Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
The Problem
affects our lives. Humans are the product of our concern. There
are many efforts and programs worldwide being made to make people
life, affecting not just the country's healthcare system but even
the pandemic.
disposal facilities.
was enacted to set the mandate and framework for solid waste
Philippines.
consumption and production (SDG 12), and life below water (SDG
that would hamper their development. Ensure that schools are kept
(Project WINS).
under DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2020. The BE-LCP is consistent with
wake-up call in accordance with Republic Act (RA) 9003. This law
the rivers and canals from the pile of trash, the effort became
and excels in the criteria set by the LGU code or R.A. 7160 of
1991; the PD 856 of 1975 and the Pollution Control Act (PD
barangays and is located a mere 7.5 kms. from Iriga City and 30
who become a Pinoy Big Brother Season 2 Big Winner and now an
actress.
Baao Children and Youth Choir from Baao, Camaarines Sur, led by
by Maria Lourdes-Hermo.
Baao District has 6437 total number of Pupils for the school
(Girls) for Individual and Team Category and Chess (Girls) Blitz
place and Volleyball boys got 2nd Place. During the Division
from Baao West Central School got Gold, Tennis (Girls) bagged
like Gymnastics were also qualified for Bicol Meet. Some learners
Festival, 3rd place in Flute Ensemble and 1st place Hip-Hop, they
Prevention Month Game and Contests, they got 1st Place during
For scouting, they bagged 1st place for the following event
during Division BSP Got Talent; Popular Dance, Star Scout Dance
got 2nd Place and Modern Dance Adult Leader Category which
Another is during Arae Wide Kid/Kab Palaro 2019, the Kab Chorale
and bagged the 1st Place. Whereas the Popular Dance from the
district won 2nd Place. For programs and projects, Search for
Central School during the Division Level and 4th Place, Baao West
School ranked 6th place while for the Division Level Search for
ways to lessen the effect of too much waste is to abide with the
beneficial use in a way that the original products may lose their
touched or one should not go near to it. They thought before that
(Sarino, 2014).
achieved.
questions:
(ESWM)?
2. What are the practices of the school heads and the barangay
(ESWM?
management?
Assumptions
(ESWM).
18
(ESWM).
Hypotheses
(ESWM).
management and they would know the effects of it. They would also
Management(ESWM).
Management (ESWM).
Policy Makers. This study will help the policy makers the
(ESWM).
this study will help the LGU and Barangay Officials to raise the
such.
waste workers.
disposal.
officials, she will gain insights on how she will promote how
of her work. She will be open with her mind for some improvement,
competent teacher.
and is located a mere 7.5 kms. from Iriga City and 30 kms. of
its name from the word BA-oo, these reptiles were said to be once
Commuter rail service are provided by PNR serving from the Naga
bus companies that serve daily intercity trips. From Naga City
City from the Naga City Central Bus Terminal and disembark at
City.
hectares (0.60 km²). the lake is fed by local run-off and several
which flows from another lake, Lake Buhi. The water from the lake
who become a Pinoy Big Brother Season 2 Big Winner and now an
actress.
In the field of singing, Baao had Baao Children and Youth Choir
1st place and the Best Interpretation Award of the contest piece
Baao District has 6437 total number of Pupils for the school
Figure 1
Location Map of Baao
Province of Camarines Sur
30
Elementary School.
(Girls) for Individual and Team Category and Chess (Girls) Blitz
31
place and Volleyball boys got 2nd Place. During the Division
from Baao West Central School got Gold, Tennis (Girls) bagged
like Gymnastics were also qualified for Bicol Meet. Some learners
Festival, 3rd place in Flute Ensemble and 1st place Hip-Hop, they
Prevention Month Game and Contests, they got 1st Place during
For scouting, they bagged 1st place for the following event
during Division BSP Got Talent; Popular Dance, Star Scout Dance
got 2nd Place and Modern Dance Adult Leader Category which
Another is during Arae Wide Kid/Kab Palaro 2019, the Kab Chorale
and bagged the 1st Place. Whereas the Popular Dance from the
district won 2nd Place. For programs and projects, Search for
Central School during the Division Level and 4th Place, Baao West
School ranked 6th place while for the Division Level Search for
Honesty) in 2012.
the level of awareness and practices of the school heads and the
Definition of Terms
disposal.
that are not waste are used again for the same purpose for which
new way.
pollution (from landfilling).
prepared for some group that has the authority to make decisions,
public policy.
