HOUSEHOLD CONTEXTS, SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN ALBAY, PHILIPPINES

By

EDDIE S. SEE,
College of Business, Economics and Management,
Bicol University, Daraga, Albayess4560@yahoo.com

MARY ANN M. SEE

Associate Researcher, General Administration,
Bicol University, LegazpiCity meannms@yahoo.com

Abstract

This research attempted to characterize solid wastes and analyze the behaviors
of household contexts and solid waste management practices in the households in
Albay Philippines. It employed cross-sectional survey and documentary search to 568
participants utilizing a questionnaire and documentary analysis guide and using
descriptive centrality and dispersion statistics, multiple regression and beta weights.

Findings reveal that more households have male heads (at 53.5%), married (at
87.0%), averaging at age 44.77 years, reached secondary schooling (at 45.8%), have
an average income of P6983.8 per month, support an average of number of 4.11
members, use wood/charcoal-fed cooking system (at 69.7%), and consume P380.7
month for cooking.

The solid wastes produced daily by the households in the largest quantities are
cans, wrapping papers, and plastic bags, and spoiled food, meat leftovers, fish
leftovers, and vegetable leftovers. The wastes that could charge scrap values are cans,
papers, plastic bottles, and glass bottles.

The most widely held solid management practices are storing in plastic bag,
reusing food leftover as feed, reusing paper as wrapper, reusing plastic bottle as bottle,
disposing at the truck pick up site, and disposing by burying. The practice that is not
widely applied although legally required is segregation. Prohibited acts that are still
practiced in minimal occurrence are disposing by burning, disposing in open pits and
disposing anywhere.

The behaviors manifested in multiple regression models demonstrate sex, wage,

education, and cooking system are good predictors of the quantity of paper wrapper,
glass bottle, and spoiled food respectively; and that sex, number of household
members, and cooking system are good predictors of certain solid waste management
practices.
Introduction

Rationale

In a market-driven society, the cycle of product generation- consumption-

generation-consumptionpoints to two major participants in the economic bustle, who,
consequentially, become the chief contributors to solid wastes- the producers and the
consumers. There is no doubt that the consumers mostly are the households and the
more garbage content in the more products they purchase, the more garbage they
turn out. The key source, evidently, of the household waste are the producers and
sellers of goods- the more garbage content of their products- the more wastes will the
households come out with.

Households, therefore, are faced with the challenge of managing the potential
wastes that are originally contained in the commodities they procure. The attainment of
zero waste at household source will depend on two factors- the kind and quantity of
waste content in the merchandise, and the kind of management the household would
apply to these wastes. An understanding of the factors- waste content and waste
management- is vital to the drawing of any household methods of helping solve the
problem on solid wastes.

Albay is a province with a population of more than 1.2 million, and a land area of
almost 3,000 sq. km (See, 2010), and is composed of three cities and fifteen
municipalities. It has an average number of members per household of 5.22.
Importantly, it is the location of almost 50 percent of the total manufacturing
establishments in Bicol (Islandsproperties___). With the combination of a large
population and waste-producing factories, the province is expected to produce more
and more solid wastes, which indispensably, must be addressed.

Objectives

Generally, this study attempted to determine the behavior of solid waste

characteristics in the households in Albay Province, Philippines. Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Determine relevant contexts of the households

2. Characterize the household solid wastes in terms of

a. Identity
b. Quantity and
c. Value

3. Determine the solid waste management practices in these households

4. Determine behavior of solid waste characteristics with respect to household

contexts and practices, of solid waste management practices with respect to contexts,
and of practices with respect to solid waste characteristics.
Review of Related Literature

The immensity of the problem on solid wastes is manifested by the legislation

made by the Philippine government-. the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of
2000 (Republic Act No. 9003 which creates institutional mechanisms and incentives,
declares certain acts prohibited, provides penalties and appropriates funds.

In rural areas, the bulk of wastes come primarily from households and as
observed by De la Cruz (2001), as population grows, garbage generation grows.
Hailstonne and Matrianna (1982) also contend that more homeowners result in greater
industrial waste emissions. In urban areas, solid wastes come mostly from households
and industrial establishments.

Gabriel ( ) forwards that by making use of useless garbage we are

already addressing the countrys waste problem. In the South of Thailand, four types of
dry recyclable materials have high market values (Danteravanich, et.al., ( ). These
are paper, plastics, glass and metal. In Turkey, a household solid waste composition
survey was conducted in 1993 (Guven, 2001) to determine the physical composition of
solid waste (food wastes, ash, slag, recyclable materials using a multistage stratified
sampling method. In the study,

In Urban Ecuador a survey shows that on the average, urban households

generated 0.54 kg/day/capita of solid waste (Landin, et.al, 1993) The study further
reports that in addition to household garbage, significant quantities of solid waste are
produced by manufacturing enterprises, public and private sector institutions, and
commercial establishments.

