WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY-

CAUAYAN CAMPUS

Ivy F. Catbagan* Jhona Mae D. Agtarap*

*Fourth Year BSE-Physical Science Students of Isabela State University-Cauayan Campus

Abstract

Problems in waste management have become more and more complex for the recent
decades. Its inimical effect in the environment and to the lives of people is already being seen
nowadays and may continue to heap on tirelessly if nothing is done. As catalysts of change,
researchers came across with this study that evaluates the practices of the students, faculty and
staff of Isabela State University-Cauayan Campus in the academic year 2014-2015 toward waste
management. A total of 385 students from different departments, 175 faculty and office staff and
8 utility staff participated in this study. Methodological triangulation was used in this study:
interview, observation and survey, and data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential
statistics. Results shown that the groups of respondents generally have same practices and
perceptions on energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste, hazardous materials, water
consumption, building construction or renovation and food service (~ x =2), which means that they
“sometimes” practice and perceive measures on the said areas of waste management. It was
also shown that the groups of students and faculty and office staff “sometimes” practice and
perceive measures on laboratory waste, mold growth and pest management while the group of
utility staff “always” practice and perceive measures on the said areas of waste management.
Results revealed that, a significant difference exists between the practice and perception among
the groups of respondents toward hazardous materials, laboratory waste, mold growth, water
consumption, pest management and food service. However, it was shown that no significant
difference exists between the practice and perception among the groups of respondents toward
energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste and building construction or renovation.

Key words: waste management, waste, solid waste, e-waste, energy waste

I. Introduction

One of the major issues talk over nowadays is the urgency and relevance of improving
waste management practices. Every year the world produces millions of tons of household
garbage, industrial waste and sewage. The disposal of which has now become a major
environmental problem.
Waste is not just garbage; it is also energy, water, food, air, transportation, landscaping,
time and money. It is an unwanted or undesired material left over the completion of a
process. It can exist as solid, liquid or gas (Gaño, et. al, 2008).
Waste management works toward the 3R’s, namely Reduction, Reuse and Recycling of
materials. The concept of waste management involves the collection, removal, processing,
and disposal of materials considered waste. Waste materials can be solid, gaseous, liquid, or
even hazardous and are generally generated through human activity. Historically, developed
nations have dealt with their waste by sending it to landfills or burning it in incinerators
(Priebe, 2010). Both of these options come with some significant environmental problems.
Leachate which is the liquid that passes through landfills' garbage, absorbing poisons and

Page | 1
other harmful substances that negatively impact underground waterways and fresh water
systems. Wind can scatter trash from a landfill into local ecosystems and waterways, creating
hazards for wildlife and people, as well as visual pollution of local environments. As organic
waste rots, it creates methane gas-a greenhouse gas that is 20+ times more potent in terms of
climate change than carbon dioxide. Incineration, both in backyards and on commercial
scale, emits air pollutants, including things like dioxins, furans, and particulate matter.
Every Asian country has a different background and characteristics in relation to material
cycles and waste management policy. However, most countries have common targets of
implementing 3R and some countries are following the new concept of the sound material-
cycle society. In addition, accelerating transboundary shipment of secondary materials
requires cooperative measures and communication among countries (Terazono, et. al, 2004).
Like other developing countries, waste management has become a major problem in the
Philippines for the past decades. The rapid population growth, urbanization and
modernization in the country have resulted in the significant increase of waste generated
especially in urban cities. This condition has created both environmental and health problems
due to the inability of both local and national governments to implement proper waste
management primarily because of scarce financial, human and technical resources (Atienza,
2008).
Republic Act No.9003, with the short title Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM)
Act 2000, was signed into law in January 26, 2001. RA 9003 sets guidelines and targets for
solid waste avoidance and volume reduction and waste minimization measure, including
recycling, reuse, and recovery before collection, treatment and disposal at appropriate and
environmentally sound solid waste management facilities.
Under this law, consumer electronics and white goods are classified as special waste
requiring separate handling from other residential and commercial waste. Although the law
recognizes these types of waste, no cleared guidelines have been sets oh how to handle them.
Republic Act No. 6969, or the Toxics Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control
Act of 1990, also regulates materials with hazardous components.
Universities also contribute to these waste problems. The 2012-2013 Waste Stream of
universities indicated that 36.31% of garbage was contributed which was greater than the
percentage of the recycled materials (35.14%) and compost waste (24.02%). Universities also
used surplus which was 3.09% of the stream and the remaining 2.26% was attributed to
special material (1.20%), construction and demolition (0.82%) and donations (0.24%).
Educational institutions make use of electrical gadgets, chemicals and solid materials to
achieve efficient outputs either in administrative or academic services.
In the local setting, Sagun and Perez (2013) focused only on assessing the e-waste
management of College of Computing and Information Technology while Capistrano and
Castillo (2013) focused only on assessing the solid waste management of the campus.
The energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste, hazardous materials, laboratory waste,
mold growth, water consumption, building construction/renovation, pest management and
food service will be assessed in this study since researchers will cover the whole aspect of
waste management, not just e-waste and solid waste.

