RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Types of solid waste generated in the house/stall/shop and management practices

As shown in the table, 10 solid waste generated by the respondents was identified.

Among the waste management practices of the respondents, thrown after use turned out to be the

first in rank followed by for sale, reuse, and recycle. This means that majority of the respondents

throws their solid waste right after use. This imply that throwing of solid waste is the most

common way of the respondents in disposing waste. This further imply that recycling is the least

option of the respondents in terms of waste management. This may be attributed to the lack of

skills of the respondents in recycling solid waste materials.

If every household made an effort to plan and segregate their waste, waste management

would become much simpler. Jerie and Tevera (2014) opined that waste management should

concern itself not only with final disposal of waste but also with the whole cycle of waste

creation, transport, storage, treatment, and recovery and does so to minimize pollution. They also

stressed that the waste management strategies need to be based on prevention measures and

measures such as recovery and disposal are secondary. Waste minimization measures include

waste prevention, internal recycling of production waste, and source-oriented improvement of

waste quality and reuse of products for the same purpose. Also external recycling, sorting of

waste, reuse for another purpose, and energy recovery are included as waste management

measures. Waste management is also viewed as the control of waste-related activities with the

aim of protecting human health and the environment and resources conservation. Waste related

activities include waste-creating processes, waste handling processes, and waste utilization.
Table 1. Waste solid generated and management practices
Indicators Management Practices
Solid Waste Reuse Recycle Thrown For
after use sale
Polyethylene bags 65 5 229 -
Plastic bottles 19 43 51 280
Styrofoam - 14 313 63
Cardboards 40 61 226 64
Metal scraps (pirasong metal) 13 27 100 256
Rubber (tires, sleepers) 43 50 218 85
Crystal glass/bottles 36 9 165 182
Kitchen refuse (sukal mula sa kusina) 8 17 354 15
Meat bones, fish bones, shells, clams 95 17 288 -
Agricultural waste 14 15 204 -
Total 333 258 2148 945
Rank 3rd 4th 1st 2nd
Note: multiple answer

Waste disposal practices for non-recycled materials

As reflected in the table, composting is the most practiced by the respondents in

disposing non-recycled waste. Next in rank is burying in the ground, collected by the LGU,

burning, and throw in canal/river. From the results, it can be inferred that the respondents were

making their own compost for their plants and vegetables in the backyard. It can be concluded

also that some of them are not aware of the environmental hazard caused by solid waste because

they are throwing garbage indiscriminately in canal/river.

Non-recyclable materials or residual waste and non-compostable wastes shall be

transferred to a long-term storage or disposal facility or sanitary landfill. According to the

Environmental Management Bureau (2018), poor waste management practices such as open

burning, dumping in creeks and water bodies, as well as non-segregation of waste result in

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Landfilling of biodegradables wastes and continued operation

of open and controlled dumpsites lead to the release of GHGs. Thus, waste prevention, recycling

and composting are effective ways to mitigate climate change.

 From the results of the study, it is clear that there is no single formula to contain and

properly implement waste disposal program. The best method of waste management depends on

the awareness and proper education of all of the citizens followed by an effective and efficient

implementation of laws and ordinances.

Table 2. Waste disposal of non-recycled materials

Indicators Frequency Rank
Burying in the ground 232 1st
Composting 197 2nd
Collected by LGU 184 3rd
Burning 74 4th
Throw in canal/river 22 5th

Waste collection schemes implemented by the LGU.

Shown in Table 3 is the waste collection scheme of the LGU. As reflected in the table,

community bin/material recovery facility turned out to be the primary waste collection strategy

of the LGU. House-to-house collection ranked second and storage container/bin ranked third.

This means that solid waste was collected primarily at the material recovery facility in every

barangay within the town proper. This imply that the LGU installed material recovery facility for

convenient solid waste collection.

RA 9003 mandates the establishment of a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in every

barangay or cluster of barangays in barangay-owned, leased land or any suitable open space

designated by the barangay. The MRF shall be designed to receive, sort, process and store

compostable and recyclable material efficiently and in an environmentally sound manner. Any

resulting residual waste shall be transferred to a proper disposal facility. MRFs are also being

established in schools, malls, and other commercial establishments.

