Printer Friendly

Assessment of Liceo de Cagayan University's Solid Waste Management System.

ABSTRACT

This study aimed at assessing the solid waste management system of Liceo de Cagayan University as basis for the crafting of a solid waste management plan for the university. This study included all personnel of the different departments in the main campus of the university. The data were collected using a survey questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Findings reveal that the respondents were moderately aware that R.A. 9003 is known as "the "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000"; that solid wastes must be segregated according to their classification at source as "recyclables", "non recyclables", "compostable" and "special waste" and must be placed at the designated containers; and that a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is required to avoid pollution that poses danger to public health and safety, wildlife, aquatic life, and vegetation. Moreover, the respondents were moderately receptive to the implementation of the solid waste management system that starts with waste characterization and waste composition to waste minimization through the use of substitute materials like metal spoon and fork instead of plastic and food tray or plates instead of styrofoam boxes. As found, the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness to solid waste management differed significantly. The respondents in the non-academe had significantly higher level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and receptiveness to solid waste management than those in the academe.

Keywords - Solid waste management system, solid waste, R.A. 9003

INTRODUCTION

One problem that the World is now facing is climate change. One factor that causes this problem is improper disposal of solid waste. By disposing solid waste properly, we help save our environment. Rapid expansion of industry, urbanization, and increasing population, especially in large cities, has dramatically increased the amount of solid waste. At the municipal level, solid waste management constitutes one of the most crucial health and environmental problems facing authorities (Abdelnaser et al., 2011).

Waste management involves collection, transport, processing, recycling, disposal, and monitoring of waste materials produced by human activity. Waste management is generally undertaken to reduce the effect of waste materials on health and the environment. Waste management is also carried out to recover resources out from the waste. Waste to be managed can involve solid, liquid, gaseous or radioactive substances, with different methods and fields of expertise for each (Al-maaded, et al., 2012).

The increase in the volume of waste materials discharged to the environment and deterioration of environmental quality in urban areas have been an issue of major concern for many governments. Developed and developing nations, urban and rural areas, and residential and industrial producers differ in their waste management practices. Management for non-hazardous residential and institutional waste in metropolitan areas is usually the responsibility of local government authorities, while management for non-hazardous commercial and industrial waste is usually the responsibility of the generator. For solid waste management in urban areas to be sustainable, it requires participation of the government, private sector, and residents (Ezebilo and Animasaun, 2011).

The researcher, being the pollution control officer and chairman of risk and solid waste management committee of the university, is tasked to assess the extent of management of solid waste generated in the campus. The assessment will be used as basis for the crafting of a solid waste management plan.

FRAMEWORK

The study was anchored on Republic Act 9003 otherwise known as the "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. It is an Act providing for an Ecological Solid Waste Management Program, creating the necessary institutional mechanics and incentives, declaring certain acts prohibited, and providing funds thereof and for other purposes.

The Act stipulates that it is the policy of the State to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program that shall (a) ensure the protection of public health and environment; (b) set guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction through source reduction and waste minimization measures, including composing, recycling, re-use, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before collection, treatment and disposal in appropriate and environmentally-sound solid waste management facilities in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles; and (c) ensure the proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practices in ecological waste management excluding incineration.

In this study, the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness to solid waste management system are assumed to affect the respondents' perception of the solid waste management of the university. In turn, high level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and receptiveness to solid waste management are assumed to help facilitate the identification of the solid waste management system needs of the university. Moreover, every department's generated solid waste and encountered problems are factors seen to influence the formulation of the solid waste management system of the university.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study aimed at assessing the solid waste management system of Liceo de Cagayan University as basis for the crafting of a solid waste management plan for the university.

Specifically, this study sought to determine the following: (a) the respondents' type of department, either academic or non-academic; (b) the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003, level of receptiveness to solid waste management, types of generated solid waste, encountered problems, and solid waste management practices; and the (c) difference in the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness when grouped by department.

METHODOLOGY

This study used the descriptive design in determining the solid waste management of the Liceo de Cagayan University. This study was conducted at Liceo de Cagayan University situated along the Cagayan de Oro River. This university is one of the sources of contamination of Cagayan de Oro River because of its drainage system. Identifying the solid waste generated by the university is an initial step in containing contaminants that threaten the Cagayan de Oro River.

This study included all personnel of the different departments in the main campus of the university. The survey questionnaire used for data gathering was based on the Department Administrative Order (DAO) Number 2001-34 series of 2001 of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The questionnaire was distributed to the respondents within the 3rd quarter of the school year. Percentage, ranking, weighted mean, and analysis of variance were the statistical tools used were to analyze the collected data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 presents the respondents' distribution in terms of their respective departments. As shown, there were more respondents from the academe than from the non--academe that included the canteen concessionaire and Cleanmate workers.

