1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Section 55-56 of Republic Act 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act stipulates that the Philippine National Government in

coordination with Department of Education (DepEd) and other

educational institutions should conduct a continuing education and

information campaign on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices and

strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school curricula

at all extents, with particular emphasis on the theories and practices of

waste management principles like segregation at source, reduction,

recycling, reuse and composting, in order to promote environmental

awareness and action among the citizenry. This in turn promotes

growing awareness on SWM Practices by that of the general public.

Solid Waste Management (SWM) is the collection, transport or

disposal and treatment of waste materials (Paghasian, 2017). It relates to

materials produced through human activities, and the process generally

undertaken to endure its effects on health, environment and aesthetics.

Recognizing the effects of improper management, garbage crisis can be

prevented by practicing waste characterization and segregation at

source, proper collection and transfer, recycling, and composting as

mandated by the law (Aquino, et al., 2013). In view thereof, like growing

awareness, proper implementation should be given equal focus and

attention.
 2

Moreover, as our ecological environment from local setting to the

global village has been facing waste crisis due to a number of factors

attributed to it, Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices should be

strengthened (Pham, 2014; Choi, 2016).Further, awareness of Solid

Waste Management (SWM)practices created change on how people look

at garbage (Sarino, 2014). Awareness accompanied by participation is the

key for people to be involved in the waste management programs of the

community where effective and sustainable implementation of the proper

waste management practices could be achieved (Punongbayan, 2014).

In the same manner, it is important for our learners to be highly

aware and to properly implement SWM practices as the future citizens of

this planet as well actively participate in solving environmental related

problems as this is regarded a global concern. They foster potential roles

in addressing environmental problems as agents of change, future

custodians of the planet, and environment managers and developers

(Niekerk, 2014). Hence, waste prevention and public participation

through proper education with correct information are important factors

for future generations (Villanueva, 2013; Marello & Helwege, 2014).

In this connection, the researcher has decided to pursue this study

with the aim to determine the level of respondents‟ awareness and

extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in

District 2, Bayawan City Division. In addition, this study attempted to

find out whether or not Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

positively contributed to the community and the city as a whole.

 3

Statement of the Problem

The study aimed to determine the level of respondents‟

awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices in District 2 Public Elementary Schools of Bayawan City

Division for SY 2018-2019.

Specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of the following

variables:

a. Sex;

b. Size of school; and

c. School location?

2. What is the level of respondents‟ awareness on Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the following areas:

a. Segregation;

b. Reduce;

c. Reuse;

d. Recycle; and

e. Disposal?

3. What is the level of respondents‟ awareness on Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices according to aforementioned

variables?

4. What is the extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices according to aforementioned areas?

5. What is the extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices according to aforementioned variables?

 4

6. Is there a significant difference between the level of

awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices when the

respondents are grouped and compared according to the aforementioned

variables?

7. Is there a significant difference between the extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices when the

respondents are grouped and compared according to the aforementioned

variables?

8. Is there a significant relationship between the level of

respondents‟ awareness and the extent of implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices?

Hypotheses

In view of the preceding objectives, the following null hypotheses

were framed for testing.

1. There is no significant difference between the level of

awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices when the

respondents are grouped and compared according to the

aforementioned variables.

2. There is no significant difference between the extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices when the

respondents are grouped and compared according o the aforementioned

variables.

3. There is no significant relationship between the level of

respondents‟ awareness and the extent of implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM)Practices.

 5

Assumptions

The basic assumptions of the study are the following:

1. To some degree, the level of respondents‟ awareness on

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices according to the aforementioned

variables vary.

2. The respondents‟ level of awareness on Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices influence their implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices to a certain extent.

Study Variables, Indicators, and Categories

The selected variables are herein presented with their

corresponding indicators and categories.

Variables Indicators Categories

Sex This refers to the Male
respondents‟ biological
distinction. Female
Size of School This refers to the Smaller
categories of Public
Elementary Schools of Bigger
District 2, Bayawan
City Division.
School Location This refers to the Brgy. Banga
respective barangays
where the identified
Public Elementary Brgy. Nangka
Schools of Bayawan
City Division are
located or situated as Brgy. Malabugas
geographically
clustered by the local
government unit. Brgy. Pagatban
 6

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this investigation is anchored on the

Reasoned Action Theory developed by Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen

for the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

and the Theory of Planned Behavior by Icek Ajzen for the Extent of

Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices.

The Reasoned Action Theory which stressed the relationship

between behavioral intention and behavior. It argues that behavioral

intention precedes action. The behavioral intention is influenced by

one's attitude towards the action and subjective norms. The more

fervent is the intention, the more likely the behavior will be performed.

Reinforcing the theoretical statement above, the Theory of

Planned Behavior explains that human actions are determined by

person's intention which is influenced by his attitude in combination

with the subjective norm and perceived behavioral control.

Both theories provide a framework to help explain, understand,

and predict human behaviors when individual's involvement is

voluntary and self-controlled.

Linking these theories to the study, the researchers

hypothesized that level of pupils' awareness of the negative

consequences of indiscriminate disposal of waste can favorably

influence their attitude on how they can help to solve the wastes
 7

problem which will subsequently be manifested in their actions of

managing their waste properly at home and in school.

On the other hand, while it is true that human behavior may

be driven by individual‟s intention and attitude, it could also be

argued that self-interest can play a vital role in the decision-making

and acting. According to the Rational Choice Theoryof Cesare Beccaria,

individuals act with prudence and logic. The decision to act or not to

act is based on rational calculation, and the choice is made on

available options that will guarantee the greatest satisfaction or profit to

the individual. Meaning to say, individual human actions may also

be determined by self-interest based on the pleasure and profit

outcomes of doing or not doing.

Thus, the theory implies that proper waste management may

not always be altruistic rather it may be influenced by weighing its

cost and benefits. Relatedly, solid waste management awareness is an

environmental campaign which aims not only to educate people on the

consequence of creating and managing waste but also to form in them

the right attitude which will consequently motivate them to do desirable

practices for waste disposal at home, in school, and elsewhere.

Several studies have been conducted which linked responsible

environmental behavior with knowledge, attitudes, verbal commitment,

and sense of responsibility of the person sociodemography, political

attitudes, environmental knowledge and concern combined. Given the

 8

context, education is vital to the solid waste management program.

Educating people to waste management will help them understand

of the indiscriminate disposal of waste to the environment and

human health and empower them to act accordingly.

Along similar lines, environmental programs must be integral to

the school‟s educational mission. Active participation of members of the

academic community is important in the implementation of its

institutional programs for environmental protection and sustainable

development. Though recycling is the most visible, measurable, and

enforceable environmental practice in the campus, the educational

institutions must engage in waste reduction and reuse as effective

ways of reducing the impact of environmental problems

Cognizant of the significant role of education in solid waste

management, R.A. 9003 mandates Philippine learning institutions to

integrate into their educational activities the awareness and practices

of solid waste management for the environmental education of all

members of the academic community. The introduction or integration

of waste management concepts and themes through environmental

education in school at all extents will improve the understanding of

the members of the academic community on proper waste

management and more likely change their seemingly unfriendly waste

management behavior and practices.

 9

Conceptual Framework

In this study, the researcher took into consideration the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division.

The extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices is largely affected by the respondents‟ level of awareness

on SWM Practices.

The present study delineates independent and dependent

variables. It consists of two independent variables, the primary and

secondary. The primary independent variable is the level of awareness on

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of segregation,

reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal. The secondary independent variable

is the respondents‟ profile in terms of sex, size of school, and

school location. The dependent variable is the extent of implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices.

Assessment on the level of respondents‟ awareness on SWM

Practices was categorized into “very high”, “high”, “moderate”, “low”, and

“very low”. On the other hand, the categories on the assessment of the

extent of implementation of SWM Practices include “always”, “often”,

“sometimes”, “rarely”, and “almost never”.

Hence, the level of awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices was interpreted from very low to very high while the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices was interpreted from almost never to

always.
 1

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Level of Awareness on Extent of Implementation

Solid Waste of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Management (SWM)
Practices Practices

 Segregation  Segregation
 Reduce  Reduce
 Reuse  Reuse
 Recycle  Recycle
 Disposal  Disposal

Very High Always

Level High Often
Level Moderate Sometime
Level Low s Rarely
Level Almost Never

Figure 1

A Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Hypothesized Relationships

between Variables
 1

Scope of the Study

The main concern of the study is to determine the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division.

The study used the descriptive-correlational research design and a

self-made questionnaire. Three analytical scheme were used, the

descriptive, comparative and relational.

The respondents of the study were the Grade VI Pupils and

selected teachers of the different Public Elementary Schools of District 2,

Bayawan City Division.

For the data gathering procedure, the self-made questionnaire is

the main instrument to be used which undergone validation of experts

and reliability testing analysis.

Different statistical tools were used to quantify all problems such

as Frequency and Percentage for the description of the profile of the

respondents; Weighted Mean to determine the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in terms of segregation, reduce, reuse,

recycle, and disposal; Mean for the level of respondents‟ awareness and

extent implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

according to aforementioned variables; H Test and Mann Whitney U test to

determine the significant difference on the level of respondents‟

awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices when respondents are grouped and compared according to

the aforementioned variables; and Spearman Rank Correlation to determine

the relationship between the two variables.

 1

Significance of the Study

The researcher believes that the result of the study will benefit the
following personalities:
Bayawan City Division and Its Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Team Organizers and Program Implementers. The findings of the
study will give them necessary information which can in turn help
provide strategic input to the SWM Group on necessary plan of actions
towards the effective SWM program implementation in the different
Public Elementary Schools of Bayawan City Division to likely strengthen
practices in the entire Local Government Unit or sector.
School Heads and SWM Committee Members. The results of the
study will help them formulate contextualized and localized Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices to better address SWM problems
encountered by the learners in the school setting towards effective and
efficient practices in the extended community and ecological
environment.

Community Members. The findings of this study will strengthen

the premise that all methods of waste prevention and waste management
require public participation. Therefore, education is an important
component of Solid Waste Management for people to become active
participants in addressing the garbage issue. Education is when you
make people aware or provide them with correct information which is in
turn the primary role and function of the school, community and
Bayawan City Division.

Parents. The results of the study will help them become effective
partners of SWM Implementers to strengthen implementation of SWM
Practices at home and in the sociological setting.
 1

Teachers. The findings of the study will help them gain insights on
the level of awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on District 2 context and will be guided in
choosing ways and methods on how to promote growing awareness and
develop correct practices among the people as considered discernible to
maintain ecological balance in our environment.

Learners. The findings of this study will help them address

garbage crisis which can be prevented by practicing waste
characterization and segregation at source, proper collection and
transfer, recycling, and composting. It is indeed very important to learn
the correct methods of handling the waste most especially for our
children and youth or learners for that matter as they are regarded
future citizens of the planet.

Present Researcher. The findings of this study will be beneficial to

the present researcher as this will provide contemporary updates on the
status of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in one of the local
government units in the Philippines which is regarded as an important
landmark for the SWM Program due to the notable remarks of the
Sanitary Landfill of LGU-Bayawan, Negros Oriental.

Future Researchers. The findings of this study will benefit future

researchers as these will provide concrete basis on SWM practices
towards a better understanding of the topic both in depth and breadth
dimensions. In addition, it will become an additional reference from
existing pool of knowledge and information. Also, the findings will serve
as basis in the conduct of related studies to continually fill-in the gap of
existing research articles and literatures.
 1

Definition of Terms

For purposes of clarification and verification of the usage and

meaning, the terms of this study were conceptually and operationally

defined for facility of understanding:

Awareness. Conceptually, this term refers to the knowledge or

perception of a situation or fact and concern about and well-informed

interest in a particular situation or development (Oxford English

Dictionary, 2013).

Operationally, this term refers to the level of consciousness of the

respondents on Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices.

Disposal. This term refers to the act to place, distribute, or arrange

especially in an orderly way (Webster New World Dictionary, 2012).

In this study, this refers to the discharge, deposit, dumping, spilling,

leaking or placing of any solid waste into or in any land or disposal site.

Implementation. Conceptually, this term refers to the process of

putting a decision or plan into effect (Oxford English Dictionary, 2013).

Operationally, this term refers to the extent of execution of the

respondents on Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices or the

intensity of application in the vicinity.

Practices. This refers to the actual application or use of an idea,

belief, or method as opposed to theories about such application or use

(Oxford English Dictionary, 2013).

In this study, the term refers to the categories of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices such as segregation, reduce, reuse,

recycle, and disposal.

 1

Pupil. This term refers to person who is taught by another,

especially a schoolchild or student in relation to a teacher (Oxford

English Dictionary, 2013).

In this study, the term refers to the learners, Grade VI pupils, of

the Public Elementary Schools of District 2, Bayawan City Division.

Recycle. This term refers to the process of passing again through a

series of changes or treatments such as to process in order to regain

material for human use (The Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2010).

In this study, this term refers to the rescue of the resources that

were used to make another new product.

Reduce. This term refers to the process to diminish in size, amount,

extent, or number(The Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2010).

In this study, the term refers to the bringing down of the amount of

trash disposed by consciously buying items that generate a lot of trash.

Reuse. This term refers to use again especially in a different way or

after reclaiming or reprocessing (The Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2010).

In this study, this term refers to the process of recovering materials

intended for the same or different purpose without the alteration of

physical and chemical characteristics.

Segregation. This term refers to the separation for special

treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group (The

Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2010).

In this study, this term refers to sorting of different materials

found in solid waste in order to promote recycling and re-use of

resources and to reduce the volume of waste for collection and disposal.
 1

Sex. The term refers to the sum of the structural and functional

differences by which the male and female are distinguished (The

Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2010).

As used in this study, this term refers to a particular person‟s

biological distinction whether he is a male or she is a female.

Size. This term refers to the extensive dimensions or magnitude of

something(Oxford English Dictionary, 2013).

In this study, the term refers the categories of Public Elementary

Schools of District 2, Bayawan City Division, smaller or bigger.

Solid Waste Management Practices. This term refers to the

collecting, treating, and disposing of solid material that is discarded

because it has served its purpose or is no longer useful

(www.britannica.com).

Operationally, this refers to the discipline associated with the

control of generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport,

processing, and disposal of solid wastes.

Teacher. This term refers to a person who teaches, especially in a

school. (Oxford English Dictionary, 2013).

In this study, the term refers to the person teaching the Grade VI

pupils of the Public Elementary Schools of District 2, Bayawan City

Division.
 17

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

To suffice the findings of this study, the researcher provides the

following related conceptual and research literatures.

Conceptual Literature

Foreign

On Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

A number of studies throughout the world were conducted

focusing on the awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices.

It is this awareness on the individual level which can develop into

attitudes that will guide countries to sustainable development solutions

for environmental problems such as waste management (Niekerk, 2014).

Moreover, Hardeep et al. (2013), noted that the success of any solid

waste management plan rest on the people of the community.

Abdella and Balla (2013) who put emphasis on domestic Solid

Waste Management and its impact on human health and the

environment in Sharg El Neel, Khartoum State, Sudan, added that the

low educational background of the residents reflect their poor practices

and attitudes towards solid waste management.

Further, Massawe, et al. (2014) revealed that income and status of

employment which are products of the level of education are good

indicators to the degree of willingness and participation in SWM Practice.

In addition to this, Ahmad et al. (2015)stressed out the importance

of the subjects taken by students like science and other environmental

courses which include topics on the environment and solid waste

 1

management to help them understand the hazards of wastes to the

environment and human health and train them on practical ways to

reduce and manage their wastes at home and in the community.

This in turn develop in them awareness on Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices.

On Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Many developed and developing countries have committed to

establishing safe and efficient waste management techniques in their

countries, expecting to minimize the negative impacts of waste on the

environment. Norway, one of the richest countries in the world, is

expanding its waste management efforts in order to deal with its huge

quantity of waste. As a result, the country has set national waste targets,

the first being that “the total quantity of waste shall be considerably

lower than the economic growth,” as indicated in the national waste

strategy report (The Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency,

2013).However, effective solid waste management in many countries is

still a test to the governments, particularly to unindustrialized ones

(Othchere et al., 2014).

Rahmaddin et al. (2015) noted that one strategic approach to

address environmental problem is through solid waste management.

Waste management is needed to reduce or mitigate the mounting global

crisis on waste which endangers humanity, pollutes the

environment, and damages communities. In particular, solid waste

management is a form of waste control, often associated with

storage, collection, transport, process, and disposal of solid waste

 1

following quality standard of conservation, public health, engineering,

economics, and other environmental concerns.

Likewise, a number of universities implemented the “Clean as

You Go” (CLAYGO) policy to reinforce the curricular aspect and

further intensify environmental consciousness and response of

employees and students to waste problem in the campus. The

aforecited institutional initiatives aimed at forming all members of

the academic community "advocates of a sustainable environment"

(Ahmad et al., 2015).

Along similar lines, environmental programs must be integral to

the school‟s educational mission. Active participation of members of the

academic community is important in the implementation of its

institutional programs for environmental protection and sustainable

development. Though recycling is the most visible, measurable, and

enforceable environmental practice in the campus, the educational

institutions must engage in waste reduction and reuse as effective

ways of reducing the impact of environmental problems (Madrigal &

Oracion, 2018).

Hence, most studies on waste management are similarly focused

on the execution of waste management; that is to say, why the

management was introduced, how the management is implemented, who

is engaged in it, and what the management accomplishes (Minervini,

2013; Karre, 2013; Corvellec and Hultman, 2013; Schouten, Martin and

Tillotson, 2015; Gustafsson, Hjelmgren and Czarniawska, 2015).

 2

Local

On Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Awareness of solid waste management will create change on how

people look at garbage. People grew up thinking that garbage is garbage,

it should not be touched or one should not go near to it. They thought

before that all types of garbage should just be thrown in one container

(Sarino, 2014).

Villanueva (2013) said that education is an important component

of solid waste management that should be present to establish a good

program for the community.

Barloa et al. (2014) noted the inclusion of relevant topics–with

emphasis on proper SWM and other solid waste-issues–in the curriculum

of is recommended to promote awareness on environmental issues and

improve attitude of college students towards environmentally-sustainable

practices.

Given the context, education is vital to the solid waste

management program. Educating people to waste management will

help them understand of the indiscriminate disposal of waste to

the environment and human health and empower them to act

accordingly (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

Cognizant of the significant role of education in solid waste

management, R.A. 9003 mandates Philippine learning institutions to

integrate into their educational activities the awareness and practices

of solid waste management for the environmental education of all

members of the academic community. The introduction or integration

 2

of waste management concepts and themes through environmental

education in school at all levels will improve the understanding of the

members of the academic community on proper waste management

and more likely change their seemingly unfriendly waste management

behavior and practices (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

Furthermore, Amit and Malabarbas (2014) shared the findings that

there was significant relationship between the level of awareness of the

student-respondents in solid waste management in terms of their age,

gender, socio-economic status, except educational background; and

there was no significant relationship between the extent of participation

of the respondents in solid waste management in terms of their age and

socio-economic status but not to their gender and educational

qualification.

On Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Abocejo and Vivar (2015) indicated that there are a lot of human

activities that contribute to waste generation. These waste materials if

failed to be disposed in the proper manner and in the proper place create

a serious problem to humans and threat to nature. Moreover, Marello &

Helwege (2014) noted that in today‟s polluted world, learning the

correct methods of handling the waste generated has become essential.

Thus, Solid Waste Management plays a big role on the preservation of life

and nature as managing wastes has become a problem especially in highly

urbanized areas.

In addition, as Philippines is considered as the tiger economy of

Asia for its fast growth and development, this advancement comes
 2

together with problems of solid waste management. In connection to this,

former Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed into law

Republic Act (RA) 9003 which mandates Local Government Units to

implement policies to promote proper solid waste management through

establishing an ecological solid waste management program within their

jurisdictions and provide the necessary institutional mechanisms to

attain its objectives. This act is the most comprehensive piece of

government legislation and its enforcement to the LGU‟s emphasizes

the importance of minimizing waste by using techniques as recycling,

resource recovery, reuse, and composting (Abocejo and Vivar, 2015).