Page | 2
Research Paradigm

Input Process Output

Waste Management Methodological  Identification of

Practices of: Triangulation: Waste
Management
 Students  Observation Practices in the
 Faculty and within the entire campus
Office Staff campus
 Basis for
 Utility staff  Survey to the developing a
respondents better Waste
 Interview to Management
selected 20 Scheme in the
respondents campus

FEEDBACK

The input phase includes the waste management practices of the three groups of respondents
which include the students, faculty and office staff and the utility staff of Isabela State
University-Cauayan Campus. The waste management practices of the respondents were gathered
through a triangulation of instruments which are observation, survey and interview make up the
process phase. Observations were conducted by the researchers within the entire campus for one
month. Survey-questionnaires were answered by the students, faculty and office staff and the
utility staff. Interviews were conducted lastly to selected students, teachers and utility workers.
The identification of waste management practices of people involved in the campus would be
beneficial in determining the worst and best practices which would serve as basis for developing
better waste management scheme/plan in the campus.

II. Methodology

The concept of triangulation was used in this study which involved combining different
methods. Methodological triangulation was used since multiple methods were utilized to study a
single phenomenon which is the waste management practices of the students, faculty and office
staff and the utility staff of Isabela State University-Cauayan Campus.
The methods used in the study were the conduct of structured interviews, observations of the
researchers and administration of survey-questionnaires. Interviews were conducted to selected
20 respondents. Observations were made within the entire campus from August 04 to September
15. Survey was administered to the respondents using questionnaires. A total of 622
questionnaires were distributed but only 568 were retrieved.
The questionnaire used was adopted from the standardized waste management inventory of
Sandra Cointreau-Levine (2003). The questionnaire was designed to consider ten dimensions of

Page | 3
waste management: energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste, hazardous materials, laboratory
waste, mold growth, water consumption, building construction/renovation, pest management and
food service. Each statement in different dimensions was rated using the three point scale from
which the respondents indicated their agreement and disagreement. The following scale and
description were used: 1= Never, 2= Sometimes and 3= Always.
Data were processed through the aid of statistical tools. The frequency and percentage were
employed to describe the demography of the respondents, median was used to determine the
over-all practice and perception of the respondents toward waste management when grouped
using the demography, and lastly Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mann-Whitney test were used to
determine if there is a significant difference in the practices and perceptions of the respondents
when grouped using the demography.

III. Results and Discussion

TABLE 1. Demography of the Respondents

Demographic Group Frequency Percentage

(n= 622) (100%)
Students 385 61.90
Faculty and Office Staff 229 36.82
Utility Staff 8 1.29

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents in terms of
demographic group such as students, faculty and office staff and utility staff.
The demographic group consisted of 385 (61.90%) students followed by 229 (36.82%)
faculty and office staff, and the utility staff comprised the least with a total of 8 (1.29%)
respondents. This implies that the greatest number of respondents came from the group of
students.

Page | 4
TABLE 2. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Energy Use when grouped in terms
of Demography
A. Energy Use Students Faculty and Utility Staff
Office Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
A1. Your building systems (e.g., boilers, 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
fans and pumps) are operating efficiently.
A2. Replace incandescent bulbs in exit 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
signs with a light-emitting diode (LED)
or compact fluorescent replacement kit.
A3. Replace damaged doors and 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
windows to reduce the need for heating
and cooling in the building.
A4. Turn off lights in unoccupied rooms 3 Always 3 Always 2 Sometimes
and machines during non-use hours.
A5. Plug holes and caulk windows to 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
stop heat loss.

Energy Use 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on the use of energy.
It shows that the students and the faculty members and office staffs commonly share the same
practices and perceptions. They “sometimes” perceive and practice almost all of the items under
Energy Use (~ x =2) and they “always” practice “turning off lights in unoccupied rooms and
machines during non-use hours” (~ x =3). On the other hand, the utility staff “always” perceived
that “building systems are operating efficiently” (~ x =3) and there is “always” a “replacement of
incandescent bulbs in exit signs with a light-emitting diode (LED) or compact fluorescent
replacement kit” (~ x =3). While the rest of the items under Energy Use were “sometimes” practice
by the group of utility staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on the use of energy ( ~x =2), which
means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Energy Use.