38
CHAPTER 2
survey provided the present work with the needed perception and
achieved.
the same roles and functions on orienting their students for the
recycle, and disposal were very high. It means that both the
respondents to be assessed.
was lower.
environmentally‐responsible citizens.
0.7 kg per person per day due to its more modernized lifestyle.
dumped anywhere onto open areas, called open dumps, adding to the
now polluted air shed and water body, and global warming in the
urban centers of the country and the possible and innovative ways
comply with this mandate. Even though the law requires the
assistance to implement the law. Hence, some LGUs are still using
used by Metro Manila LGUs are: Navotas SLF, Rizal Provincial SLF
matter from MSW to form leachate percolation into the soil that
study.
production to only two heads per household with septic tank (2)
Lake Buhi while the present was on awareness and practices of the
of the study showed that the students are aware of the solid
management.
Baao.
avoid the generation of wastes, then they must try to reduce the
their cooperation and full support; LGUs should reach out and
collection and disposal. While the LGUs try to implement the main
wrappers and all other packaging waste that are found to be non-
recyclable.
RDF facilities. If all these can be done, zero waste can become a
possibility.
who are raising hogs and cattle are using their biodegradable
waste as feed. For others, they are simply gathering all their
just a reminder for the days and time of collecting the solid
the activity. The said activity can also bring back the
study.
of the study showed that the students are aware of the solid
management.
Baao.
60
More so, authorities have enforced the use of face masks and face
managing the virus requires single use of face masks and face
shields that are made out of plastics. There has also been an
61
problems.
masks. When microplastics get into food like fish for human
2020).
ones, are trying to reduce their waste and prevent food waste.
the other hand, the demand for plastic from automotive and
However, the previous studies were not the same with the present
also affect the rate of waste generation such that those with
high urbanization rate has higher waste generation per capita per
increase by 3.40 billion tons. At this time, East Asia and the
Pacific will generate a total of 714 million tons per year. The
Matictic.
The answers of the respondents about the reasons and factors that
that will solve the issues in the barangay. Poor cash flow
and properly make use of these wastes, then the problem may be
that the waste management work force is too small to enable the
recovering and reusing such waste but there were not strictly
68
sanctions may be given for those who violate the rules and
while the present work was on the awareness level and practices
Management (ESWM).
69
Waste Management.
Policy Recommendations
Philippines. They cited that he baseline policy that ties all the
and adept however, like any other law, it has loopholes that need
out many years ago, but there were still a number of LGUs unable
improvements.
the law in local areas was also guided by 10-year solid waste
should not go near to it. They thought before that all types of
program.
74
Camarines Sur.
this study.
Theoretical Framework
77
are strongly associated with the definitions that have given rise
think they should perform it. The relative importance of the two
hS
Y
e IAL
UAT
AN EO
CON
ION
NE RY
er STR
AL
D
OF
UCT
AWA RE
Ts BEIVI
REN AS
SM
h also specifies
HA
ESS ON
THE the determinants of attitude and subjective norm.