Table 3. Waste collection scheme of the LGU

Indicators Frequenc Rank
y
House-to-house collection 293 2nd
 Community bin collections/Material Recovery Facility 300 1st
Storage container/bin 212 3rd

Degree of public participation in solid waste management

Table 6 shows the degree of public participation in solid waste management in Casiguran,

Aurora. Based on the table, the respondents are moderately participative in solid waste

management. This means that they are not supportive on the LGU’s campaign towards solid

waste management program. This imply that they are participating solid waste management

programs only in moderation. This further imply that few of the respondents are highly

participative.

Table 6. Public participation

Degree of Participation Frequency
Highly Participative 20
Moderately Participative 274
Less Participative 106

Policy implementation that needs to be improved in the Solid Waste Management of

Casiguran, Aurora.

From the Table, it was found out from the overall weighted mean of 4.10 that the

respondents observed that there is a gap in policy implementation in terms of solid waste

management and therefore needs to be improved. From the table, the respondents highly

observed on the indicators needing implementation improvement in the areas of burning of waste

(WM = 4.49); imposing penalties to SWM violators (WM = 4.38); improper waste segregation

(WM = 4.33); garbage disposal practiced (dumping to rivers, canal, roadsides, garbage collection

trucks) (WM = 4.27); lack of fund/financial allocation coming from the gov't to improve SWM

of BLGU (WM = 4.27); inadequate and improper material recovery facilities (WM = 4.26);
inspection of households in terms of waste management and disposal (WM = 4.24); and adoption

of BLGU of the RA 9003 thru resolution (WM = 4.21).

It can be inferred that policy implementation needs to be improved particularly in burning

of waste, waste segregation, material recovery facilities, garbage disposal, fund allocation,

household waste management, BLGU adoption of RA 9003, and penalties for SWM violators. It

can therefore be shown that the need to upgrade policy implementation are in varying level. The

findings revealed that the respondents are aware of the needs to upgrade policy implementation

to address problems in solid waste management.

Several national laws, rules, regulations, orders, and memoranda on environment,

including resolutions and ordinances issued by local government units was endeavored to

improve solid waste management. In 2001, Republic Act 9003 (RA 9003), otherwise known as

the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, was enacted into law declaring the policy

of the government to “adopt a systematic, comprehensive, and ecological solid waste

management program” in the country. There are also relevant laws enacted at the national level

that affect the implementation of RA 9003. Likewise, in line with RA 9003, the local

government of Casiguran enacted several executive orders and municipal ordinance (see

attached) such as “ANG KAUTUSANG NAGLALAYONG BAWASAN ANG BASURANG

ITINATAPON, MAGBUKOD-BUKOD NG BASURA NG CASIGURAN, LALAWIGAN NG

AURORA, REPUBLIKA NG PLIPINAS”, “AN ORDER PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUEANCE

OF CITATION TICKET FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FINES/PENALTIES PROVIDED IN

THE MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE NO. 22, SERIES OF 2017 DATED NOVEMBER 20, 2017,

ENACTED BY THE HONORABLE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF CASIGURAN, AURORA,

REGION III, PHILIPPINES”, and “ISANG KAUTUSANG BAYAN NA NAG-AATAS SA MGA

MAMAMAYAN NG MGA TAMANG PAMAMARAAN NG PAGTATAPON NG BASURA SA

PAMAMAGITAN NG PAGHIHIWALAY O PAGBUBUKOD-BUKOD (PROPER WASTE

SEGREGATION) NG MGA NABUBULOK AT DI-NABUBULOK NA BASURA.”