In the province of Albay there is no published statistic yet as to what really is the
volume of wastes generated daily or weekly or monthly

Theoretical foundation

On the basic research aspect of this endeavor, it sought to examine Kinnamans

(1994) theory that educated households could have greater tastes for the environment
and therefore produce less garbage, Jenkins (1993), Kinnamans (1994), and
Podolsky& Spiegels (1998) proposition that Increases in the size of the household
decreases the per capita quantity of garbage disposed since larger families could share
meals in a way that produces less waste than the same number of people eating
separately, and Khabeers (1994) conjecture that men and women within the
household differ in solid waste management practices owing to their differing access
and control of resources.
Materials and Methods

The population of this research involved the entire number of the households in
Albay province totaling to 229,886. At a confidence level of 95.44 percent and a margin
of error of 4.19 percent, the sample size was 568.A two-stage sampling design was
utilized, the first being the random selection of the five (5) municipalities and the
second, the selection of the samples equally distributed among the towns at one-
hundred thirteen (113) and one-hundred fourteen (114) participants each to two and to
three towns, respectively (called disproportionate stratified random sampling).The
participants were randomly selected from the population household of each of the
towns/cities. The lists of households served as the sampling frames.

Survey with actual observation, documentary analysis and data analysis were
used as the researchs strategies. A questionnaire, a documentary analysis guide, and a
data analysis guide were utilized. Data gathering was conducted from May 2, 2007 to
July 31, 2007. A portion of this research is a re-analysis of the data previously described
in the studies of Barcela (2008), Bendicio and Borlasa (2008), De Guzman (2008),
Jadie (2008), Jotojot (2008), Melitante (2008), Neo (2008), Nuez (2008), Ocampo
(2008), Payla (2008), Romano K (2008), Romano ME (2008) and Yap (2008)

To probe the descriptive data on contexts, characteristics, and practices,

arithmetic mean, median and mode; and range, standard deviation and variance, were
applied. Multiple regression was used to isolate the separate influences of or strength
of trend of the dependent variables with the explanatory variables (solid waste
characteristics vs. household contexts; solid waste management practices vs. solid
waste characteristics) and to predict scores on the dependent variables. To determine
the relative comparative importance of the explanatory variables on the dependent
variables, standardized score or beta weights were utilized.

Results and Discussions

Household contexts

The pertinent circumstance of the households is presented in Tables 1a and 1b and

reflects that the heads of the households in the province are more with male (at
53.2%), married (at 86.97%), averaging at age 44.77 years, reached secondary
schooling (at 45.78%), have an average income of 6983.8 pesos per month, support an
average of number of 4.11 members (census statistic is 5.22), use wood/charcoal-fed
cooking system (at 69.72%), and consume 380.74 pesos per month for cooking.

Data in Table 1a also explain that the households have different or deviating
features of age, wage, number and fuel cost from one another, and therefore, in
developing intervention, market and information dissemination programs for these
households, these disparities will have to be taken into consideration.
Table 1a. Centrality and dispersion values and related statistics of respondents by
context

Centrality, dispersion Wage, or Number of Fuel cost

and related statistical Age, Salary per household per month,
measures years month, P members P
N Valid 568 568 568 568
Missing 0 0 0 0
Mean 44.7746 6983.8028 4.18 380.7394
Median 43.0000 6000.0000 4.00 300.0000
Mode 33.00 3000.00(a) 5 550.00
Std. Deviation 12.39824 5539.80481 1.736 495.20379
Variance 30689437.36 245226.78
153.716 3.014
5 9
Range 68.00 49500.00 9 5905.00
Minimum 16.00 500.00 1 100.00
Maximum 84.00 50000.00 10 6005.00
Sum 25432.00 3966800.00 2376 216260.00

Table 1b illustrates that a wide gap in the inter class proportions is seen in civil
status, and cooking system, while a narrow difference is observed in between the male
and female sex, and high school and college levels of education.

Table 1b. Frequency and percent distribution of respondents by context

Context Frequency Percent
Sex
Male 308 53.5
Female 264 46.6
Total 568 100.00
Civil status
Single 40 7.00
Married 494 87.00
Separated 18 2.80
Widow/er 16 3.2
Total 568 100.00
Level of education
Elementary 72 12.70
Secondary 260 45.80
Collegiate 228 40.1
Vocational 8 1,40
Total 568 100.00
Cooking system
Wood/charcoal 396 69.70
 Kerosene 8 1.40
Gas 164 28.90
Total 568 100.00

Solid Waste Characteristics

This section expounds the identity, quantity and value of solid wastes generated
in the households in Albay province. They are summarized in Table 2.

The household solid wastes identified are cans, paper, plastic, glass, spoiled
food, meat leftovers, fish leftovers, and vegetable leftovers. These wastes come from
grocery and flea market goods such as canned goods and wrapped food and
beverage products, and food leftovers. This is similar to Yambas (2004) findings
wherein wastes generated from household activities normally include such materials as
waste paper, plastics, wood off cuts, kitchen waste, and yard waste.

On the average, each household disposes 0.122 kg of metals per day (from
canned goods). With a total number of households of 229,886, this would mean the
province is generating 28,046.1 kg of metals which are equivalent to consuming
560,922 pieces of small-size canned good.