Table 2 shows the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003. The respondents were moderately aware that R.A. 9003 is known as "the "Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000"; that solid wastes must be segregated according to their classification at source as "recyclables", "non recyclables", "compostable" and "special waste" and must be placed at the designated containers; and that a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is required to avoid pollution that poses danger to public health and safety, wildlife, aquatic life, and vegetation.

On the other hand, the respondents were only fairly aware that R.A 9003 is for mandatory implementation to be initiated by Local Government Unit (LGU). The law mandates LGUs to develop their own solid waste management program that covers the proper handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of solid wastes.

Table 3 shows the respondents' level of receptiveness to the Solid Waste Management System. The respondents were moderately receptive to the implementation of the solid waste management system that starts with waste characterization and waste composition to waste minimization through the use of substitute materials like metal spoon and fork instead of plastic and food tray or plates instead of styrofoam boxes. Also, they were moderately receptive to the idea that by accepting the solid waste management system, the university becomes a leading institution in the implementation of R.A. 9003. According to Wing (2008), adopting the solid waste management offers economic and environmental benefits to all people in the community where the program is implemented.

Table 4 presents the types of solid waste generated by the university. As shown, the most frequently generated solid wastes were papers, plastic bottles, and leaves. In an academic institution, everybody uses paper and a number of students and personnel consume bottled water because of the limited number of drinking fountains. Further, the campus has a lot of grown-up trees; hence, fallen leaves abound especially during summer. The generation of different solid wastes requires waste characterization that serves as basis for the solid waste management plan.

On the other hand, the least frequently generated solid wastes were syringes, needles, cotton balls, and vials.

Table 5 presents the respondents' problems in relation to solid waste management. The most prevailing problems were the absence of waste management plan and lack of solid waste containers for each type of waste, hence the non-segregation of waste at source. Other problems were the absence of labels on the existing waste containers and the unavailability of waste containers in some areas of the campus. According to Memon (2010), a solid waste management plan is an effective tool to manage waste effectively and efficiently, hence the university's need for it.

Table 6 presents the respondents' practices for managing solid wastes. As shown, most widely observed was the use of 3 R's (Recycle, Reuse and Reduce), which is followed by segregation of waste at source and avoidance of using non-biodegradable food packaging and containers. In Thailand, despite the increasing population in

2002, there was a decreasing trend in solid waste generation because of its reuse and recycling practices (Chiemchaisri et al., 2007).

According to Moller (1993), the International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) was developed to promote the adoption of acceptable solid waste management throughout the world. And recycling is the favored solution for plastic waste management because it has a lower environmental impact as shown in the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Human Toxicity Potentials (HTP) indicators (Al-maaded et al., 2012).

Table 7 shows the results of the test of difference in the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness to Solid Waste Management System. As revealed, the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness to solid waste management differed significantly: The respondents in the non-academe had significantly higher level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and receptiveness to solid waste management than those in the academe. Such findings can be attributed to the fact that most of the respondents in the academe were students who were not given a seminar on solid waste management. Those in the non-academe had a seminar on solid waste in the previous years.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the findings of the study, the following conclusions are derived:

1. The respondents' moderate awareness of R.A. 9003 and moderate receptiveness to solid waste management call for the development of a solid waste management plan to implement R.A. 9003.

2. The significant difference in the respondents' level of awareness of R.A. 9003 and level of receptiveness to solid waste management indicates the respondents' common need for further training on the implementing rules and regulations of DAO 34 to eradicate the problems related to solid waste disposal.

3. The reported non-segregation of waste at source and the lack of waste containers in the campus are indicative of the school's lack of a comprehensive solid waste management plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing conclusions, the following recommendations are advanced:

1. Adoption of solid waste management plan to address the solid waste management problems of the university

2. Consistent implementation of the procedures and processes for proper solid waste management by all departments

3. University-wide information drive on proper waste management

4. Effective monitoring of the compliance with environmental standards of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

5. Periodic evaluation of the university's implementation of its solid waste management plan.

6. Reduction of non-biodegradable solid waste generation in the campus to help maintain a pollution-free university

LITERATURE CITED

Abdelnaser, O. et al. 2011 Municipal Solid Waste Management in Bani Walid City, Libya: Practices and Challenges. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism.

Barlaz, M.A. et al 1995 Life Cycle Study of Municipal Solid Waste Management. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/msw-i/wastelifesystem.pdf

Brown, D.T. 1999 What is Sustainable Integrated Waste Management? Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/epi/ciet/whatis.htm

Corson, W.H. 1990 The Ecological Handbook. Boston Beacon Press.

