Awareness and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices

Abstract

This research used the descriptive-correlational method to determine the level of respondents' awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division, Negros Oriental, Philippines for SY 2018-2019 in terms of the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal. The quantitative data were gathered from 81 teachers and 189 students. Also, a survey questionnaire was utilized by the researcher. The statistical tools used in the analysis of the data were weighted mean, mean, and spearman rank correlation. The results revealed that the level of respondents' awareness on SWM Practices as both perceived by the teachers and students were very high and the extent of implementation of these practices were very great. In addition to this, a significant relationship was noted between the levels of awareness and extents of implementation of SWM Practices. It can be concluded that the level of awareness greatly influenced the extent of implementation of SWM Practices by the teachers and students in District 2, Bayawan City Division.

Full text

Awareness and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices
Emerson N. Lalamonan, MAEd1 and Sheena Mae T. Comighud, EdD2
1Public School Teacher, DepEd-Bayawan City Division, Bayawan City, Philippines
2 Basic Education Researcher, DepEd-Bayawan City Division, Bayawan City, Philippines
Abstract
This research used the descriptive-correlational method to determine the level of
respondents’ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division, Negros Oriental, Philippines for SY 2018-2019
in terms of the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle, and disposal. The quantitative data
were gathered from 81 teachers and 189 students. Also, a survey questionnaire was utilized by
the researcher. The statistical tools used in the analysis of the data were weighted mean, mean,
and spearman rank correlation. The results revealed that the level of respondents’ awareness
on SWM Practices as both perceived by the teachers and students were very high and the extent
of implementation of these practices were very great. In addition to this, a significant
relationship was noted between the levels of awareness and extents of implementation of SWM
Practices. It can be concluded that the level of awareness greatly influenced the extent of
implementation of SWM Practices by the teachers and students in District 2, Bayawan City
Division.
Keywords: Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices, Level of Awareness, Extent of
Implementation
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 55-56 of Republic Act 9003 or The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act
stipulates that the Philippine National Government in coordination with Department of
Education (DepEd) and other educational institutions should conduct a continuing education
and information campaign on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices and strengthen the
integration of environmental concerns in school curricula at all extents, with particular
emphasis on the theories and practices of waste management principles like segregation at
source, reduction, recycling, reuse and composting, in order to promote environmental
awareness and action among the citizenry. This in turn promotes growing awareness on SWM
Practices by that of the general public.
Solid Waste Management (SWM) is the collection, transport or disposal and treatment of
waste materials (Paghasian, 2017). It relates to materials produced through human activities,
and the process generally undertaken to endure its effects on health, environment and aesthetics.
Recognizing the effects of improper management, garbage crisis can be prevented by practicing
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
11

waste characterization and segregation at source, proper collection and transfer, recycling, and
composting as mandated by the law (Aquino, et al., 2013). In view thereof, like growing
awareness, proper implementation should be given equal focus and attention.
Moreover, as our ecological environment from local setting to the global village has been
facing waste crisis due to a number of factors attributed to it, Solid Waste Management (SWM)
practices should be strengthened (Pham, 2014; Choi, 2016).Further, awareness of Solid Waste
Management (SWM)practices created change on how people look at garbage (Sarino, 2014).
Awareness accompanied by participation is the key for people to be involved in the waste
management programs of the community where effective and sustainable implementation of
the proper waste management practices could be achieved (Punongbayan, 2014).
In the same manner, it is important for our learners to be highly aware and to properly
implement SWM practicesas the future citizens of this planet as well actively participate in
solving environmental related problems as this isregarded a global concern. They foster
potential roles in addressing environmental problems as agents of change, future custodians of
the planet, and environment managers and developers (Niekerk, 2014). Hence, waste
prevention and public participation through proper education with correct information are
important factors for future generations (Villanueva, 2013; Marello & Helwege, 2014).
In this connection, the researcher has decided to pursue this study with the aim to
determine the level of respondents’ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices in District 2, Bayawan City Division. In addition, this study
attempted to find out whether or not Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices positively
contributed to the community and the city as a whole.
II. METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study used the descriptive-correlational research design. The researcher determined
the level of respondents’ awareness and the extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices. Thus, the descriptive and correlational methods were the
appropriate designs for the study.
Research Respondents
The respondents of the study for both the level of awareness and the extent of
implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices were the 81 out of a total of 101
teachers and 189 out of a total of 359 Grade VI Pupils of the different Public Elementary
Schools of District 2, Bayawan City Division during the school year 2018-2019.
Research Procedure
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
12

The researcher asked permission from the concerned authorities, and secure the
necessary endorsements before administering the questionnaires to gather the needed data. A
letter of permission to conduct the study was given to the Schools Division Superintendent of
the Division of Bayawan City requesting permission to allow the researcher to conduct the
study in the different Public Elementary Schools of District 2. Upon approval, copies of the
approved letter were given to the assigned Public Schools District Supervisor and also to the
school heads, SWM Coordinators, and teachers of the participating schools to allow the
researcher to administer the questionnaire to the identified research respondents.
Plan for Data Analysis
The data gathered were processed statistically using the Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS). These were statistically analysed to answer the specific objectives of the study
such as mean to determine the level of awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices and Spearman Rank Correlation to determine whether or not significant relationship
exists between the level of respondents’ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the result of the study and provides in-depth analysis and interpretation
of data.
Table 1
Profile of the Respondents in Terms of the Variables
Variables
Categories
Teachers
Students
n
%
n
%
1. Sex
Male
5
6.2
87
46
Female
76
93.8
102
54
2. Size of School
Smaller
44
54.3
91
48.1
Bigger
37
45.7
98
51.9
3. School Location
Banga
41
50.6
94
49.7
Malabugas
19
23.5
56
29.6
Nangka
9
11.1
15
7.9
Pagatban
12
14.8
24
12.7
The first objective of this study was to present the profile of the respondents according
to selected variables. Table 1 presents the profile of the teachers and the students according to
the selected variables, namely: sex, size of school, and school location.
With regards to sex, male and female respondents were included in the study. Of the 81
teacher-respondents, 5 are male teachers who comprise the 6.2 percent of the population while
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
13

76 are female which comprise the 93.8 percent of the population. It can be gleaned from the
results that there are more female respondents than the males. The findings only prove that the
females outnumber the males sex simply because of the nature of the work of the teaching
profession. On the other hand, of 189 student respondents, 87 are male students who compose
the 46 percent while 102 are female which comprise the 54 percent of the population. In these
findings, it can be gleaned that the male respondents are of almost the same percentage of the
female respondents.
Size of school, meanwhile, was categorized into smaller and bigger schools. For
teacher-respondents, 44 teachers or 54.3 percent of the population are teaching in smaller
schools while 37 teachers or 45.7 percentage delivering instructions in bigger schools. Also,
for student-respondents, 91 or 48.1 percent of the population are studying in smaller schools
while 98 or 51.9 percent of the students are attending bigger schools. This simply suggests that
like some schools, districts or divisions, nearly 50 percent of the research respondents, teachers
and students, represent both the smaller and bigger sizes of schools of the population.
For the school location, it was arranged through barangays or geographical locations.
The table shows that 41 teacher-respondents or 50.6 percent are teaching in schools situated in
Brgy. Banga while 94 or 49.7 percent of the students are attending the same schools. Also, 19
teachers or 23.5 percent of the respondents are delivering instructions and 56 students or 29.6
percent of the respondents are studying in schools located in Barangay Malabugas.
Furthermore, 9 or 11.1 percent of the teacher-respondents and 15 or 7.9 percent of the student-
respondents are attending school within Barangay Nangka. Moreover, for the school located in
Brgy. Pagatban, 12 or 14.8 percent are teacher-respondents while 24 or 21.7 percent of the
population are students.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
14

