF and collection bins were only (31%) each. This shows that the use of common MRF and collection bins in the barangay were not introduced since there’s no safe and area for solid waste transfer station or sorting station, drop- off center. It has


limited collections bins on each sitio because the barangay can’t provide each bins for household, because it is also expensive.

Table 5. Practices introduced by the Barangay or LGU



Waste segregation in the household levels 114 81

Recycling of waste materials 86 61

Composting at the household 66 47

Use of common Material Recovery Facility 43 31

Use of collection bins 43 31

Strategies Employed by the Barangay in the Implementation of Solid Waste Management

As shown in Table 6, the respondents had noted the activities that the barangay has undertaken in implementing the SWM program. In descending order, the following activities were done; monitoring the schedule of garbage collection, (53%).

To see to it that the households as well as the garbage collections have done their jobs on time, distribution of IEC materials like fliers and leaflets on waste management (49%);

door to door campaign (34%); provision of collection bins (32%) in strategies areas were in placed; imposed penalties (26%) for non -compliance of the related ordinance like un segregated waste,; radio announcement,(24%); conducted trainings on waste recycling (22%) like recycling of waste materials that can be use for other purpose. Trainings of composting (17%) was introduced to some households, who had enough space; putting up


a common composting facility and common material recovery facility was (11%) and (9%), respectively, because the barangay have limited space.

The conducted seminars/trainings (48%) were to disseminate of the waste management programs. This implies that the barangay officials employed several possible strategies in implementing the waste management program in their respective areas.

Table 6. Strategies employed by barangay in the implementation of SWM.


RESPONDENTS (%) Conducted seminars/ meetings with the household

to disseminate the program 67 48

Conducted trainings on waste recycling 31 22

Conducted trainings on composting 24 17

Announced through radio program 34 24

Distributed fliers/leaflets on waste management 69 49

Made door to door campaign/communication 47 34

Provided collection bins in strategic places 45 32

Established common composting facility 16 11

Established common material recovery facility 11 9

Impose sanction/penalties to household who do not comply with the waste management ordinance 36 26

Monitor the observance of the schedule of garbage collection by households 74 53

*Multiple responses


Waste Management Practices of the Household Respondents.

In Table 7, it shows that the majority (93%) of the households had segregated their waste into biodegradable, non -biodegradable and recyclable/re-usable materials. It shows though there were some (6%) who disposed off their waste to the collection area without segregating due to lack of time and space. Furthermore only a few claimed that they burned and/or buried their waste in their backyards.

For the biodegradable wastes, the respondents claimed that they composed them for fertilizer for their plants, while kitchen wastes were used as feed for their backyard animals such as pigs, ducks, and chicken.

This implies that most of the household respondents practiced waste segregation except for a few. This result affirms the statement of Kelly (1197) as cited by Dang-ay (2005) that separation of waste material at source promotes cleanest and most well defined functions of waste that are suitable for subsequent recycling were use. Source separation eliminates the need for expensive and difficult manual or mechanical sorting.

According to Miller (1995), the negligence of man in performing his duty as steward of nation has resulted to occurrences of several environmental problem, one of which is the continuous accumulation and improper disposal of waste that result to other environmental and health problems it has always been emphasized that solid waste has no final resting place, it may possibly cause soil pollution when buried, water pollution when discharged into water bodies and air pollution when burned. Thus to avoid further solid waste problems, solid wastes need to be properly handled and managed.

Another factor is the space for composting, which most households do not have space to have it even to make an improvise compost pit especially boarding houses. Another


respondent commented for this problem, he said that residents who stayed in boarding houses cannot find it way to practice composting of biodegradable waste because of lack of space in their respective boarding houses and likewise the tendency to create unpleasant odor. And even if these will be waited to individual who raise backyard piggery is not convenient for them.

Table 7. Waste management practices of the household respondents



Segregation 130 93

Burning 6 4

Burying 6 4

Full disposal 8 6

Frequency of Waste Segregation Practiced of the Household

Furthermore, the respondents were asked how often they sort their non –biodegradable waste materials. As shown in able 8, the respondents claimed that they always separate the plastics bag, wrappers and plastic containers; bottles scraps, and tin cans; kitchen wastes – vegetable trimmings and fruit peelings, with means of 2.44, 2.4, and 2.24, respectively.