Each household give out 0.077 kg of used paper a day. Province-wide, this would
be equivalent to 17,701 kg. of paper. At 0.113 kg of plastic bag per day, the province is
generating 25,977 kg of plastics every day. The 0.019 kg/household of tetra pak means
Albayanos are drinking about 218,000 pieces of packed juices a day. Also, the 0.176
kg/day output of plastic bottles is equivalent to more than a million 300-ml bottles of
water/juice drank by the Albayanos each day. Moreover, from the .194 kg spoiled food is
more than a million kg of spoiled food in the province. There are also more than a
million kg of meat leftovers (from the 0.204 kg/day), fish leftovers (from the 0.137 kg fish
leftover) and vegetable wastes (from the 0.021 vegetable leftover). In a study about
household wastes, it was found out that paper wastes are the highest ( ), followed by
food wastes and by metals. This is supported by the findings of solid wastes contain, by
weight, 37% paper, 25% food and yard, and 25% metal where the constituents of paper
and cardboard category are newspaper, cardboard, tetra pack, tissues, coated paper,
soap packets, etc. those ferrous are cans and containers, the non-ferrous are aluminum
foil, beverage cans, bags, plastics-food containers, plastic foil, bottles, plastic bags,
rags- textiles, clothes; putrecibles- fruit skins, vegetable peelings, miscellaneous, food
refuse, bones, leaves.

These kinds and quantities of solid wastes pinpoint to the production-marketing

(industry) sector as the major source of would-be solid wastes, and the households as
the eventual, resultant producer of the wastes. Goods laden with potential solid wastes
are made available by the producers because they are patronized by the consumers.
The shoppers buy them because of their practical advantages such as convenience and
low cost as Pearce and Turner (1994) vividly expresses Food packaging contributes to
consumer convenience and prevents some foodborne diseases and substantially
reduces loss rates between food production and consumption. This process thus
becomes a vicious cycle. The intensified and widespread information dissemination
about global warming and solid waste management problems, thus far, seemingly has
not broken this nasty cycle.

The business sector or the supplier of goods demanded by the households has
an equal if not heavier role in solving solid waste management problems. In a simplistic
view, all it has to do is to sell only environmentally friendly products. However, in a
market driven economy, this cannot be done overnight. It is an economic system. The
market driven economy drives producers to produce these questionable products
because they are preferred by the consumers. More so, if they stop, they lose business
and many lose jobs. It is indeed a vicious cycle. Therefore, there must be an
intervention that must be introduced in the cycle and replace the bad practice. The
government can motivate both the households and the business sector to address the
solid waste management issue trough the legislation and enforcement of appropriate
laws.

Solid wastes are junks or scraps and will charge only scrap values. While it is
possible that they can be raw materials for new products, it should not be misconstrued
to be necessary raw materials. The only reason why these new products are being
produced is not for the sake of producing the new products but simply to recycle these
wastes. Wastes are wastes that have only the value of a useless item. And recycling is
a required method to reduce the presence of wastes in the surroundings. To discourage
the generation of wastes, they must be depicted as they are- nuisance, vermin, bane of
existence, annoyance, and pain in the neck that are to be avoided and discarded- and
must not be portrayed as a source of wealth (which will imply that waste is a valuable
commodity worth producing). On the other hand, recycling must not be viewed as a
business that forecasts more production and expansion that encourage the supply of
more wastes (as raw materials) but simply as a forced alternative to reduce the
presence of inevitable wastes in the environment.

It is to be understood that the target of SWM is to reduce to zero, if not minimum

solid waste (scrap) value. This is based on the simple theory of demand and supply.
Businesses are not supposed to demand for more wastes because that will most
logically be encouraging the production of more wastes (which is contrary to the
objective of zero waste at source).Goods used at the households must therefore be
squeezed off their original utility and value as much as possible up to uselessness or
nothingness point. In other words we must maximize their use.

What is to be encouraged is perhaps the increase of reuse value, if after wringing

the product to the maximum, something valuable is still left of it. Instead of giving
incentive to the sales value of wastes, households must be trained to squeeze off the
value of these wastes (through re-use) to the minimum if not zero.

If it is generally accepted to donate used but useful materials, it will be

reasonable to simply donate solid wastes (such as cans, bottles, etc,) to
collectors/buyers than sell them. After all these people are helping the neighborhood get
rid of the materials that are no longer need and that the society considers as a mess.

To households, materials must reach a point when they can no longer be used or
re-used and therefore valueless, before disposing them. That will be the motivation in
disposing them off.

Shown in the table are the scrap values of metals, newspaper, glass bottles, and
plastic bottles.

Table 2. Quantity and value by identity of solid waste

Identity of Quantity, kg Value
solid waste
Minimu Maximum Sum Mean Mode
m
Can 0.05 0.25 57.8 0.122 0.150 P0.38/kg
Paper 0.018 0.440 19.46 0.077 0.018 P1.25/kg
wrapper
Plastic bag 0.055 0.385 29.92 0.113 0.055 0
Tetra pak 0.005 0.05 5.51 0.019 0.010 0
Plastic 0.005 0.150 15.18 0.032 0.015 0
wrapper
Plastic 0.015 0.750 71.0 0.176 0.075 P1/kg
bottle
Aluminum 0.008 0.030 1.68 0.016 0.008 0
foil
Glass bottle 0.250 2.500 147 0.525 0.250 P1/kg
Spoiled 0.022 0.500 27.98 0.194 0.100 0
food
Meat 0.100 0.400 36.8 0.204 0.200 0
leftover
Fish 0.100 0.300 14.84 0.137 0.100 0
leftover
Vegetable 0.010 0.050 2.6 0.021 0.010 0

