IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

Research article
erd

Sustainability of the Implementation of Solid Waste
Management: A Comparative Study
MA. MAGDALENA J. BERNALES*
Bohol Island State University, Candijay, Philippines
Email: mamagdalena.bernales@bisu.edu.ph

JAKE C. MALON
Bohol Island State University, Candijay, Philippines
Received 28 February 2022

Accepted 25 July 2022(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study aimed to compare the status of implementation of the Solid Waste
Management (SWM) in the Municipality of Candijay, Bohol, Philippines for the year 2015
and 2020 to find ways for the sustainability of the implementation of the Town’s Solid
Waste Management. Wastes were collected monthly for one year from the five sampledbarangays with 122 households. Field investigations, on-site waste measurements andcharacterizations were conducted. This is a mixed method employing QUANT-Qualapproach. Descriptive statistics which include percentages, and weighted mean were used
for the quantitative approach while narrative analysis for the qualitative was used. The
results revealed that from the previous data of SWM implementation found out that the
average biodegradable waste generated in the year 2015 which was 46.14% decreased to
10.94% as a result of home proper waste disposal. Likewise, the recyclable waste which
had 27.27%, the number decreased to 26.08%. Since residual wastes should be collected,
the collection increased to 59.85% from 15.42% due to acquisition of additional garbage
trucks. For special waste, from 11.16% previously collected, it decreased to 3.13%. Therewas significant difference between the biodegradable, residual and special wastes. In thepresent SWM implementation, innovation played an important role in recycling wastematerials. Shredded plastics and crashed glasses were converted into mixture to create
concrete products. The shredded biodegradable wastes were converted into organic
fertilizers. The produce out of these shredded materials were used to generate income which
played an important role to sustain the solid waste implementation. Thusly, the level of
implementation was already properly practiced. Solid Waste Management had employedorganizational structure for implementation and dissemination of personnel’s function.
Additional equipment and personnel were acquired. To sustain the proper SWM, recycling
equipment, public awareness, funding, expertise of personnel, equipment and facilities,
innovations and other provisions must be provided.
Keywords implementation, innovation, solid waste management, waste characterization

INTRODUCTION
With fast growing population and lack of adequate disposal sites, solid waste has become a major
problem for most medium to large-size cities in the Philippines. In recent years, inadequate solid
waste management systems have posed serious health risks particularly in densely populated areas.
The increasing problem on waste management in almost all communities across the country
was due to the uncontrolled population growth, coupled with rapid urbanization andindustrialization, have become the primary thrust of the national government (National Solid Waste
Management Commission and D.E.N.R., 2004). In addition, the low level of environmental literacy
and awareness of the public, partly contributed to the difficulties in implementing and enforcing
environmental laws and policy, particularly, laws on cleanliness and sanitation (Jaworski and
DENR as cited by Reyes and Furto, 2013). The common observation is that people are apathetic
and indifferent toward wastes issues.
Ⓒ ISERD

113

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

In the Asian region, inadequate solid waste management and disposal practices combined withthe tropical climatic condition resulted in an increasing environmental problem (Visvanathan et. al.,2004). In addition, in many rural areas, the lack of environmentally friendly, sustainable andaffordable waste management has led to the widespread practice of open dumping and open
burning of solid waste (Wilson, 2011). These are the easiest and considered to be the cheapest
methods of removing waste from the immediate environment. This predicament made an enormous
impact to public health and the environment. While the collection of solid wastes is the
responsibility of the local government units (LGUs), these LGUs cannot do it alone. There should
be a partnership with other institutions such as the academe, non-government organizations(NGOs), and the community (Machado, 2012). The academe can assist the LGUs throughinformation, education, and communication (IEC) activities. The problem of solid waste and its
management has become a genuine concern of the province of Bohol, Central Visayas, Philippines.
In response to the waste problem, the local government of Candijay has adopted measures inthe development and implementation of the Ecological Solid Waste Management program. With
this, the researchers were triggered to conduct a comparative study to find out the status of
implementation of the Solid Waste Management (SWM) in the Municipality of Candijay, Bohol,
Philippines for the year 2015 and 2020 and look forward on finding ways for the sustainability of
the implementation of the Town’s Solid Waste Management.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to compare the status of implementation of the Solid Waste Management (SWM)
in the Municipality of Candijay, Bohol, Philippines for the year 2015 and 2020 to find out thesustainability of Town’s Solid Waste Management practices.
METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in the municipality of Candijay, Bohol, Philippines to determine theaverage weight of waste generated daily by the household. The data gathered shall be the basis informulating the 10-year Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM) plan of the municipality.
This is a mixed method employing QUANT-Qual approach. Descriptive statistics which
include percentages, and weighted mean were used for the quantitative approach while narrative
analysis for the qualitative interpretation of information was used. It involved the residents of theselected barangays in the municipality of Candijay as the respondents. Random sampling was used
to select the possible barangays to be included in the study. Using Slovin’s formula, the researchers
used a sample of four (4) barangays with the total number of one hundred twenty-two (122)household respondents and five hundred forty-two (542) household members.
The researchers adopted the questionnaire of Reyes and Furto (2013) and the Questionnaire
for solid waste management survey World Health Organization (WHO) 1996 on the level of
implementation of proper and improper solid waste management. Minor revisions were made on
the questionnaires in order to answer the questioned variable of the study. Since the questionnaire isan adopted one, there is no need to do pilot testing of the said questionnaire. The researcher asked
permission to the Municipality’s ESWM to disseminate the questionnaire to the selected Barangays.
The respondents were also informed about the nature of the study upon the dissemination of thequestionnaires.
For analyzing and quantifying the waste generated, respondents were given four (4) plasticbags of different colors like green, blue, yellow and red for biodegradable, recyclable, residual, andspecial waste respectively. Wastes were collected daily for successive three days and measured
according to type. Wastes were segregated in every household before hauling to the dumpsite.
Weighing according to type as biodegradable, recyclable, residual and special waste was done in
the dumpsite. For qualitative aspects, narrative analysis was also employed, since the study
involved interview with the selected informants.