Table 7. Observed Policy gaps in the implementation of ESWM

Indicators F WM VI
Yes No
Irregular collection of waste in every barangay & schools 4.09 Observed
Highly
Burning of waste 4.49
Observed
Highly
Improper waste segregation 4.33
Observed
Highly
Inadequate and improper material recovery facilities 4.26
Observed
Garbage disposal practiced (dumping to rivers, canal, Highly
4.27
roadsides, garbage collection tracks) Observed
Lack of LGU waste collecting personnel 4.02 Observed
Quality performance of governance of LGU when it Observed
4.05
comes to solid waste mgt.
Participation and support of stakeholders & private Observed
3.70
sectors in SWM
Monitoring of LGU in SWM 4.09 Observed
Policy legislation & implementation 4.08 Observed
Inadequate fund/financial allocation coming from the Highly
4.27
gov't to improve SWM of BLGU Observed
Inspection of households in terms of waste management Strongly
4.24
and disposal Observed
Status of solid waste management practices of the Observed
4.04
households
Level of strategic planning for SWM of municipal of Observed
3.71
Casiguran
Strong political will of leaders to support to implement Observed
4.19
the SWM
Regular IEC campaign 3.95 Observed
Highly
Adoption of BLGU of the RA 9003 thru resolution 4.21
Observed
Highly
Imposing penalties to SWM violators 4.38
Observed
Not practicing 3rs in SWM 3.55 Observed
Lack of transportation facilities 3.99 Observed
Overall Weighted Mean 4.10 Observed
Legend: 1.00 - 1.79 Not Observed
1.80 - 2.59 Slightly Observed
2.60 - 3.39 Moderately Observed
3.40 - 4.19 Observed
 4.20 - 5.00 Highly Observed

Identified strategies/programs needed to be implemented to improve Solid Waste

Management in Casiguran, Aurora.

As shown in Table 8, nine areas got a rating of strongly agree. Among the indicators, it

turned out that formulate ordinance to conduct a regular clean-up activity of

barangay/community has the highest mean of 4.59 followed by strictly implement R.A. 9003 &

other related laws/ordinances with weighted mean of 4.49; river clean-up program with mean of

4.38; render community service as alternative for monetary fine who will violate SWM with the

mean of 4.33; Strictly implement proper segregation of waste (based on non-biodegradable,

biodegradable, recyclable) with mean of 4.27; regular monitoring & inspection of municipal &

barangay of every household in SWM practices with the mean of 4.27; no at source waste

segregation, no collection policy with the mean of 4.24; and increase number of waste collection

truck with the mean of 4.21. This finding manifest that the respondents have a strong agreement

in these areas. Generally, the respondents wanted to upgrade implementation of solid waste

management in Casiguran, Aurora. Further, other indicators got the same level of agreement

rated as agree. This implies that these type of strategies/programs were also needed to be

implemented to improve solid waste management scheme.

Azuelo, Barbado, and Reyes (2016), conducted a study to assess solid waste management

strategies in Camarines Norte. Results showed that the existing SWM strategies with the highest

percentages of existence in the twelve (12) municipalities were provision of number of trucks in

transporting solid wastes and knowledge on waste segregation conducted at every

household/establishment. Varying levels were observed. However, high level of effectiveness is

still required for significant impact, seeing that from the six areas assessed only four

municipalities were identified to have more and highly effective SWM strategies. Generally,
only availability of technology for composting was considered more effective and can be

adopted in all municipalities. They concluded that better solid waste management may be fully

attained through the involvement, political will and commitment of the implementers in the

implementation of politically passed resolutions and undertaking of their initiatives that will

stimulate active participation of the community. Likewise, the respondents in this study suggests

that formulation of ordinance to conduct a regular clean-up activity of barangay/community and

strict implementation of RA 9003 are the best strategy to manage solid waste.

Table 8. Strategies/programs
Indicators WM VI
Impose fine for those who violate R.A. 9003 4.09 Agree
Strongly
Strictly implement R.A. 9003 & other related laws/ ordinances 4.49
Agree
Render community service as alternative for monetary fine who will violate Strongly
4.33
SWM Agree
Strongly
Conduct a comprehensive and extensive IEC regarding ESWM 4.26
Agree
Strictly implement proper segregation of waste (based on non- Strongly
4.27
biodegradable, biodegradable, recyclable) Agree
Implement regular collection of waste 4.02 Agree
Posting/ hanging of signage in conspicuous areas regarding the SWM 4.05 Agree
Have a functional & spacious MRF in every barangay 3.70 Agree
Presence of compost pit/ heap every household 4.09 Agree
Mandatory participation for SWM of every household 4.08 Agree
Regular monitoring & inspection of municipal & barangay of every Strongly
4.27
household in SWM practices Agree
Strongly
"No at source waste segregation, no collection policy" 4.24
Agree
No burning of garbage policy 4.04 Agree
Construct/ put addition receptacles 3.71 Agree
Promote & support composting through organic farming/ establishing Agree
4.19
organic farming
Promote & support reduce, re-use & recycling (3rs) 3.95 Agree
Strongly
Increase number of waste collection truck 4.21
Agree
Strongly
River clean-up program 4.38
Agree
No to single- use plastics. Use eco-friendly materials 3.35 Agree
Clean & green program 3.55 Agree
Increase fund allocation for ESWM 3.99 Agree
 Formulate ordinance to conduct a regular clean-up activity of barangay/ Strongly
4.59
community Agree
Overall Weighted Mean 4.08 Agree
Legend: 1.00 - 1.79 Strongly Disagree
1.80 - 2.59 Disagree
2.60 - 3.39 Neither Agree or Disagree
3.40 - 4.19 Agree
4.20 - 5.00 Strongly Agree