They claimed that sometimes they separate busted /non-functional appliances or equipment (2.03) because seldom that they this kind of waste materials. The data implies that most of the respondents always practice waste segregation. There were few who admitted that sometimes they don’t segregate their waste materials they just simply throw their waste


away, because they lack time to do it, though they were bothered by their conscience, they just assumed that the scavengers will be there to pick and segregate them.

Table 8 Frequency of waste segregation practiced of the households.

SEGREGATION A S N WM QD Sorting of waste;

Plastic bags/wrappers, plastic

containers 99 41 1 2.44 Always

Bottles, scraps, tin cans 91 43 0 2.40 Always Kitchen waste-vegetable

trimming, fruit peeling 84 48 3 2.24 Always Busted/non-functional appliances

or equipments 57 50 12 2.03 Sometimes

Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

2.37-3.0 Always

1.67-2.33 Sometimes

1.00-1.66 Never

Penalties on the Impose by Barangay

Furthermore, Table 9 presents the penalties that were imposed due to improper disposal and disobeying barangay ordinance. The presence of stray animals such as dogs and cats is evidently punishable through impounding this to the barangay impounding area and to be bailed by the respective owner, likewise littering and untimely disposal of garbage.

The CVO’s are used to manned, to police these violators and to be reported immediately to barangay officials for proper disposition.

Table 9. Penalties on the Imposed by Barangay


PROHIBITED ACTS NO. OF PERCENTAGE RESPONDENTS ( %) Littering 52 37.14 Untimely disposal of garbage 58 41.43 Burning of garbage 50 35.71 Non segregation of garbage 59 42.14 Untidy and dirty surrounding 32 22.86 No/Improper garbage storage system 41 29.29 Open dumping of garbage 47 33.57 Stray animals 89 63.57

Problems Encountered

Table 10 shows the problems associated with the compliance of the implementation of solid waste management.

Having no area for composting was moderately serious and the rest are classified as least serious. Respondents said that, there should be a specific garbage bin for segregated waste to cater all waste which the household cannot hold in their home. Acquire barangay dump truck for the continues hauling directly civilian volunteer organization to manned the implementation of sanctions to those who violated the program.

Aside from these problems it was also noted the presence of astray dogs, undisciplined borders is also a problem and likewise that there are waste that were dump within the vicinity that are not from here it self but from other places.As Lopez (1998) as cited by Dang-ay (2005) said that what is more alarming is the high population growth rate so he


revealed that the volume of solid waste generated would likewise be greater as the population growth.

Table 10. Problems encountered by the respondents in waste management.


No space for composting 3.01 QS

No space for storing recycled waste before

selling to junk shops. 2.51 LS

No collection bin/ designated area to put waste

for pick up by garbage truck 2.34 LS

No specific/designated dump trucks and garbage bin

to hauled and placed segregated waste 2.38 LS Schedule of waste disposal is not followed 2.29 LS Lack of knowledge in recycling practice 2.34 LS Lack of cooperation among households 2.8 LS

Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

4.20 - 5.00 Extremely Serious (ES), 3.40 - 4.19 Moderately Serious (MS), 2.60 - 3.39 Quite Serious (QS), 1.80 - 2.59 Least Serious (LS), 1.00 - 1.79 Not Serious (NE),


Implementation of Waste Management Program as Perceived by the Key Informants Table 11 presents the general assessment of the implementation of solid waste management in the barangay as assessed by selected key informants. It appeared that the presence of a street sweeper in the barangay (Figure 4) helped maintained the orderliness of the barangay in terms to waste problems as shown in the table as fully implemented which this person is paid by the barangay alone. Likewise having a concrete garbage box (Figure 5) maintain garbage not to be scattered by astray animals as well as wind and scavengers, although residents were asking for more better type of garbage box as discussed at Table10.

Moreover, the continues campaign of barangay officials (Figure 6) regarding waste management also helped in getting the attention of the community to follow the ordinance as also shown in Table 6 Least implemented also for the absent of watchers (were commented on Table 10), but according to the barangay officials barangay do watching each garbage post. Whereas the tanod had also there own tasks to do within the day and night. Specified compost pit was also assessed as least implemented as it was reflected also at Table 9, likewise on proper segregation (Table 8) and re-used, which these is assessed by the barangay street sweeper that there were some or individual who did not abide the ordinance.