Moreover, Section 55-56 of Republic Act 9003 or The Ecological

Solid Waste Management Act stipulates that the national government in

coordination with Department of Education (DepED), Technical

Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA); Commission on

Higher Education (CHED) and Philippine Information Agency (PIA),

should conduct a continuing education and information campaign on

solid waste management and strengthen the integration of environmental

concerns in school curricula at all extents, with particular emphasis on

the theories and practices of waste management principles like

segregation at source, reduction, recycling, re-use and composting, in

order to promote environmental awareness and action among the

citizenry (Paghasian, 2017).

Fore Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices, here are some

main points given emphasis. Segregation at source is a solid waste

management practice of separating different materials found in solid

 2

waste at the point of origin in order to promote recycling and re-use of

resources and to reduce the volume of waste for collection and disposal

(Art2, Sec 3, RA 9003). Ambayic et al. (2013) added that reduction is

bringing down the amount of trash disposed by consciously buying items

that generate a lot of trash. It instills a culture of responsible waste

management among students while helping schools reduce their waste.

Furthermore, the solid waste generated within the area of jurisdiction

shall be characterized for initial source reduction and recycling element

of the local waste management plan. A separate container is required for

each type of waste for on-site collection properly marked as

“compostable”, “non-recyclable”, “recyclable” or “special waste”(Aquino et

al., 2013).Reuse is the process of recovering materials intended for the

same or different purpose without the alteration of physical and chemical

characteristics (Art. 2, Sec. 3, R.A 9003). When none of the 3Rs options

apply, then responsible disposal of the waste is required. One very

common irresponsible disposal of waste is littering (Paghasian,

2017).Equally-important is the-knowledge of waste quantities, for

calculating the-need for and the-size of waste-disposal-facilities, such-as

incinerators, landfills, and recycling-facilities. Knowledge of both; waste-

quantities and waste-composition is, therefore, vital for monitoring-

progress, towards the-best waste- management-option, in any

community (Osei-Mensah et al., 2014; Paghasian, 2017).

 2

Research Literature

Foreign

On Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

The study of Niekerk (2014) entitled “Waste management

behaviour: a case study of school children in Mpumalanga, South Africa”

showed that the children were obviously aware of concerns with waste

and waste management practices in their schools and local environment.

It was also apparent that the school children had an acute awareness

that poor waste management would have a negative impact on the

country as well as on them as the individual. This prominent awareness

was however not evident in the pupils‟ waste management

practices. Good waste management practices activities were minimal at

both the school setting and home environment.

Since school children are seen as one of the key agent of change to

work towards a more sustainable future, they should be engaged as

young as possible and given a quality array of continuous learning to

improve their knowledge on environmental problems such as poor waste

management. Improved knowledge would contribute to improved

environmental awareness and a pro-environmental attitude. The critical

recommendations of the study are that the South African Government

will have to intensify the research to better understand the needs of

children to environmental matters such as waste management.

The studyof Pham (2014) entitled “Design a Solid Waste

Management Course for Primary School focus on Reduce-Reuse-Recycle

Project: WastED – Export of Education, Waste Management Target

 2

market: Vietnam” is made up of theory sections and a product design

section. The theory sections carry two themes: primary pedagogy and

waste management. The primary pedagogy theme focuses on creative

teaching methods including group work and play & learn. The waste

management theme covers the reverse logistics theory, discusses the

basic definition of waste and reverse concepts, waste classification, 3Rs

of reduce-reuse-recycle, especially the four most common recycle

materials.

A Case Study of Oslo, Norway conducted by Choi (2016) entitled

“The Environmental Effectiveness of Solid Waste Management” looked

into the concept of environmental effectiveness and its four determinants

(regulatory structure, time, economic structure, and science).Thus, this

research concludes that, when it comes to environmental effectiveness, it

is obvious that the current waste management focuses on what they can

do given the context, instead of revolutionizing this context to improve

waste management, making more desirable methods.

A cross-sectional study conducted by Licy et al. (2013) entitled

“Awareness, Attitude, and Practice of School Students towards

Household Waste Management” showed that high school students

were more aware of the importance of waste management compared

to higher secondary students. Both groups lacked awareness of e-

waste and its disposal. The findings further indicated that students

demonstrated a positive attitude towards waste management. Also,

no significant difference was found in the awareness and practice of

students on waste management at home. The researcher also pointed

 2

out the need for waste management awareness to improve the practice

of waste management. Parents should also be given environmental

education during parent-teaching meetings or in community-based

programs.

Likewise, the study of Adeolu, Enesi & Adeolu (2014) on

Assessment of Secondary School Students‟ Knowledge, Attitude

and Practice Towards Waste Management in Ibadan, Oyo State,

Nigeriafound that the students had a relatively moderate extent of

knowledge, attitude, and practice of waste management. But the

evidence of those who used indiscriminate solid waste disposal

methods like open dumping and burning is still higher. The

findings also showed that students' sex, age, and class significantly

influenced their extent of awareness, knowledge, and practices of

waste management.

On Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Most studies on waste management are similarly focused on the

execution of waste management; that is to say, why the management was

introduced, how the management is implemented, who is engaged in it,

and what the management accomplishes (Minervini, 2013; Karre, 2013;

Corvellec and Hultman, 2013; Schouten, Martin and Tillotson, 2015;

Gustafsson, Hjelmgren and Czarniawska, 2015). There is also a tendency

to employ the comparative method to show the differences in

performance, development, outcomes and obstacles in waste governance,

between different countries (Campos, 2013; Taherzadeh and Rajendran,

2015).
 2

The finding of the study of Dondo et al. (2014) entitled “A Study of

the Extent Of Awareness and Practices of Solid Waste Management in

Chinhoyi, Urban, Zimbabwe” show that the majority of people in the

Chinhoyi urban community did not take solid waste disposal as their

responsibility but that of the municipality. Hence they were not doing

much to help the situation. Some communities had a negative attitude

towards the whole concept while a few were very supportive and willing

to engage in activities that promote behavior change on solid waste

disposal.

The results of the study of Rahmaddin et al. (2015) entitled

“Knowledge, Attitude, and Action of Community towards Waste

Management in River Bank of Martapura” indicated that the

community‟s knowledge, attitude, and action on waste management at

Martapura River Bank was in moderate extent, with attitude as the main

domain, followed by knowledge and action. Waste management problem

along the river was very important to be investigated due to the waste

problem which was caused by people‟s behavior who are carelessly

littering. People who lived at Martapura River Bank did not actively

participate in handling and managing the river waste. Thus, community‟s

knowledge, attitude, and action need to be studied further to improve

their awareness into better and responsible manner.

Abas and Wee (2014) in the article entitled “The Issues of Policy

Implementation on Solid Waste Management in Malaysia” revealed that

the rapid urbanization process in Malaysia has brought many people

migrate to the urban areas. Reflecting from this phenomenon, Malaysia

 2

has experiencing a transition of solid waste management due to the rapid

solid waste generation. The Enactment of Solid Waste Management and

Public Cleansing Act (Act 672) has been introduced and brought huge

transformation. Furthermore, the objective to give an insight for

developing countries like Malaysia towards effective policy

implementation on solid waste management through a good governance

practices. The issues and factors of ineffective policy implementation on

solid waste in Malaysia will be discussed briefly.

Results of the study of Roudbari et al. (2014) entitled “Design and

Implementation of Integrated Solid Wastes Management Pattern in

Industrial Zones, Case Study of Shahroud, Iran” showed that

implementation of pattern of separated collection, training programs,

capacity building, providing technical services, completing chain of

industries and strengthening the cooperation between industrial estate

management and industrial units could greatly reduce the waste

management problems.

Finally, Baldwin et al. (2016) in the study entitled “A Comparative

Analysis of Solid Waste Management in Developed, Developing and

Lesser Developed Countries” revealed that Solid waste (SW) management

is a challenge across the globe due to the increasing diversity of waste

characteristics and lack of effective implementation of consistent waste

policies accompanied by changing lifestyles, increased production

processes and rapid urbanization. To date, fewer papers have been

published in international literature on a comparative analysis of Solid

 2

Waste management in developed, developing and lesser developed

countries.

To fill that gap, this comparative review aims to analyze Solid

Waste management practices in lesser developed, developing and

developed countries, using existing data from 2005 to 2015, from major

scientific journals, Waste Management; Resources, Conservation and

Recycling; Journal of Environmental Management and Waste

Management and Research, covering both quantitative and qualitative

data to draw experiences from developed countries for improving Solid

Waste management efficiency in lesser developed and developing

countries.

The findings from the comparative review indicate that Solid

Waste management in lesser developed and developing countries is not

well established and inefficient. Key issues were identified around lack of

cooperation among stakeholders, institutional structural weaknesses,

lack of legislated recycling, ad hoc and uncoordinated approaches. This

paper provides the critical aspects that could be useful to policy- and

decision-makers when developing, designing, and making adjustments

and implementing efficient SW management systems in developing and

lesser developed countries.

 3

Local

On Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

The findings of the study of Paghasian (2017), “Awareness and

Practices on Solid Waste Management among College Students in

Mindanao State University Maigo School of Arts and Trades” showed that

the awareness on solid waste management of the students was high;

their practices in terms of segregation, reduce and recycle were good; and

their practices in terms of recycle and disposal were fair. The awareness

on solid waste management of the students had no influence on their

practices in terms of disposal however their awareness had affected their

practices specifically on segregation, reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Therefore, most of them were fully aware in the identification of

biodegradable from non-biodegradable and only few of them were

knowledgeable on Republic Act 9003.

In the study of Abocejo and Vivar (2015) entitled “Village-Extent

Solid Waste Management in Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines”, it concluded

that the awareness of the residents and business establishments in the

barangay about solid waste management is high. Thus, the practices and

compliance of residents indicates the knowledge and training they have

acquired.

Arabaca, et al. (2015) in their study entitled, “Level of

Environmental Considerations and Protection from Waste Problems at

Iligan City National High School, Iligan City, Philippines” recommended

that improved education, information and communication actions must

be undertaken and that these must be translated into the schools and
 3

students plans of activities, development agenda, and other relevant

undertakings. As a learning institution it is then the nature of the school

to provide transformational learning experiences that promote

environmentally sustainable action and that educator‟s role is to help

students to gain experiences from the classroom to foster new

generations of environmental leaders.

Magante (2013) in the study entitled, “The Disaster of Non-

Compliance to Solid Waste Management Act in the Philippines”

emphasized how the policy article aims to bring the public attention to a

critical environmental law and its serious implications on the fate of

human security. Also, the study presents the salient provisions of

RA9003 as well as the environmental dangers which actually resulted

from non-observance of the law. In addition, this policy brief hopes to

create awareness on environmental security and sustainable

development by heeding the lessons of undermining waste management.

Guarin, et al. (2018) in the study entitled, “Solid Waste

Management in Linamon, Lanao del Norte” revealed that the respondents

were highly concerned about waste management and willing to

participate in proper solid waste management, with attitudes towards

solid waste management as highly positive. Moreover, the researchers

recommend initiating educational campaigns for the general public to

raise awareness of the natural environment in order to fully understand

the term. Incorporate environmental education into school curriculum to

raise awareness and develop environmental attitudes in the large youth

community.
 3

Madrigal and Oracion (2018) in the study entitled, “Solid Waste

Management Awareness, Attitude, and Practices in a Philippine Catholic

Higher Education Institution” shared the major findings that the

respondents demonstrated a very high extent of awareness and attitude

and high extent of practice of solid waste management. A significant

difference was found in the awareness, attitude, and practices of

respondents when they were grouped according to status and religion.

Also, the findings established the relationship between awareness and

attitude on one hand and the extent of practice of solid waste

management. Awareness, attitudes, and practices were significantly

related to age and educational extent, except for sex which showed no

correlation with attitude and practices. Generally, this paper validated

how knowledge influences attitude that subsequently determines

behavior particularly in solid waste management as intervened by

appropriate environmental education.

On Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Magante (2013) in the study entitled, “The Disaster of Non-

Compliance to Solid Waste Management Act in the Philippines” put

emphasis that the reason of Republic Act or RA 9003 is beyond question.

The enactment of the law manifested the responsiveness of the Philippine

Government to emerging environmental concerns of waste reduction and

disposal. To ensure the effective implementation of RA 9003, the

necessary institutional mechanisms were created such as the National

Solid Waste Management Commission, and the Solid Waste Management

Boards in the LGUs. But more than the establishments of new

 3

bureaucratic machineries, which cost the government huge resources,

the purpose and intents of all these seem to remain on the drawing

board.

As indicated by Aquino, et al. (2013) in the study, “Ecological Solid

Waste Management Act: Environmental Protection Through Proper Solid

Waste Practices”, waste mismanagement has serious environmental

effects making the passage of the Republic Act (RA) 9003 or the

Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 a landmark

environmental legislation in the Philippines. The law was crafted in

response to the looming garbage problems in the country. RA 9003

declares the policy of the state in adopting a systematic, comprehensive

and ecological solid waste management program that ensures the

protection of public health and the environment and the proper

segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid

waste through the formulation and adoption of best environmental

practices.

Paghasian (2017) in the study entitled, “Awareness and Practices

on Solid Waste Management among College Students in Mindanao State

University Maigo School of Arts and Trades” found out that the students

had good practices on solid waste management in terms of segregation,

reduce and reuse and they had fair practices on recycling and proper

disposal. In other words, the college students of MSU-MSAT are

knowledgeable and mindful on solid waste management. These students

have an acceptable habit in segregating, reducing and reusing waste

materials while they fall short in recycling and disposing garbage.

 3

Arabaca, et al. (2015) in their study entitled, “Extent of

Environmental Considerations and Protection from Waste Problems at

Iligan City National High School, Iligan City, Philippines”, results showed

that in terms of school‟s general policy, environmental protection is part

of the mission and vision of the school but not pronounced. School‟s

decision –making is also guided by environmental sustainability though

it is not a specific mission of the school. In terms of general operations,

the school needs to plan for infrastructures in an environmental riendly

ways, reduce electrical, water, paper consumptions, and waste generated

in a day. The need to practice the 3Rs, segregation of waste into

biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and recyclable in the classrooms is

recommended and also for canteens not to use plastic materials as food

wrap. In terms of academic component it was recommended that the

school must integrate environmental awareness in all subject areas;

gather learning resources on environment for use of students and

teachers as well as to give cash incentives and recognition for the effort

done in implementing Solid Waste Management properly in school

(Arabaca et al., 2013).

The student-respondents perceived that the school is doing its best

to ensure environmental considerations and protection in its policy,

operations, and academic aspects. Solid waste management

implementation in the school is on the limelight and has been very

serious. Efforts are well-acted to provide solution and ensure maximum

participation on proper waste disposal through installation of waste bins

all over the campus, construction of Material Recovery Facility, and

 3

constant reminders among students and teachers through information

campaigns and other related activities. The school‟s extent of

environmental considerations and protection with regards to it spolicy,

operation, and academics were very satisfactory. However, the school

may take point of discussion on the environmental considerations and

protection not observed by the student-respondents to make sure that all

aspects are given equal priorities and importance. Thus, all necessary

conditions would be made to enhance environmental considerations and

protection and better serve all its stakeholders through a clean and safe

learning environment.

Abocejo and Vivar (2015) in the study, “Village-Extent Solid Waste

Management in Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines” examined the ordinances

and implementation enforced by the local government unit (LGU) and the

status of practices and compliance the residents in the barangay make

regarding solid waste management. This paper concluded that solid

waste management in Barangay Lahug implements solid waste

management through enforcing Cebu City Ordinance No. 2031 known as

Solid Waste Segregation.

The study of Punongbayan, et al. (2014) entitled “Waste

Management Practices of an Educational Institution” aimed to assess the

waste management practices of LPU-B. Specifically, it determined the

extent of effectiveness of Waste Management Practices of LPU-B in terms

of: collection strategies, disposal and recovery and processing of waste

materials; determined the problems encountered on waste disposal

practices tested the significant difference on Waste Management

 3

Practices in LPU-B and finally, proposed an action plan that will improve

the Waste Management Practices of LPU-B. The researchers concluded

that waste management practices of LPU-B was effective in terms of

collection, disposable, recovery and processing as perceived by the

respondents. Problems occurred specifically that disposal areas of waste

materials were not strategically located. Moreover, means of recovering

and reusing such waste were not strictly implemented.

Canete, et al. (2013) in the study entitled “Policy implementation of

the Republic Act (RA) No. 9003 in the Philippines: A Case study of Cebu

City” explored the implementation process, innovative actions taken by

the Cebu City Government in implementing the national mandate at local

extent and identifies the factors that influence the policy implementation.

The findings suggest that the impacts of the national mandate can be

achieved if the LGUs have the high degree of political commitment,

planning and development of effective local strategies in a collaborative

manner to meet with local conditions, partnership building with other

stakeholders, capacity development, adequate financing and incentives,

and in the close monitoring and evaluation of performance.

Ragma and Rulloda (2017) in the study entitled “Implementation of

the Solid Waste Management Ordinance” found out that there is a

moderate implementation. Also, it revealed that collection and

transportation of waste came out to be the most implemented among the

given indicators.
 3

Synthesis

One strategic approach to address environmental problem is

through solid waste management. In the same manner, the extent of

individual awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

dictates the extent of implementation of the community members

towards the development of sustainable solutions for environmental

problems.

A number of factors have been given emphasis for the success of

any solid waste management plan like educational background, income,

and status of employment which are products of the extent of education

serving as good indicators to the degree of willingness and participation

in SWM projects. In the context of educational institutions, sex, size of

school, and school location are among the factors to be considered in

examining the extent of awareness and extent of implementation of SWM

Practices. Hence, our learners as future custodians of the planet should

be taught of practical ways to reduce and manage wastes.

Along similar lines, environmental programs must be integral to

the school‟s educational mission. Active participation of members of the

academic community is important in the implementation of its

institutional programs for environmental protection and sustainable

development. Though recycling is the most visible, measurable, and

enforceable environmental practice in the school setting, educational

institutions must engage in waste reduction and reuse as effective

ways of reducing the impact of environmental problems.

In view thereof, education is an important component of solid

waste management that should be present to establish a good program

 3

for the community.The inclusion of relevant topics–with emphasis on

proper SWM and other solid wasteissuesin the curriculum is

recommended to promote awareness on environmental issues and

improve attitude of learners towards environmentally-sustainable

practices.

Cognizant of the significant role of education in solid waste

management, R.A. 9003 mandates Philippine learning institutions to

integrate into their educational activities the awareness and practices

of solid waste management for the environmental education of all

members of the academic community. The introduction or integration

of waste management concepts and themes through environmental

education in school at all extents will improve the understanding of

the members of the academic community on proper waste

management and more likely change their seemingly unfriendly waste

management behavior and practices of waste management principles

like segregation at source, reduction, recycling, re-use and composting,

in order to promote environmental awareness and action among the

citizenry.

Since school children are seen as one of the key agent of change to

work towards a more sustainable future, they should be engaged as

young as possible and given a quality array of continuous learning to

improve their knowledge on environmental problems such as poor waste

management. Improved knowledge would contribute to improved

environmental awareness and a pro-environmental attitude. Hence, this

study focuses on the Extent of Awareness and Extent of Implementation

of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City

Division.
 39

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the research design, locale of the study,

respondents of the study, data gathering instrument, validity and

reliability of the research instrument, data gathering procedure,

analytical schemes and statistical tools.

Research Design

The focus of this study is to determine the level of respondents‟

awareness in relation to the extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices.

Accordingly, the study utilized the descriptive and correlational

types of research design which were used to relate the two variables. This

method provides a way to describe the nature of the situation as it exists

at the time of the study. According to Gonzales and Calderon (2015),

descriptive research deals with the present condition. The purpose is to

find new truth. The truth may have different forms such as increased

quantity of knowledge, a new generation or a new “law”, an increased

insight into factors which are operating, the discovery of a new

relationship, a more accurate information of the problem to be solved.

In this study, the researcher determined the level of respondents‟

awareness and the extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices. Thus, the descriptive and correlational methods were

the appropriate designs for the study.

 4

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted in District 2, Bayawan City Division.