Solid waste management practices

The most widely held solid management practices among the households (Table
3) are storing in plastic bag, reusing food leftover as feed, reusing paper as wrapper,
reusing plastic bottle as bottle, disposing at the truck pick up site, and disposing by
burying. The practice that is not widely applied although legally required is segregation.
Prohibited acts that are still practiced although in minimal occurrence are disposing by
burning, disposing in open pits and disposing anywhere.
 These findings manifest the popularity of plastics in households even in storage
for eventual disposal of wastes because of convenience. They also imply that
households raise animals like cats and dogs that are consumers of food leftovers.
Moreover, the findings show that there are still residents who are yet to be informed of
or have yet to comply with the law against burning and indiscriminate disposal of solid
wastes and of segregation.

Table 3. Frequency and percent distribution of households that carry out and do not
carry out solid waste management practice
Practice Frequency (Percent)
Carries out Does not carry Total
out
Storing in plastic 456 (80.3) 112 (19.7) 568 (100)
bag
Storing in plastic 16 (2.8) 552 (97.2) 568 (100)
drum
Storing in thrash can 52 (9.2) 516 (90.8) 568
Storing in tire box 12 (2.1) 556 (97.9) 568
Segregating in two 128 (22.5) 440 (77.5) 568
separate bags or
containers
Segregating in three 72 (12.7) 496 (87.3) 568
separate bags or
containers
Segregating in four 20 (3.5) 548 (95.5) 568
separate bags or
containers
Reusing food left 388 (68.3) 180 (31.7) 568
over as feed
Reusing cans as 44 (7.7) 524 (92.3) 568
planting pot
Reusing paper as 472 (83.1) 96 (16.9) 568
wrapper
Reusing plastic 232 (40.8) 336 (59.2) 568
bottle as bottle
Reusing glass as 108 (19.0) 460 (81.0) 568
container
Disposing by 204 (35.9) 364 (64.1) 568
burying
Disposing at the 300 (88.0) 68 (12.)) 568
truck pick up site
Disposing by 56 (9.9) 512 (90.1) 568
burning
Disposing in an 72 (12.7) 496 (97.3) 568
open pit
Disposing anywhere 16 (2.8) 552 (97.2) 568

Behavior of solid wastes

Solid waste characteristics- household contexts behavior

The equations in Table 4 display that households with male heads tend to
influence more wastes in can, plastic bag, plastic bottle and glass bottle; while more
wastes in wrapping paper and spoiled food could be expected in homes led by female.
Houses with married heads tend to weight more wastes in plastic bags, plastic bottle
and glass bottle while more wastes in cans, wrapping paper, and spoiled food seem to
be generated in homes with single heads.

Also homes whose heads have higher educational level are inclined to generate
more of the wastes, which contradict the claim of economists that educated households
could have greater tastes for the environment and therefore produce less garbage
(Kinnaman, 1994).Increase in household income apparently generates more wastes in
plastic bottle but lesser wastes in the rest of the items.

The number of members in the household appears to influence more wastes in

cans but fewer wastes in the rest of the solid wastes, a finding that literally supports
Jenkins (1993), Kninnaman (1994), and Podolsky& Spiegel (1998) who found out that
Increases in the size of the household decreases the per capita quantity of garbage
disposed since larger families could share meals in a way that produces less waste than
the same number of people eating separately. Sex is most influential in the generation
of wrapping paper wastes, income in plastic bags, educational level in glass bottle, and
cooking system in spoiled food.

Table 4.Multiple regression equations between quantity of waste and the household
contexts
Quantity of waste Modeled behavior (multiple regression Significant*
trended with the equations, unstandardized and standardized) * for the
household context
contexts* (at alpha =)
Paper wrapper q = 114.415 -47.339xs 13.647xcs-.307.xa + Sex (0.005)
3.428xle-.002xws - 2.043xhm +11.803xco -
0.017xcos

Zy = -0.256Zs + 0.074Zcs - 0.041.Za + 0.040Zle

0.135Zws - 0.041Zhm + 0.179Zco -
0.136Zcos
Plastic bag q = 109.207 + 32.819xs + 20.381xcs - Sex (0.044)
0.708.xa - 4.373xle 0.009xws - Wage
11.118xhm + 1.726xco + 0.158xcos (0.000)
Household
Zy = 0.176Zs + 0.104Zcs - 0.088.Za - 0.051Zle member
 0.328Zws - 0.184Zhm - 0.026Zco + (0.03)
0.251Zcos
Glass bottle q = 10.605 + 14.472xs + 73.555xcs + Educational
3.544.xa + 76.049xle - 0.009xws + level (0.030)
29.929xhm + 25.825xco - 0.047xcos

Zy = 0.018Zs + 0.087Zcs + 0.112.Za + 0.196Zle

- 0.082Zws + 0.134Zhm + 0.085Zco -
0.080Zcos

Spoiled food q = 332.720 19.438xs + 9.147xcs-.1.259.xa - Cooking

0.881xle-.001xws- 9.451xhm +26.107xco - system
0.172xcos (0.041)

