Ancheta Jerome SWMP

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
BSCE Res. No ____

Date: JULY 2021
SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AWARENESS OF THE
RESIDENTS IN BARANGAY SAN PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL,
TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT
JEROME B. ANCHETA
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SULTAN KUDARAT STATE UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQURIEMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

(BSCE)
JULY 2021
i
TRANSMITTAL
The thesis attached hereto entitled “SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES AWARENESS OF THE RESIDENTS IN BARANGAY SAN
PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT”
prepared and submitted by JEROME B. ANCHETA, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING is hereby endorsed for approval.
ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP-CpE

Adviser College Dean
____________________ ____________________
Date Signed Date Signed
KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc.

Campus Research Coordinator
____________________
Date Signed
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
MARY LYNN G. MAGBANUA, CE, PhD

Campus Director
____________________
Date Signed
ii
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis attached hereto entitled “SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT”
prepared and submitted by JEROME B. ANCHETA, for the degree Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering has passed the standards set by the Sultan
Kudarat State University and was successfully defended before this guidance
committee.
NOEL H. BARAQUIA, CE DENAFEL C. SARAÑA, CE

Member Member
____________________ ____________________
ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD

Adviser
____________________
Date Signed
Approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP-CpE KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc.

College Dean Campus Research Coordinator
____________________ ____________________

Campus Director
____________________
Date Signed
iii
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
The author, Jerome B Ancheta, was born on November 04, 1998, in
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat and now currently living in Barangay San
Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat. He was the third among the four
children of Mr. Jose L. Ancheta and Mrs. Zoirelyn B. Ancheta.
He obtained his elementary education at Tacurong Pilot Elementary School
S.Y 2010-2011. He acquired his secondary education at Tacurong National High
Shool and graduated in school year 2014-2015.
He pursued his tertiary education at Sultan Kudarat State University taking
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. During his school days, he became a
student leader in his 1st and 2nd years in Association of Civil Engineering Students
(ACES) and later on became the President of ACES in his 4 th year. Becoming the
President of ACES, he then represented the organization as ACES
Representative at Engineering Students Organization (ESO). He also became
the Vice President of Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) – Student
Chapter in his 5th year. Being a student leader is tough, but it inspires him to do
iv
his best in everything he do, despite the challenges, he was able to manage it all
and made him the best version of himself.
The author believes that in order to be successful in life, you need to enjoy
every moment, being stress will get you nowhere, just enjoy the process and
have fun.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researcher expresses his paramount gratitude to the following with
heartfelt gratitude and affection, whose, undeniable expertise, understanding,
inspiration, continued assistance, time and efforts have brought this worthy
undertaking to realization:
Engr. Rommel M. Lagumen, his adviser for patiently guiding and adeptly
imbuing him with knowledge, understanding and proficiency necessary for the
improvements of this study. Even it is already midnight, he still checks his papers
and guide him. With his guidance, this research was brought to life;
Engr. Denafel C. Saraña, Engr. Noel H. Baraquia, Ms. Velessa Jane N.
Dulin, and Ma’am Paterna A. Murillo, his Panel of Examiners, Statistician and
English critic, for diligently sharing their time, knowledge and expertise as well as
their efforts for the completion of this study;
Meilaflor A. Paclibar, MEP-CpE, the exemplary Dean of the College of
Engineering for the approval and acceptance of this study;
The constituents of Barangay San Pablo and Barangay San Emmanuel for
the participation and warm welcomes during the conduct of the study;
Mr. Jose L. Ancheta and Mrs. Zoirelyn B, Ancheta, his beloved parents for
unswervingly and unfaltering support and sacrifices just to give everything they
have for his education and worthwhile endeavor in life;
vi
Jay-ar B. Ancheta and Danica C. Raqueno, for always being there since
day one, their support and sacrifices for him and help him finish his study is so
much appreciated.
Jade B. Ancheta and Katherine S. Ancheta, their guidance and advices to
him were also appreciated.
Daisy Jane Hisug, his friend for helping him and pressuring him to finish
his research study, without her advice this study will not be completed;
Neri Lei M. Gariando, Kenneth H. Barrientos and Zairah B. Sambilan, his
friends who helped him during the process and never left him behind and always
there to help and motivate; and
Above all, The Almighty Father and Mighty Creator, whom the researcher
is totally indebted for the precious gift of life, love, wisdom, skills and boundless
strength and salvation and for making this research possible. The author always
gives thanks and brings back the glory and highest adoration unto Him.
JEROME B. ANCHETA
Researcher
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRELIMINARY PAGES
Title Page i
Transmittal ii
Approval Sheet iii
Biographical Data iv
Acknowledgment vi
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
Abstract xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Objective of the Study 3
General Objectives 3
Specific Objectives 3
Significance of the Study 4
Scope and Limitation 5
Operational Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8

Related Literature 8
Related Studies 11
Conceptual Framework 15
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 17

Research Design 17
Research Locale 17
Evaluation Methodology 18
Respondents of the Study 18
Sampling Techniques 18
Data Gathering Procedure 21
Data Gathering Instrument 22
The Rating Scale 22
Statistical Treatment of Data 27
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28

Results and Discussion 28
viii
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION 50
Summary of Findings 50
Conclusion 53
Recommendations 54
LITERATURE CITED 56
Online Sources 56
APPENDICES 57
Appendix A Statistical Computation of Data Gathered 58
Appendix 1 Plan of Course Work 64
Appendix 2 Application for Thesis Title 65
Appendix 3 Nomination Guidance Committee 66
Appendix 4 Application for Thesis Outline Defense 67
Appendix 5 Change of Adviser / Guidance Committee Member 68
Appendix 6 Approval of Thesis Outline 69
Appendix 7 Certification of Statistician 70
Appendix 8 Certification of English Critic 71
Appendix 9 Application for Thesis Final Defense Examination 72
Appendix 10 Application for Thesis Final Printing and Binding 74
Appendix 11 Pictorials 76
Appendix 12 DVD 78
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE
PAGE
1 Household and Sample Size of Brgy. San Pablo 20
2 Household and Sample Size of Brgy. San Emmanuel 21
3 Likert Scale of Evaluation used in the Study 23
4 Segregation Interval Scale and Interpretation 25
5 3R's Interval Scale and Interpretation 26
6 Disposal Interval Scale and Interpretation 28
7 Segregation Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 29
8 Segregation Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 31
9 3R's Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 33
10 3R's Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 35
11 Disposal Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 37
12 Disposal Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 39
13 Result in terms of Segregation between Two Barangays 41
14 T-test for Segregation between Two Barangays 43
15 Result in terms of 3R's between Two Barangays 44
16 T-test for 3R's between Two Barangays 46
17 Result in terms of Dispossal between Two Barangays 47
18 T-test for Disposal between Two Barangays 46
x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
1 Conceptual Framework 15
2 Research Locale - Brgy. San Emmanuel 17
3 Research Locale - Brgy. San Pablo 18
xi
ABSTRACT
JEROME B. ANCHETA, JULY 2021. “SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