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

This study sought to explore he level of public participation in solid waste management

in Casiguran, Aurora. The study used descriptive research method using interview questionnaire.

Two hundred individuals were purposively chosen.

Types of solid waste generated in the house/shop/stall and management practices

Among the solid waste generated were polyethylene bags, plastic bottles, Styrofoam,

cardboards, metal scraps, rubber, crystal glass/bottles, kitchen refuse, meat bones, fish bones,

shells, clams, and agricultural waste. Management practices by the respondents was throwing

after use and sold to junk shop. For non-recycled solid waste, burying in the ground was

practiced to manage solid waste.

Waste collection scheme implemented by the LGU

Three collection schemes was implemented by the LGU. The most common is the collection

from the material recovery facility. Other collection schemes were house-to-house collection and

collection from the storage container/bin.

Policy implementation that needs to be improved in solid waste management of Casiguran

The respondents agreed that there is a gap in policy implementation terms of solid waste

management and therefore needs to be improved. The overall weighted mean of 4.10 confirms

this agreement particularly in policies towards burning of waste (WM = 4.49); imposing
penalties to SWM violators (WM = 4.38); improper waste segregation (WM = 4.33); garbage

disposal practiced (dumping to rivers, canal, roadsides, garbage collection trucks) (WM = 4.27);

lack of fund/financial allocation coming from the gov't to improve SWM of BLGU (WM =

4.27); inadequate and improper material recovery facilities (WM = 4.26); inspection of

households in terms of waste management and disposal (WM = 4.24); and adoption of BLGU of

the RA 9003 thru resolution (WM = 4.21).

The LGU enacted two executive orders and one municipal order regulating solid waste

management in the municipality.

Identified strategies/programs to be implemented to improve solid waste management in

Casiguran, Aurora

There were twenty-two identified strategies/programs that may be implemented to improve solid

waste management in Casguran. The respondents strongly agreed that there is a need to

formulate ordinance to conduct a regular clean-up activity of barangay/community (WM = 4.59);

strictly implement R.A. 9003 & other related laws/ordinances (WM = 4.49); river clean-up

program (WM = 4.38); render community service as alternative for monetary fine who will

violate SWM (WM = 4.33); strictly implement proper segregation of waste (based on non-

biodegradable, biodegradable, recyclable) (WM = 4.27); regular monitoring & inspection of

municipal & barangay of every household in SWM practices (WM = 4.27); no at source waste

segregation, no collection policy (WM = 4.24); and increase number of waste collection truck

(WM = 4.21).

Conclusion
 1. Throwing of solid waste after use is the main practice of the households in Casiguran,

Aurora. Most of them burry their non-recycled materials.

2. Collection scheme was done through collection from installed material recovery facility.

3. The LGU has its own ordinances in line with RA 9003 to regulate solid waste within the

municipality.

4. The households in Casiguran is moderately participative in solid waste management.

5. Different strategies/programs were identified and agreed upon by the respondents to

upgrade solid waste management in Casiguran, Aurora.

Recommendations

The LGU should strictly implement ordinances with corresponding fines to regulate solid

waste accumulation. They should ban store owners to sell single-used plastics and to encourage

households to bring their own bags or basket in going to the market or groceries. Collection

scheme of the LGU should be regularly conducted to lessen the accumulation of solid waste in

designated collection facilities. The LGU and BLGU should conduct information campaign and

community-based solid waste management program to heighten public participation. Different

strategies/programs should be considered to upgrade solid waste management in Casiguran,

Aurora.