Zy = -0.074Zs + 0.029Zcs - 0.111.Za - 0.007Zle

0.028Zws - 0.029Zhm + 0.284Zco -
0.199Zcos
*S- sex, cs-civil status, a- age , le-level of education, ws- wage, hm- number of household members, co-
cost of fuel,cos- cooking system
**Significant means the regression observed in the sample households would more likely be observed
also in the entire population

Solid waste management practices-household contexts behavior

The models in Table 5 present the quantitative behavior of the solid waste
management practices in the households with respect to the household contexts. The
equations show that female heads are most influential in storing waste using plastic
bags and trash cans; reusing plastic bottles as bottles; and disposing by burning; while
males are most dominant in segregation using three containers. This finding aggrees
with Khabeers (1994) conjecture that men and women within the household differ in
solid waste management practices owing to their differing access and control of
resources.

The table further depict that a lower level of the head of the household is
prominent in segregation using four separate containers; and the reuse of glass as
container. Also shown is that a higher income leads to a performer of segregation who is
not the household head. A lesser number of household members is significant in storing
waste in plastic bag, segregating in two separate containers, reusing glass as container,
disposing by burying, and a segregation performer who is not the house hold head while
more members tend to favor the practice of a regular planning and monitoring of solid
wastes.

Table 5.Multiple regression equations between solid waste management practice and
household contexts
SWM practice Modeled behavior (multiple regression Significant
trended with the equations, unstandardized and for the
household standardized) context
contexts (at alpha =)
Storing in plastic q = 0.913 0.1718xs 0.046xcs - 0.001.xa - Sex (0.000)
bag 0.033xle + 0.000xws + 0.041xhm Household
0.015xco - 0.000xcos member
(0.002)
Zy = -0.215Zs 0.054Zcs - 0.035.Za - 0.094Zle
+ 0.024Zws + 0.177Zhm - 0.050Zco -
0.003Zcos
Storing in trash q = 0.222 0.094xs 0.040xcs-.0.001.xa + Sex (0.008)
can 0.023xle-.000xws + 0.013xhm +0.026xco +
0.000xcos

Zy = -0.163Zs - 0.0664Zcs - 0.058.Za +

0.091Zle 0.028Zws + 0.081Zhm +
0.122Zco + 0.008Zcos
Segregating in q = 0.179+ 0.092xs - 0.062xcs + 0.001.xa - Sex (0.025)
three separate 0.014xle + 0.000xws + 0.007xhm + Cooking
bags or containers 0.032xco + 0.000xcos system
(0.038)
Zy = 0.138Zs - 0.088Zcs + 0.022.Za - 0.048Zle
- 0.069Zws - 0.035Zhm + 0.132Zco +
0.006Zcos
Segregating in q = 0.122 + 0.013xs + 0.025xcs 0.001.xa - Educational
four separate bags 0.031xle + 0.000xws - 0.001xhm + 0.004xco - level (0.002)
or containers 0.000xcos

Zy = 0.034Zs + 0.066Zcs - 0.046.Za - 0.187Zle

- 0.001Zws - 0.008Zhm + 0.032Zco -
0.045Zcos

Reusing cans as q = 0.017 0.011xs + 0.012xcs+.0.000.xa + Cooking

planting pots 0.008xle-.000xws - 0.005xhm +0.062xco - system
0.000xcos (0.000)

Zy = -0.020Zs + 0.022Zcs + 0.001.Za +

0.033Zle 0.001Zws + 0.031Zhm +
0.317Zco - 0.017Zcos
Reusing paper as q = 0.657+ 0.035xs + 0.043xcs+.0.003.xa + Educational
wrapping paper 0.055xle+.000xws - 0.033xhm -0.092xco + level (0.004)
0.000xcos Household
member
Zy = 0.046Zs + 0.054Zcs + 0.088.Za + (0.008)
0.165Zle + 0.106Zws - 0.150Zhm - Cooking
0.333Zco + 0.045Zcos system
(0.000)
Reusing plastic q = 0.360 0.213xs - 0.028xcs+.0.002.xa + Sex (0.000)
bottle as bottle 0.050xle+.000xws - 0.038xhm -0.0062xco + Household
0.035xcos member
(0.020)
Zy = -0.216Zs - 0.027Zcs + 0.056.Za + Fuel
0.115Zle 0.114Zws - 0.135Zhm - 0.016Zco consumptio
+ 0.135Zcos n (0.027)
Reusing glass as q = 0.479 0.081xs + 0.014xcs-.0.000.xa - Educational
container 0.063xle-.000xws - 0.039xhm +0.078xco + level (0.001)
0.000xcos Household
member
Zy = -0.103Zs + 0.017Zcs - 0.002.Za - (0.002)
0.0182Zle 0.065Zws - 0.173Zhm + Cooking
0.270Zco + 0.132Zcos system
(0.000)
Disposing by q = 0.460 + 0.137xs - 0.044xcs-.0.003.xa - Sex (0.017)
burying 0.055xle-.000xws + 0.056xhm +0.052xco - Educational
0.000xcos level (0.029)
Wage
Zy = 0.142Zs - 0.044Zcs - 0.084.Za - 0.129Zle (0.024)
0.143Zws + 0.203Zhm + 0.148Zco - Household
0.081Zcos member
(0.000)
Cooking
system
(0.017)
Disposing to the q = 0.762 + 0.068xs + 0.049xcs+.0.000.xa + Cooking
truck pick-up site 0.001xle+.000xws - 0.007xhm +0.031xco + system
0.000xcos (0.044)