EMMANUEL AND SAN PABLO, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT”. A
thesis of College of Engineering, Sultan Kudarat State University, Isulan
Campus, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat.
ADVISER: ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the solid waste management
practices and promote awareness of residents in Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat.. Also, it aimed to determine which of
the two (2) barangays has the best practices that can be adopted by other
barangays. Furthermore, survey questionnaires were given to 100 households
per barangay.
The results were tabulated and the mean was computed. After analyzing
the results, it was found out that the residents of both Barangays San Pablo and
San Emmanuel were aware of the possible effect to the environment if wastes
were not disposed properly having the highest mean of 4.89 and 4.92
respectively.
Results revealed that there was no significant difference between
Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel regarding their solid wastes
management practices and awareness in terms of segregation, 3R’s and
disposal. T-computed of 0.427 is less than the T-tabular of 1.653 at 5% level of
significance; T-computed of 0.2 is less than the T-tabular is 1.653 at 5% level of
significance; T-computed of 1.157 is less than the T-tabular is 1.653 at 5% level
xii
of significance. Also, as interpreted in the mean scale, the residents of the two
barangays exceeded the expectations of Solid Wastes Management Practices
Awareness in terms of segregation, 3R’s and disposal which could be adopted by
the other 18 barangays of Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat. Therefore, the RA
9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was
fully implemented in the two barangays.
xiii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The global community recognized the Solid Waste Management (SWM) is
an issue that requires serious attention. People’s relationship with the
environment, particularly the ways that they deal with wastes, had been studied
even during the early times. The aggressive pursuit for economic growth, by the
developing counties like the Philippines, has resulted in the manufacture,
distribution and use of products and generation of wastes that contributes to
environmental degradation and global climate change.
(https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmcwm/24/0/24_677/_pdf)
The Philippines is producing too much garbage that is way beyond its
solid waste management capacity. The Philippines, with a population of over 100
million, is producing over 21 million metric tons of garbage every year. Enacted
on January 26, 2001, Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2020, declaring a state policy adaptation of a systematic,
comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program in the
Philippines, remains poorly implemented.
(https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/01/10/the-garbage-conundrum/)
At the heart of South Central Mindanao lies Tacurong, the only city in the
province of Sultan Kudarat in Region XII SOCCSKSARGEN. It is situated at the
crossroads of Davao-GenSan-Cotabato highways. As of 2015 census, Tacurong
has a total population of 98,316. Sultan Kudarat is composed of 11 municipalities
1
and Tacurong is the largest in terms of population size comprising 13.4% of the
total population. In 2020, the projected population is 107,509.
(https://tacurong.gov.ph/history/)
The City has 20 barangays including the Barangay San Emmanuel and
Barangay San Pablo which were selected as study sites. The two barangays are
located near the city proper and the most populated barangays. The economy
has been increasing a lot in the barangays because of its potential for
businesses. All these, of course, have implications on the generation and
gathering of waste materials. Increasing population demands more needs which
accompanied different wastes, including both biodegradable and non-
biodegradable wastes to supply the necessity of every individual’s need to
survive. Solid waste management is implemented in the city which requires daily
maintenance and support to achieve clean and green municipality. Thus, the
researcher conducted a study on “Solid Wastes Management Practices
Awareness of the residents in Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat’’.
2
Objectives of the Study
General Objective
The research entitled “Solid Wastes Management Practices
Awareness of the residents in Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat” generally aimed to evaluate the solid
waste management practices and awareness of residents in Brgy. San
Pablo and San Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat.
Specific Objectives
Specifically, the study aimed to answer the following sub-problems:
1. To determine the level of awareness of waste disposal practices in
barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of:
a. segregation
b. 3Rs
c. disposal
2. To determine the significant difference on the level of awareness of waste
disposal practices of the two (2) barangays in terms of:
a. segregation
b. 3Rs
c. Disposal
3. To determine which of the two (2) barangays had the best practices that
can be adopted by other barangays.
3
Significance of the Study
The data gathered in the study would be a great significance to many
sectors. The general population of the two barangays would give more
knowledge and awareness to manage all kinds of solid wastes and to enhance
their strategy on how they practice the solid waste management.
Thus, the study will be beneficial to the following:
To the Society
This study would be a big help to the society and be used for the
protection of the environment and health of the population.
To the Respondents
The study would develop the respondents to focus on proper waste
disposal practices and develop their self-esteem, self-confidence and to be more
productive in learning to enhance self- interest in waste management as well as
be motivated to learn independently.
To the Future Researchers
This study would serve as a good recommendation to the future
researchers and aided them in gaining knowledge to express their ideas and
made them realized and understood how convenient and necessary the proper
waste disposal practices to our environment.
4
Scope and Limitation
This study took place at Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat and focused only on gathering data about the
awareness on solid waste management practices in terms of segregation, 3R’s,
and proper waste disposal by the residents of the two (2) barangays.
5
Definition of Terms
The following terms were operationally defined as used in this study:
Solid Waste the useless and unwanted products in the solid
state derived from the activities of and
discarded by society.
Solid Waste Management is defined as the discipline associated with
control of generation, storage, collection,
transport or transfer, processing and disposal
of solid waste materials in a way that best
addresses the range of public health,
conservation, economic, aesthetic,
engineering, and other environmental
considerations.
Waste Segregation is the grouping or seperation of waste into
different categories. Each waste goes into its
category at the point of dumping or collection,
but sorting happens after dumping or
collection.
3r’s reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Reduce to cut back on the amount of trash generated
6
Reuse means any operation by which products or
components that are not wastes are used
again on the same purpose for which they
were conceived.
Recycling is the process of converting waste materials
into new materials and objects.
Disposal the action or process of throwing away or
getting rid of something.
Practices perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill)
repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or
maintain one's proficiency.
Barangay is the native Filipino term for a village, district,
or ward.
7
Chapter II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter includes sources of related information for the study such as
websites, books and other references.
RELATED LITERATURE
Solid waste management
In technical note, the term ‘solid waste’ is used to include all non-liquid
wastes generated by human activity and a range of solid waste material resulting
from the disaster, such as general domestic garbage such as food waste, ash
and packaging materials; human feces disposed of in garbage; emergency waste
such as plastic water bottles and packaging from other emergency supplies;
rubble resulting from the disaster; mud and slurry deposited by the natural
disaster; and allen trees and rocks obstructing transport and communications.
Other specialist wastes, such as medical waste from hospitals and toxic waste
from industry, will also need to be dealt with urgently, but they are not covered by
this technical note (World Health Organization, 2011).
The Municipal Council enacted an ordinance establishing solid waste
management also known as “Perkash Fashura Ordinance Na Isadanga.”The
ordinance prohibits dumping of garbage anywhere other than those recognized
and established garbage facilities; dumping of unclean and unsegregated waste
at the redemption center/facility; discharging of human feces along the creeks
and rivers; throwing of wastes in creeks, rivers, public places such as roads,
8
sidewalks and establishments; and burning of garbage particularly non-
biodegradable wastes. It also requires residents to practice segregation of
wastes at source. Reusable solid wastes such as bottles, plastics, cellophanes
and papers shall be brought to the barangay material recovery facility duly
segregated or directly to the agent-buyers. Non-recyclable materials and special
solid wastes will be brought to the material recovery facility, while hazardous
wastes or chemicals will be disposed in coordination with concerned government
agencies according to prescribed methods. The local government is responsible
for collecting reusable, recyclable and non-biodegradable waste materials from
the material recovery facilities; and transporting them to the recycling centers and
or to the municipal material recovery facility. Collection of segregated solid
wastes is scheduled per barangay (Saley, 2012).
3R’s (Reduce Reuse Recycle)
The Environmental Protection Agency has determined a three tiered
approach for managing solid waste. Each of these should be practiced to reduce
the amount material headed for final disposal. They are in order of importance:
REDUCE, the best way to manage solid waste.Don't create waste in the first
place! Buy only what you need. Use all that you buy. Avoid heavily packaged
products. Avoid disposable items like paper plates and plastic silverware. Buy the
largest size package for those items that you use are often. REUSE, the better
way to manage solid waste. Reuse items use them over and over until they are
completely worn out. RECYCLE, the good way to manage solid waste.Recycle
means taking something old and making it into something new. In Seminole
9
County, all residents who live in a single family home can recycle right in front of
their house. Those residents who live in apartments or condominiums can drop
off their recyclables at several different locations. Old newspapers, #1 and #2
plastic bottles, green, clear and brown glass bottles and jars, aluminum and steel
cans can all be recycled at the curb. Simply rinse out containers and remove lids.
That's it; it's very simple and very worthwhile. Not only does it keep items out of
the landfill, recycling conserves natural resources (Seminole County
Government, 2012).
Australia may be a large country, but we live in a throw-away society
that is rapidly filling it with our waste. Our insatiable desire to constantly upgrade
disposable technology and consume over-packaged products has continued
unabated for decades. At the same time however, there has been a trend away
from both burning waste in incinerators and burying it in landfills. Waste
management policies now seek to minimize waste disposal by reducing its
generation and by reusing and recycling. This book reveals the extent of our
growing waste problem and examines the waste and recycling practices of
households, and includes many tips on how to reduce, reuse and recycle. Topics
include green waste, plastics, glass, paper, metal and electronic waste (Healey,
2010).
Dispoal
There are many stringent regulations governing the treatment and
disposal of waste in the UK, both onshore and offshore, and in most other
countries as well. Facilities involved in waste transfer and treatment require
10
licenses, and all personnel who work at such facilities require the proper kind of
training that goes with the handling of waste that can often be dangerous if not
handled properly. Waste management facilities also need to be able to respond
quickly to emergency situations. By their very nature there is rarely any warning
that an emergency is about to occur. For that reason emergency response teams
need to be on standby every hour of every day, and every day of every year.
Waste management disposal and treatment can originate from both domestic
and industrial sources (Rose, 2009).
(https://solidwastemngt.weebly.com/chapter-ii-rrl.html)
RELATED STUDIES
Foreign studies
A detailed investigation was made regarding the methods of practices
associated with sources, quantity generated, collection, transportation, storage,
treatment and disposal of Municipal solid waste in Mysore City. The data
concerning to SWM in Mysore was obtained through questionnaire, individual
field visit, interacting with people and authentic record of municipal corporation.
Photographic evidences were also made about generation, storage, collection,
transportation, treatment and disposal of MSW. This study reveals that the
present system of MSWM in Mysore City is not satisfactory based on Municipal
Solid Waste Management & Handling Rules 2000 (Chandra, et al., 2009).
Another case study across North America conducted by Whoilistic
Environmental Consulting (WEC, 2007), yard and food waste make up over a
quarter of all the ordinary garbage we throw away. That's 25% by weight. In the
11
U.S., that 25% is almost equally divided between yard waste (32.6 million tons,
or 12.8% of all MSW) and food scraps (31.7 million tons, or 12.5%). And then
there's all the other organic stuff that could be composted: all the clothing, towels,
and bedding made of organic fibers, plus wood, old furniture and sawdust. Then
there's paper, which at 83 million tons accounts for another 30% of municipal
solid waste. As of 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, over 64%
of the yard waste we throw away was recovered and composted, as was 54.5%
of the paper and cardboard. Only 2.6% of food waste reached a compost heap.
Local studies
The experiences and practices of household waste management of
people in a barangay (village) in Manila, Philippines are documented. The data
were gathered through an interview with household members using open-ended
questions. Interviews were also conducted with garbage collectors as well as
scavengers. Results showed that the households generated an average of 3.2 kg
of solid waste per day, or 0.50 kg/capita/day. The types of wastes commonly
generated are food/kitchen wastes, papers, PET bottles, metals, and cans,
boxes/cartons, glass bottles, cellophane/plastics, and yard/garden wastes. The
respondents segregate their wastes into PET bottles, glass bottles, and other
waste (mixed wastes). No respondents perform composting. It is worth noting,
however, that burning of waste is not done by the respondents. The households
rely on garbage collection by the government. Collection is done twice daily,
except Sundays, and household members bring their garbage when the garbage
truck arrives. However, there are those who dump their garbage in non-
12
designated pick-up points, usually in a corner of the street. The dumped garbage
becomes a breeding ground for disease-causing organisms. Some household
respondents said that it is possible that the dumping in certain areas caused the
dengue fever suffered by some of their family members. Mothers and household
helpers are responsible for household waste management. Scavengers generally
look for recyclable items in the dumped garbage. All of them said that it is their
only source of income, which is generally not enough for their meals. Most of the
respondents said that garbage collection and disposal is the responsibility of the
government. The results of the study showed that RA 9003, also known as the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, is not fully implemented in
Metro Manila (Bernardo, 2008).
This study highlights the results of the study that was conducted to
analyze the solid waste management practices of the waste generators, and the
extent of their compliance with the Republic Act 9003, otherwise known as the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. The study was conducted in
Bacolod City, Philippines in 2007. The findings of this study served as basis in
developing a handbook on solid waste management (Ballados, 2010).
The Motiong town government in Samar has vowed to intensify the
implementation of its Solid Waste Management Program after barangay
chairmen here took at one-day seminar-workshop on the program. The activity
was held at the Legislative Building here last Wednesday, August 29.Motiong
Mayor Francisco M. Langi Sr. said 30 barangay chairmen of his municipality
attended said seminar-workshop sponsored by the town government conducted
13
Municipal Planning and Development Officer, Engr. NicasioPermejo. Langi said
all the barangay chairmen were educated on the provisions of the Solid Waste
Management Act of 2003 so that they would be acquainted with and help
implement the law in their respective barangays and propagate environmental
preservation. He said the town government will strictly implement the “no
segregation, no collection policy” in all of Motiong’s barangays and urged the
barangay officials to put up a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) where they can
segregate bio-degradable and non-biodegradable waste materials. Such
materials can be turned into a livelihood as, according to Langi, “there is money
in junk” (Abrematea, 2012).
(https://solidwastemngt.weebly.com/chapter-ii-rrl.html)
14
Conceptual Framework
DATA GATHERING
Gathering of data from the residents of the two
(2) barangays regarding their segregation, 3’rs,
and disposal.
INPUT
DATA ANALYSIS
Analysis and evaluation of data.
THROUGHPUT
Best Barangay that practice and observe the