TABLE 2.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Energy Use when
grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and Office Staff 2.738 .254

vs. Utility Staff

Table 2.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on energy use among
the groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is no statistically significant difference on
the practices and perceptions of the respondents when grouped in terms of demography: (H-

Page | 5
2.738; p >0.05). This implies that regardless of the respondents’ groups, they do have the same
level of practices and perceptions on energy use. It means that once in a while they follow
measures on the use of energy.
It contradicts with the findings of Koch and Freedman (2013) that students are less
practicing energy conservation than faculty and staff.

Result of Observation on Energy Use

For 31 days of observation, building systems were operating efficiently. There were
windows and doors that were broken making it hard to reduce the heating and cooling in the
building. Energy was wasted specifically the electrical energy due to the fact that lights and
ceiling fans were left on even there are no students inside the classroom.

Result of Interview on Energy Use

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that
conserving of energy is not being practiced in the school due to the fact that some ceiling fans
and lights in the classrooms remained on even there are no students inside. And they also said
that some students are charging their gadgets in the school which is not supposed to be. This only
proved that there is a lack of practice in energy use.

TABLE 3. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Indoor Air Quality when grouped in
terms of Demography

B. Indoor Air Quality Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
B1. Ensure that the ventilation 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
system is clean and that an
adequate amount of outdoor air
is supplied to occupied areas.
B2. Make sure the air intakes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
of ventilating systems are not
in an area where cars or buses
idle.
B3. Ensure that the mechanical 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
rooms are free of trash and
chemicals.
B4. Inspect ventilation 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
equipment air filters regularly
and replace as needed.
B5. Clean up dust generated 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
from construction activities.

Indoor Air Quality 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

Page | 6
 The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Indoor Air Quality.
It shows that the students and the faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They “sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Indoor Air Quality (~ x
=2). On the other hand, the utility staff “always” “assuring that the air intakes of ventilating
systems are not in an area where cars or buses idle” (~ x =3). While the rest of the items under
Indoor Air Quality were “sometimes” practice by the group of utility staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on Indoor Air Quality ( ~ x =2),
which means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Indoor Air Quality.

TABLE 3.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Indoor Air
Quality when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 1.529 .465

Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 3.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on indoor air quality
among the groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is no statistically significant
difference on the practices and perceptions of the respondents when grouped in terms of
demography: (H-1.529; p >0.05). This implies that regardless of the respondents’ groups, they do
have the same practices and perceptions on indoor air quality. It means that once in a while they
follow measures on Indoor Air Quality.
It confirms with the findings of Bishop (2009) that students, teachers and staffs’ attitudes
and behaviors towards indoor air quality are the same. They perceive indoor air quality to be
stuffy if ventilating systems are filthy.

Result of Observation on Indoor Air Quality

As a result of the observation, ventilation systems were functioning yet they were not
clean and some are not being replaced immediately even if they are not functioning anymore,
this add to the hotness of the classroom.

Result of Interview on Indoor Air Quality

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that the
indoor air quality is not that good. There is a great impact of the comfort rooms in the air quality
which can be sniffed especially if the comfort room is located inside the classroom. This verified
that there is a poor indoor air quality in the campus.

Page | 7
TABLE 4. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Solid Waste when grouped in terms
of Demography

C. Solid Waste Students Faculty and Utility Staff

Office Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
C1. Encourage practices that reduce 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
waste paper (e.g., proofing documents on
the computer screen before printing;
storing final documents on disk rather
than making final copies; making two
sided copies; printing letters and reports
on both sides of the page; and reusing
paper that is clean on one side for in-
house drafts and message pads).
C2. Recycle items, such as paper, 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
aluminum cans, cardboard and plastic
bottles.
C3. Donate old or outdated equipment, 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
books or furniture to local community
organizations.
C4. Use rechargeable batteries and solar 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
calculators.
C5. Save and reuse boxes for shipping 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
and other uses.
C6. Consider a printer that can print on 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
both sides of the paper at once.
C7. Save on paper by using chalkboards 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
and overhead projectors for student
worksheets, quizzes, etc.
C8. Have students answer questions on 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
scrap paper.
C9. Encourage students to bring their 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 1 Never
lunch in reusable containers.
C10. Establish environmentally friendly 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 1 Never
guidelines for all purchases, including:
products made from recycled materials,
with minimal packaging; that can be
recharged, refilled, or reused; have longer
lifetimes; or can be easily repaired.