Covering the four (4) barangays of LGU-Bayawan City such as Brgy.

Banga, Brgy. Malabugas, Brgy. Nangka, and Barangay Pagatban,

District 2, Bayawan City Division is composed of six (6) Public

Elementary Schools namely Banga Central School,Bayawan City Science

and Technology Education Center (BCSTEC) Elementary School, Buli-

Buli Elementary School, Cansig-id Elementary School, Telesforo

Gargantiel Memorial Elementary School, Dean Felix Gaudiel Memorial

Elementary School, and H. Bido Jordan Memorial Elementary School.

These schools are further categorized into smaller and bigger sizes

depending on its school population or number of learners enrolled.

Furthermore, like all the Districts of Bayawan City Division from

District 1 to 10, District 2 Public Elementary Schools actively participate

in the Search for the Most Outstanding SWM Implementor. This program

is organized by the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Team Organizers

and Program Implementers that worked hand-in-hand in partnership

with the LGU-Bayawan Solid Waste Management Department and/or

City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) to monitor

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices Implementation in the

different Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.

At present, District 2 is one of the most active districts in Bayawan

City Division especially in the organization and implementation of

different programs, activities and projects to likely promote the primary

 4

goals and functions of the Department of Education as a learner-

centered public institution.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study for both the level of awareness and

the extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices were the 81 out of a total of 101 teachers and 189 out of a total

of 359 Grade VI Pupils of the different Public Elementary Schools of

District 2, Bayawan City Division during the school year 2018-2019.

The table below presents the number of respondents and the

distribution of respondents per barangay and public elementary school.

Table 1
Distribution of the Respondents on Awareness and Implementation
of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Teachers Students

Barangay Schools N n % N n %

Banga Central
23 18 22.22 82 43 22.75
School
BCSTEC
9 7 8.64 36 19 10.05
Elementary School
Banga
Buli-Buli
11 9 11.11 35 18 9.52
Elementary School
Cansig-id
9 7 8.64 28 15 7.94
Elementary School
Malabugas Telesforo
Gargantiel Mem. 23 19 23.46 105 55 29.10
Elem. School
Nangka Dean Felix Gaudiel
11 9 11.11 28 15 7.94
Mem. Elem. School
Pagatban H.Bido Jordan
15 12 14.82 45 24 12.70
Mem.Elem.School

TOTAL 101 81 100% 359 189 100%

 4

Data Gathering Instrument

To determine the level of respondents‟ awareness and extent

of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices, a self-made

questionnaire was used.

Part I aimed to gather personal information of the respondents

based on the selected variables such as sex, size of school, and school

location. The second part is the questionnaire proper regarding the level

of respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid

Waste Management(SWM) Practices in terms of the following areas:

segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal. The items in the

questionnaire were taken from the researcher‟s reading of books,

journals, electronic media and conducted researches.

The following is the score range and the qualitative description for

the level of respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices.

Score Range Responses Description Description

4.24 – 5.04 Always Very High Level Very Great Extent
3.43 – 4.23 Often High Level Great Extent
2.62 – 3.42 Sometimes Moderate Level Moderate Extent
1.81 - 2.61 Rarely Low Level Low Extent
1.00 - 1.80 Almost Never Very Low Level Very Low Extent
The Validity of the Research Instrument

Validity according to Gonzales and Calderon (2015) is the degree to

which a test measures what it really purports to measure. It deals with

the relationship of the data obtained to the nature of the variables being

studied.
 4

To validate the instrument of this study, a face and content

validation was used. The items in the questionnaire were presented to

the three experts respectively from the field of research, education

department and Solid Waste Management (SWM) of the Local

Government Unit. The first validator is a Supervising Environmental

Management Specialist IV of Bayawan City‟s Environmnental

and Natural Resources. The second one is a school head of the winning

school in the 2018 Search for the Most Innovative School in the

Implementation of School-Based Solid Waste Management. The other one

is the City Environmental and natural Resources Officer. The

suggestions and recommendations of these experts were incorporated in

the final copy of the questionnaire.

The content of the questionnaire was further checked in

congruence to the content of books, articles, journals and electronic

sources related to the study. The modifications of the survey instrument

will be based on the review of related literature and the specific context of

the study.

The result of the validation of the research instrument used the

criteria developed by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates was 4.88

which shows that the validity of the research instrument was excellent.
 4

The Reliability of the Research Instrument

Reliability is the inference from a sample to the population. In

addition, it is the degree of consistency and precision that a measuring

instrument demonstrates to produce result (Gonzales and Calderon,

2015).

In this study, the research instrument was subjected to reliability

testing with the use of Cronbach Alpha. The Cronbach Alpha is used

whenever the researcher has items that are not scored simply as right or

wrong (Carlson, 2009). The Cronbach Alpha formula is as follows:

𝛼= N. c
v + (N − 1 ). c

Where: N = Number of items

c = Average inter-item covariance among the items
v = Average variance
For the instruments to be reliable, it should be within the very high

range of correlation. Thirty respondents from District 1Public Elementary

Schools of Bayawan City Division were used as dry-run respondents for

this purpose.

The computed reliability value for this study is 0957. According to

Carlson (2009), a coefficient of 0.70 or higher indicates high reliability.

This means that the research instrument developed by the researcher

was reliable to a very high degree.

Interpretation for reliability is as follows:

+/- .10 to +/- .39 : low

+/- .40 to +/- .69 : moderate
+/- .70 to +/- 1.00 : high
 4

Data Gathering Procedure

After the research title was approved by the Thesis Committee

headed by the Director of the Graduate School of STI West Negros

University and the validity and reliability of the instrument were

established, the researcher asked permission from the concerned

authorities, and secure the necessary endorsements before

administering the questionnaires to gather the needed data.

A letter of permission to conduct the study was given to the

Schools Division Superintendent of the Division of Bayawan City

requesting permission to allow the researcher to conduct the study in the

different Public Elementary Schools of District 2. The adviser of the

researcher endorsed the letter. Upon approval, copies of the approved

letter were given to the assigned Public Schools District Supervisor and

also to the school heads, SWM Coordinators, and teachers of the

participating schools to allow the researcher to administer the

questionnaire to the identified research respondents.

Hence, copies of questionnaires were reproduced and distributed

to the respondents and were personally distributed by the researcher

which enabled him to explain the purpose of the study. The

accomplished questionnaires were retrieved immediately after every

administration and as soon as the respondents have answered all the

required information. The respondents were further assured that their

answers will be dealt with strict confidentiality.

 4

Analytical Schemes

This study employed three analytical schemes based on the

research objectives which are descriptive, comparative, and relational.

Objective 1 used the descriptive analytical scheme. Descriptive

analytical scheme is appropriate in determining the profile of the

respondents.

Objective 2 & 3 likewise used the descriptive analytical scheme.

Descriptive analytical scheme is appropriate in determining the level of

respondents‟ awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices.

Objective 4 & 5 likewise used the descriptive analytical scheme.

Descriptive analytical scheme is appropriate in determining the extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices.

Objective 6 & 7 required the use of comparative analytical scheme.

Comparative analytical scheme is appropriate in determining whether or

not significant difference exists between the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices when they are grouped and compared

according to the variables of sex, size of school, and school location.

Objective 8 used the relational analytical scheme. Relational

analytical scheme is appropriate in determining whether significant

relationship exists between the level of respondents‟ awareness

and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices.
 4

Statistical Tools

The data gathered were processed statistically using the Statistical

Package for Social Science (SPSS). These were statistically analyzed to

answer the specific objectives of the study and to test the hypotheses

presented in Chapter I.

Objective 1 used the frequency count and percentage to determine

the profile of the respondents in terms sex, size of school, and school

location. Frequency according to De Belen and Feliciano (2015), refers to

the number of times a certain score appears in the distribution. It is

determined by counting the tally marks for each category of item. The

frequency of a value is an important incremental step in the statistical

step in the statistical processing of data set. The relative frequency of

value is the proportion of all observations in the data set or category with

that value. However, the number of responses or observations for each

value of category is easier to understand when it is presented in

percentage. The summary of data through frequency distribution table

presents the number of observations or responses for each category in

percentages. To get the percentage, divide the frequency by the total

number of results and multiply by 100.

Objective 2 & 3 which were to determine the level of awareness on

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices utilized the mean. According

to Broto (2011), mean is the most appropriate tool to measure the central

tendency of an object of measure. It is a descriptive statistics (De Belen

 4

et al., 2015) that summarizes the center of a range of values (responses)

in each condition and dividing them by the number of score or values

(responses).

Objective 4 & 5 which were to determine the extent of respondents‟

implementation on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices utilized the

mean.

Objective 6 & 7 which were to determine the significant difference

on the level of respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the aforementioned

variables, H Test, Mann Whitney U Test were used at 0.05 extent of

significance.

The Mann-Whitney U-test is a statistical comparison of the mean.

The U test is a member of the bigger group of independence tests.

Dependence tests assume that the variables in the analysis can be split

into independent and dependent variables. Dependence tests that

compare the mean scores of an independent and a dependent variable

are caused by the independent variable which is also called factor

because the factors splits the sample into or more groups also called

factor steps.

The test is also used with two independent samples if the data are

at least ordinal: it is an alternative to the t-test without the

latter‟s limiting assumptions. When the larger of the two samples is 20

or less,
 4

there are special tables for interpreting U; when the larger sample

exceeds 20, a normal curve approximation was used.

In calculating the U test, treat all observations in combined fashion

and rank them, algebraically, from the smallest to the largest. The largest

negative score receives the lowest rank. In case of ties, assign the average

rank as in other tests. With this test, you can also test samples that are

unequal. After the ranking, the rank values for each sample are totaled

(Laurentina et al., 2010).

To test whether the null hypotheses was accepted or rejected

according to Bluman (2014), the null hypothesis should be rejected if the

p-value is less than or equal to 0.05 extent of significant, and the null

hypothesis should be accepted if the p-value is greater than 0.05 extent

of significance.

Objective 8 which were to determine whether or not significant

relationship exists between the level of respondents‟ awareness

and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices used the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient.

 50

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter discussed the analysis and interpretation of the data

gathered from the respondents. It can be gleaned from the succeeding

presentations the significant studies of various researchers as they have

reinforced, substantiated and/or negated the findings of this study. This

elaborately and articulately presented the specific questions earlier

stated.

Profile of the Respondents

The first objective of this study was to present the profile of the

respondents according to selected variables.

Table 2 presents the profile of the teachers and the students

according to the selected variables, namely: sex, size of school, and

school location.

With regards to sex, male and female respondents were included in

the study. Of the 81 teacher-respondents, 5 are male teachers who

comprise the 6.2 percent of the population while 76 are female which

comprise the 93.8 percent of the population. It can be gleaned from the

results that there are more female respondents than the males. The

findings only prove that the females outnumber the males sex simply

because of the nature of the work of the teaching profession. On the

other hand, of 189 student respondents, 87 are male students who

compose the 46 percent while 102 are female which comprise the 54

percent of the population. In these findings, it can be gleaned that the

 51

male respondents are of almost the same percentage of the female

respondents.

Size of school, meanwhile, was categorized into smaller and bigger

schools. For teacher-respondents, 44 teachers or 54.3 percent of the

population are teaching in smaller schools while 37 teachers or 45.7

percentage delivering instructions in bigger schools. Also, for student-

respondents, 91 or 48.1 percent of the population are studying in smaller

schools while 98 or 51.9 percent of the students are attending bigger

schools. This simply suggests that like some schools, districts or

divisions, nearly 50 percent of the research respondents, teachers and

students, represent both the smaller and bigger sizes of schools of the

population.

For the school location, it was arranged through barangays or

geographical locations. The table shows that 41 teacher-respondents or

50.6 percent are teaching in schools situated in Brgy. Banga while 94 or

49.7 percent of the students are attending the same schools. Also, 19

teachers or 23.5 percent of the respondents are delivering instructions

and 56 students or 29.6 percent of the respondents are studying in

schools located in Barangay Malabugas. Furthermore, 9 or 11.1 percent

of the teacher-respondents and 15 or 7.9 percent of the student-

respondents are attending school within Barangay Nangka. Moreover, for

the school located in Brgy. Pagatban, 12 or 14.8 percent are teacher-

respondents while 24 or 21.7 percent of the population are students.

 52

Table 2

Profile of the Respondents in Terms of the Variables

Variables Categories Teachers Students

n % n %
1. Sex Male 5 6.2 87 46
Female 76 93.8 102 54
2. Size of School Smaller 44 54.3 91 48.1
Bigger 37 45.7 98 51.9
3. School Location Banga 41 50.6 94 49.7
Malabugas 19 23.5 56 29.6
Nangka 9 11.1 15 7.9
Pagatban 12 14.8 24 12.7

Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices in terms of the Areas

The level of respondent‟ awareness on Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices according to the areas as perceived by teachers and

students respectfully resorted to the overall mean scores of 4.55 and

4.53 interpreted as “very high” level.

When items were taken individually, area of segregation obtained

the highest mean score with 4.86 for teachers and 4.80 for students

categorized as “very high” level. There is only a slight difference of 0.06

with the teachers‟ awareness with that of the students. The result simply

suggests that there is a high transfer of learning from the teachers to the

students on the area of segregation as an SWM practice. The results

further simply proven the importance of the subjects taken by the

students like science and other environmental courses which include

 53

topics of the environment and solid waste management in its curricular

aspects to further intensify environmental consciousness (Ahmad et al.,

2015).

On the area of reduce, both teachers and students demonstrated

“very high” level of awareness with overall mean scores of 4.66 and 4.48

respectively. However, from among the indicators in the area of reduce,

students demonstrate only “high” level of awareness on indicator 1 on

“borrowing, sharing, and/or renting things that are needed occasionally”

as compared to “very high” level of awareness on the rest of the practices.

This can be attributed to the situations needed occasionally where

students find it hard to borrow from others or share things to others as

well as rent things themselves due to being economically-challenged or

the lack of financial resources.

On the area of reuse, on the other hand, both of the respondents

displayed “very high” level of awareness with 4.60 and 4.77 mean

respectively for the teachers and students. For recycle, both of the

respondents also displayed “very high” level of awareness with 4.43 for

the teachers and 4.63 for the students. A slight difference of 0.17 on

reuse and 0.20 on recycle can be noted between the respondents as the

students displayed higher level of awareness on both areas than the

teachers. This can be attributed that the students realize more its value

as they have the greater needs to reuse and recycle things for future use

or to be economically-wise and highly aware on the importance of these

resources to aid their daily school needs.

 54

Meanwhile, for the area of disposal, the respondents both

demonstrate “very high” level of awareness with 4.17 for the teachers and

4.00 for the students. Hence, educating people to waste management

will help them understand of the indiscriminate disposal of waste

to the environment and human health and empower them to act

accordingly (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

Table 3
Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices in terms of the Areas
Areas Teachers Students
Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation of biodegradable
(paper, banana peels,
cardboard, food wastes,
Very High Very High
leaves, twigs, and vegetables) 4.88
Level
4.90
Level
and non-biodegradable (plastic
toys, glass, steel, rubber)
wastes at school.
2. Separation of recyclable wastes
(paper, cardboard, plastic bottles)
from non-recyclable or residuals Very High Very High
4.83 4.81
which have no potential for reuse Level Level
and recycling (sando bags,
napkins, diapers, ball pens, etc.)
3. Separation of non-harmful wastes
from toxic and hazardous wastes
Very High Very High
such as pentel pens, laboratory 4.85 4.77
Level Level
chemicals, ink, cell batteries and
others.
4. Separation and segregation of
Very High Very High
garbage in different 4.91 4.85
Level Level
containers.
5. Segregation of recyclable items Very High Very High
4.85 4.65
for collection. Level Level
Mean Very High Very High
4.86 4.80
Level Level
Reduce
1. Borrowing, sharing, and/or
Very High
renting things that are needed High level
4.27 Level 3.93
occasionally.
2. Buying only what is needed so that
Very High Very High
one will not end up throwing away
4.65 Level 4.43 Level
extra food.
3. Packing lunch in reusable Very High Very High
 55

lunchbox so that one cannot buy 4.73 Level 4.70 Level

wrapped/packed food at school
4. Bring water in reusable water
Very High Very High
bottles than buying water in one
4.88 Level 4.61 Level
used plastic bottles at the school.
5. Being cautious and responsible to Very High Very High
4.79
every waste one produce. Level 4.72 Level
Mean Very High Very High
4.66 4.48
Level Level
Reuse
1. Reusing old materials than buying Very High Very High
a new one. 4.52 Level 4.79 Level
2. Keeping those unfilled papers and Very High Very High
using it as scratch. 4.58 Level 4.72 Level
3. Reusing grocery bags. 4.68 Very High Very High
4.77
Level Level
4. Reusing washable food containers. Very High Very High
4.65 4.92
Level Level
5. Reusing scrap paper into memo Very High Very High
pads. 4.59 Level 4.64 Level
Mean 4.60 Very High Very High
4.77
Level Level
Recycle
1. Redesigning waste materials into a Very High Very High
new product. 4.31 Level 4.54 Level
2. Making decors out of plastic
Very High Very High
wrappers and other colorful waste
4.30 Level 4.58 Level
materials.
3. Promoting the importance of
Very High Very High
recycling. 4.72
Level 4.80 Level
4. Initiating income-generating Very High Very High
activities out of waste materials. 4.41 Level 4.66 Level
5. Using recycled products out of
Very High Very High
redesigned waste materials. 4.43
Level 4.56 Level
Mean 4.43 Very High Very High
4.63
Level Level
Disposal
1. Throwing and leaving of garbage
3.81 High Level 4.06 High Level
anywhere.
2. Burning of waste materials. 3.94
High Level 3.79 High Level
3. Throwing of waste materials in
High Level High Level
common open dumps. 4.20 3.58
4. Disposal of biodegradable wastes Very High Very High
into a compost pit. 4.89 Level 4.88 Level
5.Disposal of hazardous/ toxic/special
wastes such as laboratory leftover
3.99 High Level High Level
(chemicals) or electronic waste in any 3.69
garbage container.
Mean 4.17 High Level 4.00 High Level
4.55 Very High Very High
Overall Mean Level 4.53 Level
 56

Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in

terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According to the Sex

Table 4 indicates the level of respondents‟ awareness on

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when

they are grouped according to sex, male or female. Data obtained an

overall mean score of 4.52 interpreted as “very high” level of awareness

for the male respondents. In the same manner that the female

respondents, an overall mean score of 4.55 were shown which also

belong to the “very high” level of awareness.

The table showed that female respondents demonstrate higher

level of awareness on both the areas of segregation and reduce with 4.83

mean score for females compared to 4.79 for males in area of segregation

while 4.55 mean score for females on the area of reduce while 4.51 for

the males on the same area. On the other hand, males displayed higher

level of awareness on the areas of reuse and recycle than female

counterparts. A slight difference of 0.05 for reuse with 4.75 for males and

4.70 for females while in the area of recycle0.09 difference with 4.63 for

males and 4.54 for females were noted. On disposal on the other hand,

only “high” level of awareness was displayed by the respondents with

3.91 for the males and 4.12 on its female counterparts. This is in

affirmation to the statement of Barloa et al. (2014) when he indicated the

inclusion of relevant topics with emphasis on proper SWM and other

solid waste issues in the curriculum which is therefore recommended to

promote awareness on environment issues and improve attitude

towards environmentally-sustainable practices.

 57

Like what is shown in the preceding table, in the area of disposal,

only in indicator number 3 “disposal of biodegradable wastes into a

compost pit” has the respondents shown “very high” level of awareness

compared to the rest of the items which can be attributed on how

awareness on solid waste management will create change in how people

look at garbage as they thought before that all types of garbage should

just be thrown in one container (Sarino, 2014).