3R’s, segregation and disposal properly.
OUTPUT
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study
15
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework organized the ideas and the processes on how
the study was undertaken consisting of three (3) phases: the input, the
throughput, and the output.
INPUT
The first phase of the study was the gathering of data from the residents of
Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel, Tacurong City regarding their solid
wastes management practices and awareness through a survey questionnaire.
THROUGHPUT
The second phase of the study was the analysis and evaluation of data
obtained.
OUTPUT
The output of the study was completed and determined the Solid Wastes
Management Practices Awareness of the residents in Barangay San Pablo and
San Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat.
16
Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presented the research design and manufacturing procedure.
Methods of gathering data such as statistical treatment were also included in this
chapter.
Research Design
The study employed descriptive method of research. A survey
questionnaire was formulated, field-tested for validity and administered among
respondents of the barangay residents. The data were then analyzed and
summarized to determine effective solid waste management practice of the
residents.
Research Locale
The research was conducted at Barangay San Emmanuel and Barangay
San Pablo, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat.
Figure 2. The Research Locale – Barangay San Emmanuel
17
Figure 3. The Research Locale – Barangay San Pablo
Evaluation Methodology
Respondents of the Study
The residents of Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel served as the
respondents for this research study. There are one-hundred (100) households
per barangay that served as the respondents of this research study. Gathered
information, data and ideas were thoroughly reviewed to identify part of survey
used in the project.
Sampling Techniques
The sample size was determined using the Citizen Satisfaction Index
System (CSIS) used by the Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG), it is a set of data tools designed to collect and generate relevant citizens’
18
feedback on local governments’ service delivery performance and on the citizens’
general satisfaction:
n=¿ ¿
where:
n = sample size
z CL = value from the normal table at a given confidence level
(at 95% c.l., z=1.96)
p = % that an event will occur
q = % that event would occur (1-p)
e = margin of error (MOE)
Note: (p)(q) is at a maximum at p=0.5 and q=0.05
Solving for sample size:
If c.l. = 95% and e ±10%
n=¿ ¿
n=96 .04
therefore, 96 or at least 100 sample size.
In determining the number of respondents from eleven (11) puroks of
Barangay San Pablo and six (6) puroks of Barangay San Emmanuel, Tacurong
City, Sultan Kudarat, the stratified random sampling technique was used with the
formula below:
19
N1
ni = ∗n
NT
where:
ni = sample size per purok
N 1= households per purok
N T = total households
n = total sample size

