Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter consists of presentation, analysis and interpretation of data to
determine the adaptation program on climate change to Go Green LSPU campuses
including Siniloan, Santa Cruz, Los Ba os, and San Pablo consisting of administrative
officials, faculty, and students. The findings were tallied, tabulated and analyzed.
Table 1 presents the level of adaptation of programs on climate change
reducibility.
Table 1 Level of Adaptation of Programs on Climate Change
Reducibility
Item

Mean

1. Purchasing commodities/materials that are only

required.
2. Using commodities/materials that are only needed.

4.52

Standard
Deviatio
n
0.57

Verbal Interpretation

4.57

0.70

Highly Implemented

3. Buying products that have long life span.

4. Repairing broken materials instead of replacing
them.
5. Walking instead of using private vehicles for certain
distances.
6. Using public transportation in going to the University.
7. Using indigenous materials rather than using plastic
materials.
8. Using products made with recycled materials.
9. Using energy-efficient light bulbs and rechargeable
batteries.
10. Reusing plastic bags, cups, containers, plastic
bottles and others.
Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation

4.60
4.23

0.67
0.70

Highly Implemented
Highly Implemented

4.22

0.87

Highly Implemented

4.63
4.18

0.58
0.79

Highly Implemented
Implemented

4.23
4.25

0.74
0.73

Highly Implemented
Highly Implemented

4.40

0.67

Highly Implemented

Highly Implemented

4.38
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented

Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 1 revealed that item predictors 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9, and 10 got the remarks of
highly implemented, except item predictor 7 got the remark of implemented. As
reflected, item predictor number 6 using public transportation in going to the University
got the highest mean of 4.63 and with SD of 0.58, and item predictor number 7 using
indigenous materials rather than using plastic materials got the lowest mean of 4.18
and with SD of 0.79.
The overall mean score of 4.38 indicated that the level of adaptation of programs
on climate change reducibility is highly implemented, this is supported by the study
of Jackson (2008) stated that in order to achieve a decent waste management system,
rules and regulations in university campuses must minimize the production of waste at
each and every school community and every student level. The less utilization of
materials results in less waste generated university. And also supported the study of
Daniel (2011) that every individual could contribute to reducing waste by different means
like buying and using less, especially buying the products that have long life span,
repairing the broken materials in spite of replacing them, choosing walking as a healthy
option instead of using private vehicles for certain distances, increasing the use of
public transportation, using indigenous materials rather than using plastic materials.
Table 2 presents the Level of Adaptation of Programs on Climate Change
Reusability.
Table 2 Level of Adaptation of Programs on Climate Change
Reusability
Item
Mean Standard Verbal Interpretation
Deviatio
n
1. Throwing away materials that 4.32
0.77
Highly Implemented
are of no use.
2. Using the ever-dependable 4.18
0.81
Implemented
bayongs when shopping.
3. Using a second-hand item.
4.15
0.86
Implemented
4. Renting/ borrowing an item 4.03
0.82
Implemented

instead of buying new product.

5. Using styrofoam in packing
food products.
6. Making projects out of
discarded materials.
7. Using reusable carry bags and
containers.
8. Using used boxes.
9. Reusing the back clear portion
of used bond papers.
10. Reusing scrap materials into
a new and functional item.
Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation
Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

4.07

0.94

Implemented

4.30

0.81

Highly Implemented

4.42

0.72

Highly Implemented

4.47
4.43

0.62
0.59

Highly Implemented
Highly Implemented

4.42

0.59

Highly Implemented

4.28
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented
Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 2 revealed that item predictors 1,6,7,8,9, and 10 got the remarks of highly
implemented. And item predictors 2,3,4,5, got the remarks of implemented.

As

reflected, item predictor number 8 using used boxes got the highest mean of 4.47 and
with SD of 0.62, and item predictor number 4 renting/ borrowing an item instead of
buying new product got the lowest mean of 4.03 and with SD of 0.82.
The overall mean score of 4.28 indicated that the level of adaptation of programs
on climate change reusability is highly implemented, this is supported in a 2005
article, that zero waste institute stated that reduction in waste production is the first step
in waste management. Less production means less effort for management. Local
authorities play a vital role in reduction of waste. Mainly, school colleges waste can be
minimized if it is treated carefully within the school premises. There are efforts by the
government on different levels like media and public education to minimize school
colleges waste. Industrial level also concerned about reduction but not sufficient enough
to make a change. Reduction is the first and most important stage in the hierarchy. It

includes taking an active view in purchasing and using only what is necessary for
individual and community. The idea of reduction is to be careful of material source
stream and waste management exercises to reduce raw materials.