Ⓒ ISERD

114

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 exhibits the Comparison on the level of implementation of proper SWM practices of theresidents. There were six (6) items which were moderately practiced in the year 2015 that changed
to fully practiced in the year 2020. The residents were observed to fully practice the segregation of
biodegradable from non-biodegradable, selling of bottles, plastics, cans and other scraps tojunkshops reusing of reusable materials, reducing of waste and avoiding the use of toxic andhazardous materials and chemicals. From the four (4) slightly practiced solid waste management in
the year 2015, it can be seen that these practices were already fully practiced except for recycling
which was moderately practiced. The study of (Atienza, 2013) pointed out that the lack ofinfrastructure for efficient transportation contributed in the inefficient implementation andineffective monitoring of waste management program which was already addressed by themunicipal solid waste management with the cooperation of the people in the community.
11.16%

Waste Composition(%)
Biodegradable

15.42%

46.14%

Recyclable

ResidualSpecial27.27%

Fig. 1-A Composition of waste generated during 2015

3.13%

Waste Composition(%)
10.94%

Biodegradable
Recyclable

26.08%

Residual

59.85%

SpecialFig. 1-B Composition of waste generated during 2020
Table 1 Level of implementation of proper solid waste management practices (N=122)
Items
1. Segregating of biodegradable from nonbiodegradable wastes
2. Collecting of garbage by the municipal truck
3. Selling of bottles, plastics, cans and other scraps tojunkshops
4. Reusing of reusable materials

Weighted Mean
2015
2020

Descriptive Value
2015
2020

3.01

3.6

MP

FP

2.41

3.5

SP

FP

3.01

3.5

MP

FP

2.51

3.7

MP

FP

5. Reducing of waste

2.50

3.6

MP

FP

6. Recycling

2.40

3.8

SP

MP

7. Feeding left over foods to pets
8. Avoiding the use of toxic and hazardous materials
or chemicals
9. Composting

3.60

3.9

FP

FP

2.81

3.6

MP

FP

2.42

3.7

SP

FP

10. Providing of garbage receptacles to public areas

2.39

3.9

SP

FP

Composite mean

2.70

3.68

MP

FP

Range: 1.0-1.49: not practiced (NP), 1.5-2.49: slightly practiced (SP), 2.5-3.49: moderately practiced (MP),3.5- 4.0: fully practiced (FP)Ⓒ ISERD

115

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

Table 2 Improper solid waste management practices (N=122)
Weighted mean
2015
2020

Items

Descriptive value
2015
2020

1. Burning of garbage in every household
3.01
2.1
MP
SP
2. Dumping garbage in rivers.
1.30
1.1
NP
NP
3. Paying somebody to throw garbage anywhere far
1.35
1.15
NP
NP
from their residence
4. Burying of hazardous waste underground
2.03
1.5
SP
NP
Composite mean
1.92
1.46
SP
NP
Range: 1.0-1.49: not practiced (NP), 1.5-2.49: slightly practiced (SP), 2.5-3.49: moderately practiced (MP),3.5- 4.0: fully practiced (FP)