In determining the number of spots in every purok, the sample size was
divided into five (5) which served as the specific landmark for survey in the purok
having the most households. Then the spots were multiplied by five (5) to get the
actual sample size per purok
Table 1. Household and Sample Size of every purok in Brgy. San Pablo,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat
Purok in Brgy.
Sample Spots Actual
San Pablo, Households
Size (ni /5 ¿ Sample Size
Tacurong City, Sultan (N)
(ni ) (spots*5)
Kudarat
Purok 1 370 15 3 15
Purok 2 267 11 2 10
Purok 3 282 13 3 15
Purok 4 244 10 2 10
Purok 5 97 4 1 5
Purok 6 26 1 0 0
Purok 7 55 2 0 0
Purok 8 132 6 1 5
Purok 9 314 13 3 15
Purok 10 227 9 2 10
Purok 11 379 16 3 15
Total 2,393 100 20 100
20
Table 2. Household and Sample Size of every purok in Brgy. San
Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat
Purok in Brgy. Households Sample Size Spots Actual
San Emmanuel, (N) (ni ) (ni /5 ¿ Sample Size
Tacurong City, (spots*5)
Sultan Kudarat
Purok 1 90 8 2 10
Purok 2 129 11 2 10
Purok 3 423 36 7 35
Purok 4 155 13 3 15
Purok 5 175 15 3 15
Purok 6 189 16 3 15
Total 1,161 99 20 100
In determining the respondents in every purok, random sampling
technique using “snowbowl” method was used. From the sampling list the names
in each purok were written on a piece of paper, one number for each population
member. Then the papers were rolled up, shuffled and the desired number of
samples per purok was drawn from the container.
Data Gathering Procedure
Survey questionnaires made by the researcher were provided to the
residents of Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel, Tacurong City for them to
answer.
Then, the researcher tallied the responses in the questionnaire. The
responses were tabulated, interpreted, and analyzed.
21
.
Data Gathering Instrument
The researcher used a researcher-made survey questionnaire for
evaluation by the selected respondents of the study. The questionnaire was
checked by his adviser and panelists before distribution for obtaining the data
needed. Likert Rating Scale was used in determining the range of scores.
The Rating Scale
The instrument was perceptive in nature and extensively assessed the
extent of participation of the households and barangay officials in such activity.
The Likert Rating Scale was used in interpreting the mean scores of five (5)
categories. The lowest assigned weight for the responses was “1” which was
deducted from the highest assigned weight of “5”. The obtained range of “4” was
divided by “5”, representing the number of the alternative responses, Thus, 5-1
then 4/5 = 0.8 was used as the interval.
The Interpretative Scale will used to interpret the Mean
The mean was computed using the formula below:
∑x
Mean=
N
where:
∑ x = total number of responses
N = total number of respondents.
22
The Interpretative Scale was used to interpret the mean as follows:
Range Interpretation
4.20– 5.00 Outstanding
3.40 – 4.19 Exceed Expectation
2.6o – 3.39 Meet Expectation
1.80 – 2.59 Needs Improvement
1.00 - 1.79 Unsatisfactory
Table 3. Likert Scale of Evaluation used in the study
Rating Description
5 Almost Always
4 Often
3 Sometimes
2 Seldom
1 Never
Table 3 showed the interpretation used in evaluating the level of
awareness on waste disposal of Solid Waste Management in Barangay San
Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of segregation, 3R’s and disposal. The
highest description is 5 interpreted as almost always, next is 4 interpreted as
23
often, 3 interpreted as sometimes, 2 interpreted as seldom, and 1 being
interpreted as never.
Table 4 Solid Waste Management Practices Awareness in terms of

Segregation in Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel.
Numerical
Range of Mean Description Interpretation
Rating
4.2 – 5.0 Almost Always

5 Outstanding
3.4 – 4.19 Often Exceed

4
Expectation
2.6 – 3.39 Sometimes

3 Meet Expectation
1.8 – 2.59 Seldom Needs

2
Improvement
1.0 – 1.79 Never

1 Unsatisfactory
Table 4 showed the interval scale and interpretation in the evaluation of
the practices in terms of segregation. A 5-point rating scale ranging from 1.0 to
5.0 (from lowest to highest) was used. Every numerical description had a
corresponding interpretation.
24
Table 5 Solid Waste Management Practices Awareness in terms of 3Rs in
Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel.
Numerical
Rating
5 Outstanding

4 Expectation

3 Meet Expectation

2 Improvement
1.0 – 1.79 Never

1 Unsatisfactory
The Table 5 showed the interval scale and interpretation in the evaluation
of the practices in terms of 3R’s. A 5-point rating scale ranging from 1.0 to 5.0
(from lowest to highest) was used. Every numerical description had a
25
Table 6 Solid Waste Management Practices Awareness in terms in disposal
of Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel.
Numerical
Rating
5 Outstanding

4 Expectation

3 Meet Expectation

2 Improvement
1.0 – 1.79 Never

1 Unsatisfactory
The Table 6 showed the interval scale and interpretation in the evaluation
of the practices in terms of disposal. A 5-point rating scale ranging from 1.0 to 5.0
(from lowest to highest) was used. Every numerical description had a
26
Statistical Treatment of Data
Mean was used in all objectives to determine which performance was
effective in the two (2) Barangays where the researcher considered. The data
was analyzed using the five-points rating scale (Likert Scale) and had been
tabulated. The computed mean was used to determine the average results of the
respondents’ answers.
In determining if there is a significant difference on the different
parameters of the solid waste management among the two barangays in terms of
segregation, 3R’s and disposal, t-test was used.
27
Chapter IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter dealt with the analysis, discussion, and interpretation of the
gathered data. The results were statistically computed and analyzed in
accordance with the objectives.
Level of Awareness of the Solid Waste Management Practices
The mean was calculated using the presented formula on the
methodology. It was based on the data gathered from one hundred (100)
households in Barangay San Pablo and one hundred (100) households in San
Emmanuel, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat.
Level of Awareness of the Solid Waste Management Practices in Terms of

Segregation
Table 7 showed the summary of data gathered from one hundred (100)
households of Barangay San Pablo regarding their solid wastes management
practices awareness in terms of segregation.
28
Table 7 Summary of Data of the Solid Waste Management Practices
Awareness in terms of Segregation in Barangay San Pablo.
Description/
Questions / Item Mean sd
Interpretation
1. Do you segregate biodegradable
from non-biodegradable wastes? 4.29 0.97 Almost Always
2. Do you practice the correct

placement of the waste
receptacles at the barangay, 3.62 1.12 Often
especially in a crowded area?
3. Do you separate recyclable

wastes from non-recyclable 3.96 1.03 Often
wastes?
4. Do you mix the biodegradable
and the non-biodegradable 3.3 1.18 Sometimes
garbage?
5. Do you separate non-harmful
wastes from toxic and hazardous 3.8 0.93 Often
wastes?
6. Do you mix all the garbage in
one garbage container? 3.53 1.22 Often
7. Do you follow the barangay

ordinance in terms of segregating 3.76 1.09 Often
waste?
8. Do you have knowledge about
segregation of waste? 4.07 1.02 Often
9. Do you attend the seminars and

meetings of the barangay about 3.64 1.37 Often
segregation of waste?
10. Do you do the segregation
inside and outside my house? 3.26 1.24 Sometimes
Overall Exceed
3.723 SD=¿0.411
Expectation
29
In Barangay San Pablo the result showed that the highest mean of 4.29
was obtained described to be almost always. It showed that the residents almost
always segregated the biodegradable from non-biodegradable wastes. While the
lowest mean of 3.26 was obtained described as sometimes, showing that the
residents sometimes do the segregation inside and outside of their houses.
The overall mean of 3.723 was obtained in terms of segregation in
Barangay San Pablo. The result showed that the solid waste management
practices awareness in terms of segregation in Barangay San Pablo exceeded
the expectation.
This conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and
(Abrematea, 2012) that the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000, is fully implemented in the barangay.

Segregation
households of Barangay San Emmanuel regarding their solid wastes
management practices awareness in terms of segregation.
30
Awareness in terms of Segregation in Barangay San Emmanuel.
Description/
Interpretation
1. Do you segregate biodegradable
from non-biodegradable wastes? 4.28 0.96 Almost Always
2. Do you practice the correct

placement of the waste
receptacles at the barangay, 3.65 1.11 Often
3. Do you separate recyclable
wastes from non-recyclable 3.89 1.05 Often
wastes?
4. Do you mix the biodegradable
and the non-biodegradable 3.19 1.12 Sometimes
garbage?
5. Do you separate non-harmful
wastes from toxic and hazardous 3.99 0.98 Often
wastes?
6. Do you mix all the garbage in
one garbage container? 3.2 1.17 Sometimes

ordinance in terms of segregating 3.86 1.02 Often
waste?
segregation of waste? 4.2 0.92 Almost Always

meetings of the barangay about 3.21 1.31 Sometimes
10. Do you do the segregation
inside and outside my house? 3.52 1.19 Often
Overall 3.699 Exceed

SD=¿0.384
Expectation
31
Based on the results calculated, Barangay San Emmanuel obtained a
highest of 4.28 interpreted as almost always; it showed that their barangay
residents almost always segregated the biodegradable from non-biodegradable
wastes. However, humans are not perfect; hence the lowest mean of 3.19 was
obtained. The residents may mistakenly mixed them sometimes.
With an overall mean of 3.699, the solid waste management practices
awareness in terms of segregation at Barangay San Emmanuel exceeded the
expectation.
This satisfies the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and

3R’s
practices awareness in terms of 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle).
32
Awareness in terms of 3R’s in Barangay San Pablo.
Questions / Item Mean sd Description/