Solid Waste 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

Page | 8
 The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Solid Waste. It
shows that the students and the faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They “sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Solid Waste ( ~ x =2).
On the other hand, the utility staff “always” practice “recycling of items such as paper,
aluminium cans, cardboard and plastic bottles” (~ x =3), they “always” practice “donation of old or
outdated equipment, books or furniture to local community organizations” (~ x =3) and there is
~
“always” “saving and reusing of boxes for shipping and other uses” ( x =3) but they “never”
“encourage students to bring their lunch in reusable containers” (~ x =1) and they “never”
“establish environmentally friendly guidelines for all purchases, including: products made from
recycled materials, with minimal packaging; that can be recharged, refilled, or reused; have
longer lifetimes; or can be easily repaired” (~
x =1). While the rest of the items under Solid Waste
were “sometimes” practice by the group of utility staff (~x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on Solid Waste ( ~ x =2), which
means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Solid Waste.

TABLE 4.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Solid Waste when
grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 1.150 .563
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 4.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on solid waste among
the groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is no statistically significant difference on
the practices and perceptions of the respondents when grouped in terms of demography: (H-
1.150; p >0.05). This implies that regardless of the respondents’ groups, they do have the same
practices and perceptions on solid waste. It means that once in a while they follow measures on
Solid Waste.
It opposes the findings of Fronda (2007) that 99% of faculty and staff are aware of the
solid waste segregation scheme and only 93% of students are aware of the scheme.

Result of Observation on Solid Waste

Throughout the days of observation, solid materials were continuously not in good
condition. The segregation schemes were labelled in the trash cans but still these were not
followed. The “No Plastic Policy” was no longer in practice. Trash (plastics, papers, debris, etc.)
can be seen anywhere.

Result of Interview on Solid Waste

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that they are
not leaving their garbage anywhere. They disposed their trash but not properly. They admitted
that though there are labels in the trash cans, still they are not following the segregation scheme,
especially when they already noticed that the litters inside the trash cans were already mixed up.
And they also added that the “No Plastic Policy” is no longer in practice. This attested that a lack
of discipline is present in the attitude of individuals in the campus.

Page | 9
TABLE 5. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Hazardous Materials when grouped
in terms of Demography

D. Hazardous Materials Students Faculty and Utility Staff

Office Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
D1. Inspect raw material upon 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
receipt from suppliers.
D2. Store chemicals properly to 2 Sometimes 3 Always 2 Sometimes
avoid unauthorized use or spills.
D3. Purchase only the needed 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
amounts of chemical supplies to
avoid disposing of extra, unused
materials.
D4. Keep lids on containers of 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
liquids to reduce evaporation.
D5. Stack containers in a way that 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
minimizes the chance for tipping,
puncturing or breaking.

Hazardous Materials 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Hazardous
Materials. It shows that the groups of students and utility staff share the same practices and
perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Hazardous Materials
(~
x =2). On the other hand, the faculty members and office staffs “always” practice “storing of
chemicals properly to avoid unauthorized use or spills” (~
x =3). While the rest of the items under
Hazardous Materials were “sometimes” practice by the group of faculty and office staff (~ x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on Hazardous Materials ( ~ x =2),
which means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Hazardous Materials.

TABLE 5.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Hazardous

Materials when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 26.267 .000

Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Page | 10
 Table 5.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on hazardous materials
among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference
on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on hazardous materials when grouped in
terms of demography: (H-26.267; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on hazardous materials.
It verifies the findings of Saini et al. (2005) that poor practices on management of
hazardous materials exist among staff and that there is a need to train them to adopt effective
management of hazardous materials.

TABLE 5.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Hazardous Materials

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -5.035 .000
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -1.548 .122
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -.004 .997
Utility Staff

Table 5.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on hazardous materials. The table reveals that the group of faculty and office staff
has significantly higher perception on hazardous materials than the groups of students and utility
staff.

Result of Observation on Hazardous Materials

The whole time of observation, chemical storage and containers were in good condition.
The chemicals in the Chemistry Laboratory were stored properly avoiding spills. And there is a
person-in-charged in the Chemistry Laboratory to avoid unauthorized use of chemicals.
Containers were stack in a way that minimizes the chance for tipping, puncturing or breaking.

Result of Interview on Hazardous Materials

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they conceded that
they are not aware about any hazardous material in the campus. This indicated that there is a lack
of awareness among individuals about hazardous materials existing in the campus.

Page | 11
TABLE 6. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Laboratory Waste when grouped in
terms of Demography

E. Laboratory Waste Students Faculty and Utility Staff

Office Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
E1. Conduct a chemical inventory to 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
help eliminate over-purchasing and
reduce disposal costs of unneeded,
out-of-date chemicals.
E2. Reduce the quantity of 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
hazardous chemicals stored in your
facility to the minimum necessary
for quality instruction.
E3. Substitute non- or less-hazardous 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
chemicals for more hazardous ones
in science experiments. If this is not
possible, use micro-scale chemistry
techniques to reduce scale of
experiments (and associated
quantities of chemicals).
E4. Establish a safe management 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
system for remaining required
chemicals.
E5. Store chemicals according to 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
their chemical family, not
alphabetically.