EMB-DENR, Department Administrative Order No. 29, series of 1995

Escuna, E. 2005 The Health Effects of Teratogenic Chemical Products, Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Ezebilo, E.E. and Animasaun, E.D. 2011 Households' perceptions of private sector municipal solid waste management services: A binary choice analysis. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology : (IJEST) 8. 4: 677-686. Tehran: International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Gader, D. K. 2005 The Carcinogenic Chemical Products and Their Effects on Human Health, Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Khundert, A.V. and Auschiitz, J. 2000 The Sustainability of alliances Between Stakeholders in Waste Management. Retrieved from http://www.gdrc.org/uem/waste/ISWM.pdf

Kiamco, A.S. et al. 2001 Development of a Solid Waste Management Plan for the Municipality of Jasaan Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Kiamco, A.S. et al. 2006 Environment and Health Safety through the Elements of a Solid Waste Management System. Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Kiamco, A.S. et al. 2000 The Rivers, Creeks and Main Drainage Along the Coastal Areas of Cugman-Macabalan in the City of Cagayan de Oro: An Exploratory Study.

Kiamco, A.S. 2006 Household Chemical Products and Family Health Safety. Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Kiamco, A.S. 2006 Wholistic Health as a Tool for Peace. Liceo de Cagayan University, Cagayan de Oro City.

Mckenzie, G.D. 1992 Man and His Physical Environment Readings in Environmental Geology. USA, Burgass Publishing Co.

Moller, J. and Uhre, L. 1993 Promoting and developing professional solid waste management.

Pfeffer, J.T. 1994 Solid Waste Management Engineering. New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc.

Sincere, A.P. 1996 Environmental Engineering: A Design Approach. Maryland, Prentice Hall, Ltd.

Tchobanogious, G. et al. 1993 Integrated Solid Waste Management. New Jersey, Mc Graw Hill, Inc.

Wang, C. 2008 Factors Influencing Regional Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

Wentz, C.A. 1996 Hazardous Waste Management. New York, Mc Graw Hill, Inc.

RICHIE GRACE M. LAGO

ORCID No. 0000-0002-9081-9217

richiegracelago@gmail.com

Liceo de Cagayan University Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
Table 1. Distribution of the Respondents by Position in the University

Department in the University       Frequency   Percentage

1.1 Arts and Sciences               18           5.17
1.2 Business and Accountancy        42          12.07
1.3 Engineering                     38          10.92
1.4 Nursing                         38          10.92
1.5 Cleanmate                       15           4.31
1.6 Finance                          7           2.01
1.7 Registrar                        4           1.15
1.8 Guidance                         4           1.15
1.9 Information Technology          41          11.78
1.10 Criminology                    37          10.63
1.11 Clinic                          9           2.59
1.12 Medical Laboratory Sciences    35          10.06
1.13 College of Pharmacy            27           7.76
1.14 Library                         7           2.01
1.15 Canteen                         9           2.59
1.16 Education                       1           0.29
1.17 Publishing                     10           2.87
1.18 Physical Therapy                6           1.72
Total                              348         100.00

Table 2. Respondents' Level of Awareness of R.A. 9003

Indicators                        Mean        SD        Interpretation

2.1 R.A. 9003 is known as         2.54       0.954     Moderately Aware
the "Ecological
Solid Waste Management
Act of 2000".
2.2 I know R.A.                   2.48       0.912     Fairly Aware
9003 is for
mandatory
implementation to be
initiated by the LGU's.
2.3 One of the                    2.63       0.900     Moderately Aware
most important
components of R.A. 9003
is the Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF)
for processing of
recoverable wastes into
useful products.
2.4 Mandatory segregation         2.64       0.910     Moderately Aware
of solid waste
is also embodied
in R.A 9003.
2.5 R.A. 9003 provides            2.78       0.921     Moderately Aware
for provision
of having solid
waste segregating
containers marked
with "recyclables";
"non- recyclables";
"compostable"; and
"special waste".
Overall                           2.61       0.919     Moderately Aware