A
reas
T
eachers
S
tudents
M
ean
I
nterpretation
M
ean
I
nterpretation
S
egregation
1.
S
egregation of biodegradable (paper, banana peels,
cardboard, food wastes, leaves, twigs, and vegetables) and
non
-
biodegradable (plastic toys
, glass, steel, rubber) wastes
at school.
4
.88
V
ery High Level
4
.90
V
ery High Level
2.
S
eparation of recyclable wastes (paper, cardboard, plastic
bottles) from
non
-
recyclable or residuals which have no
potential for reuse and recycling (sando bags, napkins,
diapers, ball pens, etc.)
4
.83
V
ery High Level
4
.81
V
ery High Level
3.
S
eparation of non
-
harmful wastes from toxic and hazardous
wastes such as pentel
pens, laboratory chemicals, ink, cell
batteries and others.
4
.85
V
ery High Level
4
.77
V
ery High Level
4.
S
epa
ration and segregation of garbage in different
containers.
4
.91
V
ery High Level
4
.85
V
ery High Level
5.
S
egregation of recyclable items for
collection.
4
.85
V
ery High Level
4
.65
V
ery High Level
M
ean
4
.86
V
ery High Level
4
.80
V
ery High Level
R
educe
1
.
Borrowing, sharing, and/or renting things that are needed
occasionally.
4
.27
V
ery High Level
3
.93
H
igh level
2
.
Buying only what is needed so that one will not end up throwing
away extra food.
4
.65
V
ery High Level
4
.43
V
ery High Level
3
.
Packing lunch in
reusable lunchbox so that one cannot buy
wrapped/packed food at school
4
.73
V
ery High Level
4
.70
V
ery High Level
4
.
Bring water in reusable water bottles than buying water in one
used plastic bottles at the school.
4
.88
V
ery High Level
4
.61
V
ery High Lev
el
5
.
Being cautious and responsible to every waste one produce.
4
.79
V
ery High Level
4
.72
V
ery High Level
M
ean
4
.66
V
ery High Level
4
.48
V
ery High Level
Reuse
1
.
Reusing old materials than buying a new one.
4
.52
V
ery High Level
4
.79
V
ery
High Level
2
.
Keeping those unfilled papers and using it as scratch.
4
.58
V
ery High Level
4
.72
V
ery High Level
3
.
Reusing grocery bags.
4
.68
V
ery High Level
4
.77
V
ery High
Level
4
.
Reusing washable food containers.
4
.65
V
ery High Level
4
.92
V
ery High L
evel
5
.
Reusing scrap paper into memo pads.
4
.59
V
ery High Level
4
.64
V
ery High Level
Mean
4
.60
V
ery High Level
4
.77
V
ery High Level
R
ecycle
1
.
Redesigning waste materials into a new product.
4
.31
V
ery High Level
4
.54
V
ery High Level
2
.
Maki
ng decors out of plastic wrappers and other colorful
w
aste materials.
4
.30
V
ery High Level
4
.58
V
ery High Level
3
.
Promoting the importance of recycling.
4
.72
V
ery High Level
4
.80
V
ery High Level
4
.
Initiating income
-
generating activities out of waste m
aterials.
4
.41
V
ery High Level
4
.66
V
ery High Level
5
.
Using recycled products out of redesigned waste materials.
4
.43
V
ery High Level
4
.56
V
ery High Level
Mean
4
.43
V
ery High Level
4
.63
V
ery High Level
D
isposal
1
.
Throwing and leaving of gar
bage anywhere.
3
.81
H
igh Level
4
.06
H
igh Level
2
.
Burning of waste materials.
3
.94
H
igh Level
3
.79
H
igh Level
3
.
Throwing of waste materials in common open dumps.
4
.20
H
igh Level
3
.58
H
igh Level
4
.
Disposal of biodegradable wastes into a compost pit.
4
.
89
V
ery High Level
4
.88
V
ery High Level
5
.
Disposal of hazardous/ toxic/special wastes such as laboratory
l
eftover (chemicals) or electronic waste in any garbage container.
3
.99
H
igh Level
3
.69
H
igh
Level
Mean
4
.17
H
igh Level
4
.00
H
igh L
evel
O
verall Mean
4
.55
V
ery High Level
4
.53
V
ery High Level
T
he level of respondent’ awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
according to the areas as perceived by teachers and
students respectfully resorted to the overall
mean scores of 4.5
5 and 4.53 interpreted as “very high” level.
T
able
2
L
evel of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Pra
ctices in terms of the Areas
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
15

When items were taken individually, area of segregation obtained the highest mean
score with 4.86 for teachers and 4.80 for students categorized as “very high” level. There is
only a slight difference of 0.06 with the teachers’ awareness with that of the students. The result
simply suggests that there is a high transfer of learning from the teachers to the students on the
area of segregation as an SWM practice. The results further simply proven the importance of
the subjects taken by the students like science and other environmental courses which include
topics of the environment and solid waste management in its curricular aspects to further
intensify environmental consciousness (Ahmad et al., 2015).
On the area of reduce, both teachers and students demonstrated “very high” level of
awareness with overall mean scores of 4.66 and 4.48 respectively. However, from among the
indicators in the area of reduce, students demonstrate only “high” level of awareness on
indicator 1 on “borrowing, sharing, and/or renting things that are needed occasionally” as
compared to “very high” level of awareness on the rest of the practices. This can be attributed
to the situations needed occasionally where students find it hard to borrow from others or share
things to others as well as rent things themselves due to being economically-challenged or the
lack of financial resources (Arevalo & Comighud, 2020).
On the area of reuse, on the other hand, both of the respondents displayed “very high”
level of awareness with 4.60 and 4.77 mean respectively for the teachers and students. For
recycle, both of the respondents also displayed “very high” level of awareness with 4.43 for the
teachers and 4.63 for the students. A slight difference of 0.17 on reuse and 0.20 on recycle can
be noted between the respondents as the students displayed higher level of awareness on both
areas than the teachers. This can be attributed that the students realize more its value as they
have the greater needs to reuse and recycle things for future use or to be economically-wise and
highly aware on the importance of these resources to aid their daily school needs (Comighud
& Arevalo, 2020; Arevalo & Comighud, 2020; Lalamonan & Comighud, 2020).
Meanwhile, for the area of disposal, the respondents both demonstrate “very high” level
of awareness with 4.17 for the teachers and 4.00 for the students. Hence, educating people to
waste management will help them understand of the indiscriminate disposal of waste to
the environment and human health and empower them to act accordingly (Madrigal &
Oracion, 2018).
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
16

Table 3
Extent of Respondents’ Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in terms of
the Areas
Areas
Teachers
Students
Mean
Interpretation
Mean
Interpretation
Segregation
1. Segregation practice is evident in classrooms, offices and
canteen.
4.81
Very Great Extent
4.86
Very Great Extent
2. Waste is segregated into at least two types.
4.86
Very Great Extent
4.89
Very Great Extent
3. Receptacle for special waste is necessary wherever applicable.
4.68
Very Great Extent
4.65
Very Great Extent
4. No unmanaged waste receptacles outside the classrooms.
4.68
Very Great Extent
4.50
Very Great Extent
5. MRF is available.
4.73
Very Great Extent
4.62
Very Great Extent
Mean
4.75
Very Great Extent
4.70
Very Great Extent
Reduce
1. Avoidance of use of plastics in canteen.
4.10
Great Extent
4.40
Very Great Extent
2. No more plastics used as secondary packaging material.
4.00
Great Extent
4.17
Very Great Extent
3. Most foods are packed using biodegradable materials.
4.15
Great Extent
4.29
Very Great Extent
4. Orient school canteen vendors on plastic avoidance policy.
4.60
Very Great Extent
4.72
Very Great Extent
5. Implement DepEd-Bayawan City’s policy on plastic avoidance
in canteens.
4.68
Very Great Extent
4.80
Very Great Extent
Mean
4.31
Very Great Extent
4.48
Very Great Extent
Reuse
1. Composting of biodegradable waste.
4.62
Very Great Extent
4.62
Very Great Extent
2. Actual application of compost in gardening.
4.54
Very Great Extent
4.52
Very Great Extent
3. Reuse used tires as decorative flower pots.
4.72
Very Great Extent
4.70
Very Great Extent
4. Use of compost products or soil from the compost pit were used
in the garden.
4.69
Very Great Extent
4.53
Very Great Extent
5. Re-use practices are evident.
4.65
Very Great Extent
4.71
Very Great Extent
Mean
4.64
Very Great Extent
4.61
Very Great Extent
Recycle
1. Recover and recycle papers (pots, charcoal, etc).
4.56
Very Great Extent
4.52
Very Great Extent
2. Plastic waste turned into pillows as one of the examples.
4.58
Very Great Extent
4.72
Very Great Extent
3. Drinking straws and popsicle sticks made into tiny houses among
others.
4.30
Very Great Extent
4.66
Very Great Extent
4. Products out of recyclable materials show promise (profit, utility, etc).
4.58
Very Great Extent
4.51
Very Great Extent
5. MRF is available.
4.65
Very Great Extent
4.67
Very Great Extent
Mean
4.53
Very Great Extent
4.62
Very Great Extent
Disposal
1. Proper disposal of special wastes.
4.84
Very Great Extent
4.87
Very Great Extent
2. On site establishment of composting facilities for biodegradable
wastes (any of these: compost pit, vermin compost, etc.)
4.74
Very Great Extent
4.64
Very Great Extent
3. Proper observance of collection schedules for specific category of
segregated solid wastes.
4.93
Very Great Extent
4.93
Very Great Extent
4. Designate drop-off center/ MRF (ideal, sturdy, labeled, actual sales on
recyclable waste).
4.81
Very Great Extent
4.85
Very Great Extent
5. Residual waste due for collection is inside sacks to facilitate
collection by the LGU.
4.81
Very Great Extent
4.93
Very Great Extent
Mean
4.83
Very Great Extent
4.84
Very Great Extent
Overall Mean
4.61
Very Great Extent
4.65
Very Great Extent
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
17

Table 3 indicates the extent of respondents’ implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices in terms of the areas such as segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle,
and disposal.
The table shows the overall mean scores obtained by the teachers and students are 4.61
and 4.65 respectively. These are interpreted to have “very great” extent. This implies a positive
transfer of learning from the teachers to the students who are regarded as the key agent of
change to work towards a more sustainable future through improving their knowledge on waste
management (Niekerk, 2014).
The findings of this study is further reinforced by the research of Ahmad et al. (2015)
on how curricular aspect further intensity environment consciousness as a response of teachers
and students to waste problems in the school setting. In addition, as a learning institution, it is
then the nature of the school to provide transformational learning experiences that promote
environmental sustainability within and across school contexts to put forward educators’ role
in helping students gain experience that protect the environment from the classroom to the
extended community and along its similarities, promote environmental programs that are
integral the to school’s educational mission. Active participation of the members of the
academic community is important for the implementation of its institutional programs and for
environmental protection and sustainable development in order to foster new generation of
environmental leaders (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).
Table 4. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
on the Area of Segregation when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 4 shows the significant difference between the level of awareness on SWM
Practices on the area of segregation when respondents are grouped and compared according to
selected variables of sex, size of school and school location.
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.79
7181.5
0.05
0.59
Not
Significant
Female
4.83
Size of School
Smaller
4.82
8951
0.05
0.774
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.81
School Location
Banga
4.86
18.98
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.70
Nangka
4.91
Pagatban
4.83
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
18

When grouped and compared according to sex, the results showed that the computed p-
value of 0.59 is higher than the level of significance at 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no
significant difference is not rejected. This simply means that the sex is not a determining factor
in the level of respondents’ awareness in the area of segregation. It makes a lot of sense to say
that the respondents, whether male or female, demonstrate similar level of awareness on
segregation aspect. This is contrasted by the findings of Malabarbas (2014) that there was
significant relationship between the level of awareness of the respondents on SWM Practice in
terms of sex.
When grouped according to the size of school, the computed p-value of 0.774 is also
higher than the level of significance of 0.05. The hypothesis of no significant difference on the
level of awareness of respondents on the area of segregation is therefore not rejected. This
implies that whether small or big, it is not an intervening factor to display high level of
awareness on segregation. Both displays higher level of knowledge and awareness on
segregation as a SWM Practices. Regardless of the size of the school, teachers perform the
same roles and functions on orienting their students for the effective practice on the segregation
of waste materials. This is affirmed by Massive et al. (2014) that regardless of the size of school,
it is still the level of education that served as good indicators to the willingness and participation
of the people.
When grouped according to the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000 which
is depicted as significant. This implied that the different degree of regulations of barangay
locations of the different schools is a contributory factor in the area of segregation of waste
such as biodegradable and non-biodegradable.
Table 5. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
on the Area of Reduce when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 5 signifies the comparative statistics on the significant differences between the level
of awareness on SWM Practices on the area of reduce when the respondents are grouped and
compared according to the selected variables of sex, size of school and school locations.
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.51
7736
0.05
0.45
Not
Significant
Female
4.55
Size of School
Smaller
4.56
8875
0.05
0.707
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.51
School Location
Banga
4.69
65.68
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.20
Nangka
4.64
Pagatban
4.57
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
19

As to sex variable, the male respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.51 while the female
respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.55. This indicates that male respondents are almost of
the same manner with their female counterparts towards the area of reduce. Based on the
findings, there is no significant difference in the level of awareness of the respondents on SWM
practice o the area of reduce. Hence, this implies that sex does not affect the level of
respondents’ awareness in the area of reduce as an SWM practice.
Table 5 alsodescribes the statistics of the computed p-value to determine the significant
difference in the level of awareness on the area of reduce when grouped according to the size
of the school. The computed p-value is 0.707 which is bigger than 0.05 significant levels
implied that the difference between the compared groups is not significant. Based on the
findings, there is no significant difference on the level of awareness on the area of reduce as
perceived by smaller and bigger schools. This implies that the size of schools does not affect
the level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of reduce. This finding in the
abovementioned, both of the variables of sex and size of school can be attributed to the study
of Barloa et al. (2014) that the inclusion of relevant topics in the curriculum with emphasis on
SWM is the one considered important to promote growing awareness on Solid Waste
Management issues regardless of the sex and size of school.
The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant difference on the
level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of reduce when group according to school
location. The p-value is 0.000 and is considered significant. Based on the findings, there is
significant difference in the level of respondents’ awareness in the area of reduce when grouped
and compared according to the aforementioned variables. As Villanueva (2013) noted,
education is an important confinement of solid waste management that should be present to
establish a good program in the community as a setting of different school locations.
Table 6. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Reuse when Respondents are Grouped and
Compared According to Selected Variables
Table 6 displays the significant difference on the level of respondents’ awareness on
SWM Practice on the area of reuse when respondents are grouped and compared according to
variable of sex, size of school and school location.
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.75
8157
0.05
0.957
Not
Significant
Female
4.70
Size of School
Smaller
4.62
6504
0.05
0.000
Significant
Bigger
4.82
School Location
Banga
4.75
10.16
0.05
0.017
Significant
Malabugas
4.71
Nangka
4.71
Pagatban
4.64
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
20