The absence of barangay dump truck to hauled garbage was not implemented due to insufficient fund to buy a car and its maintenance as well as penalties was also not implemented as also reflected on Table 2 discussions.


Table 11. Implementation of the waste management program as perceived by the key informants.


Have a proper waste disposal facility 4.75 FI Each household in the community follow

the barangay policies and regulation about

waste management 2.75 QI The barangay officials always conduct

forum and disseminate information about

proper waste handling in the barangay 4.7 MI The barangay have watchers to man

or look for violators for not following

waste management. 2.8 LI Each household in the community follow

waste segregation. 2.45 LI Each household in the community

practice reuse. 2.6 LI All households has its own compost pit for

biodegradable waste. 1.5 NI Each household follow proper time disposal. 2.5 LI The barangay has its own centralized compost

pit that household without these, can use 1.5 NI The barangay have its own utility worker

such as street sweeper and to maintain

the garbage box. 5 FI The barangay has its own garbage truck

to hauled garbage. 1 NI Violators are penalized immediately. 1.5 NI


Weighted Mean Qualitative Description 4.20 - 5.00 Fully Implemented (FI)

3.40 - 4.19 Moderately Implemented (MI) 2.60 - 3.39 Quite Implemented (QI)

1.80 - 2.59 Least Implemented (LI) 1.00 - 1.79 Not Implemented (NI)




The study was conducted in the Municipality of La Trinidad, specifically in the 7 sitios of barangay Cruz, with 20 respondents of each sitio (140 respondents) and for the key informants 20 questionnaires are given and design to assess the Implementation of WMP in the barangay. Specifically it aimed to determine the level of awareness in the implementation of the Solid waste management in the barangay; document the Solid waste management practiced by each households, and determine the problems encountered in compliance of the Solid waste management.

In collecting the data, a survey type of descriptive research method is employed. Twenty (20) individuals from each sitios served as respondents of the study and twenty (20) key informants also serves as main evaluator of the effectiveness of the solid waste management program in the barangay.

Results shows that majority of the respondents are very aware of the solid waste management program in their respective barangay which is reflected on how they practice waste segregation. On the other hand the dissemination of information made by the barangay officials to promote waste management through seminars/ meetings catches much attention to the community.

In terms to solid waste management practiced by each household, majority do segregation which they classify this as biodegradable, non biodegradable and reusable a recyclable materials. For penalties that were imposed due to improper disposal or disobeying ordinance is not much problem because most follow the time of waste disposal only that the presence of astray dogs is seen as alarming problem, also with composting which not


all household can afford to do this practice due to limited spaces in the observance of waste management like wise to the undisciplined behavior of borders.

In the general assessment of the implementation of solid waste management in the barangay as assessed by key informants it appeared that having a proper waste disposal system in the barangay catches attention to all household to do waste segregation as well as the presence of barangay streets sweeper and the continues conduct of forum regarding waste management in the barangay reflected that the barangay is under the process of full implementation of the program.


Based on the discussed results, the following conclusions were derived:

1. Communities were very aware of the implementation of Solid waste management program through composting ,recycling ,penalties, policies, re-use as evidence of complying waste segregation although there are still some who do not obey.

2. Most residents are moderately aware who practice segregation which classified as recycling, the triple-“ R” biodegradable and non biodegradable, composting is not much practice due to limited space and the danger to create unpleasant odor.

3. On the other hand on strategies that are employed to the communities about the solid waste management program (24% to 54%) was informed, who knows about the program, which follows the waste management system in the barangay.

4. The practices that were introduce by the barangay or the local government unit shows the awareness which are(31% to81%) are fully introduce to the community such as


recycling, composting, using common material recovery and collection bins in the household levels.

5. Waste management practices of the household, segregated waste with the average of (93%), some areas they manage their garbage by burning, they burry and some are full disposal with the average of (4%to 6%).

6. Waste segregation practiced by the households came out that they always segregate or they always separate their waste before disposing them, such as plastics bags, wrappers, containers, bottles, and kitchen waste. For future purposes like school projects, use as packaging groceries, etc.

7. Majority (41 to 63.57%) are very aware of the penalties and policies, the prohibited acts. those were imposed by the barangay, due to improper disposal of garbage.