Interpretation
1. Do you make decors out of
plastic wrappers and other 1.86 1.23 Seldom
colorful waste materials?
2. Do you keep those unfilled
papers and use it as scratch or 3.35 1.5 Sometimes
memo pads?
3. Do you buy only what you
need to avoid throwing away 4.49 0.92 Almost Always
extra food?
4. Do you reuse disposable water
bottle? 3.28 1.35 Sometimes
5. Are you cautious and

responsible enough to every 4.33 1.06 Almost Always
waste I produced?
ordinance by separating the 3.8 1.17 Often
recyclable waste?
7. Do you initiate generating-
income out of waste materials? 3.09 1.18 Sometimes
8. Do you practice putting plastic

bottles into recyclable garbage 3.75 1.11 Often
cans?
9. Do you use eco/paper bags
instead of cellophanes? 3.58 1.41 Often
10. Do you reuse your old

materials instead of buying a new 4.23 1.17 Almost Always
one?
Overall Exceed
3.576 SD=¿0.485
Expectation
33
The survey results showed that in Barangay San Pablo the highest mean
of 4.49 were obtained. This result showed that the residents of Barangay San
Pablo almost always buy only what they need to avoid waste of extra food. Also,
they seldom utilized some excess for decorations out of colorful waste materials
having the lowest mean of 1.86 described as seldom.
An overall mean of 3.576 was obtained which justified that the solid waste
management practices awareness in terms of 3R’s of Barangay San Pablo
exceeded the expectation.
Still this conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and

3R’s
households of Barangay San Emmanuel regarding their solid wastes
management practices awareness in terms of 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle).
34
Awareness in terms of 3R’s in Barangay San Emmanuel.
Questions / Item Mean sd Description/

Interpretation
plastic wrappers and other 2.34 1.44 Seldom
papers and use it as scratch or 3.21 1.45 Sometimes
memo pads?
3. Do you buy only what you
need to avoid throwing away 4.61 0.86 Almost Always
extra food?
bottle? 3.37 1.37 Sometimes

responsible enough to every 4.22 1.12 Almost Always
waste I produced?
ordinance by separating the 3.58 1.25 Often
recyclable waste?
income out of waste materials? 3.02 1.13 Sometimes

bottles into recyclable garbage 3.75 1.11 Often
cans?
instead of cellophanes? 3.29 1.29 Sometimes

materials instead of buying a new 4.23 1.17 Almost Always
one?
Overall Exceed
3.562 SD=¿0.505
Expectation
35
With a highest mean of 4.61, the result showed that the residents of
Barangay San Emmanuel only buy enough food to avoid wasting it. Making
decorations out of plastic wrappers and other colorful wastes material are not
their thing for they only do it rarely; this result shows as the lowest mean with a
rating score of 2.34.
Above all these, the solid waste management practices awareness in
terms of 3R’s of Barangay San Emmanuel exceeded the expectation garnering a
grand mean of 3.562.
This adhere with the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and

Disposal
practices awareness in terms of disposal.
36
Awareness in terms of Disposal in Barangay San Pablo.
Description /
Interpretation
1. I don’t dispose hazardous/toxic
in any garbage container. 4.51 0.97 Almost Always
2. I don’t dispose special wastes

such as electronic waste in any 4.53 0.72 Almost Always
garbage can.
3. Do you burn waste material? 3.26 1.45 Sometimes

4. I dispose biodegradable
wastes into a compost pit. 3.87 1.24 Often
5. Do you segregate waste

before the transport? 3.02 1.32 Sometimes
6. I don’t throw waste materials in

common canals. 4.46 0.87 Almost Always
7. I don’t throw my solid

waste/garbage anywhere. 3.67 1.18 Often
8. Do you follow the guidelines

and ordinance of the barangay
regarding the proper waste 3.69 1.13 Often
disposal?
9. Are you aware about the
projects/activities implemented
by the barangay about waste 3.55 1.36 Often
disposal?
10. Are you aware of the possible
effect in the environment if you
do not properly dispose your 4.89 0.31 Almost Always
waste?
Overall Meet
3.945 SD=¿0.404
Expectation
37
Knowing the effect in the environment when wastes are not properly
disposed should be the number one knowledge of everyone in terms of disposal.
With a highest mean of 4.89 was obtained on said parameter.
This implies that the residents of Barangay San Pablo are almost aware in
terms of proper disposal. They also met the expectation regarding the
segregation before the transport of solid wastes with a rating of 3.02 although it
showed to be sometimes done.
With an overall total mean of 3.945, indeed the solid waste management
practices awareness in terms of disposal of Barangay San Pablo met the
expectation. This conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and

Disposal
practices awareness in terms of disposal.
38
Awareness in terms of Disposal in Barangay San Emmanuel.
Questions / Item Mean sd Description /

Interpretation
1. I don’t dispose hazardous/toxic
in any garbage container. 4.65 0.86 Almost Always

such as electronic waste in any 4.67 0.67 Almost Always
garbage can.
3. Do you burn waste material? 3.04 1.44 Sometimes

4. I dispose biodegradable Often
wastes into a compost pit. 4.17 1.21
5. Do you segregate waste

before the transport? 3.1 1.28 Sometimes
6. I don’t throw waste materials in

common canals. 4.53 0.87 Almost Always
7. I don’t throw my solid

waste/garbage anywhere. 3.6 1.23 Often

and ordinance of the barangay Often
regarding the proper waste 3.6 1.18
disposal?
projects/activities implemented Often
by the barangay about waste 3.85 1.15
disposal?
effect in the environment if you Almost Always
do not properly dispose your 4.92 0.27
waste?
Overall Meet
4.013 SD=¿0.427
Expectation
39
Pollution reduces when people are aware of the effects of improper
disposal of solid wastes in the environment.
According to the result of survey, the highest mean of 4.92 was obtained
described as almost always.
It implies that the residents of Barangay San Emmanuel are aware of the
possible effect to the environment if solid wastes are not disposed properly.
However, they sometimes burned waste materials, having a lowest mean of 3.04
interpreted as sometimes.
Based on the result of survey, Barangay San Emmanuel obtained a grand
mean of 4.013. It implies that the solid waste management practices awareness
in terms of disposal of Barangay San Emmanuel met the expectation. This again
conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and (Abrematea,
2012) that the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000, is fully implemented in the barangay.

Segregation
households of Barangay San Pablo and one hundred (100) households of
Barangay San Emmanuel regarding their solid wastes management practices
awareness in terms of segregation.
40
Table 13 The Results in Terms of Segregation of Solid Wastes Management
Practices in the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel.
Barangay San Barangay San

Pablo Emmanuel
Items
Mean sd Mean sd
1. Do you segregate biodegradable from

4.29 0.97 4.28 0.96
non-biodegradable wastes?
2. Do you practice the correct placement

of the waste receptacles at the barangay, 3.62 1.12 3.65 1.11
3. Do you separate recyclable wastes from

3.96 1.03 3.89 1.05
non-recyclable wastes?
4. Do you mix the biodegradable and the

3.3 1.18 3.19 1.12
non-biodegradable garbage?
5. Do you separate non-harmful wastes

3.8 0.93 3.99 0.98
from toxic and hazardous wastes?
6. Do you mix all the garbage in one

3.53 1.22 3.2 1.17
garbage container?
7. Do you follow the barangay ordinance in

3.76 1.09 3.86 1.02
terms of segregating waste?

4.07 1.02 4.2 0.92

meetings of the barangay about 3.64 1.37 3.21 1.31
10. Do you do the segregation inside and

3.26 1.24 3.52 1.19
outside my house?
Overall 3.723 SD 1=¿0.41 3.699 SD 2=¿0.38

1 4
41
Table 13 presented the overall means obtained from Barangay San Pablo
and San Emmanuel which are 3.723 and 3.699, respectively. The total mean
obtained from Barangay San Pablo was greater than the total mean of Barangay
San Emmanuel as evaluated on solid waste management practices awareness in
terms of segregation. T-test was used in finding the significant difference among
the two barangays in terms of segregation. T-computed of 0.427 is less than the
T-tabular of 1.653, 5% level of significance. This implies that there was no
significant difference between Barangay San Emmanuel and San Pablo.
Based on observation, the residents of Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel were aware and practiced proper segregation of solid wastes
materials, Also, as interpreted in the mean scale, the residents of the two
barangay exceed the expectation of Solid Wastes Management Practices
Awareness in terms of segregation. This conforms the studies of (Bernardo,
2008), (Ballados, 2010) and (Abrematea, 2012) that the RA 9003, also known
as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in
the two barangay.
The Significant Difference of the Level of Awareness of Solid Wastes

Management Practices in Terms of Segregation
Table 14 showed the significant difference between barangay San
Emmanuel and San Pablo in terms of segregation using the t-test.
42
Table 14 Table of Observation for the Solid Wastes Management Practices
of the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of Segregation.
T-test Value
Barangay n Mean SD df Interpretation
Tcomputed Ttabular (5%)
San Pablo 100 3.723 0.411

198 0.427 1.653 not significant
San
100 3.699 0.384
Emmanuel
Based on one hundred households as respondents of barangay San
Pablo and one hundred households as respondents of barangay San Emmanuel,
the computed T-test value of 0.427 was less than the tabular T-test value of
1.653 at 5% level of significance, the alternative hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, there was no significant difference between the two (2) barangays in
terms of segregation.
The result showed that residents of both Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel were aware and practiced proper segregation of solid wastes
materials. Also, their practices in terms of proper segregation exceeded the
expectation. Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the two barangays.