On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.957 which is higher than the level of
significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference on the level of awareness
on the area of reuse according to male and female teachers and students is not rejected as they
have almost the same level of awareness on this SWM practice. This is in contrast to the
findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) who noted that there is a significant difference on the
level of awareness on SWM Practices in terms of sex.
When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.000 and is
considered significant. Hence, there is a significant difference in the area of reuse on smaller
and bigger schools. From this, there is an indication that the size of school, especially the
number of student population given education on solving environment issues is a determinant
factor on the rate of transfer of learning to students to develop good practices and improve
attitude towards solid waste management (Abella & Balla, 2013).
As for the school location, the computed p-value of 0.017 is also considered significant.
This implies that there is significant difference on the level of awareness when respondents are
grouped and compared according to school locations. From this result, it is obvious that the
level of education of the people in different school locations is a good indicator for their degree
and willingness of participation (Massave et al. 2014; Comighud, 2019; Arevalo & Comighud,
2020).
Table 7. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Recycle when Respondents are Grouped and
Compared According to Selected Variables
Table 7 presents the comparative statistics on the significant differences between levels of
awareness on SWM Practices on the area of recycle when the respondents are grouped and
compared according to the selected variables of sex, size of school, and school locations.
As to sex variable, the male respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.63 while the female
respondents perceived a mean rank of 4.54. This indicates just a slight difference with the level
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.63
7272.5
0.05
0.139
Not
Significant
Female
4.54
Size of School
Smaller
4.50
7217
0.05
0.003
Significant
Bigger
4.64
School Location
Banga
4.60
4.708
0.05
0.194
Not
Significant
Malabugas
4.48
Nangka
4.68
Pagatban
4.56
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
21

of awareness of male and female respondents in the area of recycle. Based on the findings,
there is no significant difference in the level of awareness of the respondents on SWM practice
o the area of recycle. This implies that sex does not affect the level of respondents’ awareness
in the area of recycle as an SWM practice. This is contrasted by the study of Adelou, Enesi and
Adelou (2014) that like students’ age and class, students’ sex influenced their level of SWM
awareness, knowledge and practice.
Table 7 also presents the statistics of the computed p-value to determine the significant
difference in the level of awareness on the area of recycle when grouped according to the size
of school. The computed p-value is 0.003 which is lower than 0.05 significant level, thus, the
difference between compared groups is considered significant. Based on the findings, there is
a significant difference on the level of awareness on the area of recycle as perceived by smaller
and bigger schools when grouped according to the size of school. This implies that size of
schools affect the level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of recycle. This is supported
by the findings of Pham (2014) that the size of school is said to be significant since the number
of student population receiving orientation on environmental issues and its corresponding
solutions affects the respondents’ level or degree of focus.
The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant difference on the
level of awareness on SWM Practice on the area of recycle when group according to school
location. The p-value is 0.194 and is considered not significant as it is higher than the significant
level of 0.05. Based on the findings, there is no significant difference in the level of
respondents’ awareness in the area of recycle when grouped and compared according to
selected variables. This is supported by Niekerk (2014) that children were obviously aware
with waste and waste management practices in their school settings and local environment
regardless of the fact that they are situated in different places.
Table 8. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Disposal when Respondents are Grouped and
Compared According to Selected Variables
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
3.91
6738
0.05
0.017
Significant
Female
4.12
Size of School
Smaller
3.68
4023.5
0.05
0.000
Significant
Bigger
4.42
School Location
Banga
4.09
29.505
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.31
Nangka
3.58
Pagatban
3.67
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
22

Table 8 reflects the significant difference on the level of respondents’ awareness on SWM
Practices on the area of disposal when respondents are grouped and compared according to
selected variables of sex, size of school, and school location.
On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.017 which is lower than the level of
significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference on the level of
awareness on the area of disposal according to male and female teachers and students is
rejected as they have almost the same level of awareness on this SWM practice. This is
substantiated by the findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014) that significant relationship
exists between the level of awareness of the student-respondents in solid waste management
in terms of sex. Also, the finding is affirmedby Adelou, Enesi & Adelou (2014) that students’
sex significantly influenced their level of awareness, knowledge and practice of waste
management.
When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.000 and is
considered significant. Hence, there is a significant difference in the area of disposal on
smaller and bigger schools. From this, there is an indication that the size of school, especially
the number of student population given education on solving environment issues is a
determining factor on the rate of transfer of learning to students to develop good practices and
improve attitude towards solid waste management (Abella & Balla, 2013). This is further
supported by Niekerk (2014) that children were obviously aware with waste and waste
management practices in their schools and local environment.
Also when the school location is taken as a variable, the computed p value is 0.000
and is considered significant. This is the reason why Licy et al. (2013) noted that as parents
and community members comprise the school location where students are educated and
concepts of SWM are delivered, there is a need for them to be made aware to improve practice
on solid waste management. Hence, parents and community members should be given
environmental education during parent-teaching meetings or community-based programs to
further strengthen and increase level of awareness on SWM Practices.
Table 9. Differences between the Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on
All Areas when Respondents are Grouped and Compared According to Selected Variables
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.52
7476.5
0.05
0.271
Not
Significant
Female
4.55
Size of School
Smaller
4.44
4888.0
0.05
0.000
Significant
Bigger
4.64
School Location
Banga
4.60
9.362
0.05
0.25
Not
Significant
Malabugas
4.48
Nangka
4.50
Pagatban
4.45
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
23

Table 9 signifies the significant difference on the level of awareness on Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on all Areas when respondents are grouped and compared
according to variables of sex, size of school and school location.
On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.271 which is higher than the level of
significance of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference on the level of awareness
on all areas when respondents are grouped according to male and female is therefore not
rejected. Hence, teachers and students have almost the same level of awareness in this aspect.
This is affirmed by the findings of Martin and Tillotson (2015) who indicated that regardless
of sex or who are engaged in SWM practice, what is important is why the management is
implemented and what the management accomplishes.
When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.000 and is
considered significant. Hence there is a significant difference on the level of awareness on all
areas when respondents are grouped according to size of schools, smaller and bigger. In
affirmation, Ahmad et al. (2015) put forward the essence of reinforcing curricular aspect and
further intensifying institutional initiatives aimed at forming all members of the academic
community as “advocates of sustainable development”.
The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant difference on the level
of awareness on SWM Practice on all areas when respondents are grouped and compared
according to school location. The p-value is 0.25which is considered not significant. Based on
the findings, it affirmed the statement of Villanueva (2013) that it is not the school location but
the level of education which should be present to establish a good program for the community
on environmental issues for sustainable future.
Table 10. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Segregation when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 10 presents the significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices on the area of segregation when respondents are grouped and compared according
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.75
7687
0.05
0.372
Not
Significant
Female
4.70
Size of School
Smaller
4.79
7373.5
0.05
0.003
Significant
Bigger
4.65
School Location
Banga
4.81
57.349
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.47
Nangka
5.00
Pagatban
4.71
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
24

to variable of sex, size of school and school location. On sex variable, the computed p-value
is 0.372 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation
of SWM Practices on the area of segregation according to male and female teachers and
students is not significant. This is in contrast to the findings of Amit and Malarbarbas (2014)
that there is a significant difference on the level of awareness on SWM Practices in terms of
sex.When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.003 which is
considered significant. Hence, there is a significant difference in the area of segregation on
smaller and bigger schools. Thus, the size of school is a determining factor in integrating
school’s educational mission. Moreover, active participation of the members of the academic
community is important in its institutional programs for environmental protection and
sustainable development (Madrigal & Oracion, 2018). As for the school location, the
computed p-value of 0.000 is also considered significant. This implies that there is a
significant difference on the extent of implementation when respondents are grouped and
compared according to school location. Niekerk (2014) further indicated that regardless where
the school is located, school children are obviously aware on concerns with waste and waste
management practices.
.
Table 11. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Reduce when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 11 indicates the significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices on the area of reduce when respondents are grouped and compared according to
variable of sex, size of school, and school location. On sex variable, the computed p-value is
0.65 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of
SWM Practices on the area of reduce according to male and female teachers and students is not
significant. Karre (2013) on the other hand put more emphasis on the importance of how SWM
was introduced and the accomplishment of its results regardless of the sex. When the size of
school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.232 which is considered not significant.
As Barloa et al. (2014) noted, that it is not the size of school but the inclusion of relevant topics
with emphasis on proper SWM and other solid waste issues in the curriculum that matters in
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.49
7082.5
0.05
0.65
Not
Significant
Female
4.39
Size of School
Smaller
4.48
8357
0.05
0.232
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.37
School Location
Banga
4.47
29.488
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.25
Nangka
4.80
Pagatban
4.39
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
25