Rank
1
4
3
2

Table 2 presents the transition of the level of implementation of improper solid waste
management. In the year 2015, burning of garbage in every household was moderately practiced,
however, as compared to the year 2020 this kind of act was change to slightly practice. Burying of
hazardous wastes underground was slightly practiced in the year 2015 and in the latest data in theyear 2020, this was not anymore practiced. It was worth to note that dumping of garbage in rivers
and paying somebody to throw garbage anywhere far from their residence were remained notpracticed. The household respondents were already concerned with the effects of the emitted smokeon the atmosphere and to the health of the people. With the effort of the town’s solid waste
management office through information dissemination, the residents were not anymore practicing
the burying of hazardous wastes underground. According to (Reyes and Furto, 2013) though thesematerials are buried, there are still harmful effects to the people’s health but not as much as thosewhich are exposed above the ground.
Table 3 Problems encountered in the implementation of solid waste management (N=122)
Weighted
Descriptive
Rank
mean
value
1. Increasing population
2.55
S
6
2. Public Indifference (Public don’t care)
2.56
S
5
3. Inefficient collection of garbage
2.04
S
10
4. Lack of financial resources
3.5
VS
3.5
5. Lack of authority to make financial decision
2.3
NS
10
6. Non-operation of good disposal
2.4NS
9
7. Lack of trained personnel
3.5
VS
3.5
8. Lack of enforcement measure and capability
3.6VS2
9. Foul odor of the open dumpsites that is hazardous to health
3.7
VS1
9. Lack of awareness among the people regarding SWM
2.44
NS
8
10. Lack of training on proper solid waste management practices
2.48
NS
7
Composite mean
3.10
S
Range: 1.0-1.49: not a problem (NP), 1.5-2.49: not so serious (NS), 2.5-3.49: serious (S), 3.5-4.0: very serious (VS)
Items

Table 3 shows that item number 9 “Foul odor of the open dumpsites which were hazardous tohealth” got the highest rank with a weighted mean of 3.7 with descriptive value of very serious.
The next in rank is the lack of enforcement measure and capability had a weighted mean of 3.6
with a descriptive rating of very serious. The lowest was on the item number 5 “lack of authority
to make financial decision” with a weighed mean of 2.3, not serious. The overall perception of the
respondents in terms of the problems encountered is serious with a weighted mean of 3.10. It
implies that lack of enforcement measure and capability, trained personnel and financial resources
are encountered very seriously by the respondents. Problems such as increasing population, public
indifference were encountered in a serious manner while lack of training on proper solid waste
management practices is encountered not seriously. The result of the study is supported by thestudy of (Ali et. al., 2013) entitled open dumping of municipal solid waste and its hazardous
impacts on soil and vegetation diversity at waste dumping sites of Islamabad city wherein the main
environmental problem associated with the disposal site is the potential risk to the soil.

Ⓒ ISERD

116

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

Table 4 Difference of waste generation by weight in terms of grams and level of
implementation of solid waste management practices
Items
Proper and Improper Solid waste
Management Practices
Waste Generation

F computed

F tableInterpretation-29.797.815

Significant

10.14

7.815

Significant

Table 4 presents the difference on the level of implementation of solid waste management
practices among the different barangays in the municipality of Candijay. It can be gleaned from thetable that the computed F values of proper and improper solid waste management practices andwaste generation were -29.79 and 10.14 respectively which is beyond and greater than the tabular
value of 7.815 at 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis of no significant difference isrejected. This means that there is a difference that exists on the level of implementation of solid
waste management. Differences were indicated from the result using Kruskall Wallis test. There
was a difference that exists on the level of implementation of solid waste generated among thedifferent barangay. This could be due to the factors such as location, population, facilities andpossibly to the income of the community. Densely populated barangays like Poblacion and
Cogtong generate more solid waste making their SWM practices different from those scarcely
populated as in Tugas and San Isidro. It is where the difference lies in terms of weight of waste
generated. Moreover, Cogtong is a coastal barangay where in the respondents may throw theirwaste in the seas aside from burning. In addition to that there is a part of Poblacion that is adjacentto the river where waste can be found.
Improvement Highlights
The average biodegradable waste generated in the year 2015 which was 46.14% decreased to
10.94% in the year 2020 as a result of home proper waste disposal. Likewise, the recyclable waste
which had 27.27%, the number decreased to 26.08%. Since residual wastes should be collected, the2020 collection increased to 59.85% from 15.42% in the year 2015, this is because of theacquisition of additional garbage trucks. For special waste, from 11.16% previously collected, it
decreased to 3.13% in the year 2020. For this, it can be deduced that there was significant
difference between the biodegradable, residual and special wastes. In the present SWM
implementation, innovation played an important role in recycling waste materials. Based on the2015 data, there were problems identified in the implementation on the management of the solid
waste in the town of Candijay. These identified problems were considered as the immediateconcern which needed to be eradicated. In 2020, through observation in the locale and interview ofthe selected individuals, it was found out that in the present SWM implementation, innovation
played an important role in recycling waste materials. Acquisition of shredder for biodegradable,
plastics and glass waste materials were already realized. Shredded plastics and crashed glasses
were converted into mixture to create concrete products like bricks and hallow blocks. On the other
hand, the shredded biodegradable wastes were converted into organic fertilizers. The produce outof these shredded materials were used to generate income which played an important role to sustain
the solid waste implementation. Thusly, the level of implementation was already properly practiced.
Solid Waste Management had employed organizational structure for implementation anddissemination of personnel’s function. Additional equipment and personnel were acquired. To
sustain the proper SWM, recycling equipment, public awareness, funding, expertise of personnel,
equipment and facilities, innovations and other provisions were already provided
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions are drawn: a) the most produced
waste in the 2015 was the biodegradable which was tremendously reduced in the 2020 data b) thelevel of implementation on proper solid waste management by the residents was already fullyⒸ ISERD