3R’s
awareness in terms of 3R’s.
43
Table 15 The Results in Terms of 3R’s of Solid Wastes Management
Barangay San Barangay San
Items Pablo Emmanuel
Mean sd Mean sd
plastic wrappers and other 1.86 1.23 2.34 1.44
papers and use it as scratch or 3.35 1.5 3.21 1.45
memo pads?
3. Do you buy only what you need
to avoid throwing away extra 4.49 0.92 4.61 0.86
food?
3.28 1.35 3.37 1.37
bottle?
responsible enough to every 4.33 1.06 4.22 1.12
waste I produced?
ordinance by separating the 3.8 1.17 3.58 1.25
recyclable waste?
3.09 1.18 3.02 1.13
income out of waste materials?
bottles into recyclable garbage 3.75 1.11 3.75 1.11
cans?
3.58 1.41 3.29 1.29
instead of cellophanes?
materials instead of buying a new 4.23 1.17 4.23 1.17
one?
SD 1=¿0.48
Total Mean 3.576 3.562 SD 2=¿0.505
5
44
As indicated in Table 15, an overall mean of 3.576 and 3.562 were
obtained from Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel respectively. Greater
total mean was obtained from Barangay San Pablo compared to the total mean
of Barangay San Emmanuel regarding the solid waste management practices
awareness in terms of 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle). T-test was used in
finding the significant difference among the two barangays in terms of 3R’s. T
computed is 0.2 of was less than the T-tabular of 1.653 at 5% level of
significance. This implies that there was no significant difference between
Barangay San Emmanuel and San Pablo.
Based on evaluation, the residents of Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel were aware and practiced the 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle). Also,
as interpreted in the mean scale, the residents of the two barangays exceeded
the expectation of Solid Wastes Management Practices Awareness in terms of
3R’s. This conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and
Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the two barangays.

Management Practices in Terms of 3R’s
Emmanuel and San Pablo in terms of 3R’s using the t-test.
45
in the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of 3R’s.
T-test Value
San Pablo 100 3.576 0.485

San
100 3.562 0.505
Emmanuel
Based on one hundred households respondents of barangay San Pablo
and one hundred households respondents of barangay San Emmanuel, the
computed T-test value of 0.2 was less than the tabular T-test value of 1.653 at
5% level of significance, the alternative hypothesis was rejected. No significant
difference between the two (2) barangays in terms of 3R’s was determined.
Emmanuel were aware and practiced the 3R’s or the Reduce, reuse and
Recycle. Also, their solid wastes management practices awareness in terms of
3R’s exceeded the expectation. Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the
two barangays.

Disposal
46
awareness in terms of disposal.
Table 17 The Results in Terms of disposal of Solid Wastes Management

Barangay San
Barangay San Pablo
Items Emmanuel
Mean sd Mean sd
1. I don’t dispose hazardous/toxic 4.65 0.86 4.51 0.97
in any garbage container.
such as electronic waste in any 4.67 0.67 4.53 0.72
garbage can.
3. Do you burn waste material? 3.04 1.44 3.26 1.45
4. I dispose biodegradable wastes 4.17 1.21 3.87 1.24

into a compost pit.
5. Do you segregate waste before 3.1 1.28 3.02 1.32
the transport?
6. I don’t throw waste materials in 4.53 0.87 4.46 0.87
common canals.
7. I don’t throw my solid 3.6 1.23 3.67 1.18
waste/garbage anywhere.
and ordinance of the barangay 3.6 1.18 3.69 1.13
regarding the proper waste
disposal?
projects/activities implemented by 3.85 1.15 3.55 1.36
the barangay about waste
disposal?
effect in the environment if you do 4.92 0.27 4.89 0.31
not properly dispose your waste?
SD 1=¿0.42
Total Mean 4.013 3.945 SD 2=¿0.404
7
47
As indicated in Table 17, the overall means of 3.945 and 4.93 were
obtained from both Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel respectively. It
implies that the total mean of Barangay San Pablo was lesser than the total
mean of Barangay San Emmanuel about the solid waste management practices
awareness in terms of disposal. T-test was used in finding the significant
difference among the two barangays in terms of disposal. It was found out that
the T computed of 1.157 was less than the T-tabular of 1.653 at 5% level of
significance.
This implies that there was no significant difference between Barangay
San Emmanuel and San Pablo with regards to solid waste management
practices in terms of disposal.
Based on survey, the residents of Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel were aware and practice the proper disposal. Also, as interpreted in
the mean scale, the residents of the two barangays exceeded the expectation of
Solid Wastes Management Practices Awareness in terms of disposal. This
conforms the studies of (Bernardo, 2008), (Ballados, 2010) and (Abrematea,
2012) that the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the two barangays.
48
Management Practices in Terms of Disposal
Emmanuel and San Pablo in terms of 3R’s using the t-test.

in the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of Disposal.
T-test Value
San
100 4.013 0.427
Emmanuel
San Pablo 100 3.945 0.404
Based on one hundred households respondents of barangay San Pablo
and one hundred households respondents of barangay San Emmanuel, the
computed T-test value of 1.157 was less than the tabular T-test value of 1.653 at
5% level of significance where the alternative hypothesis was rejected.
Therefore, there was no significant difference between the two (2) barangays in
terms of disposal.
Emmanuel were aware and practiced proper disposal of solid wastes materials.
Also, their practices in terms of proper disposal exceeded the expectation.
Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the two barangays.
49
Chapter V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presented in concise form of the summary of findings,