order to promote awareness on environmental issues and improve attitude towards
environmental sustainable solutions. As for the school location, the computed p-value of
0.000which is considered significant. This implies that there is a significant difference on the
extent of implementation of SWM Practices on the area of reduce when respondents are
grouped and compared according to school location. Given the context, educating people will
help them understand proper solid waste management for sustainable environmental practices
(Madrigal & Oracion, 2018).
Table 12. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Reuse when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to Selected
Variables
Table 12 displays the significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices on the area of reuse when respondents are grouped and compared according to
variable of sex, size of school and school location. On sex variable, the computed p-value is
0.806 which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of
SWM Practices on the area of reuse according to male and female teachers and students is not
significant. It has been indicated that what’s more important is how SWM was introduced and
the accomplishment of its results regardless of the sex (Hulman, 2013). When the size of
school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.219 which is considered not
significant. As Niekerk (2014) noted that regardless of the size of school, children should
work towards sustainable future. Furthermore, regardless of the size of school, education is
provided to improve knowledge and contribute to increase environmental awareness. As for
the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is considered significant. This
implies that there is significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM Practices
on the area of reduce when respondents are grouped and compared according to school
location. This is supported by the study of Choi (2016) who worked into the concept of
environmental effectiveness as to structural indicator.
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.62
7955.5
0.05
0.806
Not
Significant
Female
4.62
Size of School
Smaller
4.60
8285.5
0.05
0.219
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.65
School Location
Banga
4.77
54.844
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.44
Nangka
4.58
Pagatban
4.48
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
26

Table 13. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Recycle when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 13 reflects the significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices on the area of recycle when respondents are grouped and compared according to
variable of sex, size of school, and school location. On sex variable, the computed p-value is
0.150which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of
SWM Practices on the area of recycle according to male and female teachers and students is
not significant. This is contrasted by the findings of the study of Amit and Malabarbas (2014)
when they indicated that significant relationship exists on the level of participation of the
respondents to SWM practices in terms of sex. When the size of school is taken as a variable,
the computed p-value is 0.086 which is also considered not significant. Regardless of the size
of schools, academic area component is promoted to integrate environmental areas on all
subject areas especially implementing SWM properly in school (Arabaca et al., 2013). As for
the school location, the computed p-value of 0.000which is considered significant. This
implies that there is significant difference on the extent of implementation when respondents
are grouped and compared according to school location. This is supported by the study of
Licy et al. (2013) that parents as part of the community should therefore be given
environmental education.
Table 14. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on the Area of Disposal when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.65
7344.0
0.05
0.150
Not
Significant
Female
4.56
Size of School
Smaller
4.66
8049
0.05
0.086
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.52
School Location
Banga
4.80
93.445
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.17
Nangka
4.73
Pagatban
4.62
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.87
7352.0
0.05
0.125
Not
Significant
Female
4.82
Size of School
Smaller
4.85
8318.0
0.05
0.167
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.83
School Location
Banga
4.92
95.855
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.69
Nangka
5.00
Pagatban
4.76
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
27

Table 14 shows the the significant difference on the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices on the area of disposal when respondents are grouped and compared according to
variable of sex, size of school, and school location. On sex variable, the computed p-value is
0.125which is higher than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the extent of implementation of
SWM Practices on the area of segregation according to male and female teachers and students
is not significant. Abas and Wee (2014) indicated that regardless of sex, it is good governance
practices that will contribute positively for effective implementation of solid waste
management.When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.167
which is also considered not significant. Massawe et al. (2014) emphasized that regardless of
the size of school, it is the level of education that served as good indicators for the degree of
willingness and extent of participation. As for the school location, the computed p-value of
0.000which is considered significant. This implies that there is significant difference on the
extent of implementation when respondents are grouped and compared according to school
location. Abocejo and Vivar (2015) indicated that there are a lot of human activities that
contribute to waste generation. These waste materials if failed to be disposed in the proper
manner and in the proper place can create a serious problem to humans and threat to nature.
Table 15. Differences between the Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices on All Areas when Respondents Are Grouped and Compared According to
Selected Variables
Table 15 presents the significant difference on the extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices on all Areas when respondents are grouped and compared
according to variables of sex, size of school, and school location.
On sex variable, the computed p-value is 0.246 which is higher than the level of significance
of 0.05. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference on the extent of implementation on
all areas when respondents are grouped according to male and female is not rejected. Hence,
teachers and students have almost the same extent of implementation in this aspect. This is
affirmed by the findings of Martin and Tillotson (2015) who indicate that regardless of sex or
who are engaged in SWM practice, what is important is why the management is implemented
and what the management accomplishes. This is however contrasted by the findings of Amit
Variables
Categories
Mean
U- or H-
values
Level of
Signifi-
cance
p-value
Significance
Sex
Male
4.67
7399.5
0.05
0.246
Not
Significant
Female
4.62
Size of School
Smaller
4.68
8207.5
0.05
0.188
Not
Significant
Bigger
4.60
School Location
Banga
4.75
88.254
0.05
0.000
Significant
Malabugas
4.40
Nangka
4.82
Pagatban
5.59
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
28

and Malabarbas (2014) as they shared the findings that significant relationship exists in the
level of participation of the respondents in terms of sex.
When the size of school is taken as a variable, the computed p-value is 0.188 which is
not considered significant. Hence, there is no significant difference on the extent of
implementation on the area of disposal of smaller and bigger schools. Regardless of the size of
schools, the significant role of education in solid waste management, RA 9003 mandates
Philippine learning institutions to integrate into their educational activities the awareness and
practices of solid waste management practices of solid waste management for the
environmental education of all members of the educational institutions.
The statistics p-value is also presented to determine the significant difference on the
extent of implementation on SWM Practice on all areas when respondents are grouped and
compared according to school location. The p-value is 0.000 and is considered significant. This
is supported by the notion made by Abocejo and Vivar (2015) that R.A. 9003 regardless of the
location mandated LGUs to implement policies to promote proper solid waste management
program within their jurisdiction, and provide the necessary institutional mechanisms to attain
the objectives like minimizing waste by using techniques of recycling, resource recovery, reuse,
and composting.
Table 16. Relationship between the Levels of Awareness and Extents of Implementation
of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
Table 23 shows the significant relationship between the levels of awareness and extents
of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) practices.
Since the r-computed value is 0.394 which is greater than the p-value of 0.000 at 0.05
level of significance, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship
between the levels of awareness and extents of implementation is rejected. The result of the
study shows that there is a significant relationship between the level of respondents’ awareness
and extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices.
The result further implied that as educational practitioners promote growing awareness
on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices to the general public (Aquino, 2013; Paghasian,
2017), proper waste management is also highly implemented and strengthened (Pham, 2014;
Choi, 2016).
Variables
Mean
rho
Level of
Significance
p-
value
Significance
Levels of Awareness
4.54
0.394
0.05
0.000
Significant
Extents of Implementation
4.64
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
29