Zy = 0.105Zs + 0.071Zcs + 0.018.Za + .003Zle

+ 0.020Zws - 0.037Zhm + 0.129Zco +
0.005Zcos
Disposing by q = 0.143 - 0.093xs + 0.026xcs+.0.002.xa - Sex (0.011)
burning 0.028xle+.000xws - 0.010xhm -0.003xco -
0.000xcos

Zy = -0.156Zs + 0.041Zcs + 0.085.Za -

0.105Zle + 0.048Zws - 0.058Zhm -
0.015Zco - 0.049Zcos
Disposing into q = 0.316 - 0.006xs - 0.020xcs-.0.002.xa - Educational
open pits 0.035xle-.000xws + 0.018xhm +0.011xco - level (0.051)

Zy = -0.010Zs - 0.028Zcs - 0.079.Za - 0.119Zle

- 0.118Zws + 0.092Zhm + 0.046Zco -
0.044Zcos
Disposing wastes q = -0.120. + 0.005xs - 0.002xcs-.0.001.xa - Cooking
anywhere 0.012xle-.000xws - 0.002xhm +0.016xco - system
0.000xcos (0.044)

Zy = 0.014Zs - 0.007Zcs - 0.063.Za - 0.082Zle -

0.092Zws + 0.019Zhm + 0.130Zco - 0.070Zcos

Segregation q = 2.652 + 0.059xs - 0.129xcs-.0.012.xa - Household

performer 0.133xle+.000xws - 0.226xhm +0.257xco - member
0.002xcos (0.044)

Zy = 0.025Zs - 0.068Zcs - 0.127.Za - 0.116Zle

+ 0.092Zws - 0.264Zhm + 0.328Zco -
0.294Zcos
Re-use performer q = 2.654 - 1.002xs + 0.127xcs-.0.014.xa - Sex (0.000)
0.367xle-.000xws + 0.186xhm +0.057xco + Educational
0.000xcos level (0.000)
Household
Zy = -0.280s + 0.029Zcs - 0.096.Za - 0.232Zle - member
0.051Zws + 0.175Zhm + 0.042Zco - 0.122Zcos (0.002)
Fuel
cost (0.043)
Disposal q = -0.081 0,054xs + 0.153xcs +.0.002.xa + Income
performer 0.015xle+.0.010xws - 0.017xhm +0.007xco - (0.010)
0.000xcos

Zy = -0.026s + 0.071Zcs + 0.025.Za + 0.017Zle

+ 0.170Zws - 0.028Zhm + 0.009Zco -
0.061Zcos
Regular planning q = -0.019 + 0,005xs - 0.0217xcs +.0.001.xa - Household
and monitoring 0.007xle-.000xws + 0.015xhm -0.008xco - member
performer 0.000xcos (0.001)

Zy = 0.019s - 0.075Zcs + 0.048.Za - 0.060Zle -

0.032Zws + 0.203Zhm - 0.084Zco - 0.001Zcos
*S- sex, cs-civil status, a- age , le-level of education, ws- wage, hm- number of household members, co-
cost of fuel, cos- cooking system
**Significant means the regression observed in the sample households would more likely be observed
also in the entire population

Solid waste management practice- solid waste characteristics behavior

The quantitative behavior of solid waste management practice a propos solid

waste characteristics is presented in the multiple linear models contained in Table 6.
 The practice of storing waste in plastic bags is most influenced by increase in
spoiled wastes. The quantity of glass wastes trends most importantly with the non-
application of segregating in two separate containers and in three separate containers.
Can wastes trend with the practice of reusing leftover food as feed. The quantity of
plastic bottle wastes trend closest with the practice of reusing cans as planting pots
while the quantity of glass bottle wastes does so with the practice of reusing paper as
wrappers and of reusing plastic bottle as bottle.

The increase in the quantity of can wastes is closest to the practice of reusing
glass as container and the practice of waste disposal by burying. The amount of plastic
bag wastes trend with the method of disposing waste to the garbage truck pick-up site,
disposing by burning and throwing garbage in an open pit.

The amount of plastic bag wastes also tend to go with a household waste reuse
performer who is not the head while the magnitude of glass bottle waste moves with the
performance of a regular planning and monitoring of solid waste management in the
households.