Table 4
Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According to the Sex
Areas Sex
Male Female
Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation of biodegradable
(paper, banana peels,
cardboard, food wastes, leaves,
Very High Very High
twigs, and vegetables) and 4.87
Level 4.90 Level
non-biodegradable (plastic
toys, glass, steel, rubber)
wastes at school.
2. Separation of recyclable wastes
(paper, cardboard, plastic
bottles) from non-recyclable or
Very High Very High
residuals which have no 4.77 4.84
Level Level
potential for reuse and
recycling (sando bags, nap-
kins, diapers, ball pens, etc. )
3. Separation of non-harmful
wastes from toxic and hazar-
Very High Very High
dous wastes such as pentel 4.73 4.83
Level Level
pens, laboratory chemicals,
ink, cell batteries and others.
4. Separation and segregation of Very High Very High
4.87 4.87
garbage in different Level Level
containers.
5. Segregation of recyclable items Very High Very High
4.70 4.72
for collection. Level Level
Mean Very High Very High
4.79 4.83
Level Level
Reduce
1. Borrowing, sharing, and/or
renting things that are needed 3.99 High Level High Level
4.06
occasionally.
2. Buying only what is needed so
Very High Very High
that one will not end up 4.46 4.52
Level Level
throwing away extra food.
 58

3. Packing lunch in reusable

lunchbox so that one cannot Very High Very High
buy wrapped/packed food 4.67 Level 4.72 Level
at
school.
4. Bring water in reusable water
bottles than buying water in 4.67 Very High 4.70 Very High
one used plastic bottles at the Level Level
school.
5. Being cautious and responsible Very High Very High
to every waste one produce. 4.74 Level 4.74 Level
Mean Very High Very High
4.51 4.55
Level Level
Reuse
1. Reusing old materials than Very High Very High
buying a new one. 4.79 Level 4.67 Level
2. Keeping those unfilled papers Very High Very High
and using it as scratch. 4.66 Level 4.69 Level
Very High Very High
3. Reusing grocery bags. 4.73 Level 4.75 Level
4. Reusing washable food Very High Very High
containers. 4.89 Level 4.81 Level
5. Reusing scrap paper into memo 4.67 Very High 4.60 Very High
pads. Level Level
Very High Very High
Mean 4.75 4.70
Level Level
Recycle
1. Redesigning waste materials Very High Very High
into a new product. 4.54 Level 4.43 Level
2. Making decors out of plastic
Very High Very High
wrappers and other colorful waste 4.55 4.67
Level Level
materials.
3. Promoting the importance of Very High Very High
recycling. 4.83 Level 4.75 Level
4. Initiating income-generating Very High Very High
activities out of waste materials. 4.68 Level 4.53 Level
5. Using recycled products out of Very High Very High
redesigned waste materials. 4.54 Level 4.51 Level
Very High Very High
Mean 4.63 4.54
Level Level
Disposal
1. Throwing and leaving of garbage
anywhere. High Level High Level
3.95 4.01
2. Burning of waste materials. 3.63 High Level 3.94 High Level
3. Throwing of waste materials in
common open dumps. High Level High Level
3.48 3.92
4. Disposal of biodegradable wastes Very High Very High
4.89
into a compost pit. 4.86 Level Level
5. Disposal of hazardous/
toxic/special wastes such as
laboratory leftover (chemicals) or 3.64 High Level 3.85 High Level
electronic waste in any garbage
container.
Mean 3.91 High Level 4.12 High Level
Very High Very High
Overall Mean 4.52 Level 4.55 Level
 59

Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According
to the Size of School

Data gathered on the level of respondents‟ awareness on

Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices in terms of the areas as perceived

by the teachers and students when they are grouped according to the size

of the school, smaller or bigger.

As reflected in Table 5, an overall mean score of 4.44 and 4.64

were respectively displayed by smaller and bigger schools which both

obtained “very high” level of awareness for both of the teachers and

students. It implied that regardless of the size of schools, education as

the primary purpose of schools and institutions is an important

component of solid waste management that should be present to

establish a good program in the community whether it is small or big

(Villanueva,2013).

Furthermore, only the area of disposal with 3.68 and 4.42 mean

scores as perceived respectively by teachers and students attending

smaller schools displayed the “high” level of awareness compared to the

rest of the items. This can be attributed to the fact given by Sarino (2014)

that people grew up thinking that garbage is garbage, it should not be

touched or one should go near it and as they thought that all types of

garbage should be thrown in one container. This is where Madrigal and

Oracion (2018) emphasized the vital role of education in solid waste

management program like helping them understand that indiscriminate

disposal of waste to environment and empower them to act accordingly.

 60

Table 5
Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According to the
Size of School
Areas Size of School
Smaller Bigger
Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation of biodegradable
(paper, banana peels, cardboard,
food wastes, leaves, twigs and
Very High Very High
vegetables) and non- 4.89 4.90
Level Level
biodegradable (plastic toys,
glass, steel, rubber) wastes at
school.
2. Separation of recyclable
wastes (paper, cardboard,
plastic bottles) from non-
Very High Very High
recyclable or residuals which 4.82 4.81
Level Level
have no potential for reuse and
recycling
(sando bags, napkins, diapers,
ball pens, etc. )
3. Separation of non-harmful
wastes from toxic and hazardous
Very High Very High
wastes such as pentel pens, 4.74 4.85
Level Level
laboratory chemicals, ink, cell
batteries and others.
4. Separation and segregation of Very High Very High
garbage in different containers. 4.88 Level 4.86 Level
5. Segregation of recyclable Very High Very High
items for collection. 4.79 Level 4.64 Level
Very High Very High
Mean 4.82 4.81
Level Level
Reduce
1. Borrowing, sharing, and/or
renting things that are needed 3.93 High Level High Level
4.13
occasionally.
2. Buying only what is needed so
Very High Very High
that one will not end up 4.59
Level 4.41 Level
throwing away extra
food.
3. Packing lunch in reusable
Very High Very High
lunchbox so that one cannot buy 4.76
Level 4.65 Level
wrapped/packed food at school.
4. Bring water in reusable water
bottles than buying water in one 4.87 Very High Very High
used plastic bottles at the Level 4.56 Level
school.
5. Being cautious and
Very High Very High
responsible to every waste one 4.68
Level 4.81 Level
produce.
Very High Very High
Mean 4.56 Level 4.51 Level
 61

Reuse
1. Reusing old materials than Very High Very High
buying a new one. 4.60 Level 4.82 Level
2. Keeping those unfilled papers Very High Very High
and using it as scratch. 4.50 Level 4.86 Level
Very High Very High
3. Reusing grocery bags. 4.61 4.87
Level Level
4. Reusing washable food Very High Very High
containers. 4.81 Level 4.87 Level
5. Reusing scrap paper into Very High Very High
memo pads. 4.59 Level 4.67 Level
Very High Very High
Mean 4.62 Level 4.82 Level
Recycle
1. Redesigning waste materials Very High Very High
into a new product. 4.54 Level 4.40 Level
2. Making decors out of plastic
Very High Very High
wrappers and other colorful 4.44
Level 4.55 Level
waste materials.
3. Promoting the importance of Very High Very High
recycling. 4.63 Level 4.93 Level
4. Initiating income-generating Very High Very High
activities out of waste materials. 4.44 Level 4.73 Level
5. Using recycled products out of Very High Very High
redesigned waste materials. 4.45 Level 4.59 Level
Very High Very High
Mean 4.50 4.64
Level Level
Disposal
1. Throwing and leaving
3.50 High Level 4.47 High Level
of garbage anywhere.
Moderate
2. Burning of waste materials. 3.34 4.33 High Level
Level
3. Throwing of waste materials Moderate
High Level
in common open dumps. 3.24 Level 4.30
4. Disposal of biodegradable
Very High Very High
wastes into a compost pit. 4.90
Level 4.87 Level
5. Disposal of hazardous/
toxic/special wastes such as
laboratory leftover (chemicals) or Moderate High Level
3.42 4.13
electronic waste in any garbage Level
container

Mean 3.68 High Level High Level

4.42

Very High Very High

Overall Mean 4.44 4.64
Level Level
 62

Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According
to the School Location

Table 6 shows the level of respondents‟ awareness of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they are

grouped according to school locations. It is shown that the overall mean

as assessed by the teachers and students who are attending different

school locations as smaller and bigger schools namely Banga,

Malabugas, Nangka, and Pagatban scored 4.60, 4.48, 4.50 and 4.45

respectivey. Based on the findings, all of the above stated schools showed

“very high” level of awareness.

Also, as shown in the table, Brgy. Pagatban shows the highest

mean score in segregation while Brgy. Banga has been the highest in the

areas of reduce, reuse and disposal whereas Brgy. Nangka has the

highest overall mean score in the area of recycle. Differences on the

findings can be attributed to how RA 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act has been interpreted, enacted and implemented by

different places putting emphasis on SWM Practices and strengthening

the environmental concerns at all extents towards promoting

environmental awareness and action among the citizenry or general

public.

This affirmed the study of Villanueva (2013) that education is an

important component of solid waste management that should be present

to establish a good program in the community. Furthermore, this is

supported by Madrigal and Oracion (2018) that the introduction or

integration of waste management concepts will improve the

understanding on waste management behaviors and practices.

 63

Table 6
Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
terms of the Areas When they are Grouped According to the School Location
School Location
Areas Banga Malabugas Nangka Pagatban
Mean Interpre Mean Interpre Mean Interpre Mean Interpre
tation tation tation tation
Segregation
1. Segregation of biodeg-
radable (paper, banana
peels, cardboard, food
Very Very Very Very
wastes, leaves, twigs and 4.94
High High High High
vegetables) and non-bio-
Level Level Level Level
degradable (plastic toys, 4.81 4.83 4.92
glass, steel, rubber) wastes
at school.
2. Separation of recy-
clable wastes (paper,
cardboard, plastic bot-tles)
from non-recyclable or Very Very
Very Very
residuals which have no 4.87 4.71 5.00 High 4.69 High
High High
potential for reuse and Level Level
Level Level
recycling (sando bags,
napkins, diapers, ball
pens, etc. )
3. Separation of non-
harmful wastes from toxic
Very Very Very Very
and hazardous wastes 4.84
High 4.76 High 4.83 High 4.67 High
such as pentel pens,
Level Level Level Level
laboratory chemicals, ink,
cell batteries and others.
4. Separation and
Very Very Very Very
segregation of garbage in
High High High High
different containers. 4.90 4.76 4.92 4.94
Level Level Level Level
5. Segregation of Very Very Very Very
recyclable items for 4.76 High 4.44 High 4.96 High 4.94 High
collection. Level Level Level Level
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.86 High 4.70 High 4.91 High 4.83 High
Level Level Level Level
Reduce
1. Borrowing, sharing, Very
High High High
and/or renting things that 4.28 High 3.61 3.92 4.06
Level Level Level
are needed occasionally. Level
2. Buying only what is
Very Very Very Very
needed so that one will not 4.69
High 4.03 High 4.79 High 4.58 High
end up throwing away
extra food. Level Level Level Level
3. Packing lunch in Very Very Very Very
reusable lunchbox so that High High High High
one cannot buy 4.84 Level 4.41 Level 4.88 Level 4.72 Level
wrapped/packed food at
school.
4. Bring water in reusable
Very Very Very Very
water bottles than buying
High High High High
water in one used plastic 4.89 4.25 4.88 4.72
Level Level Level Level
bottles at the school.
5. Being cautious and Very Very Very Very
responsible to every waste 4.77 High 4.69 High 4.75 High 4.75 High
one produce. Level Level Level Level
Very Very Very
High
Mean 4.69 High 4.20 4.64 High 4.57 High
Level
Level Level Level
 64
Reuse
1. Reusing old materials Very Very Very Very
than buying a new one. 4.68 High 4.71 High 4.83 High 4.75 High
Level Level Level Level
2. Keeping those unfilled Very Very Very Very
papers and using it as 4.74 High 4.79 High 4.46 High 4.39 High
scratch. Level Level Level Level
3. Reusing grocery bags. Very Very Very Very
4.74 High 4.81 High 4.71 High 4.61 High
Level Level Level Level
4. Reusing washable food Very Very Very Very
containers. 4.84 High 4.81 High 4.96 High 4.78 High
Level Level Level Level
5. Reusing scrap paper Very Very Very Very
into memo pads. 4.73 High 4.43 High 4.58 High 4.67 High
Level Level Level Level
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.75 High 4.71 High 4.71 High 4.64 High
Level Level Level Level
Recycle
1. Redesigning waste Very Very Very
High
materials into a new 4.61 High 4.12 4.58 High 4.61 High
Level
product. Level Level Level
2. Making decors out of Very Very Very Very
plastic wrappers and other High High High High
colorful waste materials. 4.60 Level 4.32 Level 4.46 Level 4.50 Level
3. Promoting the Very Very Very Very
importance of recycling. 4.76 High 4.89 High 4.88 High 4.56 High
Level Level Level Level

4 Initiating income- Very Very Very Very

generating activities out of 4.45 High 4.72 High 4.71 High 4.72 High
waste materials. Level Level Level Level
5. Using recycled products Very Very Very Very
out of redesigned waste 4.59 High 4.36 High 4.75 High 4.42 High
materials. Level Level Level Level
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.60 High 4.48 High 4.68 High 4.56 High
Level Level Level Level
Disposal
1. Throwing and leaving of Very
High Moderate High
garbage anywhere. 3.89 4.53 High 3.38 3.61
Level Level Level
Extent
2. Burning of waste Very
High Moderate Moderate
materials. 3.81 4.36 High 3.13 3.31
Level Level Level
Level
3. Throwing of waste Very Very
Moderate Moderate
materials in common open 3.89 High 4.01 High 3.13 3.22
Level Level
dumps. Level Level
4. Disposal of Very Very Very Very
biodegradable wastes into 4.88 High 4.81 High 4.96 High 4.97 High
a compost pit. Level Level Level Level
5. Disposal of hazardous/ Very
toxic/special wastes such High
Very
as laboratory leftover 3.98 3.83 Level 3.29 Moderate 3.25 Moderate
High
(chemicals) or electronic Level Level
Level
waste in any garbage
container.
Very
High High High
Mean 4.09 4.31 High 3.58 3.67
Level Level Level
Level
Very Very Very Very
Overall Mean 4.60 High 4.48 High 4.50 High 4.45 High
Level Level Level Level
 65

Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas

Table 7 presents the extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas such as

segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal.

The table shows the overall mean scores obtained by the teachers

and students are 4.61 and 4.65 respectively. These are interpreted to

have “very great” extent. This implies a positive transfer of learning from

the teachers to the students who are regarded as the key agent of change

to work towards a more sustainable future through improving their

knowledge on waste management (Niekerk, 2014).

The findings of this study is further reinforced by the research of

Ahmad et al. (2015) on how curricular aspect further intensity

environment consciousness as a response of teachers and students to

waste problems in the school setting. In addition, as a learning

institution, it is then the nature of the school to provide transformational

learning experiences that promote environmental sustainability within

and across school contexts to put forward educators‟ role in helping

students gain experience that protect the environment from the

classroom to the extended community and along its similarities, promote

environmental programs that are integral the to school‟s educational

mission. Active participation of the members of the academic community

is important for the implementation of its institutional programs and for

 66

environmental protection and sustainable development in order to foster

new generation of environmental leaders (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

Table 7
Extent ofRespondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas

Areas Teachers Students

Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation practice is evident in Very Great Very Great
classrooms, offices and canteen. 4.81 Extent 4.86 Extent
2. Waste is segregated into at least Very Great Very Great
two types. 4.86 Extent 4.89 Extent
3. Receptacle for special waste is Very Great Very Great
necessary wherever applicable. 4.68 Extent 4.65 Extent
4. No unmanaged waste receptacles Very Great Very Great
outside the classrooms. 4.68 Extent 4.50 Extent
Very Great Very Great
5. MRF is available. 4.73 Extent 4.62 Extent
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.75 4.70
Extent Extent
Reduce
1. Avoidance of use of plastics in Very Great
Great Extent
canteen. 4.10 4.40 Extent
2. No more plastics used as Very Great
Great Extent
secondary packaging material. 4.00 4.17 Extent
3. Most foods are packed using Very Great
Great Extent
biodegradable materials. 4.15 4.29 Extent
4. Orient school canteen vendors Very Great Very Great
on plastic avoidance policy. 4.60 Extent 4.72 Extent
5. Implement DepEd-Bayawan
Very Great Very Great
City‟s policy on plastic avoidance in 4.68 4.80
Extent Extent
canteens.
Very Great Very Great
4.31 4.48
Mean Extent Extent
Reuse
1. Composting of Very Great Very Great
biodegradable waste. 4.62 Extent 4.62 Extent
2. Actual application of compost in Very Great Very Great
gardening. 4.54 Extent 4.52 Extent
3. Reuse used tires as decorative Very Great Very Great
flower pots. 4.72 Extent 4.70 Extent
4. Use of compost products or soil
Very Great Very Great
from the compost pit were used in 4.69 4.53
Extent Extent
the garden.
5. Re-use practices are evident. 4.65 Very Great 4.71 Very Great
Extent Extent
 67

Very Great Very Great

Mean 4.64 4.61
Extent Extent
Recycle
1. Recover and recycle papers (pots, Very Great Very Great
charcoal, etc). 4.56 Extent 4.52 Extent
2. Plastic waste turned into pillows Very Great Very Great
as one of the examples. 4.58 Extent 4.72 Extent
3. Drinking straws and popsicle
Very Great Very Great
sticks made into tiny houses among 4.30 4.66
others. Extent Extent
4. Products out of recyclable
Very Great Very Great
materials show promise (profit, 4.58 4.51
Extent Extent
utility, etc).
Very Great Very Great
5. MRF is available. 4.65 4.67
Extent Extent

Very Great Very Great

Mean 4.53 4.62
Extent Extent
Disposal
1. Proper disposal of special wastes. Very Great Very Great
4.84 Extent 4.87 Extent
2. On site establishment of
composting facilities for Very Great Very Great
biodegradable wastes (any of these: 4.74 Extent 4.64 Extent
compost pit, vermicompost, etc.)
3. Proper observance of collection
Very Great Very Great
schedules for specific category of 4.93 4.93
Extent Extent
segregated solid wastes.
4. Designate drop-off center/MRF
Very Great Very Great
(ideal, sturdy, labeled, actual sales 4.81 4.85
Extent Extent
on recyclable waste).
5. Residual waste due for collection
Very Great Very Great
is inside sacks to facilitate 4.81 4.93
Extent Extent
collection by the LGU.
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.83 4.84
Extent Extent

Very Great Very Great

Overall Mean 4.61 4.65
Extent Extent
 68

Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices in terms of the AreasWhen they are Grouped According to the Sex

Table 8 reveals the extent of respondents‟ implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they

are grouped according to sex.

The overall mean scores of 4.67 for the male and 4.62 for the

female respondents are interpreted as “very great” extent. A slight

difference of 0.05 can be considered almost the same results which

further show that the male and female respondents have similar or the

same extent of implementation of SWM practices in terms of the areas.

However, when it comes to the mean scores of each area of SWM

practices, it is evident that male respondents display greater extent of

implementation in almost all of the areas except for reuse which is at par

with that of their female counterparts. This is affirmed by the findings of

Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) as well as Adeolu, Enesi and Adelou (2014)

that significant differences and relationships exist between the extent of

participation of the respondents in solid waste management when they

are grouped according to sex, male and female.

Hence, regardless of sex of the respondents, it is important to note

how waste management are similarly focused on the execution of

practices especially as to who are engaged in it, how the program is

implemented and what the management accomplishes (Minervini, 2013;

Karre, 2013; Corvellec and Hultman, 2013; Schouten, Martin and

Tillotson, 2015; Gustafsson, Hjelmgren and Czarniawska, 2015).