Furthermore, awareness on SWM Practices created change on how people look at
garbage (Sarino, 2014) and as it is accompanied by participation, waste management programs
became more effective and sustainable implementation has been achieved (Punongbayan,
2014). Moreover, teachers’ and students’ “very high” level of awareness through proper
education of correct information leads to waste prevention (Marello & helwege, 2014) as it also
increases public participation as these respondents foster potential roles in addressing
environmental issues for both present and future generations toward a sustainable future
(Niekerk, 2014).
IV. CONCLUSIONS
On the bases of the foregoing findings of the study, the researcher arrived at the
following conclusions:
The level of respondents’ awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices as
both perceived by the teachers & students in terms of the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse,
recycle, and disposal were very high. It means that both the teachers and students demonstrated
very high level of awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) concepts and practices as
educational practitioners continue to promote growing awareness of the general public.
The level of respondents’ awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices in
terms of the areas when they are grouped according to sex, size of school, and school location
were very high. It can be concluded that teachers and students who comprised as sample of the
population regardless of the size of their school and different school locations showed very
high level of awareness on environmental issues like waste management as well as sustainable
solutions to these problems for SWM programs to be effective and for sustainable future to be
achieved.
The extent of respondents’ implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices in terms of the areas of segregation, reduce, reuse, recycle and disposal were very
great. It can be concluded that both teachers and students have very great extent of SWM
implementation through proper education and increasing community participation.
The extent of respondents’ implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Practices in terms of the areas where they are grouped according to sex, size of the school, and
school location were very great. It means that regardless of their sex, whether male or female,
size of school as to smaller or bigger, and as to school locations namely Brgy. Banga,
Malabugas, Nangka and Pagatban, respondents have very great extent of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices implementation for a sustainable ecological solutions as well as
active public participation focusing on how SWM is introduced, how it is implemented in
different locations, and the how can it accomplished its desired results.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
30

There was no significant difference between the level of awareness on Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices for all areas when respondents are grouped and compared
according to sex and school location but a significant difference exists in the size of the school.
This means that regardless of sex and school location, what is important is the inclusion of
relevant topics on the curriculum on proper SWM management and other solid waste issues.
However, the size of school which corresponds to smaller or bigger number of and serves as a
determining factor for the integration of schools’ educational mission for the academic
community’s active participation.
There was no significant difference between the extent of implementation of SWM
Practices in all areas when respondents are grouped and compared according to sex and size of
the school while a significant difference exists in the school location. Hence, schools across
different locations should instil the culture of responsible solid waste management among its
children and citizens as the success of any SWM plan rest on the people of the community
especially on the degree of willingness and extent of participation.
A significant relationship was noted between the levels of awareness and extents of
implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices. It can be concluded that the
level of awareness greatly influenced the extent of implementation of SWM Practices by the
teachers and students in District 2, Bayawan City Division. Hence, as it is awareness on the
individual level which can develop into attitudes that will guide schools and communities to
sustainable development solutions, it should be strengthened for SWM proper implementation
and increase public participation.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are
advanced.
The level of respondents’ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices are respectively very high and very great according to all areas.
It is therefore recommended that educational institutions just like District 2 and other districts
of Bayawan City Division as well as schools and districts of other divisions of the Department
of Education should continue to conduct information campaign on Solid Waste Management
(SWM) Practices and further strengthen the integration of environmental concerns in school
curricula at all extents, with particular emphasis on the theories and practices of waste
management principles like segregation at source, reduction, recycling, reuse and composting,
in order to promote environmental awareness and action among the citizenry. This in turn
promotes growing awareness on SWM Practices by that of the general public.
The level of respondents’ awareness and extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices when they are grouped according to sex, size of school, and
school location were very high. It is therefore recommended that growing awareness on SWM
Practices by that of the educational practitioners, teachers and students, should further be
increased for the welfare of the general public which in turn shall help strengthen SWM extent
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
31

of implementation ensuring active public participation for the program to accomplish desired
results.
As significant difference exists in the level of respondents’ awareness in SWM Practices
in terms of size of the school, it is therefore recommended that for SWM Programs and
Advocacies to be more effective, awareness on waste management issues as well as sustainable
solutions to these problems should be sought for the integration of the school’s educational
mission and community’s active participation regardless of the number of teacher and student
population.
As significant difference exists in the extent of implementation of Solid Waste
Management (SWM) Practices in terms of school location, it is further recommended that
education as an important component of SWM should be further intensified to establish a good
program in the community. In the same manner, regardless of the school location, it is the
attitude that should be positively developed as deemed needed on SWM execution and
implementation.
As significant relationship exists between the level of respondents’ awareness and
extent of implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices, it is therefore
recommended that like growing awareness, proper implementation should be given equal focus
and attention. Therefore, awareness accompanied by participation served as a key for people to
be involved in the waste management programs of the community for its effective and
sustainable implementation. REFERENCES
Arevalo, Limer N., & Comighud, Sheena Mae T. (2020). Utilization of Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) in Relation to Students' Academic Performance. International Journal for Research
in Educational Studies ISSN: 2208- 2115, 6(4), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3782668
Abas, M. and Wee, S. (2014). The Issues of Policy Implementation on Solid Waste
Management in Malaysia. Retrieved from The Issues of Policy Implementation on
Solid Waste Management in Malaysia.
Abdellah, A. M., & Balla,, Q. I. (2013). Domestic Solid Waste Management and its
Impacts on Human Health and the Environment in Sharg El Neel Locality,
Khartoum State, Sudan. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences . Retrieved from
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88398784/domestic- solid-
waste-management-impacts- human-health-environment- sharg-el-neel-locality-khartoum-
state-sudan.
Abocejo, F., and Vivar, P.C. (2015). Village-Extent Solid Waste Management in Lahug,
Cebu City, Philippines. Cebu Normal University. Retrieved on December 26,
2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319502638.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
32

Adeolu, A. T., Enesi, D. O., & Adeolu, M. O. (2014). Assessment of secondary school
students’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards waste management in Ibadan,
Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Toxicology,
3(5), 66-73.
Ahmad, J., Noor, S. M., & Ismail, N. (2015). Investigating students’ environmental
knowledge, attitude, practice and communication. Asian Social Science, 11(16), 284
Ambayic, A. S. (2014). Household Practices on Solid Waste Management.Undergraduate
Thesis. Mindanao State University - Maigo School of Arts and Trades.
Dondo, B., Munikwa, M., Mutungwe, E., Pedzis, C., and Tsyere, M. (2014). A Study of
the Extent Of Awareness and Practices of Solid Waste Management in Chinhoyi, Urban,
Zimbabwe. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social
Sciences.
Aquino, A., et al. (2013). Ecological Solid Waste Management Act: Environmental
Protection Through Proper Solid Waste Practices. Agricultural Science Policies and
Technology Development. Retrieved on September 16, 2018 from
http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db. php?id=153&print=1.
Atienza (2014). A breakthrough in Solid Waste Management through Participation and
Community Mobilization; The Experience of Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
(Master‟s Thesis, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University ). Retrieved from http:
//scholar.googlese rcontent.com/scholar?g=cache:gYtjPOGh5cJ.scholar.google.com/
+atienza+2014+breakthrough+in+solid+waste=management&hl=en&as_sd+=0,5
Baldwin, A., Li, B., and Mmereki, D. (2016) A comparative analysis of solid waste
management in developed, developing and lesser developed countries,
Environmental Technology Reviews, 5:1, 120- 141, DOI:
10.1080/21622515.2016.1259357
Barloa, E. P., Lapie, L. P., & de la Cruz, C. P. P. (2016). Knowledge, attitudes, and
practices on solid waste management among undergraduate students in a Philippine
State University. Journal of Environment and Earth Science 6 (6). Retrieved on January
20, 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net.
Cahoy, A. Z. 2013. Extent of Awareness and Practices on Solid Waste Management
among Students in Iligan National High School, Iligan City. Undergraduate Thesis.
Mindanao State University – IliganInstitute of Technology. March, 2013.
Campos, M. (2013). ‘The function of waste urban infrastructures as heterotopias of the city:
narratives from Gothenburg and Managua’, in Organising waste in the city,
edited by Campos, M. and Hall, C. Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. 41-59.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
33