Laboratory Waste 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Laboratory Waste.
It shows that the students and faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Laboratory Waste ( ~ x
=2). On the other hand, the utility staffs “always” practice “conducting chemical inventory to
help eliminate over-purchasing and reduce disposal costs of unneeded, out-of-date chemicals” ( ~ x
=3) and “substituting non- or less-hazardous chemicals for more hazardous ones in science
experiments” (~ x =3). While the rest of the items under Laboratory Waste were “sometimes”
practice by the group of utility staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of students and faculty and office staff generally have the
same practices and perceptions on Laboratory Waste (~ x =2), which means that they “sometimes”
practice and perceive measures on Laboratory Waste while the group of utility staff has different

Page | 12
practices and perceptions on Laboratory Waste (~
x =3), which means that they “always” practice
and perceive measures on Laboratory Waste.

TABLE 6.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Laboratory Waste
when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 18.886 .000
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 6.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on laboratory waste
among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference
on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on laboratory waste when grouped in terms
of demography: (H-18.886; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on laboratory waste.
It corroborates with the findings of Hegde (2007) that students have poor management
skills on laboratory wastes.

TABLE 6.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Laboratory Waste

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -1.921 .055
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -4.133 .000
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -3.291 .001
Utility Staff

Table 6.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on laboratory waste. The table reveals that the group of utility staff has significantly
higher perception on laboratory waste than the groups of students and faculty and office staff.

Result of Observation on Laboratory Waste

During the observations, chemical storage was in good condition. Chemicals were stored
according to category for an easy-to-find purpose.

Result of Interview on Laboratory Waste

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they admitted that
though they are mindful about the laboratories existing in the campus, still they are not aware on
how laboratory wastes are managed. This also indicated a lack of awareness among individuals
about laboratory wastes in the campus.

Page | 13
TABLE 7. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Mold Growth when grouped in terms
of Demography

F. Mold Growth Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Staff
~
x DI ~x DI ~
x DI
F1. Establish a regular schedule 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
for inspecting roofs, ceilings,
walls, floors and carpeting for
water leakage, stains or
discoloration, and mold growth or
odors.
F2. Fix the source of the water 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
problem or leak to prevent mold
growth.
F3. Vent showers and other 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
moisture-generating sources to
the outside.
F4. Reduce the potential for water 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
vapor condensation on walls,
underside of roof decks and
around pipes or ducts.
F5. Keep building materials like 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
wood, porous insulation, paper
and fabric dry.

Mold Growth 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Mold Growth. It
shows that the students and faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Mold Growth ( ~ x =2).
On the other hand, the utility staffs “always” practice “establishing a regular schedule for
inspecting roofs, ceilings, walls, floors and carpeting for water leakage, stains or discoloration,
and mold growth or odors” (~ x =3), “fixing the source of the water problem or leak to prevent
~
mold growth” ( x =3) and “keeping building materials like wood, porous insulation, paper and
fabric dry” (~
x =3). While the rest of the items under Mold Growth were “sometimes” practice by
the group of utility staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of students and faculty and office staff generally have the
same practices and perceptions on Mold Growth (~ x =2), which means that they “sometimes”

Page | 14
practice and perceive measures on Mold Growth while the group of utility staff has different
practices and perceptions on Mold Growth (~
x =3), which means that they “always” practice and
perceive measures on Mold Growth.

TABLE 7.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Mold Growth
when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 15.417 .000
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 7.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on mold growth among
groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference on the
practices and perceptions of the respondents on mold growth when grouped in terms of
demography: (H-15.417; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on mold growth.
It refutes the findings of McFarland et al. (2014) that students, staffs and teachers
perceived mold growth as a potential health problem.

TABLE 7.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Mold Growth

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -1.269 .205
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -3.848 .000
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -3.295 .001
Utility Staff

Table 7.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on mold growth. The table reveals that the group of utility staff has significantly
higher perception on mold growth than the groups of students and faculty and office staff.

Result of Observation on Mold Growth

In the observations made, buildings, classrooms, chemical storage, lavatories, toilets,
faucets and trash cans have mold. Molds caused by water leakages especially in the lavatories
and toilets were too evident. The molds in classrooms were usually found in the ceiling caused
by water leakages, also. Faucets and trash cans that were exposed to rain contain molds.

Result of Interview on Mold Growth

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they revealed that
molds exist in the lavatories, toilets, faucets and roof of the classrooms but they abruptly
disappear if the school undergoes the process of accreditation or if there are visitors from

Page | 15
Commission on Higher Education. This proven that mold growth is observable in the campus but
seem to be not when there are visitors.