 69

Table 8
Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped
According to the Sex

Areas Sex
Male Female
Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation practice is evident Very Great Very Great
in classrooms, offices and canteen. 4.89 Extent 4.82 Extent
2. Waste is segregated into at least Very Great Very Great
two types. 4.91 Extent 4.87 Extent
3. Receptacle for special waste is Very Great Very Great
necessary wherever applicable. 4.74 Extent 4.62 Extent
4 No unmanaged waste Very Great Very Great
receptacles outside the 4.54 Extent 4.56 Extent
classrooms.
Very Great Very Great
5. MRF is available. 4.67 Extent 4.64 Extent
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.75 4.70
Extent Extent
Reduce
1. Avoidance of use of plastics in Very Great Very Great
canteen. 4.38 Extent 4.28 Extent
2. No more plastics used as Very Great Very Great
secondary packaging material. 4.18 Extent 4.08 Extent
3. Most foods are packed using Very Great Very Great
biodegradable materials. 4.33 Extent 4.20 Extent
4. Orient school canteen vendors Very Great Very Great
on plastic avoidance policy. 4.76 Extent 4.65 Extent
5. Implement DepEd-Bayawan
Very Great Very Great
City‟s policy on plastic 4.79 4.75
Extent Extent
avoidance in canteens.
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.49 4.39
Extent Extent
Reuse
1. Composting of biodegradable Very Great Very Great
waste. 4.62 Extent 4.62 Extent
2. Actual application of compost in Very Great Very Great
gardening. 4.55 Extent 4.51 Extent
3. Reuse used tires as decorative Very Great Very Great
flower pots. 4.67 Extent 4.72 Extent
4. Use of compost products or soil
Very Great Very Great
from the compost pit were used in 4.58 4.58
Extent Extent
the garden.
5. Re-use practices are evident. 4.71 Very Great 4.69 Very Great
Extent Extent
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.62 4.62
Extent Extent
 70

Recycle
1. Recover and recycle papers Very Great Very Great
(pots, charcoal, etc). 4.64 Extent 4.48 Extent
2. Plastic waste turned into pillows Very Great Very Great
as one of the examples. 4.73 Extent 4.66 Extent
3. Drinking straws and popsicle
Very Great Very Great
sticks made into tiny houses 4.61 4.52
Extent Extent
among others.
4. Products out of recyclable
Very Great Very Great
materials show promise (profit, 4.54 4.53
Extent Extent
utility, etc).
Very Great Very Great
5. MRF is available. 4.74 Extent 4.62 Extent
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.65 Extent 4.56 Extent
Disposal
1. Proper disposal of special Very Great Very Great
wastes. 4.86 Extent 4.86 Extent
2. On site establishment of
composting facilities for
Very Great Very Great
biodegradable wastes (any of 4.73 4.64
Extent Extent
these: compost pit, vermicompost,
etc.)
3. Proper observance of collection
Very Great Very Great
schedules for specific category of
Extent Extent
segregated solid wastes. 4.96 4.91
4. Designate drop-off center/MRF
Very Great Very Great
(ideal, sturdy, labeled, actual sales
Extent Extent
on recyclable waste). 4.83 4.85
5. Residual waste due for
Very Great Very Great
collection is inside sacks to
facilitate collection by the LGU. Extent Extent
4.97 4.86
Very Great Very Great
Mean 4.87 4.82
Extent Extent

Overall Mean 4.67 Very Great 4.62 Very Great

Extent Extent

Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped
According to the Size of School

In the extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they are

grouped according to the size of school as assessed by both the teachers

and the students, it resulted to an overall mean scores of 4.68 for smaller

schools and 4.60 for bigger schools.

 71

When taken through each area, disposal obtained the highest

mean score of 4.85 as implemented of smaller schools. This is supported

by the notion that smaller schools with smaller number of teachers and

students comprising the population can attend to more waste disposal of

biodegradable and non-biodegradable. Furthermore, Abocejo and Vivar

(2015) indicated the importance of disposal in the proper manner and

place in order not to create serious problems to humans and threat to

nature.

On the other hand, segregation and reuse were the highest practiced

for bigger schools with 4.65 mean scores for both. This can be attributed

to the fact that the bigger the size of the school, the more the materials

consumption, hence the more effort to be given to reduce and reuse of

materials for future use. This is supported by Madrigal and Oracion

(2018) by saying that though recycling is the most visible measurable

and enforceable environmental practice, educational institutions must

engage in waste segregation, reduction and reuse as effective ways on

reducing the impact of environmental problems.

Moreover, for the lowest area, smaller schools practice low in the area

of reduce with 4.48 mean score while bigger schools obtained a mean

score of 4.33 in disposal. It is because as smaller groups, they also have

small number of materials for consumption which lead to the less

practice of reduce. This is further supported by Ambayic et al. (2013) on

students‟ consciousness on buying things that generate a lot of trash.

 72

Meanwhile, bigger schools have low practice in disposal due to the fact of

a large of huge materials consumed by bigger number of population

which lead to production of waste needed to be disposed.

Given the context, education is vital to solid waste management

program. Educating people to waste management will help them

understand of the indiscriminate disposal of waste to the environment

and empower them to act accordingly (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

Table 9
Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped
According to the Size of School
Areas Size of School
Smaller Bigger
Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation practice is evident in Very Great Very Great
classrooms, offices and canteen. 4.89 Extent 4.80 Extent
2. Waste is segregated into at least Very Great Very Great
two types. 4.91 Extent 4.86 Extent
3. Receptacle for special waste is Very Great Very Great
necessary wherever applicable. 4.68 Extent 4.64 Extent
4. No unmanaged waste receptacles Very Great Very Great
outside the classrooms. 4.66 Extent 4.44 Extent
5. MRF is available. 4.79 Very Great 4.51 Very Great
Extent Extent
Mean Very Great Very Great
4.79 4.65
Extent Extent
Reduce
1. Avoidance of use of plastics in Very Great Very Great
canteen. 4.37 Extent 4.25 Extent
2. No more plastics used as Great Extent Great Extent
secondary packaging material. 4.21 4.02
3. Most foods are packed using Very Great Very Great
biodegradable materials. 4.24 Extent 4.25 Extent
4. Orient school canteen vendors on Very Great Very Great
plastic avoidance policy. 4.78 Extent 4.60 Extent
5. Implement DepEd-Bayawan City‟s Very Great Very Great
policy on plastic avoidance in 4.79 Extent 4.74 Extent
canteens.
Mean 4.48 Very Great 4.37 Very Great
Extent Extent
Reuse
1. Composting of biodegradable Very Great Very Great
 73

waste. 4.56 Extent 4.67 Extent

2. Actual application of compost in Very Great Very Great
gardening. 4.43 Extent 4.62 Extent
3. Reuse used tires as decorative Very Great Very Great
flower pots. 4.67 Extent 4.74 Extent
4. Use of compost products or soil Very Great Very Great
from the compost pit were used in 4.59 Extent 4.57 Extent
the garden.
5. Re-use practices are evident. Very Great Very Great
4.74 Extent 4.65 Extent
Mean Very Great Very Great
4.60 4.65
Extent Extent
Recycle
1. Recover and recycle papers (pots, Very Great Very Great
charcoal, etc). 4.63 Extent 4.44 Extent
2. Plastic waste turned into pillows Very Great Very Great
as one of the examples. 4.66 Extent 4.70 Extent
3. Drinking straws and popsicle Very Great Very Great
sticks made into tiny houses among 4.59 Extent 4.51 Extent
others.
4. Products out of recyclable
Very Great Very Great
materials show promise (profit, 4.58 4.49
Extent Extent
utility, etc).
4.86 Very Great 4.47 Very Great
5. MRF is available. Extent Extent
Mean 4.66 Very Great 4.52 Very Great
Extent Extent
Disposal
1. Proper disposal of special wastes. Very Great Very Great
4.88 Extent 4.82 Extent
2. On site establishment Very Great Very Great
of composting 4.80 Extent 4.53 Extent
facilities for
biodegradable wastes (any of these:
compost pit, vermicompost, etc.)
3. Proper observance of collection Very Great Very Great
schedules for specific category of 4.92 Extent 4.93 Extent
segregated solid wastes.
4. Designate drop-off center/MRF Very Great Very Great
(ideal, sturdy, labeled, actual sales 4.82 Extent 4.86 Extent
on recyclable waste).
5. Residual waste due for collection Very Great Very Great
is inside sacks to facilitate collection 4.83 Extent 4.92 Extent
by the LGU.
Mean 4.85 Very Great Very Great
Extent 4.33 Extent
Very Great Very Great
Overall Mean 4.68 Extent 4.60 Extent
 74

Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas When the they are Grouped
According to the School Location

Table 10 reveals the extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of areas when they are

grouped according to the school location.

The overall mean scores for four (4) barangays: Banga, Malabugas,

Nangka, Pagatban are 4.75, 4.40, 4.82 and 4.59 respectively.

All of the schools showed “very great” extent of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices implementation. In affirmation, Niekerk

(2014) noted that regardless of location, it is the attitude that serves as a

determining factor and create and nurture sustainable development

solutions for environmental problems such as waste management. As

Rahmaddin et al. (2015) noted, one strategic approach to address

environmental problem is through solid waste management, it is

important that we shall focus on the execution of solid waste

management, how it is implemented and who engaged are in it

(Minervini, 2013).

Difference of results in different locations can further be attributed

in the development of the imperative method to show the difference in

performance, development, outcomes and outputs in waste governance

between different schools, clusters, districts and countries(Campos,

2013; Taherzadeh and Rajendran, 2015). Moreover, differences can be

attributed to how RA 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste Management

Act has been interpreted, enacted and implemented in different places.

 75

Table 10
Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices in terms of the Areas When they are Grouped
According to the School Location

School Location
Areas Banga Malabugas Nangka Pagatban
Mean Interpre Mean Interpre Mean Interpre Mean Interpre
tation tation tation tation
Segregation
1. Segregation practice Very Very Very Very
is evident in classrooms, 4.92 Great 4.64 Great 5.00 Great 4.89 Great
offices and canteen. Extent Extent Extent Extent
2. Waste is segregated Very Very Very Very
into at least two types. 4.89 Great 4.85 Great 5.00 Great 4.86 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
3. Receptacle for special Very Very Very Very
waste is necessary 4.81 Great 4.41 Great 5.00 Great 4.36 Great
wherever applicable. Extent Extent Extent Extent
4. No unmanaged waste Very Very Very Very
receptacles outside the 4.67 Great 4.24 Great 5.00 Great 4.47 Great
classrooms. Extent Extent Extent Extent
Very Great Very Very
5. MRF is available. 4.77 Great 4.19 Extent 5.00 Great 4.94 Great
Extent Extent Extent
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.81 Great 4.47 Great 5.00 Great 4.71 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Reduce
1. Avoidance of use of Very Great Very Very
plastics in canteen. 4.37 Great 4.09 Extent 4.71 Great 4.28 Great
Extent Extent Extent
2. No more plastics Very Very Very Very
used as secondary 4.14 Great 3.88 Great 4.76 Great 4.11 Great
packaging material. Extent Extent Extent Extent
3. Most foods are Very Great Very Very
packed using 4.43 Great 3.85 Extent 4.79 Great 4.00 Great
biodegradable Extent Extent Extent
materials.
4. Orient school canteen Very Very Very Very
vendors on plastic 4.64 Great 4.65 Great 4.86 Great 4.81 Great
avoidance policy. Extent Extent Extent Extent
5. Implement DepEd- Very Very Very Very
Bayawan City‟s policy 4.74 Great 4.76 Great 4.88 Great 4.78 Great
on plastic avoidance in Extent Extent Extent Extent
canteens.
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.47 Great 4.25 Great 4.80 Great 4.39 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Reuse
1. Composting of Very Very Very Very
biodegradable waste. 4.76 Great 4.49 Great 4.50 Great 4.44 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
2. Actual application of Very Very Very Very
compost in gardening. 4.66 Great 4.47 Great 4.54 Great 4.11 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
3. Reuse used tires as Very Very Very Very
decorative flower pots. 4.79 Great 4.56 Great 4.54 Great 4.78 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
 76

4. Use of compost Very Very Very Very

products or soil from 4.81 Great 4.25 Great 4.63 Great 4.36 Great
the compost pit were Extent Extent Extent Extent
used in the garden.
5. Re-use practices are Very Very Very Very
evident. 4.84 Great 4.44 Great 4.71 Great 4.69 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.77 Great 4.44 Great 4.58 Great 4.48 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Recycle
1. Recover and recycle Very Very Very
Great
papers (pots, charcoal, 4.79 Great 4.00 4.88 Great 4.44 Great
Extent
etc) Extent Extent Extent
2. Plastic waste turned Very Very Very Very
into pillows as one of 4.78 Great 4.49 Great 4.71 Great 4.69 Great
the examples. Extent Extent Extent Extent
3. Drinking straws and Very Very Very
popsicle sticks made 4.76 Great 4.15 Great 4.50 Great 4.64 Great
into tiny houses among Extent Extent Extent Extent
others.
4. Products out of Very Very Very
recyclable materials 4.76 Great 4.13 Great 4.67 Great 4.42 Great
show promise (profit, Extent Extent Extent Extent
utility, etc).
Very Very Very
Great
5. MRF is available. 4.89 Great 4.08 4.88 Great 4.89 Great
Extent
Extent Extent Extent
Very Very Very
Great
Mean 4.80 Great 4.17 4.73 Great 4.62 Great
Extent
Extent Extent Extent
Disposal

1. Proper disposal of Very Very Very Very

special wastes. 4.98 Great 4.71 Great 5.00 Great 4.64 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
2.On site establishment Very Very
of composting facilities Great Great
Very
for biodegradable 4.93 Great Extent Extent
Great
wastes (any of these: Extent
Extent 4.16 5.00 4.53
compost pit,
vermicompost, etc.)
3. Proper observance of Very Very
Very Very
collection schedules for Great Great
Great Great
specific category of 4.92 4.88 5.00 Extent 5.00 Extent
Extent Extent
segregated solid wastes.
4. Designate drop-off Very Very
center/MRF (ideal, Very Very Great Great
sturdy, labeled, actual 4.88 Great 4.75 Great 5.00 Extent 4.78 Extent
sales on recyclable Extent Extent
waste).
5. Residual waste due Very Very
Very Very
for collection is inside 4.87 4.93 5.00 Great 4.86 Great
Great Great
sacks to facilitate Extent Extent
Extent Extent
collection by the LGU.
Very Very Very Very
Mean 4.92 Great 4.69 Great 5.00 Great 4.76 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
Very Very Very Very
Overall Mean 4.75 Great 4.40 Great 4.82 Great 4.59 Great
Extent Extent Extent Extent
 77

Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Segregation when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

Table 11 presents the significant difference between the level of

awareness on SWM Practices on the area of segregation when

respondents are grouped and compared according to selected variables of

sex, size of school and school location.

When grouped and compared according to sex, the results showed

that the computed p-value of 0.59 is higher than the level of significance

at 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference is not rejected.

This simply means that the sex is not a determining factor in the level of

respondents‟ awareness in the area of segregation. It makes a lot of sense

to say that the respondents, whether male or female, demonstrate similar

level of awareness on segregation aspect. This is contrasted by the

findings of Malabarbas (2014) that there was significant relationship

between the level of awareness of the respondents on SWM Practice in

terms of sex.

When grouped according to the size of school, the computed p-

value of 0.774 is also higher than the level of significance of 0.05. The

hypothesis of no significant difference on the level of awareness of

respondents on the area of segregation is therefore not rejected. This

implies that whether small or big, it is not an intervening factor to

display high level of awareness on segregation. Both displays higher level

 78

of knowledge and awareness on segregation as a SWM Practices.

Regardless of the size of the school, teachers perform the same roles and

functions on orienting their students for the effective practice on the

segregation of waste materials. This is affirmed by Massive et al. (2014)

that regardless of the size of school, it is still the level of education that

served as good indicators to the willingness and participation of the

people.

When grouped according to the school location, the computed p-

value of 0.000 which is depicted as significant. This implied that the

different degree of regulations of barangay locations of the different

schools is a contributory factor in the area of segregation of waste such

as biodegradable and non-biodegradable.

Table 11

Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Segregation when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signifi- Significance
values cance
Male 4.79 7181. Not
Sex 0.05 0.59
Female 4.83 5 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.82 Not
8951 0.05 0.774
School Bigger 4.81 Significant
Banga 4.86
School
Malabugas 4.70 18.98 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.91
Pagatban 4.83
 79

Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices on the Area of Reduce when Respondents are Grouped and
Compared According to Selected Variables

Table 12 shows the comparative statistics on the significant

differences between the level of awareness on SWM Practices on the area

of Reduce when the respondents are grouped and compared according to

the selected variables of sex, size of school and school locations.

As to sex variable, the male respondents perceived a mean rank of

4.51 while the female respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.55. This

indicates that male respondents are almost of the same manner with

their female counterparts towards the area of reduce. Based on the

findings, there is no significant difference in the level of awareness of the

respondents on SWM practice o the area of reduce. Hence, this implies

that sex does not affect the level of respondents‟ awareness in the area

of reduce as an SWM practice.

Table 12 also presents the statistics of the computed p-value to

determine the significant difference in the level of awareness on the area

of reduce when grouped according to the size of the school. The

computed p-value is 0.707 which is bigger than 0.05 significant levels

implied that the difference between the compared groups is not

significant. Based on the findings, there is no significant difference on

the level of awareness on the area of reduce as perceived by smaller and

bigger schools. This implies that the size of schools does not affect the

level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of reduce. This finding in

the abovementioned, both of the variables of sex and size of school can
 80

be attributed to the study of Barloa et al. (2014) that the inclusion of

relevant topics in the curriculum with emphasis on SWM is the one

considered important to promote growing awareness on Solid Waste

Management issues regardless of the sex and size of school.

The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant

difference on the level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of

reduce when group according to school location. The p-value is 0.000

and is considered significant. Based on the findings, there is significant

difference in the level of respondents‟ awareness in the area of reduce

when grouped and compared according to the aforementioned variables.

As Villanueva (2013) noted, education is an important confinement of

solid waste management that should be present to establish a good

program in the community as a setting of different school locations.

Table 12
Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices on the Area of Reduce when Respondents are Grouped and
Compared According to Selected Variables

U- or Level of p-
Variables Categories Mean H- Signifi - value Significance
values cance

Male 4.51 Not

Sex 7736 0.05 0.45
Female 4.55 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.56 Not
8875 0.05 0.707
School Bigger 4.51 Significant
Banga 4.69
School
Malabugas 4.20 65.68 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.64
Pagatban 4.57
 81

Table 13
Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reuse when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

Table 13 presents the significant difference on the level of

respondents‟ awareness on SWM Practice on the area of reuse

when respondents are grouped and compared according to variable of

sex, size of school and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.957 which is higher than

the level of significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant

difference on the level of awareness on the area of reuse according to

male and female teachers and students is not rejected as they have

almost the same level of awareness on this SWM practice. This is in

contrast to the findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) who noted that

there is a significant difference on the level of awareness on SWM

Practices in terms of sex.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-

value is 0.000 and is considered significant. Hence, there is a significant

difference in the area of reuse on smaller and bigger schools. From this,

there is an indication that the size of school, especially the number of

student population given education on solving environment issues is a

determinant factor on the rate of transfer of learning to students to

develop good practices and improve attitude towards solid waste

management (Abella & Balla, 2013).

 82

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.017 is also

considered significant. This implies that there is significant difference on

the level of awareness when respondents are grouped and compared

according to school locations. From this result, it is obvious that the level

of education of the people in different school locations are good

indicators for their degree and willingness of participation (Massave et al.

2014).

Table 13
Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reuse when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signifi- Significance
values cance
Male 4.75
Sex 8157 0.05 0.957 Not
Female 4.70 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.62
6504 0.05 0.000 Significant
School Bigger 4.82
Banga 4.75
School
Malabugas 4.71 10.16 0.05 0.017 Significant
Location Nangka 4.71
Pagatban 4.64

Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Recycle when
Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
Table 14 shows the comparative statistics on the significant

differences between levels of awareness on SWM Practices on the area of

recycle when the respondents are grouped and compared according to

the selected variables of sex, size of school, and school locations.

 83

As to sex variable, the male respondents perceived a mean rank of

4.63 while the female respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.54. This

indicates just a slight difference with the level of awareness of male and

female respondents in the area of recycle. Based on the findings, there is

no significant difference in the level of awareness of the respondents on

SWM practice o the area of recycle. This implies that sex does not affect

the level of respondents‟ awareness in the area of recycle as an SWM

practice. This is contrasted by the study of Adelou, Enesi and Adelou

(2014) that like students‟ age and class, students‟ sex influenced their

level of SWM awareness, knowledge and practice.