117

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2022) 13-2

practiced while Improper Solid Waste Management was never practiced yet there were still few
household who slightly practiced the burning of waste c) because of the identified problems
encountered in the implementation of solid waste management in the year 2020, the concerned
agency addressed these problem through the following; close monitoring of the open dumpsitewhich caused unpleasant odors, provide enforcement measure and capabilities, acquiring of welltrained personnel and financial resources, efficient collection of garbage to a maximum level d)different barangays in the municipality of Candijay had unified scheme in responding theimplementation of solid waste management e) mandate households to do recycling of therecyclable waste materials, f) with the effectiveness of the SWM implementation and serious
reinforcement of the concerned agency, it’s level of implementation of solid waste management
practices was fully practiced and dramatically improved which turned out as the key for
implementation sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the following; Municipal Mayor of Candijay, Bohol, Philippines throughMunicipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO), The Office of the Sangguniang Bayan(Municipal Council), Municipality of Candijay, Province of Bohol for providing the documents
needed in the study, Municipal Ecological Solid Wastes Management and MENRO office.
REFERENCES
Ali, S.M., Pervaiz, A., Afzal, B. Hamid, N. and Yasmin, A. 2014. Open dumping of municipal solid waste
and its hazardous impacts on soil and vegetation diversity at waste dumping sites of Islamabad city.
Journal of King Saud University - Science, 26 (1), 59-65, Retrieved from DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2013.08.003
Atienza, V. 2013. Review of the management system in the Philippines, Initiatives to promote waste
segregation and recycling through good governance. Kojima and Michida (Eds.), Economic Integration
and Recycling in Asia, An Interim Report, Chosakenkyu Hokokusho, Institute Developing Economics,
65-97, Retrieved from https://www.nswai.org/docs/Review%20of%20the%20Waste%20Management%
20System%20in%20the%20Philippines.pdf
Bahadir, A. 2013. The importance of energy and the use of energy as a power of factor. Journal of Energy
Technologies and Policy, Special issue for International Conference on Energy, Environment andSustainable Economy, 3 (11), 6-15, Retrieved from https://www.iiste.org/vol-3-no-11-2013-journal-ofenergy-technologies-and-policy/
Chiemchaisri, C., Juanga, J.P. and Visvanathan, C. 2004. Municipal solid waste management in Thailand anddisposal emission inventory. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 135, 13-20, Retrieved from
DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9707-1
Machado, T.M. 2012. Challenge on municipal solid waste management in Cagayan de Oro city, mulberry
suites, Cagayan de Oro city. Retrieved From https://pcieerd.dost.gov.ph/images/downloads/presentation_materials/gmi_06272012/07_SWM_of_CDO_Machado.pdf
Reyes, P.B. and Furto, M.V. 2013. Greening of the solid waste management in Batangas city. Journal ofEnergy Technologies and Policy, Special issue for International Conference on Energy, Environment andSustainable Economy, 3 (11), 187-194, Retrieved from https://research.lpubatangas.edu.ph/wp-content/
uploads/2014/04/JETP-Greening-of-the-Solid-Waste-Management.pdf
Wilson, D.C. 2011. Acting alone to partnerships, Strategic approach for sustainable municipal waste
management. UN-Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD), International Conference on
Building Partnerships for Moving toward Zero Waste, Retrieved from https://www.uncrd.or.jp/
World Health Organization (WHO). 1996. Questionnaire for Solid Waste Management Survey. Retrieved
from https://www.academia.edu/28925080/Questionnaire_for_Solid_Waste_Management_SurveyⒸ ISERD118