Table 6.Multiple regression equations between solid waste management practices and
the quantity of solid wastes
SWM practice Modeled behavior (multiple regression Significant**
trended with the equations, unstandardized and for the
quantity of solid standardized) quantity
waste* (at alpha =)
Storing in plastic q = 1.319 0.0218xc 0.003xwp - Regression is
bag 0.004.xpba - 0.002xpbo + 0.002xgb + significant
0.001xsf with all
independent
Zy = -0.327Zc 0.114Zwp - 1.041.Zpba - variables at
0666Zlpbo + 1.353Zgb + 0.328Zsfs alpha = 0.000
Segregating in two q = -0.464 + 0.028xc + 0.010xwp + Regression is
separate bags or 0.004.xpba + 0.000xpbo - 0.002xgb + significant
containers 0.000xsf with all
independent
Zy = 0.412Zc + 0.434Zwp + 1.151.Zpba + variables at
0.086Zlpbo - 1.783Zgb + 0.149Zsfs alpha = 0.000
Segregating in q = 0.574 + 0.003xc - 0.018xwp - 0.002.xpba Regression is
three separate + 0.003xpbo - 0.001xgb + 0.592xsf significant
bags or containers with all
Zy = 0.455Zc - 0.581Zwp - 0.504.Zpba + independent
0.787Zlpbo - 0.790Zgb + 0.149Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Reusing food q = -1.146 + 0.021xc + 0.045xwp -.010.xpba Regression is
leftover as feed - 0.004xpbo - 0.000xgb + 0.000xsf significant
with all
Zy = 3.348Zc + 1.348Zwp - 2.212.Zpba independent
 1.145Zlpbo - 0.354Zgb + 0.076Zsf variables at
alpha = 0.000
Reusing cans as q = 0.145 + 0.000xc - 0.007xwp + 0.001.xpba Regression is
planting pots + 0.002xpbo + 0.000xgb - 0.001xsf significant
with all
Zy = 0.010Zc - 0.288Zwp + 0.193.Zpba + independent
0.775Zlpbo + 0.037Zgb - 0.573Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Reusing paper as q = 0.426 - 0.003xc + 0.018xwp + 0.002.xpba Regression is
wrapper - 0.003xpbo + 0.001xgb - 0.002xsf significant
with all
Zy = -0.455Zc + 0.581Zwp + 0.504.Zpba - independent
0.787Zlpbo + 0.790Zgb - 0.592Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Reusing plastic q = 0.890 - 0.004xc + 0.007xwp - 0.002.xpba Regression is
bottle as bottle - 0.003xpbo + 0.003xgb - 0.002xsf significant
with all
Zy = -0.706Zc + 0.223Zwp - 0.354.Zpba - independent
0.779Zlpbo + 1.982Zgb - 0.646Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Reusing glass as q = 1.717 - 0.024xc - 0.034xwp + 0.012.xpba Regression is
container + 0.004xpbo + 0.001xgb - 0.003xsf significant
with all
Zy = -4.114Zc - 1.118Zwp + 3.077.Zpba + independent
1.067Zlpbo + 1.207Zgb - 1.118Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Disposing by q = 0.783 + 0.016xc - 0.014xwp - 0.008.xpba Regression is
burying - 0.002xpbo - 0.002xgb + 0.001xsf significant
with all
Zy = 2.599Zc - 0.411Zwp - 1.765.Zpba - independent
0.669Zlpbo - 0.448Zgb + 0.194Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Disposing at the q = 1.569 - 0.005xc - 0.027xwp + 0.007.xpba Regression is
truck pick up site - 0.002xpbo + 0.000xgb - 0.000xsf significant
with all
Zy = -1.240Zc - 1.159Zwp + 2.338.Zpba - independent
0.645lpbo + 0.127Zgb - 0.161Zsfs variables at
alpha = 0.000
Disposing by q = -0.569 + 0.005xc + 0.027xwp +.004.xpba Regression is
burning + 0.002xpbo - 0.000xgb + 0.000xsf significant
with all
Zy = 1.240Zc + 1.159Zwp - 2.338.Zpba + independent
0.645Zlpbo - 0.127Zgb + 0.161Zsf variables at
alpha = 0.000
Disposing in an q = -0.464 + 0.002xc + 0.010xwp -.004.xpba Regression is
open pit + 0.000xpbo - 0.002xgb + 0.000xsf significant
 with all
Zy = 0.412Zc + 0.434Zwp + 1.151.Zpba + independent
0.086Zlpbo - 1.783Zgb + 0.149Zsf variables at
alpha = 0.000
Regular planning q = -0.232 + 0.001xc + 0.005xwp+.002.xpba Regression is
and monitoring + 0.000xpbo - 0.001xgb + 0.000xsf significant
with all
Zy = 0.280Zc + 0.295Zwp + 0.782.Zpba + independent
0.058Zlpbo - 1.211Zgb + 0.101Zsf variables at
alpha = 0.000
*c- can, wp- paper wrapper, pba- plastic bag, pbo- plastic bottle, gb- glass bottle, sf- spoiled food
**Significant means the regression observed in the sample households would more likely be observed ,

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:

Households in Albay, Philippines are headed by males, are married, middle aged,
with secondary education, with modest income; and these households have 4 members
and use wood-fed cooking system.

Cans, wrapping papers, and plastic bags, and spoiled food, meat leftovers, fish
leftovers, and vegetable leftovers are the solid wastes produced by the households in
largest quantities. Cans, papers, plastic bottles, and glass bottles are the only ones that
could be sold.

Storing in plastic bag, reusing food leftover as feed, reusing paper as wrapper, reusing
plastic bottle as bottle, disposing at the truck pick up site, and disposing by burying are
the most widely used solid waste management practices.