Table 14 also presents the statistics of the computed p-value to

determine the significant difference in the level of awareness on the area

of recycle when grouped according to the size of school. The computed p-

value is 0.003 which is lower than 0.05 significant level, thus, the

difference between compared groups is considered significant. Based on

the findings, there is a significant difference on the level of awareness on

the area of recycle as perceived by smaller and bigger schools when

grouped according to the size of school. This implies that size of schools

affect the level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of recycle. This

is supported by the findings of Pham (2014) that the size of school is said

to be significant since the number of student population receiving

orientation on environmental issues and its corresponding solutions

affects the respondents‟ level or degree of focus.

 84

The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant

difference on the level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of

recycle when group according to school location. The p-value is 0.194

and is considered not significant as it is higher than the significant level

of 0.05. Based on the findings, there is no significant difference in the

level of respondents‟ awareness in the area of recycle when grouped

and compared according to selected variables. This is supported by Niekerk

(2014) that children were obviously aware with waste and waste

management practices in their school settings and local environment

regardless of the fact that they are situated in different places.

Table 14
Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Recycle when
Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signifi- Significance
values cance
Male 4.63 Not
Sex 7272.5 0.05 0.139
Female 4.54 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.50
7217 0.05 0.003 Significant
School Bigger 4.64
Banga 4.60
School Not
Malabugas 4.48 4.708 0.05 0.194
Location Nangka 4.68 Significant
Pagatban 4.56
 85

Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Disposal when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

Table 15 presents the significant difference on the level of

respondents‟ awareness on SWM Practices on the area of disposal

when respondents are grouped and compared according to selected

variables of sex, size of school, and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.017 which is lower than

the level of significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant

difference on the level of awareness on the area of disposal according to

male and female teachers and students is rejected as they have almost

the same level of awareness on this SWM practice. This is substantiated

by the findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) that significant

relationship exists between the level of awareness of the student-

respondents in solid waste management in terms of sex. Also, the finding

is affirmedby Adelou, Enesi & Adelou (2014) that students‟

sex significantly influenced their level of awareness, knowledge and

practice of waste management.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-

value is 0.000 and is considered significant. Hence, there is a significant

difference in the area of disposal on smaller and bigger schools. From

this, there is an indication that the size of school, especially the number

of student population given education on solving environment issues is a

 86

determining factor on the rate of transfer of learning to students to

develop good practices and improve attitude towards solid waste

management (Abella & Balla, 2013). This is further supported by Niekerk

(2014) that children were obviously aware with waste and waste

management practices in their schools and local environment.

Also when the school location is taken as a variable, the computed

p value is 0.000 and is considered significant. This is the reason why

Licy et al. (2013) noted that as parents and community members

comprise the school location where students are educated and concepts

of SWM are delivered, there is a need for them to be made aware to

improve practice on solid waste management. Hence, parents and

community members should be given environmental education during

parent-teaching meetings or community-based programs to further

strengthen and increase level of awareness on SWM Practices.

Table 15
Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Disposal when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 3.91
Sex 6738 0.05 0.017 Significant
Female 4.12
Size of Smaller 3.68
4023.5 0.05 0.000 Significant
School Bigger 4.42
Banga 4.09
School Malabugas 4.31
Nangka 3.58
29.505 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location
Pagatban 3.67
 87

Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on All Areas when Respondents are
Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables

Table 16 presents the significant difference on the level of awareness

on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices on all Areas when

respondents are grouped and compared according to variables of sex,

size of school and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.271 which is higher than

the level of significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant

difference on the level of awareness on all areas when respondents are

grouped according to male and female is therefore not rejected. Hence,

teachers and students have almost the same level of awareness in this

aspect. This is affirmed by the findings of Martin and Tillotson (2015)

who indicated that regardless of sex or who are engaged in SWM

practice, what is important is why the management is implemented and

what the management accomplishes.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-

value is 0.000 and is considered significant. Hence there is a significant

difference on the level of awareness on all areas when respondents are

grouped according to size of schools, smaller and bigger. In affirmation,

Ahmad et al. (2015) put forward the essence of reinforcing curricular

aspect and further intensifying institutional initiatives aimed at forming

all members of the academic community as “advocates of sustainable

development”.

The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant

difference on the level of awareness on SWM Practice on all areas when

 88

respondents are grouped and compared according to school location. The p-

value is 0.25which is considered not significant. Based on the findings,

it affirmed the statement of Villanueva (2013) that it is not the school

location but the level of education which should be present to establish a

good program for the community on environmental issues for sustainable

future.

Table 16
Differences between the Level of Awareness on Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on All Areas when Respondents are
Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 4.52 7476. Not
Sex 0.05 0.271
Female 4,55 5 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.44 4888.
0.05 0.000 Significant
School Bigger 4.64 0
Banga 4.60
School Malabugas 4.48 Not
9.362 0.05 0.25
Location Nangka 4.50 Significant
Pagatban 4.45

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Segregation when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables

Table 17 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices on the area of segregation when

respondents are grouped and compared according to variable of sex, size

of school and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.372 which is higher than

0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of SWM

Practices on the area of segregation according to male and female

teachers and students is not significant. This is in contrast to the

 89

findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) that there is a significant

difference on the level of awareness on SWM Practices in terms of sex.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-

value is 0.003 which is considered significant. Hence, there is a

significant difference in the area of segregation on smaller and bigger

schools. Thus, the size of school is a determining factor in integrating

school‟s educational mission. Moreover, active participation of the

members of the academic community is important in its institutional

programs for environmental protection and sustainable development

(Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000 is also

considered significant. This implies that there is a significant difference

on the extent of implementation when respondents are grouped and

compared according to school location. Niekerk (2014) further indicated

that regardless where the school is located, school children are obviously

aware on concerns with waste and waste management practices.

Table 17
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Segregation when
Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 4.75 Not
Sex 7687 0.05 0.372
Female 4.70 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.79
7373.5 0.05 0.003 Significant
School Bigger 4.65
Banga 4.81
School
Malabugas 4.47 57.349 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 5.00
Pagatban 4.71
 90

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reduce when Respondents are
Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables

Table 18 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices on the area of reduce when

respondents are grouped and compared according to variable of sex, size

of school, and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.65 which is higher than

0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of SWM

Practices on the area of reduce according to male and female teachers

and students is not significant. Karre (2013) on the other hand put more

emphasis on the importance of how SWM was introduced and the

accomplishment of its results regardless of the sex.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value

is 0.232 which is considered not significant. As Barloa et al. (2014)

noted, that it is not the size of school but the inclusion of relevant topics

with emphasis on proper SWM and other solid waste issues in the

curriculum that matters in order to promote awareness on

environmental issues and improve attitude towards environmental

sustainable solutions.

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is

considered significant. This implies that there is a significant difference

on the extent of implementation of SWM Practices on the area of reduce

when respondents are grouped and compared according to school

location. Given the context, educating people will help them understand

proper solid waste management for sustainable environmental practices

(Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).

 91

Table 18
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reduce when Respondents
Are Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables

U- or Level
p-
Categorie Mea H- of Significanc
Variables value
s n value Signifi e
s cance
Male 4.49 Not
Sex 7082.5 0.05 0.65
Female 4.39 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.48 Not
8357 0.05 0.232
School Bigger 4.37 Significant
Banga 4.47
School
Malabugas 4.25 29.488 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.80
Pagatban 4.39

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reuse when
Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables

Table 19 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices on the area of reuse when respondents

are grouped and compared according to variable of sex, size of school

and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.806 which is higher than

0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of SWM

Practices on the area of reuse according to male and female teachers and

students is not significant. It has been indicated that what‟s

more important is how SWM was introduced and the accomplishment of its

results regardless of the sex (Hulman, 2013).

 92

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value

is 0.219 which is considered not significant. As Niekerk (2014) noted that

regardless of the size of school, children should work towards

sustainable future. Furthermore, regardless of the size of school,

education is provided to improve knowledge and contribute to increase

environmental awareness.

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is

considered significant. This implies that there is significant difference on

the extent of implementation of SWM Practices on the area of reduce

when respondents are grouped and compared according to school

location. This is supported by the study of Choi (2016) who worked into

the concept of environmental effectiveness as to structural indicator.

Table 19
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid
Waste Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Reuse when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 4.62 Not
Sex 7955.5 0.05 0.806
Female 4.62 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.60 Not
8285.5 0.05 0.219
School Bigger 4.65 Significant
Banga 4.77
School
Malabugas 4.44 54.844 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.58
Pagatban 4.48
 93

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Recycle when Respondents
are Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables

Table 20 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices on the area of recycle when

respondents are grouped and compared according to variable of sex, size

of school, and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.150which is higher than

0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of SWM

Practices on the area of recycle according to male and female teachers

and students is not significant. This is contrasted by the findings of the

study of Amit and Malabarbas (2014) when they indicated that

significant relationship exists on the level of participation of the

respondents to SWM practices in terms of sex.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value

is 0.086 which is also considered not significant. Regardless of the size of

schools, academic area component is promoted to integrate

environmental areas on all subject areas especially implementing SWM

properly in school (Arabaca et al., 2013).

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is

considered significant. This implies that there is significant difference on

the extent of implementation when respondents are grouped and

compared according to school location. This is supported by the study of

Licy et al. (2013) that parents as part of the community should therefore

be given environmental education.

 94

Table 20
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid
Waste Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Recycle
when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
U- or Level
p-
Categorie H- of Significanc
Variables Mean value
s values Signific e
ance
Male 4.65 Not
Sex 7344.0 0.05 0.150
Female 4.56 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.66 Not
8049 0.05 0.086
School Bigger 4.52 Significant
Banga 4.80
School
Malabugas 4.17 93.445 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.73
Pagatban 4.62

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Disposal
when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables

Table 21 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices on the area of disposal when

respondents are grouped and compared according to variable of sex, size

of school, and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.125which is higher than

0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of SWM

Practices on the area of segregation according to male and female

teachers and students is not significant. Abas and Wee (2014) indicated

that regardless of sex, it is good governance practices that will contribute

positively for effective implementation of solid waste management.

 95

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value

is 0.167 which is also considered not significant. Massawe et al. (2014)

emphasized that regardless of the size of school, it is the level of

education that served as good indicators for the degree of willingness

and extent of participation.

As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is

considered significant. This implies that there is significant difference on

the extent of implementation when respondents are grouped and

compared according to school location. Abocejo and Vivar (2015)

indicated that there are a lot of human activities that contribute to waste

generation. These waste materials if failed to be disposed in the proper

manner and in the proper place can create a serious problem to humans

and threat to nature.

Table 21
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid
Waste Management (SWM) Practices on the Area of Disposal
when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 4.87 Not
Sex 7352.0 0.05 0.125
Female 4.82 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.85 Not
8318.0 0.05 0.167
School Bigger 4.83 Significant
Banga 4.92
School
Malabugas 4.69 95.855 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 5.00
Pagatban 4.76
 96

Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices on All Areas when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

Table 22 presents the significant difference on the extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices on all Areas

when respondents are grouped and compared according to variables of

sex, size of school, and school location.

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.246 which is higher than

the level of significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant

difference on the extent of implementation on all areas when respondents

are grouped according to male and female is not rejected. Hence,

teachers and students have almost the same extent of implementation in

this aspect. This is affirmed by the findings of Martin and Tillotson

(2015) who indicate that regardless of sex or who are engaged in SWM

practice, what is important is why the management is implemented and

what the management accomplishes. This is however contrasted by the

findings of Amit and Malabarbas (2014) as they shared the findings that

significant relationship exists in the level of participation of the

respondents in terms of sex.

When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-

value is 0.188which is not considered significant. Hence, there is no

significant difference on the extent of implementation on the area of

disposal of smaller and bigger schools. Regardless of the size of schools,

the significant role of education in solid waste management, RA 9003

mandates Philippine learning institutions to integrate into their

 97

educational activities the awareness and practices of solid waste

management practices of solid waste management for the environmental

education of all members of the educational institutions.

The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant

difference on the extent of implementation on SWM Practice on all areas

when respondents are grouped and compared according to school

location. The p-value is 0.000 and is considered significant. This is

supported by the notion made by Abocejo and Vivar (2015) that R.A.

9003 regardless of the location mandated LGUs to implement policies to

promote proper solid waste management program within their

jurisdiction, and provide the necessary institutional mechanisms to

attain the objectives like minimizing waste by using techniques of

recycling, resource recovery, reuse, and composting.

Table 22
Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid
Waste Management (SWM) Practices on All Areas when
Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables

U- or Level of
p-value
Variables Categories Mean H- Signific Significance
values ance
Male 4.67 Not
Sex 7399.5 0.05 0.246
Female 4.62 Significant
Size of Smaller 4.68 Not
8207.5 0.05 0.188
School Bigger 4.60 Significant
Banga 4.75
School
Malabugas 4.40 88.254 0.05 0.000 Significant
Location Nangka 4.82
Pagatban 5.59
 98

Relationship between the Levels of Awareness and Extents

of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices

Table 23 shows the significant relationship between the levels of

awareness and extents of implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) practices.

Since the r-computed value is 0.394 which is greater than the p-

value of 0.000 at 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis which

states that there is no significant relationship between the levels of

awareness and extents of implementation is rejected. The result of the

study shows that there is a significant relationship between the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices.

The result further implied that as educational practitioners

promote growing awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)

Practices to the general public (Aquino, 2013; Paghasian, 2017), proper

waste management is also highly implemented and strengthened

(Pham, 2014; Choi, 2016).

Furthermore, awareness on SWM Practices created change on

how people look at garbage (Sarino, 2014) and as it is accompanied by

participation, waste management programs became more effective and

sustainable implementation has been achieved (Punongbayan, 2014).

Moreover, teachers‟ and students‟ “very high” level of awareness

through proper education of correct information leads to waste

prevention (Marello & helwege, 2014) as it also increases public

 99

participation as these respondents foster potential roles in addressing

environmental issues for both present and future generations toward a

sustainable future (Niekerk, 2014).

Table 23
Relationship between the Levels of Awareness and Extents of
Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

p-
Level of
Variables Mean rho value Significance
Significance

Levels of
4.54
Awareness
0.394 0.05 0.000 Significant
Extents of
4.64
Implementation
 10

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the major findings, states the conclusion

and presents recommendations based on the results of the study.

Summary of Findings

The following are the major findings based on the analysis of data

gathered specified in the objectives of this study:

Profile of Respondents

A total of 81 teachers and 189 students were surveyed on Level of

Awareness and Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management

Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division. Data showed that out of

81 teachers, 5 or 6.2 % were males while 76 or 93.8% were females. For

the students, out of 181 total number of respondents, 87or 46% were

males whereas 102 or 54% were females.

In terms of the size of school, 54.3% of the teachers taught in

smaller schools and 45.7% delivered instructions in bigger schools.

Moreover, 48.1% of the students are taught in smaller schools while

51.9% attended bigger schools.

In the aspect of school location, 50.6% of the teachers taught in

schools located in Brgy. Banga whereas 23.5%, 11.1% and 14.8% of the

schools are respectively located in Brgy. Malabugas, Brgy. Nangka and

Brgy. Pagatban. Meanwhile, 49.7% of the students were attending

schools within Brgy. Banga while Brgy.Malabugas, Brgy. Nangka and

 10

Brgy. Pagatban respectively were represented by 29.6%, 7.9% and 12.7

% of the student-respondents.

Findings further show that the level of respondents‟ awareness

on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices as both perceived by the

teachers & students in terms of the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse,

recycle and disposal were very high.

The level of respondents‟ awareness on Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they are

grouped according to sex, size of school, and school location were very

high.

The extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas of segregation,

reduce, reuse, recycle and disposal were very great.

The extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they are

grouped according to sex, size of the school, and school location were

very great.

There was no significant difference between the level of awareness

on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices for all areas when

respondents are grouped and compared according to sex and school

location but a significant difference exists in the size of the school.

There was no significant difference between the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices in all areas when respondents are

 10

grouped and compared according to sex and size of the school while a

significant difference exists in the school location.

Relational analysis revealed a significant relationship between the

level of respondents‟ awareness and the extent of implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City

Division.

Conclusions

On the bases of the foregoing findings of the study, the researcher

arrived at the following conclusions:

The level of respondents‟ awareness on Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices as both perceived by the teachers & students in terms of

the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal were very

high. It means that both the teachers and students demonstrated very

high level of awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) concepts and

practices as educational practitioners continue to promote growing

awareness of the general public.

The level of respondents‟ awareness on Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices in terms of the areas when they are grouped according

to sex, size of school, and school location were very high. It can be

concluded that teachers and students who comprised as sample of the

population regardless of the size of their school and different school

locations showed very high level of awareness on environmental issues

like waste management as well as sustainable solutions to these

 10

problems for SWM programs to be effective and for sustainable future to

be achieved.

The extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas of segregation,

reduce, reuse, recycle and disposal were very great. It can be concluded

that both teachers and students have very great extent of SWM

implementation through proper education and increasing community

participation.

The extent of respondents‟ implementation of Solid

Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas where they are

grouped according to sex, size of the school, and school location were

very great. It means that regardless of their sex, whether male or female,

size of school as to smaller or bigger, and as to school locations namely

Brgy. Banga, Malabugas, Nangka and Pagatban, respondents have very

great extent of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices implementation

for a sustainable ecological solutions as well as active public

participation focusing on how SWM is introduced, how it is implemented

in different locations, and the how can it accomplished its desired

results.

There was no significant difference between the level of awareness

on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices for all areas when

respondents are grouped and compared according to sex and school

location but a significant difference exists in the size of the school. This
 10

means that regardless of sex and school location, what is important is

the inclusion of relevant topics on the curriculum on proper SWM

management and other solid waste issues. However, the size of school

which corresponds to smaller or bigger number of and serves as a

determining factor for the integration of schools‟ educational mission

for the academic community‟s active participation.

There was no significant difference between the extent of

implementation of SWM Practices in all areas when respondents are

grouped and compared according to sex and size of the school while a

significant difference exists in the school location. Hence, schools across

different locations should instil the culture of responsible solid waste

management among its children and citizens as the success of any SWM

plan rest on the people of the community especially on the degree of

willingness and extent of participation.

A significant relationship was noted between the levels of

awareness and extents of implementation of Solid Waste Management

(SWM) Practices. It can be concluded that the level of awareness greatly

influenced the extent of implementation of SWM Practices by the

teachers and students in District 2, Bayawan City Division. Hence, as it

is awareness on the individual level which can develop into attitudes that

will guide schools and communities to sustainable development

solutions, it should be strengthened for SWM proper implementation and

increase public participation.

 10

Recommendations

In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the

following recommendations are advanced.

The level of respondents‟ awareness and extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices are

respectively very high and very great according to all areas. It is therefore

recommended that educational institutions just like District 2 and other

districts of Bayawan City Division as well as schools and districts of other

divisions of the Department of Education should continue to conduct

information campaign on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices and

further strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school

curricula at all extents, with particular emphasis on the theories and

practices of waste management principles like segregation at source,

reduction, recycling, reuse and composting, in order to promote

environmental awareness and action among the citizenry. This in turn

promotes growing awareness on SWM Practices by that of the general

public.

The level of respondents‟ awareness and extent of

implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices when they are

grouped according to sex, size of school, and school location were very high.

It is therefore recommended that growing awareness on SWM Practices

by that of the educational practitioners, teachers and students, should

further be increased for the welfare of the general public which in turn
 10

shall help strengthen SWM extent of implementation ensuring active

public participation for the program to accomplish desired results.

As significant difference exists in the level of respondents‟

awareness in SWM Practices in terms of size of the school, it is therefore

recommended that for SWM Programs and Advocacies to be more

effective, awareness on waste management issues as well as sustainable

solutions to these problems should be sought for the integration of the

school‟s educational mission and community‟s active participation

regardless of the number of teacher and student population.

As significant difference exists in the extent of implementation of

Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of school location, it

is further recommended that education as an important component of

SWM should be further intensified to establish a good program in the

community. In the same manner, regardless of the school location, it is

the attitude that should be positively developed as deemed needed on

SWM execution and implementation.