VIORY
THE ED
eT OR(L
ORY
ev
AC
oh Attitude is
(En
THVy
dsl
TI
ON
held to reflect the person's salient behavioral
EOgo
ey,(Aj
re RYts
199zen
eo beliefs concerning
(I and
5ky
) the possible personal consequences of the
ceFis
,
hbe
tr 19
k in
78
iy action. Aj 198
ze)0)
cA n,
19
an The researcher’s
85 theory states that: analyzing the level of
la )
Pl awareness and practices of the School Heads and the Barangay
ay
rz Officials on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM) of in the
ai
dn public elementary schools in Baao District, Division of Camarines
ig
g Sur. Will lead to the formulation of policy recommendations for a
mt
h more improved implementation of the program.
e
l
e
v Conceptual Framework
e
l
a T
H
n E
d A
p A
r R
E
a N
c 80 E
t S
i S
c The input was made up of the following: Legal bases: 1987 A
N
e D
s Philippines Constitution Art XI. Sec.13, Ecological Solid Waste P
R
o Management Act 2000, Republic Act 9003, Republic Act 7160, A
f C
Republic Act 9155, Republic Act 10533, Sustainable Development T
I
t C
h Goals(SDGs), Project WINS, 10 Points Agenda, Other DepEd Orders E
e S
and Memuranda; Theories; Related Literature and Studies; Thesis O
F
S
T
c and Dissertations; Internet materials; Research Instrumentations; H
h E
o and Statistical Tools. S
o C
H
l The process consisted the following: Determining the level O
O
H L
of awareness of the school heads and barangay officials on
e H
a E
ecological solid waste management (ESWM). Identifying the A
d
D
s S
practices of the school heads and the barangay officials on
A
a N
Solid Waste Management along: Waste Segregation; Waste D
n
B
d Collection; Waste Disposal; and implementing the 5R’s. Testing A
R
t A
the significance difference between the level of awareness of the
h N
e G
school heads and the barangay officials on the Ecological Solid A
Y
B O
Waste Management (ESWM). Finding out the challenges encountered
a F
r F
by the respondents on the awareness and practices of the ESWM. I
a
n C
Analyzing the significance significant difference between the I
g A
a L
practices of school heads and barangay officials on ecological
y S
O
solid waste management (ESWM). Formulating policy N
O
E
f recommendations. C
f O
i L
c O
i G
I
a C
l A
s L
S
o O
L
n
D
E W
c A
o S
81 T
l E
o M
g The output of the study were the policy recommendations for A
i N
c A
a more improved awareness and practices of the school heads and G
a E
l the barangay officials on Ecological Solid Waste Management M
E
S (ESWM). N
o T
(
l E
i S
d W
M
W )
I
a N
s T
t H
e E
P
U
M B
a L
n I
a C
g E
L
e E
m M
e E
n N
t T
A
R
( Y
E S
S C
W H
O
M O
) L
S
i O
n F
B
A
t A
h O
e D
I
S
p T
u R
b I
l C
i T
c
e
l
e
e
n
t
a 82
r
y
s
c
h INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
o
o Legal bases Determining the level of
*1987 Philippines awareness of the school heads
l and barangay officials on
Constitution Art XI. Sec.13
s *Ecological Solid Waste ecological solid waste
Management Act 2000 management (ESWM).
*Republic Act 9003 Identifying the practices of Policy
i
*Republic Act 7160 the school heads and the Recommendations
n *Republic Act 9155 barangay officials on Solid
*Republic Act 10533
Waste Management along: Waste for a more
Segregation; Waste
B *Sustainable Development Collection; Waste Disposal; improved
Goals(SDGs)
a *Project WINS
and implementing the 5R’s.
Testing the significance
awareness and
a *10 Points Agenda difference between the level practices of
o *Other DepEd Orders and of awareness of the school
Memuranda; heads and the barangay the School
Theories; officials on the Ecological Heads and the
D Related Literature and Solid Waste Management
i Studies; (ESWM). Barangay
* Thesis and Finding out the challenges
s Dissertations; encountered by the
Officials on
t * Internet materials; respondents on the awareness Ecological
* Research and practices of the ESWM.
r
Instrumentations; Analyzing the significance Solid Waste
i * Respondents; and significant difference Management
c * Statistical Tools. between the practices of
school heads and barangay (ESWM)
t officials on ecological solid
, waste management (ESWM).
Formulating policy
recommendations.
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
C
a
m FEEDBACK
a
r
i
n Figure 3.
e Conceptual Paradigm of the Study
s
S
u
r
w
i
l
l 83
l
e CHAPTER 3
a
d Research Design and Methodology
t
o
This chapter contains the detailed discussion of the methods
t
h and procedures employed in the process of determining level of
e
awareness and practices of the school heads and the barangay
f
o officials on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM) in the
r
m public elementary schools in Baao District. It includes the
u
l research design, the population and the sampling technique
a
t utilized, research subjects, instrument used for gathering the
i
o data, study procedure and the statistical treatment of the data.
n
o
f Research Design
p
o
l This study adopted the descriptive, evaluative and
i
c inferential method through survey questionnaire, considering the
y
nature of the research objectives and its research problems.
r
e Descriptive method and evaluative method was used to
c
o describe the level of awareness of the school heads and barangay
m
m officials on ecological solid waste management in terms of: waste
e
n segregation, waste collection, waste disposal and implementation
d
a of 5R’s(Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, and Recycle); the
t
i practices of the school heads and barangay officials on solid
o
n waste management along the aforementioned dimensions; the
s
f
o
r
a
m
o 84
r
e
problems encountered; and the solutions recommended by the
i
m respondents.
p
r It is likewise inferential method since the study
o
v determined the significant difference between the level of
e
d awareness of the school heads and barangay officials on the
asked.
Camarines Sur.
of the study. Table 1 shows the number of the school heads and
Table 1
Percentage
Figure 4
The Respondents of the
Study
88
Sagrada Elementary School; and San Juan Elementary School and the
are : San Ramon; Bagumbayan; Sta. Eulalia; Sta. Teresa; San Jose;
Sta Isabel Elementary Schoo; and Pugay Elementary School and has
Instrument Used
District.
Table 2
Table of Specification
barangays.
Waste Management.
Validation of Instrumentation.
school heads and barangay officials are very much aware, aware,
adviser.
instrument and were printed and shown to the adviser who still
instrument.
again reflected and same was printed. This was again shown to her
and then the researcher was given the go signal to print it. The
M (N-M)
r =1-
N(S)2
93
1 is constant
N −2
t = r
√ 1−r 2
r = is the reliability
it did not only exceed the criterion level at 0.05 which is 3.496
but even that of 0.001 level. This means that the instrument used
in this study was significantly reliable and only .001% was left
to error or to chance.
Study Procedure
94
committee.
committee.
2020 2021
ACTIVITIES JU AU SE OC NO DE JA FE MA AP MA JU JU AU
LY G PT T V C N B R R Y N L G
2. Reflected the
suggestions/recommendations of the
committee.
Figure 5
authorities.
District.
(Siegel,1988):
m( N +1)
Wx ± .5−
Z = 2
√ mn ( N +1 ) /12
CHAPTER 4
follows:
(ESWM).
management (ESWM).
of the study.
one (1) were rated Very Much Aware (VMA) and nine (9) were rated
Much Aware (MA). The weighted mean is 4.25 ranged from 3.50 –
Table 3
Barangay
School Heads AVERAGE
Officials
INDICATORS
Wx INT Rnk Wx Int Rnk Wx Rnk Int
1. Ensure the protection of the public health and 4.80 1 4.47 4.63 1
VMA MA 1 VMA
environment.
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Aware 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Aware
3.50 – 4.49 Much Aware 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Aware
102
Weighted Mean
Figure 6
Awareness on Ecological Solid Waste
Management (ESWM)
103
(4.23).
Table 3 show that the school heads are Very Much Aware in
two (2) provisions while eight (8) provisions were rated Much
Aware. The weighted mean is 4.36 ranged from 3.50 – 4.49 means
Much Aware. While the barangay officials rated Much Aware in all
indicator was rated Much Evident (VME), and one (1) was rated
Evident (E). The weighted mean is 3.92 ranged from 3.50 – 4.49
waste and toxic waste like diaper battery, fluorescent lamp, and
106
of
TABLE 4
1. Sorting the
4.48 1 4.17 2 4.32 1
biodegradable and non- ME ME ME
biodegradable.
2. Segregate of special
waste and toxic waste like 3.92 4 4.00 5 3.96 4
ME ME ME
diaper battery, fluorescent
lamp, and etc.
3. Segregation of organic
waste like leftover food, 4.20 2.5 4.23 1 4.22 2
ME ME ME
peel and scrapings from
fruit and vegetables.
4. Segregation of residual
waste like glass (clear, 3.76 5 4.13 3.5 3.95 5
ME ME ME
tinted-no light bulbs or
window panes.
Legend:
107
W
e
Figure 7
Practices on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM)
along Waste Segregation
residual waste like glass (clear, tinted-no light bulbs or window
before disposal.
(ESWM) along Waste Segregation. Based on the data, one (1) were
rated Much Evident (ME), four (4) indicators were rated Evident
(E), while one (1) indicator was rated Fairly Evident (FE). The
110
Evident.
TABLE 5
6. Long-term storage or
2.88 2 3.23 3 3.06 2
disposal facility or E E E
sanitary landfill.
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Evident 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Evident
3.50 – 4.49 Much Evident 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Evident
111
Weighted Mean
Figure 8
Practices on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM)
along Waste Collection
112
landfill (3.06) were rated Evident (E), while waste materials are
Evident (FE).
waste collection because there are areas that are not being
and Tapol and some of the residences tend to burn their waste
instead.
(ESWM) along Waste Disposal. The data revealed that out of eight
(8) indicators, six (6) were rated Much Evident (ME), one (1) was
rated Evident (E), and one (1) was rated Not at All (NA). The
113
weighted mean is 3.54 ranged from 3.50 – 4.49 means Much Evident
(ME).
TABLE 6
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Evident 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Evident
3.50 – 4.49 Much Evident 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Evident
trash bins (4.31); and Bottles, plastics, cans, and other scraps
114
was
115
4.5
3.5
2.5
2
Weighted Mean
1.5
1 w
1 2 3 4 5 6
Indicators
Figure 9
Practices on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM)
along Waste Disposal
116
This study found out that burning and burying of waste were
indicators, eight (8) were rated Much Evident, and one (1)
and /or rent things that are needed occasionally (3.75); Use
bottles (3.98); Use old materials than buying a new one (4.09);
new product
TABLE 7
1. Borrow, share, and /or rent things that are 3.80 ME 7 3.70 ME 8 3.75 ME 7
needed occasionally.
2. Use water bottle/container than buying water 4.20 ME 4 3.77 ME 6.5 3.98 ME 4
in one-used plastic bottles.
4. Keep those unfilled papers and used it as 4.32 ME 2 4.60 VME 1 4.46 ME 1
scratch.
7. Make decors out of plastic wrappers and other 4.08 ME 5 3.87 ME 4 3.97 ME 5
colorful waste materials.
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Evident 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Evident
3.50 – 4.49 Much Evident 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Evident
118
119
Weighted Mean
Figure 10
Practices on Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM) along
Implementation of 5R’s
(3.84); Make decors out of plastic wrappers and other colorful
5r’s was rated Evident. This implies that the respondents are
Based on the data, three (3) out of 4 indicators were rated Much
Evident (ME) and only one (1) was rated Evident (E). The weighted
of developing countries.
Table 8
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Evident 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Evident
3.50 – 4.49 Much Evident 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Evident
122
W
e
Figure 11
and the barangay officials between the level of awareness and the
the Level of Awareness and the Practices of the School Heads and
and 80.5.
and .0329 (p>0.05); Waste Disposal, 1.94 and .0262 (p>0.05) and;
Table 9
124
Aspects
Indication
Awareness Practices
Wx of the
summation of
the ranks of 76 38p 50 65.5 63
the smaller
group
Wx of the
summation of
the ranks of 134 40 28 70.5 80.5
the bigger
group
No. of Samples
of the Bigger 10 6 6 8 9
Group
No. of Samples
of the Smaller 10 6 6 6 9
Group
Number of
Samples in the 20 12 12 16 18
two groups
Probability
Associated with .0158 .4681 .0329 .2005 .0262
z
Decision on the
Alternative Accepted Rejected Accepted Rejected Accepted
Hypothesis
Much Challenging (MC), while four (4) were rated Challenging. The
Challenging.
TABLE 10
126
Legend:
4.50 – 5.00 Very Much Challenging 1.50 – 2.49 Fairly Challenging
3.50 – 4.49 Much Challenging 1.00 – 1.49 Not at all
2.50 – 3.49 Challenging
127
Weighted Mean
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
Figure 12
and full support; LGUs should reach out and build partnerships
129
Table 11
Significance Difference between the Level the practices between
the School Heads and the Barangay Officials on the
Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM)
Aspects
Indication Waste Waste Waste Implementation
Segregation Collection of 5R’s
Disposal
Wx of the 38 50 65.5 63
summation of
the ranks of
the smaller
group
Wx of the 40 28 70.5 80.5
summation of
the ranks of
the bigger
group
No. of Samples 6 6 8 9
of the Bigger
Group
No. of Samples 6 6 8 9
of the Smaller
Group
Number of 12 12 16 18
Samples in the
two groups
Computed z 0.08 1.84 0.84 1.94
Probability .4681 .0329 .2005 .0262
Associated with
z
Decision on the Rejected Accepted Rejected Accepted
Alternative
Hypothesis
Significance of Not Significant Not Significant
Difference Significant Significant
131
the benefits that they could obtain from practicing SWM, they
and dried leaves on the field or serving posts for the first and
CHAPTER 5
(ESWM)?
2. What are the practices of the school heads and the barangay
management?
set at 0.05.
Findings:
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, one (1) were rated Very
Much Aware (VMA) and nine (9) were rated Much Aware (MA). The
Evident (VME), and one (1) was rated Evident (E). The weighted
2.2. Waste Collection. Based on the data, one (1) were rated
Much Evident (ME), four (4) indicators were rated Evident (E),
while one (1) indicator was rated Fairly Evident (FE). The
Evident.
2.3. Waste Disposal. The data revealed that out of eight (8)
indicators, six (6) were rated Much Evident (ME), one (1) was
rated Evident (E), and one (1) was rated Not at All (NA). The
weighted mean is 3.54 ranged from 3.50 – 4.49 means Much Evident
(ME).
Recycle). The data reveal that out of nine (9) indicators, eight
137
(8) were rated Much Evident, and one (1) indicator was rated
Fairly Evident (FE). The weighted mean is 3.81 ranged from 3.50 –
Awareness, 2.15 and .0158 (p<0.05); 0.14 and .4443 (p<0.05). This
(C). the weighted mean is 2.81 and ranged from 3.24-2.50 which
38 and 40; Waste Collection, 50 and 28; Waste Disposal, 66.5 and
the Study.
the benefits that they could obtain from practicing SWM, they
and dried leaves on the field or serving posts for the first and
Conclusions
Aware.
Evident.
Management (ESWM).
Recommendations
awareness.
environmental practices.
areas.
practices.
support.
investigations/research:
variables.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
145
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Books
B. Journals
C. Foreign Studies
147
E. Readings
The Governance of Basic Education Act of 2010 (RA 9155) and
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
promulgated by the Department of Education.
1987 Philippine Constitution
Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Law
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003).