TABLE 8. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Water Consumption when grouped in

terms of Demography

G. Water Consumption Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Staff
~
x DI ~
x DI ~
x DI
G1. Encourage students and 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes Sometimes
teachers to report water leaks
to the maintenance staff.
G2. Fix leaks in toilets, faucets 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
and pipes right away.
G3. Only run the dishwasher 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
when it is full.
G4. Water during cooler parts 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
of the day (before 10:00 A.M
and after 5:00 P.M.) to
minimize evaporation loss.
G5. Do not water on windy 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
days.

Water Consumption 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on the consumption of
water. It shows that the students and faculty members and office staffs share the same practices
and perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Water
Consumption (~ x =2). On the other hand, the utility staffs “always” practice “fixing leaks in
toilets, faucets and pipes right away” (~x =3) and they “do not water on windy days” ( ~
x =3). While
the rest of the items under Water Consumption were “sometimes” practice by the group of utility
staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on Water Consumption ( ~ x =2),
which means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Water Consumption.

TABLE 8.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Water

Consumption when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Page | 16
 Students vs. Faculty and 13.998 .001
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 8.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on water consumption
among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference
on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on water consumption when grouped in terms
of demography: (H-13.998; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on water consumption.
It negates the findings of Davis et al. (2008) that students and staff had raised their
awareness of the need to save water.

TABLE 8.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Water Consumption

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -3.463 .001
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -1.877 .060
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -.663 .507
Utility Staff

Table 8.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on water consumption. The table reveals that the group of utility staff has
significantly higher perception on water consumption than the groups of students and faculty and
office staff.

Result of Observation on Water Consumption

One of the main reasons why there is a rise in the water bills of the campus is due to the
leakages in the lavatories, faucets and toilets that are not fix immediately. Another is that faucets
in the lavatories were left in use which caused overflows. This is also the reason why the
lavatories and toilets were not in good conditions. Some lavatories in the campus were always
wet because of the water leakages coming from the faucets that were not given much attention to
fix immediately. These were noticed during the 31 days of observation.

Result of Interview on Water Consumption

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that water
consumption in the campus is high because water conservation is not being practiced in the sense
that they noticed that water leaks from the faucets are not fix immediately. The concern staffs
regarding this matter are not giving much attention and they just let the water in the drums
overflow which results to a flood-like scenario of the lavatories in the campus. This also
ascertained that there is a lack of discipline among individuals in the campus regarding water
consumption especially to the persons concerned about this matter.

Page | 17
TABLE 9. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Building Construction/Renovation
when grouped in terms of Demography

H. Building Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Construction/Renovation Staff
~
x DI ~x DI ~
x DI
H1. Design for good indoor air 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
quality. Select building materials
to limit the introduction of
pollutants into the building in the
first place.
H2. Specify particular building 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
materials with recycled content,
such as concrete aggregate,
carpeting, insulation, ceiling tiles,
drywall, floor tile, playground
surfacing and parking stops.
H3. Consider wood products 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
produce from sustainably managed
forests.
H4. Maximize the use of natural 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
daylight in building interiors as a
source of ambient light.
H5. Use water efficient plumbing 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
fixtures, such as aerators and self-
closing or electronic faucets for
lavatories.

Building Construction/Renovation 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on the construction or
renovation of buildings. It shows that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff
and utility staff) share the same practices and perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and
practice all of the items under Building Construction/Renovation (~ x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on the construction or renovation

Page | 18
of buildings (~
x =2), which means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on
Building Construction/Renovation.

TABLE 9.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Building

Construction/Renovation when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and Office Staff 2.736 .255

vs. Utility Staff

Table 9.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on the construction or
renovation of buildings among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is no
statistically significant difference on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on building
construction/renovation when grouped in terms of demography: (H-2.736; p >0.05). This implies
that regardless of respondents’ groups, they have the same practices and perceptions on building
construction/renovation. It means that once in a while they follow measures on the construction
or renovation of buildings.
It validates the findings of Lesisko et al. (2010) that students, faculty and staff experience
same inconvenience either during construction or renovation of buildings.

Result of Observation on Building Construction/Renovation

Within a month of observation, researchers noticed that the debris came from buildings
being constructed or renovated were cleaned by the workers. However, the debris came from the
buildings being demolished were left in the same location.

Result of Interview on Building Construction/Renovation

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that they are
not aware about the process involved in the construction of the buildings although they know
what materials are used. But they noticed that debris came from buildings being renovated and
constructed can be seen in the same place. This indicates that debris were not fixed immediately.

Page | 19
TABLE 10. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Pest Management when grouped in
terms of Demography

I. Pest Management Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Staff
~
x DI ~x DI ~
x DI
I1. Practice good sanitation and 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes, 2 Sometimes
proper maintenance of structures Always
and grounds.
I2. Caulk and seal structural 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
cracks where pests can enter.
I3. Keep lockers and the building 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
clean and dry.
I4. Fix plumbing leaks and other 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
moisture problems.
I5. Monitor frequently for signs 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
of pests and keep records of pest
populations.