Table 3. Respondents' Level of Receptiveness to Solid Waste Management
System

Indicators                     Mean           SD         Interpretation

3.1 The implementation         2.93          0.748        Moderately
of the solid
waste management                                          Receptive
system starts with
the waste characterization
and waste
composition.
3.2 The implementation         2.92          0.899        Moderately
of the solid
waste management                                          Receptive
system includes waste
minimization or waste
reduction such as:
3.2.1 Use of metal pork and
spoon instead of
plastic;
3.2.2 Use of glass/metal       2.94          0.884        Moderately
cups instead of plastic;
                                                          Receptive
3.2.3 Use of paper             2.98          0.929        Moderately
bags instead of plastic for
takeout orders;                                           Receptive
3.2.4 Use of food tray         3.18          0.796        Moderately
or plates instead of
Styrofoam box;                                            Receptive
3.2.5 Provision of             3.11          0.823        Moderately
additional drinking
fountain to minimize                                      Receptive
accumulation of plastic
water bottles.
3.3 Acceptance of the          2.93          0.851        Moderately
solid waste management
system puts our institution                               Receptive
on the lead towards
the support and
implementation of R.A. 9003.
Overall                        3.00          0.847        Moderately
                                                          Receptive

Table 4. Solid Waste Generation

                            With Response                 No Response
Solid Waste            Frequency    Percentage    Frequency   Percentage
Generation

4.1 Papers              279          80.17          69         19.83
4.2 Cans                108          31.03         240         68.97
4.3 Plastic Bottles     242          69.54         106         30.46
4.4 Plastic             154          44.25         194         55.75
bags/wrappers
4.5 Food Waste          126          36.21         222         63.79
4.6 Napkins/toilet      123          35.34         225         64.56
papers
4.7 Plastic             108          31.03         240         68.97
spoon/forks
4.8 Styrofoam boxes      83          23.85         265         76.15
4.9 Leaves              106          30.46         242         69.54
4.10 Syringes,           10           2.87         338         97.13
needles,
vials,
cotton balls

Table 5. Problems Encountered

Problems Encountered     With Response              No Response
                         Frequency   Percentage   Frequency   Percentage

5.1 No waste              84          24.14       264         75.86
container(s).
5.2 No segregation       132          37.93       216         62.07
of waste at
source.
5.3 No waste             151          43.39       197         56.61
management plan.
5.4 No proper            182          52.30       166         47.70
solid waste
container for each
type of waste
5.5 Irregular schedule   102          29.31       246         70.69
of collection
of waste.
5.6 No segregation       118          33.91       230         66.09
of solid waste
at the storage area.
5.7 No label on          156          44.83       192         55.17
waste containers

Table 6. Solid Waste Management Practices

Solid Waste Management          With Response          No Response
                         Frequency   Percentage   Frequency   Percentage

6.1 Segregation of        115          33.05         233         66.95
waste at source.
6.2 Use of paper          107          30.84         240         69.16
bags instead
of plastic wrappers
6.3 Use of                104          29.89         244         70.11
metal fork and
spoon instead
of plastic.
6.4 Recycle               163          46.84         185         53.16
6.5 Reuse                 117          33.62         231         66.38
6.6 Use of plates         122          35.06         226         64.94
instead of
Styrofoam boxes.
6.7 Discharge in___        27           7.76         321         92.24
(please specify
what location)
6.8 Waste                  98          28.16         250         71.84
Minimization (Reduce)
6.9 Avoidance of using    108          31.03         240         68.97
Styrofoam boxes.

Table 7. Results of the Test of Difference in the Respondents' Level of
Awareness of R.A. 9003 and Level of Receptiveness to Solid Waste
Management

                 Indicators   Mean     Qualitative   T-TEST RESULT
                                       Description

Level of         Non Academe  3.074    Moderately    T Calculated
                                                     Value = 6.53
Awareness                              Aware         Degrees of
                                                     freedom =119
of               Academe      2.512    Moderately    P-values = 0.000
                                       Aware
Republic         Difference   0.5622   Moderately    Conclusion
                                                     =T Calculated
                                       Aware
Act                                                  Value>T Critical
9003                                                 Value
Description                                          Interpretation
                                                     = Significant
Level of         Non Academe  3.292    Moderately    T-TEST RESULT
                                       Recep-
Re- ceptiveness  Academe      2.931    Moderately    T Calculated Value
                                                     =
                                       Recep-
to Solid         Difference   0.3610   Moderately    5.04
                                       Receptive
Waste                                                Degrees of freedom
Management                                           = 121
System                                               P-values = 0.000
                                                     Conclusion =T
                                                     Calculated
                                                     Value>T Critical
                                                     Value
                                                     Interpretation =
                                                     Significant
COPYRIGHT 2013 Liceo de Cagayan University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lago, Richie Grace M.
Publication:Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research
Date:Dec 1, 2013
Words:3412
Previous Article:Ergonomics and Neuromusculoskeletal Discomfort Among Office Workers.
Next Article:Determinants of Quality Engineering Education in Northeastern Mindanao, Philippines.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters