Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solid Waste Management in An Upland Urban Village of Samar Philippines
Solid Waste Management in An Upland Urban Village of Samar Philippines
Elmer A. Irene
College of Education, Samar State University,
Catbalogan City, Samar, Philippines
elmer_irene@yahoo.com
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Composting 13 13%
2. Dump in the garbage truck in downtown 37 37%
3. Burning 30 30%
4. Throw in canal 10 10%
1. No CR 20 20%
2. Homemade toilet (no septic tank) 10 10%
3. Toilet with septic tank 58 58%
4. Public CR or sharing other’s CR 12 12%
already passed, some admitted that they as officer and tanod (watchman) to monitor
just put their bins in a corner and let it and help clean the facility. However, since
rot or wait until it is picked by the truck. there was no remuneration involved, the
Others did the same so a pile of garbage assigned personnel did not religiously
is seen in that downtown area. Uptown, perform their duties. In addition, the
small litters are burned when they sweep personnel complained that the residents
the yard and kitchen refuse is thrown to do not know how to segregate garbage
canals together with waste water. and do not cooperate with the recycling
efforts of the barangay. They just mixed
Based on Table 3, 20% of the respondents the garbage and place it in any of the
do not have toilets, so one may wonder three compartments so any assigned
how they answer the call of nature. During person will just consume his whole time
interview, some admitted that they have segregating the garbage. It turned out,
to put the waste in a plastic bag and throw after a day or two, a heaving mixture of
it together with the garbage. The area garbage was seen in the recovery facility.
also has some bushes that they can use Further, there was no recycling plant or
as “refuge” when nature calls. Majority of facility that would collect the reusable
the respondents have toilets with septic materials from the MRF.
tank while about 10% do not have a septic
tank. This kind of septic tank is usually Community Forum and Local
common in the rural area. It is made up of Government Initiative to Solid Waste
a hole in the ground, covered with sheets Management
of wood that is built like a box.
Dialogue sessions and focus group
Community Material Recovery Facility discussion were conducted twice
involving key officials and residents of the
The Material Recovery Facility (MRF) of barangay. During the dialogue and forum
the barangay is made up of steel wire, conducted with the officials and residents
covered, and has three compartments, of the barangay, they came up with a
that is, Recyclable, Biodegradable, and community-based waste management
Non-biodegradable. It is placed in a vacant initiative. An Intra-barangay Cleanliness
area about 50 meters from the community. and Beautification contest will be held
There was a sound maintenance system, annually in the said barangay as part of
but it is not functional. In an interview with their plan. To ensure wide participation,
an official of the barangay, he said that the Samar State University-College of
council designated some volunteers such Education (COED) extension services will
Figure 2. Material Recovery Facility of Barangay 13 Fig. 3 Dialogue with the officials of the Barangay
take charge of overseeing, disseminating (Macawile and Su, 2009; Ballados, 2010).
through information, education and Filipinos value cleanliness and have
dissemination (IEC) materials and judging strong desire to participate in the solution
of the cleanliness contest. The operation of waste problems but the action and
and maintenance of the MRF will also be implementation must come from the iron
managed by the COED extension services hand of the government and strong will of
until such time that a recycling facility will the officials.
be tapped for its continuous operation.
To ensure success of the program, the IV. CONCLUSION AND
residents promised to cooperate in RECOMMENDATIONS
the said beautification contest activity
and waste management scheme and The problem of solid waste in Barangay
will be vigilant of the activities of their 13 is due to the lack of strong waste
neighbors. On the part of the barangay management system and wide
council, they will help in disseminating the participation of the stakeholders involved.
program and will impose a more stringent There is no functional waste collection
measure to the violators. Indeed, the scheme in the barangay. The barangay
success of the SWM program depends unit has no clear policy on waste
on the public participation (Ahmed and management which is aggravated with
Ali, 2004; Asnani, 2006; Menegat, 2002; the lack of awareness in recycling and
Mongkolnchaiarunya, 2005) and a “strong composting processes by the residents.
community and concerned officers”
(Pothimamaka 2008; Stave, 2010). Solid wastes are inevitable, but strong
implementation of policies can reduce
Residents of the barangay view the this garbage into categories that will
current waste management as ineffective be still useful to others. As found out in
due to lack of funds, absence of strong the investigation, most of the wastes
policy on waste segregation and generated are the polyethylene bags,
inadequate recycling facilities in the area. plastic wrappers, and candy litters.
These reasons hinder the success of an These wastes are containers of daily
SWM effort (Mongkolnchaiarunya, 2005; commodities and therefore reusable.
Nringeye and Omortor, 2010; Ballados, Public information about waste recycling
2010; Tukahirwa, et.al., 2010). efforts, massive awareness campaign
about the benefits and advantages are the
Majority (71%) of the respondents are starting option (Niringeye and Omortor,
willing to participate in the community- 2010). Planning what SWM model best
based SWM in the barangay. There fits the barangay and consultation with the
were those, however, who are reluctant stakeholders are inevitable (Hostovsky,
to implement a new SWM scheme 2006). The university through the COED
considering that a penalty will be imposed extension services can help facilitate
if they will violate the program. The thought and help promote the program through
of paying the penalty is what they worry community-wide programs that would
more. For the 14% of the respondents, encourage participation and action.
they prefer not to be involved in the
decision and just play passive. They tend Cutting the source or banning the use of
“not to be serious” about the SWM because polyethylene bag is another option. In
“it is still happening and will always other cities, they already banned the use
be there”. This observation appends of plastic bags. Malls asked for payment
in consonance with the observation in if you will ask for a plastic bag. Candy
other communities in the Philippines wrappers should be substituted with