conclusions, and recommendation based on the gathered data by the
researcher.
Summary of Findings
Based on the results, the findings were the following:
1. Summary of the results on level of awareness of waste disposal practices
in Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of:
a. Segregation – the highest means of 4.28 and 4.29 were obtained
from Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel respectively. It
revealed that both barangay residents segregated the
biodegradable from non-biodegradable waste in their areas. The
lowest mean of 3.26 was obtained from barangay San Pablo. It
showed that the residents of Barangay San Pablo do the
segregation inside and outside of their houses. The lowest mean of
3.2 was obtained from Barangay San Emmanuel. This revealed that
the residents sometimes mixed all of the garbage in one garbage
container. In terms of segregation in Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel a grand mean of 3.723 and 3.699 were obtained
respectively. The result implies that the solid waste management
practices awareness in terms of segregation of both Barangay San
Pablo and San Emmanuel exceeded the expectation. Therefore,
50
the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the two
barangays.
b. 3R’s – the highest mean of 4.61 was obtained from Barangay San
Emmanuel while Barangay San Pablo obtained a mean of 4.49. It
showed that residents in both barangays bought only what they
need to prevent from throwing away extra food. Also, having a
lowest means of 1.86 and 2.34, respectively. It could be said that
residents in both barangays seldom make decors out of plastic
wrappers and other colorful waste materials. Obtaining a grand
means of 3.576 and 3.562 from both Barangay San Pablo and San
Emmanuel respectively, revealed that the solid waste management
practices awareness in terms of 3R’s of both barangays exceeded
the expectation. Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was fully
implemented in the two barangays.
c. Disposal – the highest mean of 4.92 was obtained at Barangay
San Emmanuel while Barangay San Pablo obtained a mean of
4.89. The result generally showed that the residents of the two
barangays were aware of the possible effect in the environment if
wastes were not disposed properly. The lowest mean of 3.02 in
Barangay San Pablo means that residents segregated wastes
before the transport. The lowest mean 3.04 in Barangay San
51
Emmanuel on the other hand means that they burned waste
materials. The overall mean in terms of disposal in Barangay San
Pablo and San Emmanuel were 3.945 and 4.013, respectively. The
result showed that the solid waste management practices
awareness in terms of segregation of both barangays exceeded the
expectation. Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological
Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the
two barangays.
2. Significant difference in terms of:
a. Segregation- there was no significant difference between
Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of segregation
having a t-computed of 0.427 less than the t-tabular of 1.653 at 5%
level of significance.
This implies that the residents of both barangays were aware
and practiced the proper segregation of solid waste materials.
b. 3R’s - there was no significant difference between Barangay San
Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of 3R’s with a t-computed of
0.02 less than the t-tabular of 1.653 at 5% level of significance.
and practice the 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle).
c. Disposal - there was no significant difference between Barangay
San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of disposal having a
52
t-computed of 1.157 less than the t-tabular of 1.653 at 5% level of
significance.
and practice the proper disposal of solid waste materials.
3. Which of the two (2) barangays had the best practices that can be
adopted by other barangays?
- Based on the results of T-test in terms of segregation, 3R’s and
disposal, it revealed that there was no significant difference
between Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel.
This implies that the two barangays exceeded the
expectation of Solid Wastes Management Practices Awareness;
hence, their practices in terms of segregation, 3R’s and disposal
can be adopted by the other 18 barangays of Tacurong City,
Sultan Kudarat.
Conclusion
After the evaluation of the Solid Wastes Management Practices
Awareness of the Residents of Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel,
Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, the results showed that they were aware and
practiced the proper segregation, 3R’s (reduce, reuse and recycle) and disposal.
It also showed that there was no significant difference between Barangay San
Pablo and San Emmanuel when it comes to solid wastes management practices
awareness.
53
This means that the residents of the two barangays indeed practiced the
proper Solid Wastes Management. Their practices in terms of segregation, 3R’s
and disposal can be disseminated by the other 18 barangays of Tacurong City,
Sultan Kudarat. Therefore, the RA 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act of 2000 was fully implemented in the subject barangays.
Recommendations:
Based on the results explained above, the following recommendations were as
follows:
1.) For Barangay San Pablo, although their practice in terms of
segregation, 3Rs and disposal exceeded the expectation, it is highly
recommend that they should practice utilizing colorful waste materials
into decorations which will be a big help to reduce the problem in waste
and additional income as well.
2.) For Barangay San Emmanuel, as what the results showed, the
residents sometimes mixed all of waste materials in one container, they
also sometimes burned waste materials. Therefore, the local officials
should hold a meeting among the residents about proper solid waste
management practice so that the residents learn more on how to
manage all kinds of solid waste and to enhance their strategy on how
they practice the solid waste management.
3.) Since the two (2) barangays exceeded the expectation level of
awareness on waste disposal management in terms of segregation,
3R’s and disposal, it is therefore highly recommended to study also

54
other barangays as to the implementation of the said Republic Act, if
not yet, for other remaining 18 barangays of Tacurong City to also
adopt the Solid Waste Management Practices of barangays San Pablo
and San Emmanuel.
55
LITERATURE CITED
Online sources
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsmcwm/24/0/24_677/_pdf
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/01/10/the-garbage-conundrum/
https://tacurong.gov.ph/history/
https://solidwastemngt.weebly.com/chapter-ii-rrl.html
https://www.denr.gov.ph/index.php/priority-programs/solid-waste-
management#:~:text=The%20Philippines%20has%20endeavored%20to,public
%20health%20and%20the%20environment.
https://emb.gov.ph/national-solid-waste-management-status-report/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/business.inquirer.net/270819/solid-waste-
mismanagement-in-the-philippines/amp
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/an-introduction-to-solid-waste-management-
2878102#:~:text=Solid%20waste%20management%20is%20defined,aesthetic
%2C%20engineering%2C%20and%20other%20environmental
https://ro12.doh.gov.ph/index.php/health-profile/provincial-profile/sultan-kudarat
https://cmci.dti.gov.ph/prov-profile.php?prov=Sultan%20Kudarat&year=2020
56
APPENDICES
57
Appendix A
Table 19: Table of Observation for the Solid Wastes Management Practices
BARANGAY SAN PABLO
QUESTIONS Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10
4.2 4.0
MEAN 9 3.62 3.96 3.3 3.8 3.53 3.76 7 3.64 4.29
∑X1 = 3.723
STANDARD 0.9 0.9 1.0
SD 1=¿0.41
DEVIATION 8 1.11 1.03 1.18 3 1.22 1.09 3 1.37 0.97
1
BARANGAY SAN EMMANUEL
4.2 3.9
MEAN 8 3.65 3.89 3.19 9 3.2 3.86 4.2 3.21 3.52
∑X2 = 3.699
SD 2=¿0.38
DEVIATION 6 1.11 1.05 1.12 8 1.17 1.02 2 1.30 1.19
4
(X 1− X 2)
t c=
√[ SD ²1 SD ² 2
n1
+
n2 ]
(3.723−3.699)
t c=
√[ (0.411) ² (0.384) ²
100
+
100 ]
t c =0.427
df = N1+N2-2 = 100+100-2 = 198 ; α = 0.05
Ttabular = 1.653 5% level of significance
Tcomputed<Ttabular
Therefore: (There is no significant difference between the barangay San Pablo
and San Emmanuel).
58
T-test Value
San Pablo 100 3.723 0.411

San
100 3.699 0.384
Emmanuel
Since the computed T-test value was not greater than the tabular T-test
value at 5% the alternative hypothesis was rejected. Therefore, there was no
significant difference between the two (2) barangays in terms of segregation.
59
of the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of 3R’s.
BARANGAY SAN PABLO
3.0
MEAN 1.86 3.35 4.49 3.28 4.33 3.8 9 3.75 3.58 4.23
∑X1 = 3.576
STANDARD 1.1
SD 1=¿0.48
DEVIATION 1.21 1.5 0.92 1.35 1.06 1.172 8 1.11 1.41 1.17
5
3.0
MEAN 2.34 3.21 4.61 3.37 4.22 3.58 2 3.75 3.29 4.23
∑X2 = 3.562
STANDARD 1.1
SD 2=¿0.50
DEVIATION 1.44 1.45 0.86 1.37 1.12 1.25 3 1.11 1.29 1.17
5
(X 1− X 2)
t c=
√[ SD ²1 SD ² 2
n1
+
n2 ]
(3.576−3.562)
t c=
√[ (0.485) ² (0.505) ²
100
+
100 ]
t c =0.2
df = N1+N2-2 = 100+100-2 = 198 ; α = 0.05
Tcomputed<Ttabular
60
and San Emmanuel).
of the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of 3R’s.
T-test Value
San Pablo 100 3.576 0.485

San
100 3.562 0.505
Emmanuel
significant difference between the two (2) barangays in terms of 3R’s.
61
of the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of Disposal.
4.6
MEAN 5 4.67 3.04 4.17 3.1 4.53 3.6 3.6 3.85 4.92
∑X1 = 4.013
SD 1=¿0.42
DEVIATION 5 0.67 1.43 1.21 8 0.87 1.23 8 1.15 0.27
7
BARANGAY SAN PABLO
4.5 3.0 3.6

MEAN 1 4.53 3.26 3.87 2 4.46 3.67 9 3.55 4.89
∑X2 = 3.945
SD 2=¿0.40
DEVIATION 7 0.72 1.45 1.24 2 0.87 1.18 3 1.36 0.31
4
(X 1− X 2)
t c=
√[ SD ²1 SD ² 2
n1
+
n2 ]
(3.576−3.562)
t c=
√[ (4.013)² (3.945) ²
100
+
100 ]
t c =1.157
df = N1+N2-2 = 100+100-2 = 198 ; α = 0.05
62
Tcomputed<Ttabular
and San Emmanuel).
of the Barangay San Pablo and San Emmanuel in terms of Disposal.
T-test Value
San
100 4.013 0.427
Emmanuel
San Pablo 100 3.945 0.404
significant difference between the two (2) barangays in terms of Disposal.
63
64
Appendix 1 Republic of the Philippines Form 1
College of Engineering
Isulan Campus
Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
PLAN OF COURSE WORK
Name: JEROME B. ANCHETA Course: BSCE