Choi, H.J. (2016). The Environmental Effectiveness of Solid Waste Management: A Case
Study of Oslo, Norway. Retrieved on September 16, 2018 from http://www.duo.uio.no/.
Comighud, Sheena Mae T., "Instructional Supervision and Educational Administration. Goal
setting, monitoring and feedbacking practices as performance management
mechanisms." (2019). UBT International Conference. 52. https://knowledgecenter.ubt-
uni.net/conference/2019/events/52
Comighud, S.M., & Arevalo, M. (2020); Motivation In Relation To Teachers’ Performance;
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP) 10(04) (ISSN:
2250-3153), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.10.04.2020.p10071
Comighud, Sheena Mae T., & Arevalo, Melca J. (2020). Motivation in Relation to Teachers'
Job Perfomance. International journal of scientific research publication, Volume
10(Issue 4), 641–653. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3750163
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340607637_Motivation_In_Relation_To_Teachers'_
Performance
Comighud, Sheena Mae T., Futalan, Maria Chona Z., & Cordevilla, Roullette P. (2020).
Instructional Supervision and Performance Evaluation: A Correlation of Factors.
International Journal for Research in Social Science and Humanities ISSN: 2208-2697,
6(4), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3782708
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341080097_Instructional_Supervision_and_Perf
ormance_Evaluation_A_Correlation_of_Factors
Comighud, Sheena Mae T. & Arevalo, Limer N. (2020). Utilization of Maintenance and
Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) in Relation to Students' Academic
Performance. International Journal for Research in Educational Studies ISSN:
2208-2115, 6(4), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3782668
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341103122_Utilization_of_Maintenance_and_Other_Operating
_Expenses_MOOE in_Relation_to_Students'_Academic_Performance
Comighud, Sheena Mae T, Futalan, Maria Chona Z., & Pillado, Irene A. (2020). Factors on
Memory Retention: Effect to Students' Academic Performance. International Journal for
Research in Mathematics and Statistics, 6(4), 1–24.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3780621
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
34

Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341089050_Factors_on_Memory_Retention_Effect_to_Students'_Academic_Performance
Comighud, Sheena Mae T. & Lalamonan, Abgel L. (2020). Qualitative Impact Assessment of
a Conditional Cash Transfer Program in a Central Philippine Community. International
Journal for Research in Social Science and Humanities ISSN: 2208-2697, 6(4), 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3782698L
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341103181_Qualitative_Impact_Assessme
nt_of_a_Conditional_Cash_Transfer_Program_in_a_Central_Philippine_Community
Comighud, SMT (2020) "Implementation of the Public Schools' Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Program and Level of Capabilities to Respond", International Journal of
Science and Research (IJSR),
https://www.ijsr.net/search_index_results_paperid.php?id=SR20404215026,
Volume 9 Issue 4, April 2020, 752 – 763
Retrieved from https://www.ijsr.net/get_abstract.php?paper_id=SR20404215026
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340630378_Implementation_of_the_Public_
Schools'_Disaster
_Risk_Reduction_Management_Program_and_Level_of_Capabilities_to_Respond
Corvellec, H., and Hultman, J. (2013). ‘Waste management companies: Critical urban
infrastructural services that design the sociomateriality of waste.’ in Organising
waste in the city, edited by Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013. Bristol, U.K: Policy
Press. 139-155.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Management
Bureau. (2015). National solid waste management status report (2008-2014).
Retrieved from http://nswmc. emb.gov. ph/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Solid-Wastefinaldraft-12.29.15.pdf
Dondo, B., Munikwa, M., Mutungwe, E., Pedzis, C., and Tsyere, M. (2014). A Study of
the Extent Of Awareness and Practices of Solid Waste Management in Chinhoyi, Urban,
Zimbabwe. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and
Social Sciences.
Gustafsson, E., Hjelmgren, D., and Czarniawska, B. (2015). ‘Cloth Loop: An attempt to
construct an actor- network’, in Waste management and sustainable consumption:
Reflections on consumer waste, edited by Ekström, K. New York: Routledge. 115-129.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
35

Hardeep, R.S., Destaw, B., Negash, T., Negussie, L., Endris, Y., Meserte, G., Ibrahime, A.
(2013). Municipal waste management in dessie city, ethiopia, Management of
Environmental Quality. doi:http://dz.doi.org/10.1108/14777831311303056
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/
awareness?q=awareness [Date Viewed 16 September 2018].
Karre, P. (2013). ‘Hybrid organization in waste management: public and private
organizations in a deregualted market environment.’ in Organising waste in the city,
edited by Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013. Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. 121-138.
Lalamonan, Abgel L., & Comighud, Sheena Mae T. (2020). Qualitative Impact Assessment
of a Conditional Cash Transfer Program in a Central Philippine Community.
International Journal for Research in Social Science and Humanities ISSN: 2208-2697, 6(4),
1–10. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3782698L
Madrigal, D. and Oracion, E. (2018). Solid Waste Management Awareness, Attitude, and
Practices in a Philippine Catholic Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/327177428_Solid_Waste_Management_Awareness_
Attitude_and_Practices_in_a_Philippine_Catholic_Higher_Education_Institution
Magante, G. L. M. 2013. The Disaster of Non-Compliance to Solid Waste Management Act in
the Philippines. Retrieved on January 16, 2016, from
http://www.ndcp.edu.ph/publications/12%
20MAGANTE%20Solid%20Waste%20Management.p df
Marello, M., and Helwege, A. (2014). Solid Waste Management and Social Inclusion of
Waste Pickers: Opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved on September 16, 2018,
from http://www.bu.edu/pardee/ files/2014/09/Social-Inclusion-Working-Paper.pdf.
Mensah-Osei, P. 2014. Characterization of Solid Waste in the Atwima- Nwabiagya
District of the Ashanti Region, Kumasi-Ghana. Retrieved on December 26, 2018,
from http://www.ijwmt.com/IJWMT _Vol.%202,%
National Solid Waste Management Status Report 2008- 2014. 2015. Environmental
Management Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and National
Solid Waste Management Commission. Retrieved on December 26, 2018 from
http://119.92.161.2/portal/Portals/38/Solid%20Wastefinal draft%2012.29.15.pdf.
Minervini, D. (2013). ‘Governance in a bottle’, in Organising waste in the city, edited by
Campos, M. and Hall, C. 2013. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. 83-120.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
36

Niekerk, I.M. (2014). Waste management behaviour: a case study of school children in
Mpumalanga, South Africa. North West University. May 2014.
Paghasian, M. (2017). Awareness and Practices on Solid Waste Management among
College Students in Mindanao State University Maigo School of Arts and Trades.
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Volume 128.
papers/268-CD0082.pdf.
Pham, L. (2014). Design a Solid Waste Management Course for Primary School focus on
Reduce-Reuse-Recycle. University of Applied Sciences. Haaga Helia.
Pillado, Irene A., Futalan, Maria Chona Z., & Comighud, Sheena Mae T. (2020). Factors on
Memory Retention: Effect to Students' Academic Performance. International
Journal for Research in Mathematics and Statistics, 6(4), 1–24.
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3780621
Punongbayan, C. M. (2014). Waste Management Practices of an Educational Institution.
Retrieved on September 16, 2018, from http://apjeas.
apjmr.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/APJEAS-2014-1- 056.pdf.
Premakumara, D. G. J. 2013. Policy Implementation of the Republic (RA) 9003 in the
Philippines: A Case Study of Cebu City. Retrieved on April 6, 2016, from
file:///C:/Users/ Administrator/Downloads/6- 5.pdf.
Ragma, F. and Rulloda, E. (2017). Implementation of Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324528585_Implementation_of_the
_Solid_Waste_Management_Ordinance
Rahmaddin, M. Y., Hidayat, T., Yanuwiadi, B., & Suyadi. (2015). Knowledge,
attitude, and action of community towards waste management in river bank of
Martapura. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(4), 96-102.
Retrieved from doi:10.5923/j.ijap.20 150504.03
Republic Act No. 9003. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. Retrieved on
September 16, 2018, from http://www.gov.ph/ 2001/01/26/republicact-no-9003-
s-2001/.
Roudbari, A., Saeid, N., and Yagmaeian, K. (2014). Design and Implementation of
Integrated Solid Wastes Management Pattern in Industrial Zones, Case Study of
Shahroud, Iran. Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3895798/.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
37