As significant relationship exists between the level of

respondents‟ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices, it is therefore recommended that like

growing awareness, proper implementation should be given equal focus and

attention. Therefore, awareness accompanied by participation served as a

key for people to be involved in the waste management programs of the

community for its effective and sustainable implementation.

 1

REFERENCES

Abas, M. and Wee, S. (2014). The Issues of Policy Implementation on Solid

Waste Management in Malaysia. Retrieved from The Issues of Policy
Implementation on Solid Waste Management in Malaysia.

Abdellah, A. M., & Balla,, Q. I. (2013). Domestic Solid Waste

Management anditsImpacts onHuman Health and the
Environment in Sharg El Neel Locality, Khartoum State, Sudan.
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences . Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88398784/domestic-
solid-waste-management-impacts-human-health-environment-
sharg-el-neel-locality-khartoum-state-sudan.

Abocejo, F., and Vivar, P.C. (2015). Village-Extent Solid Waste

Management in Lahug, Cebu City, Philippines. Cebu
Normal University. Retrieved on December 26, 2018 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319502638.

Adeolu, A. T., Enesi, D. O., & Adeolu, M. O. (2014). Assessment of

secondary school students‟ knowledge, attitude and practice
towards waste management in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria.
Journal of Research in Environmental Science and
Toxicology, 3(5), 66-73.

Ahmad, J., Noor, S. M., & Ismail, N. (2015). Investigating students‟

environmental knowledge, attitude, practice and communication.
Asian Social Science, 11(16), 284

Ambayic, A. S. (2014). Household Practices on Solid Waste Management.

Undergraduate Thesis. Mindanao State University - Maigo School
of Arts and Trades.

Dondo, B., Munikwa, M., Mutungwe, E., Pedzis, C., and Tsyere, M.
(2014). A Study of the Extent Of Awareness and Practices of Solid
Waste Management in Chinhoyi, Urban, Zimbabwe. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social
Sciences.

Aquino, A., et al. (2013). Ecological Solid Waste Management Act:

Environmental Protection Through Proper Solid Waste Practices.
Agricultural Science Policies and Technology Development. Retrieved
 1

on September 16, 2018 from http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db. php?

id=153&print=1.

Atienza (2014). A breakthrough in Solid Waste Management through

Participation and Community Mobilization; The Experience of Los
Bañ os, Laguna, Philippines (Master‟s Thesis, Ritsumeikan Asia
Pacific University ). Retrieved from http: //scholar.googlese
rcontent.com/scholar?g=cache:gYtjPOGh5cJ.sc holar.google.com/
+atienza+2014+breakthrough+in+solid+waste=management&hl=en
&as_sd+=0,5

Baldwin, A., Li, B., and Mmereki, D. (2016) A comparative analysis of solid
waste management in developed, developing and lesser developed
countries, Environmental Technology Reviews, 5:1, 120- 141, DOI:
10.1080/21622515.2016.1259357

Barloa, E. P., Lapie, L. P., & de la Cruz, C. P. P. (2016). Knowledge,

attitudes, and practices on solid waste management among
undergraduate students in a Philippine State University.
Journal of Environment and Earth Science 6 (6).
Retrieved on January 20, 2019 from
https://www.researchgate.net.

Cahoy, A. Z. 2013. Extent of Awareness and Practices on Solid Waste

Management among Students in Iligan National High School, Iligan
City. Undergraduate Thesis. Mindanao State University –
IliganInstitute of Technology. March, 2013.

Campos, M. (2013). „The function of waste urban infrastructures as

heterotopias of the city: narratives from Gothenburg and
Managua‟, in Organising waste in the city, edited by Campos, M. and
Hall, C. Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. 41-59.

Choi, H.J. (2016). The Environmental Effectiveness of Solid Waste

Management: A Case Study of Oslo, Norway. Retrieved on
September 16, 2018 from http://www.duo.uio.no/.

Corvellec, H., and Hultman, J. (2013). „Waste management companies:

Critical urban infrastructural services that design the
sociomateriality of waste.‟ in Organising waste in the city, edited
by Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013. Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. 139-
155.
 1

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental

Management Bureau. (2015). National solid waste management
status report (2008-2014). Retrieved from http://nswmc.
emb.gov. ph/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/Solid-
Wastefinaldraft-12.29.15.pdf

Dondo, B., Munikwa, M., Mutungwe, E., Pedzis, C., and Tsyere, M.
(2014). A Study of the Extent Of Awareness and Practices of Solid
Waste Management in Chinhoyi, Urban, Zimbabwe. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social
Sciences.

Gustafsson, E., Hjelmgren, D., and Czarniawska, B. (2015). „Cloth Loop:

An attempt to construct an actor-network‟, in Waste management
and sustainable consumption: Reflections on consumer waste, edited
by Ekströ m, K. New York: Routledge. 115-129.

Hardeep, R.S., Destaw, B., Negash, T., Negussie, L., Endris, Y., Meserte,
G., Ibrahime, A. (2013). Municipal waste management in dessie
city, ethiopia, Management of Environmental Quality.
doi:http://dz.doi.org/10.1108/14777831311303056

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ awareness?
q=awareness [Date Viewed 16 September 2018].

Karre, P. (2013). „Hybrid organization in waste management: public and

private organizations in a deregualted market environment.‟ in
Organising waste in the city, edited by Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013.
Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. 121-138.

Madrigal, D. and Oracion, E. (2018). Solid Waste Management

Awareness, Attitude, and Practices in a Philippine Catholic Higher
Education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/327177428_Solid_Waste_Management_Awareness_
Attitude_and_Practices_in_a_Philippine_Catholic_Higher_Education
_Institution

Magante, G. L. M. 2013. The Disaster of Non-Compliance to Solid Waste

Management Act in the Philippines. Retrieved on January 16, 2016,
from http://www.ndcp.edu.ph/publications/12% 20MAGANTE
%20Solid%20Waste%20Management.p df

Marello, M., and Helwege, A. (2014). Solid Waste Management and Social
Inclusion of Waste Pickers: Opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved
on September 16, 2018, from http://www.bu.edu/pardee/
files/2014/09/Social-Inclusion-Working-Paper.pdf.
 1

Mensah-Osei, P. 2014. Characterization of Solid Waste in the Atwima-

Nwabiagya District of the Ashanti Region, Kumasi-Ghana. Retrieved
on December 26, 2018, from http://www.ijwmt.com/IJWMT
_Vol.%202,%

National Solid Waste Management Status Report 2008- 2014. 2015.

Environmental Management Bureau, Department of Environment
and Natural Resources and National Solid Waste Management
Commission. Retrieved on December 26, 2018 from
http://119.92.161.2/portal/Portals/38/Solid%20Wastefinal
draft%2012.29.15.pdf.

Minervini, D. (2013). „Governance in a bottle‟, in Organising waste in

the city, edited by Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013. Bristol, U.K.:
Policy Press. 83-120.

Niekerk, I.M. (2014). Waste management behaviour: a case study of school

children in Mpumalanga, South Africa. North West University.
May 2014.

Paghasian, M. (2017). Awareness and Practices on Solid Waste

Management among College Students in Mindanao State University
Maigo School of Arts and Trades. Advances in Social Science,
Education and Humanities Research, Volume 128.
papers/268-CD0082.pdf.

Pham, L. (2014). Design a Solid Waste Management Course for Primary

School focus on Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. University of Applied
Sciences. Haaga Helia.

Punongbayan, C. M. (2014). Waste Management Practices of an Educational

Institution. Retrieved on September 16, 2018, from http://apjeas.
apjmr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/APJEAS-2014-1-056.pdf.

Premakumara, D. G. J. 2013. Policy Implementation of the Republic (RA)

9003 in the Philippines: A Case Study of Cebu City. Retrieved on
April 6, 2016, from file:///C:/Users/ Administrator/Downloads/6-
5.pdf.

Ragma, F. and Rulloda, E. (2017). Implementation of Solid Waste

Management Ordinance. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
 111

net/publication/324528585_Implementation_of_the
_Solid_Waste_Management_Ordinance

Rahmaddin, M. Y., Hidayat, T., Yanuwiadi, B., & Suyadi. (2015).

Knowledge, attitude, and action of community towards waste
management in river bank of Martapura. International Journal
of Applied Psychology, 5(4), 96-102. Retrieved from
doi:10.5923/j.ijap.20 150504.03

Republic Act No. 9003. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.
Retrieved on September 16, 2018, from
http://www.gov.ph/ 2001/01/26/republicact-no-
9003-s-2001/.

Roudbari, A., Saeid, N., and Yagmaeian, K. (2014). Design and

Implementation of Integrated Solid Wastes Management Pattern
in Industrial Zones, Case Study of Shahroud, Iran. Journal of
Environmental Health Science & Engineering. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3895798/.

Schouten, J., Martin, D. and Tillotson, J. (2015). „Curbside cartographies

in an urban food-waste composting program‟ in Waste
management and
sustainable consumption: Reflections on consumer waste, edited by
Ekströ m, K. New York: Routledge. 102-114

Solid Waste Management in Schools (2016). Ecosan Services Foundation.

Retrieved on September 16, 2018, fromhttp://schoolsanitation.
com/ pdf/Waste-Management -in-Schools.pdf.

Taherzadeh, M. and Rajendran, K. (2015). „Factors affecting development

of waste management‟ in Waste management and sustainable
consumption: Reflections on consumer waste, edited by Ekströ m, K.
Routledge: New York. 67-87.

Villanueva, R. (2013). Proper Solid Waste Management: Education,

Engineering,Enterprise and Enforcement. Article. The Philippine Star.
Retrieved on September 16, 2018, from http://www.philstar.
com/science-and technology/ 2013/01/03/892576/proper- solid-
wastemanagement-education-engineering.
 112

Appendix A

Letter for the Validation of the Research Instrument

December 05, 2018

Dear Sir:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting his study entitled Awareness

and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
District 2, Bayawan City Division during the S.Y. 2018-2019.

In line with the abovementioned endeavour, the undersigned respectfully

asks for your valuable assistance in validating the attached research
instruments by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates. Please refer to the
criteria set forth.

Your favourable response regarding this matter is greatly

appreciated. Respectfully yours,

EMERSON N. LALAMONAN
Researcher

Noted by:

MARIO DEJITO, Ed.D.

Adviser
 1

Letter for the Validation of the Research

December 05, 2018

Dear Sir:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting his study entitled Awareness

and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
District 2, Bayawan City Division during the S.Y. 2018-2019.

In line with the abovementioned endeavour, the undersigned respectfully

asks for your valuable assistance in validating the attached research
instruments by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates. Please refer to the
criteria set forth.

Your favourable response regarding this matter is greatly

appreciated. Respectfully yours,

EMERSON N. LALAMONAN
Researcher

Noted by:

MARIO DEJITO, Ed.D.

Adviser
 1

Letter for the Validation of the Research

December 05, 2018

Dear Sir:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting his study entitled Awareness

and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
District 2, Bayawan City Division during the S.Y. 2018-2019.

In line with the abovementioned endeavour, the undersigned respectfully

asks for your valuable assistance in validating the attached research
instruments by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates. Please refer to the
criteria set forth.

Your favourable response regarding this matter is greatly

appreciated. Respectfully yours,

EMERSON N. LALAMONAN
Researcher

Noted by:

MARIO DEJITO, Ed.D.

Adviser
 115

Appendix

Criteria for the Validation of the Research Instrument

 1

Criteria for the Validation of the Research

Criteria for the Validation of the Research Instrument

 1

Criteria for the Validation of the Research

 118

Appendix C

Summary of Results for the Validation of the Research Instrument

Criteria for Validity Juror Juror Juror

1 2 3
1) This questionnaire is short enough to read
and would not draw much of their precious 4 4 4
time.
2) The questionnaire is interesting and has a
face appeal such that respondent is willing 5 5 5
to respond to it and accomplish it fully.
3) The questionnaire can obtain more depth
to respondents and avoid superficial 5 5 5
answer.
4) The items/questions and their alternative
responses which not so suggestive and not 5 5 5
too stimulating.
5) The questionnaire can elicit responses
which are definite but not mechanically 5 5 5
forced.
6) Questions/Items are formed in such way
that the responses will not 5 5 5
be
embarrassing to the person/s concerned.
7) Questions/Items are formed in such
manner as to avoid suspicion on the part of 5 5 5
the respondents.
8) The questionnaire is neither too restrictive
5 5 5
nor limited on its philosophy.
9) The respondents to the questionnaire when
as a whole could answer the basic purpose
5 5 5
for which the questionnaire is designed
and therefore considered valid.

Mean per Juror 4.89 4.89 4.89

Overall mean 4.89

Interpretation Very High Validity

 1

Appendix

Letter to Conduct Reliability Testing

December 05, 2018

JAY GARRY T. TANGENTE, Ed.D.

Public Schools District Supervisor
District 1, Bayawan City Division

Dear Sir:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting his study entitled Awareness

and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
District 2, Bayawan City Division during the S.Y. 2018-2019.

In line with the abovementioned endeavour, the undersigned respectfully

asks for your valuable assistance in confirming the reliability of the
attached research instruments by Carter V. Good and Douglas B. Scates.
Please refer to the criteria set forth.

Your favourable response regarding this matter is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully yours,

EMERSON N. LALAMONAN
Researcher

Noted by:

MARIO DEJITO, Ed.D.

Adviser
 1

Appendix E

Survey Instrument on Awareness and Implementation of Solid Waste

Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division

Part I. Profile of the Respondents

Name(Optional)
Name of School:
Sex: Male FemaleSize of School: Smal ler Bigge r
School Location:
Barangay Schools
Banga Banga Central School
BCSTEC Elementary School
Buli-Buli Elementary School
Cansig-id Elementary School
Malabugas Telesforo Gargantiel MES
Nangka Dean Felix Gaudiel MES
Pagatban H.Bido Jordan MES

Part II. Questionnaire Proper

A. Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management

Practices
Instruction: Please check the number that corresponds to the
level of your awareness in the following items. It is important that you
honestly answer each item. Please do not leave any item unchecked. Rest
assured that your individual information will be treated with strict
confidentiality. Please refer to the guide below in choosing your option.

Code Interpretation

5 very high
4 high
3 moderate
2 low
1 very low

A. SWM Practice (Segregation) 5 4 3 2 1

What is your level of awareness on the following:
Segregation of biodegradable (paper,
banana peels, cardboard, food
1 wastes, leaves, twigs and vegetables)
and non-biodegradable (plastic toys,
 1

glass, steel, rubber) wastes at

school.
Separation of recyclable wastes
(paper, cardboard, plastic bottles)
from non-recyclable or residuals
2 which have no potential for reuse
and recycling (sando bags, napkins,
diapers, ball pens, etc. )
Separation of non-harmful wastes
from toxic and hazardous wastes
3 such as pentel pens, laboratory
chemicals, ink, cell batteries and
others.
Separation and segregation of
4 garbage in different containers.
Segregation of recyclable items for
5 collection.

B. SWM Practice (Reduce) 5 4 3 2 1

What is your level of awareness on the following:

Borrowing, sharing, and/or renting

1 things that are needed occasionally.
Buying only what is needed so that
2 one will not end up throwing away
extra food.
Packing lunch in reusable lunchbox
3 so that one cannot buy
wrapped/packed food at school.
Bring water in reusable water bottles
4 than buying water in one used
plastic bottles at the school.
Being cautious and responsible to
5 every waste one produce.

C. SWM Practice (Reuse) 5 4 3 2 1

What is your level of awareness on the following:

Reusing old materials than buying a

1 new one.
Keeping those unfilled papers and
2 using it as scratch.
3 Reusing grocery bags.
4 Reusing washable food containers.
Reusing scrap paper into memo
5 pads.
 1

D. SWM Practice (Recycle) 5 4 3 2 1

What is your level of awareness on the following:

Redesigning waste materials into a

1 new product.
Making decors out of plastic
2 wrappers and other colorful waste
materials.
Promoting the importance of
3 recycling.
Initiating income-generating
4 activities out of waste materials.
Using recycled products out of
5 redesigned waste materials.

E. SWM Practice (Disposal) 5 4 3 2 1

What is your level of awareness on the following:

Throwing and leaving of garbage

1 anywhere.
2 Burning of waste materials.
Throwing of waste materials in
3 common open dumps.
Disposal of biodegradable wastes
4 into a compost pit.
Disposal of hazardous/ toxic/special
wastes such as laboratory leftover
5 (chemicals) or electronic waste in
any garbage container.

B. Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management Practices

Code Interpretation

5 always
4 often
3 sometimes
2 rarely
1 almost never

a. SWM Practice (Segregation) 5 4 3 2 1

To what extent is your implementation
of the following:
Segregation practice is evident in
1 classrooms, offices and canteen.
 123

Waste is segregated into at least

2 two types.
Receptacle for special waste is
3 necessary wherever applicable.
No unmanaged waste receptacles
4 outside the classrooms.
5 MRF is available.
b. SWM Practice (Reduce) 5 4 3 2 1
To what extent is your implementation
of the following:
Avoidance of use of plastics in
1 canteen.
No more plastics used as
2 secondary packaging material.
Most foods are packed using
3 biodegradable materials.
Orient school canteen vendors on
4 plastic avoidance policy.
Implement DepEd-Bayawan
5 City‟s policy on plastic avoidance
in canteens.
c. SWM Practice (Reuse) 5 4 3 2 1
To what extent is your implementation
of the following:
Composting of biodegradable
1 waste.
Actual application of compost in
2 gardening.
Reuse used tires as decorative
3 flower pots.
Use of compost products or soil
4 from the compost pit were used
in the garden.
5 Re-use practices are evident.
d. SWM Practice (Recycle) 5 4 3 2 1
To what extent is your implementation
of the following:
Recover and recycle papers (pots,
1 charcoal, etc).
Plastic waste turned into pillows
2 as one of the examples.
Drinking straws and popsicle
3 sticks made into tiny houses
among others.
4 Products out of recyclable
 124

materials show promise (profit,

utility, etc).
5 MRF is available.