Major Course:
Course No. Course Description Unit Grade Remarks
Construction Methods & Project
CE-511 4 2.25 Passed
Management
CE-512 Reinforced Concrete 2 3 2.75 Passed
CE-513 Geotechnical Engineering 2 4 2.25 Passed
CE-514 Civil Engineering Project 3 2.00 Passed
CE-515 Steel Design 4 1.75 Passed
CE-516 Timber Design 4 2.25 Passed
Construction Methods and
CE-414 3 3.00 Passed
Testing
ES-411 Environmental Engineering 3 2.50 Passed
ES-324 Engineering Geology 3 2.50 Passed
Phys-111 College Physics 1 3 3.00 Passed
ES-321 Engineering Management 3 1.75 Passed
CET-122 Building Design 1 3 2.75 Passed
CET-212 Building Design 2 3 2.00 Passed
CE-422 Reinforced Concrete 1 4 2.50 Passed
Inclusive Course:
Eng-114 Technical Writing and Reporting 3 2.75 Passed
Stat-112 Probability and Statistics 3 2.50 Passed
CE-415 Methods of Research 3 2.75 Passed
Eng-112 Writing in Discipline 3 3.00 Passed
Total Number of Units Required for the Period : 255
Total Numbers of Units Earned : 255
Certified Correct: Approved:
ROSALIE S. IBOT, MPM MARY LYNN G. MAGBANUA, CE, PhD

Campus Registrar Campus Director
________________ ________________
65
Date Date
66
Isulan Campus
APPLICATION FOR THESIS TITLE
Date
SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES AWARENESS OF THE
RESIDENTS IN BARANGAY SAN
PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL,
TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT ________ _________
Remarks Signature
I am planning to write my thesis outline on June 2021, at SKSU Isulan Campus.
Very respectfully yours,
JEROME B. ANCHETA
Student
Recommending Approval:

Member Member

Adviser
Endorsed:
KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc. MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP-CpE

Campus Research Coordinator College Dean
____________ ____________
Approved:

Campus Director
____________
67
Republic of the Philippines
Isulan Campus
Date Signed
68
Appendix 3 Form 3
Isulan Campus
NOMINATION OF GUIDANCE COMMITTEE
I,JEROME B. ANCHETA, a student of BSCE hereby nominate the
following as adviser and members of my thesis guidance committee.

Adviser

Member Member
We, hereby certify our willingness to act as adviser / members of the
guidance committee.

Adviser

Member Member
Endorsed:
KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc. MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP- CpE

______________ _______________
Approved:

Campus Director
__________________
Date Signed
69
Appendix 4 Form 4
Isulan Campus
APPLICATION FOR THESIS OUTLINE DEFENSE
Name: JEROME B. ANCEHTA Course/Major: BSCE
I have the honor to apply for outline defense for my study entitled: SOLID
WASTES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AWARENESS OF THE RESIDENTS
IN BARANGAY SAN PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY,
SULTAN KUDARAT Time: 1:00 PM
Date: June 28, 2021

Venue: Engineering Building (SKSU- ISULAN)

Member Member
VELESSA JANE N. DULIN, PhD PATERNA A. MURILLO

Statistician English Critic

Adviser
Endorsed: Recommending Approval:

Approved:

Campus Director
70
Appendix 5 Form 5
Isulan Campus
CHANGE OF ADVISER / GUIDANCE COMMITTEE MEMBER
Name: JEROME B. ANCHETA Course: BSCE

Major: CIVIL ENGINEERING
Thesis Title: SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AWARENESS
OF THE RESIDENTS IN BARANGAY SAN PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL,
APPROVED BY THE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE
ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD __________ __________

Adviser Signature Date
NOEL H. BARAQUIA, CE __________ __________

Member Signature Date
DENAFEL C. SARAÑA, CE __________ __________

VELESSA JANE N. DULIN, PhD __________ __________

Statistician Signature Date
PATERNA A. MURILLO __________ __________

English Critic Signature Date

Approved:

Campus Director
71
Appendix 6 Form 6
Isulan Campus
APPROVAL OF THESIS OUTLINE
Name: JEROME B. ANCHETA Course/Major: BSCE

Major: CIVIL ENGINEERING
APPROVED BY THE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE

Adviser Signature Date



Statistician Signature Date

English Critic Signature Date

Approved:

Campus Director
72
Isulan Campus
CERTIFICATION OF STATISTICIAN
This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT
PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT
conducted on ___________, authored by JEROME B. ANCHETA was
evaluated/checked by the undersigned as to the statistical analysis and
interpretation.
Issued on this _____________ day of _____________.
VELESSA JANE N. DULIN, PhD

Statistician
Noted:

Campus Director
73
Appendix 8 Form 8
Isulan Campus
CERTIFICATION OF ENGLISH CRITIC
PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT
conducted on ______________ authored by JEROME B. ANCHETA was edited
by the undersigned as to its grammar.
Issued on this ______ day of _____________.
PATERNA A. MURILLO
English Critic
Noted:

Campus Director
74
Appendix 9 Form 9
Isulan Campus
APPLICATION FOR THESIS FINAL DEFENSE EXAMINATION
Name: JEROME B. ANCHETA Course/Major: BSCE Major:

CIVIL ENGINEERING
Please write × whether: () First () Second () Third
Date: _______________ Time: _________________ Venue: _________
Guidance Committee
Name Signature Date

Adviser

Member

Member

Statistician

English Critic

Approved:

Campus Director
____________________
Date
75
Isulan Campus
Report on the Result of Final Defense

(Action taken by the Guidance Committee. Please indicate whether Passed or
Failed)
Signature Date Remarks
Approved:

Campus Director
76
Isulan Campus
APPLICATION FOR THESIS FINAL PRINTING AND BINDING
PABLO AND SAN EMMANUEL, TACURONG CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT was
thoroughly reviewed by the guidance committee and recommended for final
printing and binding.
PATERNA A. MURILLO VELESSA JANE N. DULIN, PhD

English Critic Statistician
______________ ______________

Member Member
______________ ______________
Adviser
_________________
Date Signed
Recommending Approval:

______________ _______________
Approved:

Campus Director
____________________
Date Signed
77
Isulan Campus
Appendix 11
PICTORIALS
78
Isulan Campus
Appendix 12
DVD
79
Isulan Campus
80

Ancheta Jerome SWMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ancheta Jerome SWMP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta Jerome SWMP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

BSCE Res. No ____

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

The thesis attached hereto entitled “SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP-CpE

KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc.

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MARY LYNN G. MAGBANUA, CE, PhD

The thesis attached hereto entitled “SOLID WASTES MANAGEMENT

NOEL H. BARAQUIA, CE DENAFEL C. SARAÑA, CE

ROMMEL M. LAGUMEN, CE, PhD

Approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MEILAFLOR A. PACLIBAR, MEP-CpE KYRENE L. DIZON, MIT, MSc.

MARY LYNN G. MAGBANUA, CE, PhD

The author, Jerome B Ancheta, was born on November 04, 1998, in

children of Mr. Jose L. Ancheta and Mrs. Zoirelyn B. Ancheta.

He obtained his elementary education at Tacurong Pilot Elementary School

S.Y 2010-2011. He acquired his secondary education at Tacurong National High

Shool and graduated in school year 2014-2015.

He pursued his tertiary education at Sultan Kudarat State University taking

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. During his school days, he became a

President of ACES, he then represented the organization as ACES

Representative at Engineering Students Organization (ESO). He also became

the Vice President of Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) – Student

and made him the best version of himself.

The researcher expresses his paramount gratitude to the following with

heartfelt gratitude and affection, whose, undeniable expertise, understanding,

Engr. Denafel C. Saraña, Engr. Noel H. Baraquia, Ms. Velessa Jane N.

their efforts for the completion of this study;

Meilaflor A. Paclibar, MEP-CpE, the exemplary Dean of the College of

Engineering for the approval and acceptance of this study;

have for his education and worthwhile endeavor in life;

Jade B. Ancheta and Katherine S. Ancheta, their guidance and advices to

him were also appreciated.

Neri Lei M. Gariando, Kenneth H. Barrientos and Zairah B. Sambilan, his

there to help and motivate; and

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 8

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 17

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28

1 Household and Sample Size of Brgy. San Pablo 20

2 Household and Sample Size of Brgy. San Emmanuel 21

3 Likert Scale of Evaluation used in the Study 23

4 Segregation Interval Scale and Interpretation 25

5 3R's Interval Scale and Interpretation 26

6 Disposal Interval Scale and Interpretation 28

7 Segregation Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 29

8 Segregation Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 31

9 3R's Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 33

10 3R's Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 35

11 Disposal Summary of Data of Brgy. San Pablo 37

12 Disposal Summary of Data of Brgy. San Emmanuel 39

13 Result in terms of Segregation between Two Barangays 41

14 T-test for Segregation between Two Barangays 43

15 Result in terms of 3R's between Two Barangays 44

16 T-test for 3R's between Two Barangays 46

17 Result in terms of Dispossal between Two Barangays 47