Schouten, J., Martin, D. and Tillotson, J. (2015). ‘Curbside cartographies in an urban food-
waste composting program’ in Waste management and sustainable consumption:
Reflections on consumer waste, edited by Ekström, K. New York: Routledge. 102-114
Solid Waste Management in Schools (2016). Ecosan Services Foundation. Retrieved on
September 16, 2018, fromhttp://schoolsanitation. com/ pdf/Waste-Management-in-
Schools.pdf.
Taherzadeh, M. and Rajendran, K. (2015). ‘Factors affecting development of waste
management’ in Waste management and sustainable consumption: Reflections on
consumer waste, edited by Ekström, K. Routledge: New York. 67-87.
Villanueva, R. (2013). Proper Solid Waste Management: Education, Engineering,Enterprise
and Enforcement. Article. The Philippine Star. Retrieved on September 16, 2018, from
http://www.philstar. com/science-and technology/ 2013/01/03/892576/proper- solid-
wastemanagement-education- engineering.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
38

Survey Instrument on
Awareness and Implementation of Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
Part I. Profile of the Respondents
Name(Optional) ___________________________________________________
Name of School: ___________________________________________________
Sex: Male Female Size of School: Smaller Bigger
School Location: ___________________________________________________
Barangay Schools
Banga Banga Central School
BCSTEC Elementary School
Buli-Buli Elementary School
Cansig-id Elementary School
Malabugas Telesforo Gargantiel MES
Nangka Dean Felix Gaudiel MES
Pagatban H.Bido Jordan MES
Part II. Questionnaire Proper
A. Level of Respondents’ Awareness on Solid Waste Management (SWM) Practices
Instruction: Please check the number that corresponds to the level of your awareness in
the following items. It is important that you honestly answer each item. Please do not leave any
item unchecked. Rest assured that your individual information will be treated with strict
confidentiality. Please refer to the guide below in choosing your option.
Code Interpretation
5 very high
4 high
3 moderate
2 low
1 very low
APPENDICES
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
39

A. SWM Practice (Segregation)
5
4
3
2
1
What is your level of awareness on the following:
1
Segregation of biodegradable (paper, banana
peels, cardboard, food wastes, leaves, twigs
and vegetables) and non-biodegradable
(plastic toys, glass, steel, rubber) wastes at
school.
2
Separation of recyclable wastes (paper,
cardboard, plastic bottles) from non-recyclable
or residuals which have no potential for reuse
and recycling (sando bags, napkins, diapers,
ball pens, etc.)
3
Separation of non-harmful wastes from toxic
and hazardous wastes such as pentel pens,
laboratory chemicals, ink, cell batteries and
others.
4
Separation and segregation of garbage in
different containers.
5
Segregation of recyclable items for collection.
B. SWM Practice (Reduce)
5
4
3
2
1
What is your level of awareness on the following:
1
Borrowing, sharing, and/or renting things
that are needed occasionally.
2
Buying only what is needed so that one will
not end up throwing away extra food.
3
Packing lunch in reusable lunchbox so that
one cannot buy wrapped/packed food at
school.
4
Bring water in reusable water bottles than
buying water in one used plastic bottles at the
school.
5
Being cautious and responsible to every
waste one produce.
C. SWM Practice (Reuse)
5
4
3
2
1
What is your level of awareness on the following:
1
Reusing old materials than buying a new one.
2
Keeping those unfilled papers and using it as scratch.
3
Reusing grocery bags.
4
Reusing washable food containers.
5
Reusing scrap paper into memo pads.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
40

B. Extent of Implementation of Solid Waste Management Practices
Code Interpretation
5 always
4 often
3 sometimes
2 rarely
1 almost never
D. SWM Practice (Recycle)
5
4
3
2
1
What is your level of awareness on the following:
1
Redesigning waste materials into a new product.
2
Making decors out of plastic wrappers and other colorful
waste materials.
3
Promoting the importance of recycling.
4
Initiating income-generating activities out of waste
materials.
5
Using recycled products out of redesigned waste
materials.
E. SWM Practice (Disposal)
5
4
3
2
1
What is your level of awareness on the following:
1
Throwing and leaving of garbage anywhere.
2
Burning of waste materials.
3
Throwing of waste materials in common open dumps.
4
Disposal of biodegradable wastes into a compost pit.
5
Disposal of hazardous/ toxic/special wastes such as
laboratory leftover (chemicals) or electronic waste in any
garbage container.
a. SWM Practice (Segregation)
5
4
3
2
1
To what extent is your implementation of the following:
1
Segregation practice is evident in classrooms, offices and
canteen.
2
Waste is segregated into at least two types.
3
Receptacle for special waste is necessary wherever
applicable.
4
No unmanaged waste receptacles outside the classrooms.
5
MRF is available.
b. SWM Practice (Reduce)
5
4
3
2
1
To what extent is your implementation of the following:
1
Avoidance of use of plastics in canteen.
2
No more plastics used as secondary packaging material.
3
Most foods are packed using biodegradable materials.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
41

AUTHORS’ PROFILES
EMERSON N. LALAMONAN – He is a graduate of Master of
Arts in Education major in Administration and Supervision at STI-
West Negros University, Bacolod City, Philippines. He currently
works as Public Elementary School Teacher of the Department of
Education-Bayawan City Division.
4
Orient school canteen vendors on plastic avoidance
policy.
5
Implement DepEd-Bayawan City’s policy on plastic
avoidance in canteens.
c. SWM Practice (Reuse)
5
4
3
2
1
To what extent is your implementation of the following:
1
Composting of biodegradable waste.
2
Actual application of compost in gardening.
3
Reuse used tires as decorative flower pots.
4
Use of compost products or soil from the compost pit
were used in the garden.
5
Re-use practices are evident.
d. d. SWM Practice (Recycle)
5
4
3
2
1
To what extent is your implementation of the following:
1
Recover and recycle papers (pots, charcoal, etc).
2
Plastic waste turned into pillows as one of the
examples.
3
Drinking straws and popsicle sticks made into tiny
houses among others.
4
Products out of recyclable materials show promise
(profit, utility, etc).
5
MRF is available.
e. SWM Practice (Disposal)
5
4
3
2
1
To To what extent is your implementation of the following:
1
Proper disposal of special wastes.
2
On site establishment of composting facilities for
biodegradable wastes (any of these: compost pit,
vermicompost, etc.)
3
Proper observance of collection schedules for specific
category of segregated solid wastes.
4
Designate drop-off center/MRF (ideal, sturdy, labeled,
actual sales on recyclable waste).
5
Residual waste due for collection is inside sacks to
facilitate collection by the LGU.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
42

DR. SHEENA MAE T. COMIGHUD – She is a Doctor of
Education Graduate of Foundation University, Dumaguete City,
Philippines. She is presently connected with the Schools Division
of Bayawan City and Negros Oriental State University as a faculty
of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on
Higher Education (CHED). She is also a Teacher-Researcher of
DepEd Region VII’s Basic Education Research Fund (BERF)
Facility for 2019 and 2020. She attended multitudes of
International Research Conferences and Presentations including
Conferences held at Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, Philippine
Normal University, and the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City as well as
the Asian Conference for Action and Institutional Researches (ACIAR) which were graced
by diverse nationalities of different countries. She is recently proclaimed as the Best Oral
Presenter in the 2019 Conference of Basic Education Researchers (CBER) of DepEd-
Philippines held at the Philippine International Convention Center and the winner of the
prestigious Outstanding Trained Graduate Teacher Award by the International Education
Summit and Awards (IESA) 2020 held at Bangkok, Thailand on February of 2020.
IJRDO-Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 2456-2947
Volume-5 | Issue-5 | May, 2020
43