Pest Management 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Pest Management.
It shows that the students and faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Pest Management (~ x
=2). On the other hand, the utility staffs “always” practice “caulking and sealing structural cracks
where pests can enter” (~x =3), “keeping lockers and the building clean and dry” (~x =3) and “fixing
~
plumbing leaks and other moisture problems” ( x =3). While the rest of the items under Pest
Management were “sometimes” practice by the group of utility staff (~ x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of students and faculty and office staff generally have the
same practices and perceptions on Pest Management (~ x =2), which means that they “sometimes”
practice and perceive measures on Pest Management while the group of utility staff has different
practices and perceptions on Pest Management (~ x =3), which means that they “always” practice
and perceive measures on Pest Management.

TABLE 10.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Pest

Management when grouped in terms of Demography

Page | 20
 Demographic Group H-value p-value
Students vs. Faculty and 11.042 .004
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 10.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on pest management
among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference
on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on pest management when grouped in terms
of demography: (H-11.042; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on pest management.
It confirms with the findings of Long et al. (2007) that students and staff play an
important role in keeping the school clean, preventing pests.

TABLE 10.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Pest Management

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -1.825 .068
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -3.184 .001
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -2.067 .039
Utility Staff

Table 10.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on pest management. The table reveals that the group of utility staff has significantly
higher perception on pest management than the groups of students and faculty and office staff.

Result of Observation on Pest Management

Throughout the days of observation, there were materials available for pest management
like insecticides. In this sense, cleaning materials aided the students, faculty and staff and even
the school vendors managed pests though the buildings were not that clean.

Result of Interview on Pest Management

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that pests
are being managed by the utility workers in a way that they spray some pesticides in the place
that needs it. This assured that there is a good pest management in the campus.

Page | 21
TABLE 11. Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Food Service when grouped in
terms of Demography

J. Food Service Students Faculty and Office Utility Staff

Staff
~
x DI ~x DI ~
x DI
J1. Use refillable condiment 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
bottles or containers instead
of single-use packaging, and
refill from bulk containers.
J2. Use washable wiping 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
cloths instead of disposables.
J3. Purchase reusable coffee 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
filters and compost the
grounds.
J4. Store raw vegetables in 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 1 Never
reusable airtight containers to
prevent spoilage.
J5. Reuse large containers for 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
storage.
J6. Find local composting 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
opportunities or animal farms
that will accept non-edible
foods.
J7. Avoid purchasing items 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
with excessive packaging.
J8. Use dispenser items, such 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
as juices or hot chocolate in
concentrated or bulk form.
J9. Establish a routine 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 3 Always
cleaning and maintenance
schedule for all equipment.
J10. When replacing 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes
equipment, buy energy and
water conserving
appliances like dishwashers,
refrigerators and freezers.

Page | 22
Food Service 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes 2 Sometimes

The table presents the practices and perceptions of the respondents on Food Service. It
shows that the students and faculty members and office staffs share the same practices and
perceptions. They ”sometimes” perceive and practice all of the items under Food Service ( ~ x =2).
On the other hand, the utility staffs “never” practice “storing raw vegetables in reusable airtight
containers to prevent spoilage” (~ x =1) but they “always” practice “reusing large containers for
storage” (~ x =3) and “establishing a routine cleaning and maintenance schedule for all equipment”
(~
x =3). While the rest of the items under Food Service were “sometimes” practice by the group of
utility staff (~
x =2).
The data reveal that the groups of respondents (students, faculty and office staff and
utility staff) generally have the same practices and perceptions on Food Service (~ x =2), which
means that they “sometimes” practice and perceive measures on Food Service.

TABLE 11.1. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions of Respondents on Food Service
when grouped in terms of Demography

Demographic Group H-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and 26.250 .000
Office Staff vs. Utility Staff

Table 11.1 presents the difference on the practices and perceptions on food service
among groups of respondents. The table reveals that there is a statistically significant difference
on the practices and perceptions of the respondents on food service when grouped in terms of
demography: (H-26.250; p <0.05). This implies that when respondents are grouped
demographically, they have different practices and perceptions on food service.
It bears out the findings of Choi (2012) that staffs with expertise on foods play the most
significant role in food service.

TABLE 11.2. Difference in the Practices and Perceptions among Groups of Respondents on
Food Service

Demographic Group Z-value p-value

Students vs. Faculty and -4.881 .000
Office Staff
Students vs. Utility Staff -1.141 .254
Faculty and Office Staff vs. -2.141 .032
Utility Staff

Table 11.2 presents the difference in the practices and perceptions among the groups of
respondents on food service. The table reveals that the group of utility staff has significantly
higher perception on food service than the groups of students and faculty and office staff.