Sex, wage, education, and cooking system are good predictors of the quantity of
paper wrapper, glass bottle, and spoiled food respectively; female heads are most
influential in certain solid waste management practices, more family members would
tend to perform regular planning and monitoring of wastes; and that sex, number of
household members, and cooking system are good predictors of certain solid waste
management practices.
Recommendations

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the following recommendations are

forwarded:

Plans on solid waste management intervention programs in Albay, Philippines

should consider households using wood-fed cooking system, with four family members
and educated married male heads.

The design of re-use, recycle or disposal technologies in the province must

consider that the households produce mostly cans, wrapping papers, and plastic bags,
and spoiled food, meat leftovers, fish leftovers, and vegetable leftovers; and that storing
in plastic bag, reusing food leftover as feed, reusing paper as wrapper, reusing plastic
bottle as bottle, disposing at the truck pick up site, and disposing by burying are the
most widely used solid waste management practices.

In making decision for solid waste management interventions, designers or planners

should consider that Sex, wage, education, and cooking system are good predictors of
the quantity of paper wrapper, glass bottle, and spoiled food respectively; female heads
are most influential in certain solid waste management practices, more family members
would tend to perform regular planning and monitoring of wastes; and that sex, number
of household members, and cooking system are good predictors of certain solid waste
management practices.

X. References

Bendicio, Marie Catherine, B. and Rosalie C. Borlasa.(2008). Solid Waste

Management Awareness, Attitude, and Practices of Households in Five Barangays of
Tabaco City.Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay.

Danteravanich, S. &Darnsawadi, R.The Challenge of Domestic Solid Waste

Recycling in Southern Thailand.Prince of SongkhlaUniversity.HatYai, Songkhla,
Thailand.

Fullerton, Don & Thomas C. Kinnaman (1996). Household Responses to Pricing

Garbage by the Bag, American Economic Review, 86(4), September, 971-84

Guven, S. Household Waste Composition Survey in Turkey, 1993. Fourth

Subregional Training Workshop on Environment Statistics.Ocotber 1-12, 2001,
Bangkok, Thailand.

Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Philippine Solid Waste Ecological

Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.Online. Available http://www.elaw.org/August 9,
2006
 Jadie, Jovencio, Jr. B. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of
Selected Barangays of LegazpiCity : An Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.
BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay.

Jenkins, Robin R. (1993). The Economics of Solid Waste Reduction, Hants,

England: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Jotojot Kathy May M. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Daraga, Albay: An Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga,
Albay.

Jurczak, G.M. (2003). The relation between education, knowledge, and action
for better waste management in Poland. Waste Management & Research 21(2-18

Khabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development

Thought. London: Veso Publishers.

Kinnaman, Thomas C. (1994). On User Fees for Refuse Collection,

dissertation, Department of Economics, University of Virginia.

Kinnaman, Thomas, C. & Don Fullerton (1999). The Economics of Residential

Solid Waste Management, a research under the National Bureau of Economic
Research

Landin, C., Rodriguez, R., Merchan, M., Cherrez, S., Canizares, P., & Guerrero,
W. MANEJO DE DESECHOS SOLIDOS EN EL ECUADOR. Quito: FundacionNatura,
1993.

Melitante, Glen Mark P. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Selected Barangays in Daraga, Albay.Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM,
Daraga, Albay.

Miranda, M.L., J.W. Everett, D. Blume& B.A. Roy, Jr. (1994). Market-Based
Incentives and Residential Municipal Solid Waste, Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 13(4): 681-698

Neo, Rochelle D. . (2008). The Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Selected Barangays in Daraga, Albay: An ANALYSIS. Unpublished Undergraduate
Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay

Nuez, Elaine M.. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Selected Barangays of LegazpiCity : An Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.
BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay.
 Ocampo, Dina O. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of
Guinobatan, Albay: Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga,
Albay

Payla, Angelito, P. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Guinobatan, Albay: Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga,
Albay

Pearce, David & R. Kerry Turner (1994).Economics and Solid Waste

Management in the Developing World. CSERGE Working Paper WM 94-05

Podolsky, Michael, J. &Menahem Spiegel (1998). Municipal Waste Disposal:

Unit-Pricing and Recycling Opportunities, Public Works Management and Policy, 3(1),
December 27-29.

Province of Albay.Online.Availablehttp://www.islandsproperties.com January

21, 2010.

Romano, Kristine R. (2008). Solid Waste Management Barangay Malabog,

Daraga, Albay:Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay

Romano, Ma. Elena R. (2008). Solid Waste Management Barangay Sagpon,

Daraga, Albay:Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM, Daraga, Albay

See, Eddie S. & Mary Ann M. See (2010). Solid Waste Management (SWM)
Functional Initiatives of Higher Education Institutions and the Situation of SWM in Albay
Province, Philippines: Developing Further Environment Education Programs. Bicol
University College of Business, Economics and Management, Daraga, Albay.

Yamba, Francis D. Board Chairman- Environmental Council of Zambia.

(September 2004). National Solid Waste Management Strategy for Zambia.

Yap, Nina Ricci M. (2008). Solid Waste Management in the Households of

Guinobatan, Albay: An Analysis. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. BUCBEM,
Daraga, Albay.