SWM Practice (Disposal) 5 4 3 2 1

To what extent is your implementation
of the following:
1 Proper disposal of special wastes.
On site establishment of
composting facilities for
2 biodegradable wastes (any of
these: compost pit,
vermicompost, etc.)
Proper observance of collection
3 schedules for specific category of
segregated solid wastes.
Designate drop-off center/MRF
4 (ideal, sturdy, labeled, actual
sales on recyclable waste).
Residual waste due for collection
5 is inside sacks to facilitate
collection by the LGU.
 1

SPSS Summary for Appendix

1. Profile

For teachers:

sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

male 5 6.2 6.2 6.2

Valid female 76 93.8 93.8 100.0
Total 81 100.0 100.0

size of school

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

smaller 44 54.3 54.3 54.3

Valid bigger 37 45.7 45.7 100.0
Total 81 100.0 100.0

location of school

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

banga 41 50.6 50.6 50.6

malabugas 19 23.5 23.5 74.1

Valid nangka 9 11.1 11.1 85.2

pagatban 12 14.8 14.8 100.0

Total 81 100.0 100.0
 1

For students:

sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

1.00 87 46.0 46.0 46.0

Valid 2.00 102 54.0 54.0 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0

size of school

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

smaller 91 48.1 48.1 48.1

Valid bigger 98 51.9 51.9 100.0
Total 189 100.0 100.0

location of school

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

banga 94 49.7 49.7 49.7

malabugas 56 29.6 29.6 79.4

Valid nangka 15 7.9 7.9 87.3

pagatban 24 12.7 12.7 100.0

Total 189 100.0 100.0
 127

2. Awareness … areas

For teachers:

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean
as1 81 4.8765
as2 81 4.8272
as3 81 4.8519
as4 81 4.9136
as5 81 4.8519
as1mean 81 4.8642
ard1 81 4.2716
ard2 81 4.6543
ard3 81 4.7284
ard4 81 4.8765
ard5 81 4.7901
ard1mean 81 4.6642
ars1 81 4.5185
ars2 81 4.5802
ars3 81 4.6790
ars4 81 4.6543
ars5 81 4.5926
arsmean 81 4.6049
arc1 81 4.3086
arc2 81 4.2963
arc3 81 4.7160
arc4 81 4.4074
arc5 81 4.4321
arcmean 81 4.4321
ad1 81 3.8148
ad2 81 3.9383
ad3 81 4.1975
ad4 81 4.8889
ad5 81 3.9877
admean 81 4.1654
amean 81 4.5462

Valid N (listwise) 81
 1

For Students:

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean

as1 189 4.8995

as2 189 4.8095
as3 189 4.7725
as4 189 4.8519
as5 189 4.6508
asmean 189 4.7968
ard1 189 3.9312
ard2 189 4.4339
ard3 189 4.6984
ard4 189 4.6085
ard5 189 4.7249
ardmean 189 4.4794
ars1 189 4.7937
ars2 189 4.7249
ars3 189 4.7672
ars4 189 4.9153
ars5 189 4.6402
arsmean 189 4.7683
arc1 189 4.5397
arc2 189 4.5820
arc3 189 4.8042
arc4 188 4.6596
arc5 189 4.5556
arcmean 188 4.6266
ad1 189 4.0582
ad2 189 3.7884
ad3 189 3.5820
ad4 189 4.8783
ad5 189 3.6878
admean 189 3.9989
amean 188 4.5321
Valid N (listwise) 188
 1

3. Awareness …

variables Sex

as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5 asmean ardmean * sex
Mean

sex as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5 asmea ardmea
n n

4.869 4.771 4.728 4.869 4.695 3.989 4.456 4.673 4.673 4.739 4.7870 4.5065
male
6 7 3 6 7 1 5 9 9 1
femal 4.904 4.837 4.831 4.870 4.719 4.056 4.522 4.724 4.696 4.747 4.8326 4.5494
e 5 1 5 8 1 2 5 7 6 2
4.892 4.814 4.796 4.870 4.711 4.033 4.500 4.707 4.688 4.744 4.8170 4.5348
Total
6 8 3 4 1 3 0 4 9 4

ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5 * sex
Mean
sex ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5

mal 4.79 4.66 4.72 4.89 4.67 4.54 4.55 4.82 4.68 4.54 3.94 3.63 3.47 4.85 3.64
e 35 30 83 13 39 35 43 61 48 35 57 04 83 87 13
fem 4.66 4.69 4.74 4.80 4.60 4.43 4.46 4.75 4.53 4.50 4.00 3.93 3.91 4.89 3.84
ale 85 10 72 90 11 26 63 28 11 56 56 82 57 33 83
Tota 4.71 4.68 4.74 4.83 4.62 4.47 4.49 4.77 4.58 4.51 3.98 3.83 3.76 4.88 3.77
l 11 15 07 70 59 04 63 78 36 85 52 33 67 15 78

arsmean arcmean admean amean * sex

Mean

sex arsmean arcmean admean amean

male 4.7500 4.6304 3.9109 4.5170
female 4.7034 4.5356 4.1202 4.5464
Total 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364
 1

Size of School

as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5 * size of school
Mean
size of school as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5
smaller 4.8889 4.8222 4.7407 4.8815 4.7852 3.9333 4.5852 4.7630 4.8148 4.6815
bigger 4.8963 4.8074 4.8519 4.8593 4.6370 4.1333 4.4148 4.6519 4.5630 4.8074
Total 4.8926 4.8148 4.7963 4.8704 4.7111 4.0333 4.5000 4.7074 4.6889 4.7444

ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5 * size of school
Mean

size ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5
of
scho
ol
smal 4.60 4.50 4.61 4.80 4.58 4.54 4.44 4.62 4.43 4.45 3.50 3.34 3.23 4.89 3.42
ler 00 37 48 74 52 07 44 96 70 19 37 07 70 63 22
bigg 4.82 4.85 4.86 4.86 4.66 4.40 4.54 4.92 4.73 4.58 4.46 4.32 4.29 4.86 4.13
er 22 93 67 67 67 00 81 59 13 52 67 59 63 67 33
4.71 4.68 4.74 4.83 4.62 4.47 4.49 4.77 4.58 4.51 3.98 3.83 3.76 4.88 3.77
Total
11 15 07 70 59 04 63 78 36 85 52 33 67 15 78

arsmean arcmean admean amean * size of school

Mean
size of school arsmean arcmean admean amean

smaller 4.6222 4.5007 3.6800 4.4364

bigger 4.8163 4.6358 4.4178 4.6370
Total 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364
 1

School Location

as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5 * location of school
Mean
location of school as1 as2 as3 as4 as5 ard1 ard2 ard3 ard4 ard5
banga 4.9407 4.8741 4.8444 4.9037 4.7556 4.2815 4.6889 4.8370 4.8889 4.7704
malabugas 4.8133 4.7067 4.7600 4.7600 4.4400 3.6133 4.0267 4.4133 4.2533 4.6933
nangka 4.8333 5.0000 4.8333 4.9167 4.9583 3.9167 4.7917 4.8750 4.8750 4.7500
pagatban 4.9167 4.6944 4.6667 4.9444 4.9444 4.0556 4.5833 4.7222 4.7222 4.7500
Total 4.8926 4.8148 4.7963 4.8704 4.7111 4.0333 4.5000 4.7074 4.6889 4.7444

ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5 * location of school
Mean

location ars1 ars2 ars3 ars4 ars5 arc1 arc2 arc3 arc4 arc5 ad1 ad2 ad3 ad4 ad5
of
school
4.68 4.74 4.74 4.84 4.73 4.60 4.60 4.75 4.44 4.59 3.88 3.80 3.88 4.88 3.97
banga
15 07 07 44 33 74 00 56 78 26 89 74 89 15 78
malabu 4.70 4.78 4.81 4.81 4.42 4.12 4.32 4.89 4.72 4.36 4.53 4.36 4.01 4.81 3.82
gas 67 67 33 33 67 00 00 33 00 00 33 00 33 33 67
4.83 4.45 4.70 4.95 4.58 4.58 4.45 4.87 4.70 4.75 3.37 3.12 3.12 4.95 3.29
nangka
33 83 83 83 33 33 83 50 83 00 50 50 50 83 17
pagatb 4.75 4.38 4.61 4.77 4.66 4.61 4.50 4.55 4.72 4.41 3.61 3.30 3.22 4.97 3.25
an 00 89 11 78 67 11 00 56 22 67 11 56 22 22 00
4.71 4.68 4.74 4.83 4.62 4.47 4.49 4.77 4.58 4.51 3.98 3.83 3.76 4.88 3.77
Total
11 15 07 70 59 04 63 78 36 85 52 33 67 15 78

arsmean arcmean admean amean * location of school

Mean
location of school arsmean arcmean admean amean

banga 4.7481 4.5985 4.0889 4.5964

malabugas 4.7093 4.4827 4.3093 4.4795
nangka 4.7083 4.6750 3.5750 4.5017
pagatban 4.6389 4.5611 3.6722 4.4544
Total 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364

4. Implementation on areas
 132

For teachers:

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean

is1 81 4.8148
is2 81 4.8642
is3 81 4.6790
is4 81 4.6790
is5 81 4.7284
ismean 81 4.7531
ird1 81 4.0988
ird2 81 4.0000
ird3 81 4.1481
ird4 81 4.6049
ird5 81 4.6790
irdmean 81 4.3062
irs1 81 4.6173
irs2 81 4.5432
irs3 81 4.7160
irs4 81 4.6914
irs5 81 4.6543
irsmean 81 4.6444
irc1 81 4.5556
irc2 81 4.5802
irc3 81 4.2963
irc4 81 4.5802
irc5 81 4.6543
ircmean 81 4.5333
id1 81 4.8395
id2 81 4.7407
id3 81 4.9259
id4 81 4.8148
id5 81 4.8148
idmean 81 4.8272
imean 81 4.6128
Valid N (listwise) 81

For students:
 1

Descriptive Statistics
N Mean

is1 189 4.8571

is2 189 4.8942
is3 189 4.6508
is4 189 4.4974
is5 189 4.6190
ird1 189 4.4021
ird2 189 4.1693
ird3 189 4.2857
ird4 189 4.7249
ird5 189 4.7989
irs1 189 4.6190
irs2 188 4.5160
irs3 189 4.6984
irs4 189 4.5291
irs5 189 4.7143
irc1 189 4.5238
irc2 189 4.7249
irc3 189 4.6561
irc4 189 4.5132
irc5 189 4.6667
id1 189 4.8677
id2 189 4.6402
id3 189 4.9259
id4 189 4.8519
id5 189 4.9312
ismean 189 4.7037
irdmean 189 4.4762
irsmean 188 4.6138
ircmean 189 4.6169
idmean 189 4.8434
imean 188 4.6494
Valid N (listwise) 188
 1

5. Implementation… on variables

Sex

is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismean ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmean * sex
Mean

sex is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismea ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmea
n n

4.891 4.913 4.739 4.543 4.673 4.752 4.380 4.184 4.326 4.760 4.793 4.4891
male
3 0 1 5 9 2 4 8 1 9 5
femal 4.820 4.870 4.618 4.556 4.640 4.701 4.275 4.084 4.202 4.651 4.747 4.3921
e 2 8 0 2 4 1 3 3 2 7 2
4.844 4.885 4.659 4.551 4.651 4.718 4.311 4.118 4.244 4.688 4.763 4.4252
Total
4 2 3 9 9 5 1 5 4 9 0

irs1 irs2 irs3 irs4 irs5 irsmean irc1 irc2 irc3 irc4 irc5 ircmean id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 idmean imean * sex
Mean

se irs irs irs irs irs irs irc irc irc irc irc irc id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 idm i
x 1 2 3 4 5 me 1 2 3 4 5 me ean m
an an ea
n

4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6
ma
19 49 73 76 17 242 41 28 08 43 39 522 58 28 56 26 67 674 74
le
6 5 9 1 4 3 3 7 5 1 7 3 5 1 4 3
fe 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6
ma 18 11 19 78 85 225 77 57 16 28 23 607 59 40 10 48 59 236 20
le 0 2 1 7 4 5 3 9 1 6 6 4 1 3 6 0
4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6
Tot
18 24 03 77 96 230 33 81 48 33 63 919 59 70 25 40 96 385 38
al
5 2 7 8 3 3 5 1 3 0 3 4 9 7 3 4
 1

Size of school

is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismean ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmean * size of school
Mean
size of is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismea ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmea
school n n

smalle 4.888 4.911 4.681 4.659 4.792 4.786 4.370 4.214 4.237 4.777 4.785 4.4770
r 9 1 5 3 6 7 4 8 0 8 2
4.800 4.859 4.637 4.444 4.511 4.650 4.251 4.022 4.251 4.600 4.740 4.3733
bigger
0 3 0 4 1 4 9 2 9 0 7
4.844 4.885 4.659 4.551 4.651 4.718 4.311 4.118 4.244 4.688 4.763 4.4252
Total
4 2 3 9 9 5 1 5 4 9 0

irs1 irs2 irs3 irs4 irs5 irsmean irc1 irc2 irc3 irc4 irc5 ircmean id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 idmean imean * size
of school
Mean
siz irs irs irs irs irs irs irc irc irc irc irc irc id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 idm i
e of 1 2 3 4 5 me 1 2 3 4 5 me ean m
sch an an ea
ool n

sm 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6
alle 63 29 66 85 40 970 29 59 85 77 59 622 81 07 18 22 29 519 75
r 0 6 7 2 7 6 3 2 8 3 5 4 5 2 6 0
4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.5 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.6
big
74 19 40 70 51 493 37 03 11 88 66 215 37 33 33 59 63 252 01
ger
1 4 7 4 9 0 7 1 9 7 0 3 3 3 0 5
4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6
Tot
18 24 03 77 96 230 33 81 48 33 63 919 59 70 25 40 96 385 38
al
5 2 7 8 3 3 5 1 3 0 3 4 9 7 3 4
 1

Location of school

is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismean ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmean * location of school
Mean
location is1 is2 is3 is4 is5 ismea ird1 ird2 ird3 ird4 ird5 irdmea
of school n n

4.918 4.888 4.814 4.666 4.770 4.811 4.370 4.140 4.429 4.644 4.740 4.4652
banga
5 9 8 7 4 9 4 7 6 4 7
malabug 4.640 4.853 4.413 4.240 4.186 4.466 4.093 3.880 3.853 4.653 4.760 4.2480
as 0 3 3 0 7 7 3 0 3 3 0
5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 4.708 4.750 4.791 4.875 4.875 4.8000
nangka
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0
4.888 4.861 4.361 4.472 4.944 4.705 4.277 4.111 4.000 4.805 4.777 4.3944
pagatban
9 1 1 2 4 6 8 1 0 6 8
4.844 4.885 4.659 4.551 4.651 4.718 4.311 4.118 4.244 4.688 4.763 4.4252
Total
4 2 3 9 9 5 1 5 4 9 0

irs1 irs2 irs3 irs4 irs5 irsmean irc1 irc2 irc3 irc4 irc5 ircmean id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 idmean imean *
location of school
Mean

locati irs irs irs irs irs irs irc irc irc irc irc irc id1 id2 id3 id4 id5 id im
on of 1 2 3 4 5 me 1 2 3 4 5 me m ea
scho an an ea n
ol n

4.7 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 4.7
bang
55 59 92 07 37 704 92 77 55 63 88 956 77 33 18 81 66 15 51
a
6 3 6 4 0 6 8 6 0 9 8 3 5 5 7 6 7
mala 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.7 4.1 4.8 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.3
buga 93 73 60 53 40 378 00 93 46 33 80 707 06 60 80 46 33 85 95
s 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 7 3 0 7 0 0 7 3 3 1
4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
nang
00 41 41 25 08 833 75 08 00 66 75 250 00 00 00 00 00 00 21
ka
0 7 7 0 3 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
4.4 4.1 4.7 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.5
pagat
44 11 77 61 94 778 44 94 38 16 88 167 38 27 00 77 61 61 91
ban
4 1 8 1 4 4 4 9 7 9 9 8 0 8 1 1 1
 1

4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6
Total 18 24 03 77 96 230 33 81 48 33 63 919 59 70 25 40 96 38 38
5 2 7 8 3 3 5 1 3 0 3 4 9 7 3 5 4

6. Difference between awareness

Levels of awareness on variables

asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean * sex

Mean
sex asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean

male 4.7870 4.5065 4.7500 4.6304 3.9109 4.5170

female 4.8326 4.5494 4.7034 4.5356 4.1202 4.5464
Total 4.8170 4.5348 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364

asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean * size of school

Mean
size of school asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean

smaller 4.8237 4.5556 4.6222 4.5007 3.6800 4.4364

bigger 4.8104 4.5141 4.8163 4.6358 4.4178 4.6370
Total 4.8170 4.5348 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364

asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean * location of school

Mean
location of school asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean
banga 4.8637 4.6933 4.7481 4.5985 4.0889 4.5964
malabugas 4.6960 4.2000 4.7093 4.4827 4.3093 4.4795
nangka 4.9083 4.6417 4.7083 4.6750 3.5750 4.5017
pagatban 4.8333 4.5667 4.6389 4.5611 3.6722 4.4544
Total 4.8170 4.5348 4.7193 4.5680 4.0489 4.5364
 1

Difference on the Variable sex

Test Statisticsa
asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean

Mann-Whitney U 7181.500 7736.000 8157.000 7272.500 6738.000 7476.500

Wilcoxon W 11459.500 12014.000 12435.000 23025.500 11016.000 11754.500
Z -1.887 -.755 -.054 -1.478 -2.397 -1.102
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .059 .450 .957 .139 .017 .271

a. Grouping Variable: sex

Difference on the Variable Size of School

Test Statisticsa
asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean
Mann-Whitney U 8951.000 8875.000 6504.000 7217.000 4023.500 4888.000
Wilcoxon W 18131.000 18055.000 15684.000 16397.000 13203.500 14068.000
Z -.287 -.376 -4.301 -2.947 -7.973 -6.529
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .774 .707 .000 .003 .000 .000

a. Grouping Variable: size of school

Difference on the Variable School Location

Test Statisticsa,b
asmean ardmean arsmean arcmean admean amean
Chi-Square 18.977 65.679 10.160 4.708 29.505 9.362
df 3 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .017 .194 .000 .025

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: location of school
 1

7. Difference between implementation

Extents of implementation on variables

ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean * sex

Mean
sex ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean

male 4.7522 4.4891 4.6242 4.6522 4.8674 4.6743

female 4.7011 4.3921 4.6225 4.5607 4.8236 4.6200
Total 4.7185 4.4252 4.6230 4.5919 4.8385 4.6384

ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean * size of school

Mean
size of school ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean
smaller 4.7867 4.4770 4.5970 4.6622 4.8519 4.6750
bigger 4.6504 4.3733 4.6493 4.5215 4.8252 4.6015
Total 4.7185 4.4252 4.6230 4.5919 4.8385 4.6384

ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean * location of school

Mean
location of school ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean

banga 4.8119 4.4652 4.7704 4.7956 4.9156 4.7517

malabugas 4.4667 4.2480 4.4378 4.1707 4.6853 4.3951
nangka 5.0000 4.8000 4.5833 4.7250 5.0000 4.8217
pagatban 4.7056 4.3944 4.4778 4.6167 4.7611 4.5911
Total 4.7185 4.4252 4.6230 4.5919 4.8385 4.6384
 1

Difference on the implementation for the variable SEX

Test Statisticsa
ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean

Mann-Whitney U 7687.000 7082.500 7955.500 7344.000 7352.000 7399.500

Wilcoxon W 23618.000 23013.500 12141.500 23275.000 23283.000 23330.500
Z -.893 -1.843 -.246 -1.439 -1.534 -1.161
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .372 .065 .806 .150 .125 .246

a. Grouping Variable: sex

Difference on the implementation for the variable Size of School

Test Statisticsa
ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean
Mann-Whitney U 7373.500 8357.000 8285.500 8049.000 8318.000 8207.500
Wilcoxon W 16553.500 17537.000 17465.500 17229.000 17498.000 17252.500
Z -2.937 -1.194 -1.230 -1.719 -1.382 -1.315
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .232 .219 .086 .167 .188

a. Grouping Variable: size of school

Difference on the implementation for the variable School Location

Test Statisticsa,b
ismean irdmean irsmean ircmean idmean imean

Chi-Square 57.349 29.488 54.844 93.445 95.855 88.254

df 3 3 3 3 3 3
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: location of school
 141

8. Relationship between awareness and implementation

Correlations
amean imean
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .394**

amean Sig. (2-tailed) . .000

N 269 268
Spearman's rho .394 **
1.000
Correlation Coefficient
.000 .
imean Sig. (2-tailed)
268 269
N

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

 142

CURRICULUM VITAE

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: EMERSON N. LALAMONAN

Birthdate: NOVEMBER 15, 1978

Birthplace: POBLACION, STA. CATALINA, NEGROS ORIENTAL

Permanent Address: STA. CATALINA, NEGROS ORIENTAL

Parents: Father: PRIMO M. LALAMONAN

Mother: TERESA T.

NUIQUE

Civil Status: SINGLE

Height: 163 cm

Weight: 80 kgs

Religion: ROMAN CATHOLIC

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

Elementary: STA. CATALINA CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Secondary: NEGROS ORIENTAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL

College: FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY

Course: BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN COMMERSE

Major: COMPUTER APPLICATION

College: BAYAWAN COLLEGE

Course: BACHELOR IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION

Major: GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

Graduate Study: STI WEST NEGROS UNIVERSITY

Course: MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

 143

Major: MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION

Comprehensive Exam: PASSED

WORK EXPERIENCES

1. CANSIG-ID ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - BAYAWAN CITY DIVISION

TEACHER – I

06-05-2017 - PRESENT

2. BOKAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - BAYAWAN CITY DIVIVION

TEACHER – I

06-06-2011 – 06-04-2017

3. KAKHA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL–NEGROS ORIENTAL DIVISION

SUBSTITUTE TEACHER

10-26-2010 – 12-16-2010

4. BAYAWAN COLLEGE, INC.

COURSE EVALUATOR/SUBJECT TEACHER

04-01-2009 – 10-15-2010

D. ELIGIBILITY: LICENSURE EXAMINATION FOR TEACHERS