Result of Observation on Food Service

Page | 23
All throughout the 31 days observation, appliances were in good condition. They helped in
preventing the spoilage of raw materials for the food like the refrigerator.

Result of Interview on Food Service

Based on the interview we have conducted to selected respondents, they said that the
food service in the campus is quite good. The problem just lies to the utensils. To be more
specific, according to them the cups were not being washed well that you can smell from them
the soap used in washing. This points out that there is somewhat lack of cleanliness when it
comes to food service.
IV. Conclusion
The students, faculty and office staff and the utility staff of Isabela State University-
Cauayan Campus are aware that waste management is one of the major issues talk over in the
campus because of the poor practice toward waste management scheme.
The interview opened up the poor practices of selected respondents regarding the
different dimensions of waste management. The 31-day observation revealed the status of waste
management in the campus. A standardized questionnaire was used in the survey. Data were
analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics such as mode, frequency and
percentage, and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively with the aid of Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS).
Through the statistical tools used, it was shown that a significant difference exists
between the practice and perception among the groups of respondents toward hazardous
materials, laboratory waste, mold growth, water consumption, pest management and food
service. However, it was shown that no significant difference exists between the practice and
perception among the groups of respondents toward energy use, indoor air quality, solid waste
and building construction or renovation.

V. Recommendation
In line with the conclusion, the following are hereby recommended:
1. Conduct seminars regarding the different dimensions of waste management.
2. Establish organizations on waste management in all colleges so as to maintain the
cleanliness of the campus.
3. Implement policies that cover all the dimensions of waste management.
4. Additional equipment should be given to the utility staffs.
5. The Administration should hire utility staffs to add to the current number of workers in
the campus to ensure that cleanliness will be maintained.

Page | 24
References
Andrew DE, Anthony JG, Keith PW (2003) An in-depth study of the effects of socio-
economic conditions on household waste recycling practices. Waste Management & Research
21: 180–90. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Allwood, J. M., Ashby, M. F., Gutowski, T. G., & Worrell, E. (2010). Material
efficiency: A white paper. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(3), 362-381. Elsevier
B.V. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.11.002
Angell, L.C. and Klassen, R.D. (1999). Integrating environmental issues into the
mainstream: an agenda for research in operations management.
Journal of Operations Management, 17, 575–598.
Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, Aidonis D, et al. (2010a) Optimising reverse logistics
network to support policy-making in the case of electrical and electronic equipment. Waste
Management 30(12): 2592–2600.
Anschütz, J., Ijgosse, J., Scheinberg, A., 2004. Putting ISWM to Practice. WASTE,
Gouda, The Netherlands.
Aragonés-Beltrán P, Mendoza-Roca JA, Bes-Piá A, García, et al. (2009) Application of
multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical-chemical
treatment of textile wastewater. Journal of Hazardous Materials 164: 288–295.
Armijo de Vega, C., Ojeda Benítez, S., & Ramírez Barreto, M. E. (2008). Solid waste
characterization and recycling potential for a university campus. Waste management (New York,
N.Y.), 28, S21-6. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.03.022
Asase, M., Yanful, E.K., Mensah, M., Stanford, J., Amponsah, S., 2009. Comparison of
municipal solid waste management systems in Canada and Ghana: a case study of the cities of
London, Ontario, and Kumasi, Ghana. Journal of Waste Management 29, 2779–2786.
Atienza, Vella. 2008. “Breakthroughs in solid waste management: Lessons from selected
municipality and barangay in the Philippines,” Asian Review of Public Administration, XX (1-
2): 82-98 (January-December)
Banias G, Achillas Ch, Vlachokostas Ch, et al. (2010) Assessing multiple criteria for the
optimal location of a construction and demolition waste management facility. Building and
Environment 45(10): 2317–2326.
Barthorpe, F. (1995). Chipping away at the electronic heap. Professional Engineering, 8,
10–11.
Bottero M, Comino E and Riggio V (2011) Application of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process and the Analytic Network Process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment
systems. Environmental Modelling & Software 26(10): 1211–1224
Tai, J., Zhang, W., Che, Y., Feng, D., 2011. Municipal solid waste source-separated
collection in China: a comparative analysis. Journal of Waste Management 31, 1673–1682.

Page | 25
 Tseng M-L (2009) Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making
of municipal solid waste management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 156(1–4): 181–197
UN (United Nations), 2007. UN data: A world of information. Data CO2 emissions. New
York,USA.<http://data.un.org.Data.aspx?q=CO2+emissions&d=MDG&f=seriesRowID
%3a751> (accessed 14.03.11).

Page | 26