F. Websites
149
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327177428_Solid_Was
te_Management_Awareness_Attitude_and_Practices_in_a_Philippi
ne_Catholic_Higher_Education_Institution
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266601642
030058X#sec6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_management
http://nswmc.emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/6.ESWM-
for-HH.pdf
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmcwm/24/0/24_677/_pdf
https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/WS19/WS19027
FU1.pdf
APPENDICES
150
151
QUESTIONNAIRE
LEGEND:
5 - Very Much Aware 2 - Fairly Aware
4 - Much Aware 1 - Not at all
3 - Aware
2. Waste Collection
2.1. Meet up with a collection vehicle.
2.2. Waste materials are collected
according to schedule.
2.3. Waste materials are collected in every
house (door to door)
2.4. Hauling and transfer of solid waste
from collection points to final disposal
sites.
2.5. Composting.
2.6. Long-term storage or disposal facility
or sanitary landfill.
2.7. others, please specify
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
3. Waste Disposal
3.1. Burying the waste in the land
3.2. Incineration or Combustion
3.3. Resource Recovery
3.4. Recycling
3.5. Plasma Gasification
3.6. Composting
3.7. Disposed properly in the designated
trash bins.
3.8. Bottles, plastics, cans, and other
scraps are sold to junkshop.
3.9. others, please specify
__________________________________________
4. Implementing 5R’s (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse,
Repurpose and Recycle)
4.1. Borrow, share, and /or rent things
that are needed occasionally.
155
Part III. Put a check (/) on the box that corresponds to your
answer according to the following scale.
LEGEND:
5 - Very Much Aware 2 - Fairly Aware
4 - Much Aware 1 - Not at all
3 - Aware
6. Lack of vehicles.
156
7. Lack of equipment.
11. sss
SAMPLE COMPUTATION
1 4.80 1 1 4.5
2 4.56 2 2 20
3 4.48 3 7.5 11
4 4.47 4 3 4.5
5 4.47 5 7.5 19
6 4.32 6 14 15
7 4.32 7 16 17.5
9 4.32 9 10 12
10 4.28 10 7.5 13
11 4.27
12 4.23
13 4.13
14 4.12
15 4.10
16 4.08
17 3.97
18 3.97
19 3.93
20 3.80
Ʃ = 76 Ʃ = 134
Wx + 0.5 - m(N+1)/2
Z =
√ mn(N+1) /12
18 + 0.5 -4(8+1)/2
=
√ (4)(4)(8+1) /12
18.5-4 ( 9 ) / 2
=
√ (16) (9) /12
18.5-18
=
√ 144/ 12
−0.5
=
√ 12
0.5
=
3.46
= 0.14
Wx + 0.5 - m(N+1)/2
Z =
√ mn(N+1) /12
38 + 0.5 -6(12+1)/2
=
√ (6)(6)(12+1) /12
38.5-6 ( 13 ) / 2
=
√ (36) (13) /12
38.5-39
=
√ 468/ 12
−0.5
=
√ 39
0.5
=
6.24
= 0.08
161
Wx + 0.5 - m(N+1)/2
Z =
√ mn(N+1) /12
50 + 0.5 -6(12+1)/2
=
√ (6)(6)(12+1) /12
50.5-6 ( 13 ) / 2
=
√ (36) (13) /12
50.5-39
=
√ 468/ 12
11.5
=
√39
162
11.5
=
6.24
= 1.84
Wx + 0.5 - m(N+1)/2
Z =
√ mn(N+1) /12
65.5 + 0.5 -8(16+1)/2
=
√ (8)(8)(16+1) /12
66-8 ( 17 ) / 2
=
√ (64) (17) /12
163
66-68
=
√ 1088/ 12
−8
=
√ 90.67
8
=
9.52
= 0.84
Wx + 0.5 - m(N+1)/2 22
Z = =
√ mn(N+1) /12 11.32
63 + 0.5 -9(18+1)/2 22
= =
√ (9)(9)(18+1) /12 11.32
63.5-9 ( 19 ) / 2
= = 1.94
√ (81) (19) /12
63.5-85.5
=
√ 1539/ 12