8. While the years come, the population growth keeps increasing. In table 10 the problems encountered by the barangay are assess as quite serous. It needs development, such as space for composting, space for sorting, additional speechified garbage bin, dump trucks and cooperation among household.

9. The implementation of the waste management program assess by the key informants, appeared that it is fully implemented.

10. Problems encountered in terms to Solid waste management in the barangay are as follows;

a. No enough space for composting.

b. No time for segregating waste materials that’s why they are forced to disposed full disposal garbage.

c. Some don’t practice re-use strategies.


d. Irresponsible dog owners, untied dogs.

e. Undisciplined behavior of borders as well as some permanent residents, some garbage’s are thrown in the barangay garbage bins which are not from the residents and composting site.

f. No available or safe spaces for material recovery facility as sorting station or composting facility, and recycling facility for storage area even in the barangay hall, space are very limited.

g. They are lazy to segregate their own waste.

h. Scavengers not properly informed about proper waste handling.

i. Untimely disposal of garbage, not following schedules.

j. No watchers for the garbage boxes during the time of disposal, to make it sure that they follow proper waste management.

k. Absence of barangay dump trucks.

l. Penalties are not imposed strictly.


Based on the above conclusions, the following are recommended;

1. Construction of Barangay Material Recovery facility, to cater recyclable waste, so that only non-biodegradables will be disposing and to help reduce waste.

2. Improve garbage bin, constructing a specified garbage bin for each segregated waste for (biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and recyclable waste).

3. Conduct forum on responsible animal owners and conduct orientation or forums to all


boarding house owners as well as borders in regards to barangay ordinance much to waste management.

4. The barangay officials should conduct a simple training for every sitio about the composting for every household to apply to their available area that may help to reduce waste, bad odor to our garbage bins and also use as source of organic fertilizer for our mini- garden.

5. Unsegregated waste, no waste collection and penalties should impose strictly.

6. Give some place for composting area for the biodegradable waste and barangay officials should go around house to house informing the house hold to follow and practice the Solid waste management program.

7. Barangay official’s should check and stay to their area about their waste and they must place more information materials around of our barangay so that they will improve cleanliness to our barangay.

8. They should conduct seminars, trainings with the household on and barangay officials should be strictly monitoring the proper waste segregation.

9. They should adjust the time in collecting garbage because I think this is some main reason why some residence of our barangay cannot follow the exact time.

10. Continuous education of proper waste segregation and distribution of big bins for collection.

11. Continue penalties and concrete and standard garbage boxes and to implement necessary fines or penalty to those who do not comply with the rules.

12. Conduct of market encounters/trade fairs for recycled/reuse products.

13. Imposed higher penalties for violators.



ANONYMOUS, 2006. Waste minimization- Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.

en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste _minimization.

BARANGAY CRUZ PROFILE, 2009. Barangay Socio –Economic Status

CUNNINGHAM, W. P. 1999. Environmental Science: A Global Concern. McGraw Hill Company Incorporation: New York. Pp. 356-362.

MILLER, T . G. 1995. Living in the Environment. 5th ed. New York: Thompson Learning Inc. Pp. 300-3005.

MILLER, T. G.2004. Living in the Environment .13th ed New York: Thomson Learning Inc Pp.598-605

NAZ, A. C. and M. T. NAZ. 2008. Ecological solid waste management in suburban municipalities: user fees in Tuba, Philippines. ASEAN Economic Bulletin SEE, D. A. 2010. “Benguet Open 50 Million Dump Site”: Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. www. Northphiltimes.com?category/Benguet-

SULLIVAN, J. 2008. The problem with waste Reduction-green building.


THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN of La Trinidad, Benguet,. 2004. La Trinidad Benguet.

THURGOOD, M. 1999. Solid Waste Landfills: Decision - Makers Guide Summary.

World Bank, World Health organization, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, and Swiss Center for Development Cooperation in Technology and Management.

VOLLEBERGH, H. 2004. Burn or Bury?: “A Social Cost Comparison of Final Waste Disposal Methods”. Department of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam.


Mga Sanggunian


Agribusiness Management, College of Economics and Management University of the Philippines Los Baños The paper attempted to determine the acceptability of rattan waste-based CBBs in

Number of respondents who availed of the services and socio-economic contribution PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Number of respondents who availed of services Availed services