Table 3 presents the level of adaptation of programs on climate change

recyclability.
Table 3 Level of Adaptation of Programs on Climate Change
Recyclability
Item
Mean Standard
Verbal
Deviation
Interpretation
Highly
1. Recycling waste materials such
4.37
0.69
Implemented
as: papers, glass, aluminum, bottles
to maintain clean environment.
Highly
2. Recycling used office supplies to
4.30
0.72
Implemented
make new products.
Highly
3. Segregation of Non-Bio and
4.25
0.73
Implemented
Biodegradable waste for easier
classification of waste materials.
Highly
4. Recycling paper plates and cups to
4.27
0.76
Implemented
lessen waste in the canteen.
Implemented
5. Supplying recycled containers or
4.17
0.78
outreached materials in the
classrooms to minimize garbage.
Highly
6. Placing of recycle bins in the
4.35
0.73
Implemented
school vicinities.
Highly
7. Assigning homework which need
4.37
0.71
Implemented
not be written to reduce the use of
papers.
Highly
8. Disseminating announcements,
4.37
0.71
Implemented
memos, and reminders on how to
recycle waste to maintain a clean
surroundings.
Highly
9. Reusing old magazines and paper
4.32
0.75
Implemented
to make handicrafts.
Highly
10. Using of old handouts to minimize
4.45
0.67
Implemented
paper consumption.
Overall Mean
4.32
Overall Interpretation
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented
Legend:
Scale
Range
Interpretation
5
4.21-5.00
Highly Implemented
4
3.41-4.20
Implemented

3
2.61-3.40
Moderately Implemented
2
1.81-2.60
Lowly Implemented
1
1.00-1.80
Not Implemented
Table 3 revealed that item predictors 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9, and 10 got the remarks of
highly implemented. And item predictor 5 got the remark of implemented.

As

reflected, item predictor number 10 using of old handouts to minimize paper

consumption got the highest mean of 4.45 and with SD of 0.67, and item predictor
number 5 supplying recycled containers or outreached materials in the classrooms to
minimize garbage got the lowest mean of 4.17 and with SD of 0.78.
The overall mean score of 4.32 indicated that the level of adaptation of programs
on climate change recyclability is highly implemented, this is supported in the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2006 provide tips on how to reduce
waste in the community and here are the following: a.) use products made with recycled
materials b.) use energy-efficient light bulbs and rechargeable batteries; c.) shop with
cloth bags d.) reuse plastic bags, cups, containers, etc. e.) repair items instead of
throwing them away and f.) compost your food and yard waste.

Table 4 presents the status of go green LSPU as to solid waste management.

Table 4 The Status of Go Green LSPU as to Solid Waste Management
Item
Mean Standard
Verbal Interpretation
Deviatio
n
1. Segregating waste (biodegradable from 4.40
Highly Implemented
0.81
non-biodegradable)

2. Throwing or disposing the garbage

properly.
3. Using materials that are environmental
friendly.
4. Burning of waste at high temperature.
5. Using sanitary landfills.
6. Recycling materials such as plastic cups,
bottles, etc.
7. Throwing hazardous waste products
elsewhere.
8. Disposing electric waste products in the
garbage can.
9. Composting organic waste materials
(vegetable peels, eggshells, etc.).
10. Creating commodities out of traditional
waste products.

Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation
Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

4.58

0.62

Highly Implemented

4.47

0.62

Highly Implemented

3.92
4.17
4.25

1.14
0.94
0.89

Implemented
Implemented
Highly Implemented

4.08

0.93

Implemented

4.10

0.92

Implemented

4.37

0.80

Highly Implemented

4.20

0.90

Implemented

4.25
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented
Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 4 reflected that item predictors 1,2,3,6 and 9 got the remarks of highly
implemented. And item predictors 4,5,7,8 and 10 got the remarks of implemented.
As revealed, item predictor number 2 throwing or disposing the garbage properly got
the highest mean of 4.58 and with SD of 0.62, and item predictor number 4 burning of
waste at high temperature got the lowest mean of 3.92 and with SD of 1.14.
The overall mean score of 4.25 indicated that the status of go green LSPU as to
solid waste management is highly implemented, this is supported in the study of
Reganit (2008) about the Solid Waste Management is being practiced in varying
degrees in a number of schools throughout Metro Manila. Quezon City had launched

the Green School Brigade program where students from six public elementary schools
were encouraged to bring recyclable wastes and take them to their schools in exchange
for school supplies or grocery items.

Table 5 presents the status of go green LSPU as to water conservation.

Table 5 The Status of Go Green LSPU as to Water Conservation
Item
Mean
Standard
Deviation
4.35
0.82

Verbal
Interpretation

4.22

0.83

3. Throwing the garbage in the river/lake.

4. Replacing old equipment such as
dishwashers with energy-saving devices.
5. Talking to school administrators, maintenance
coordinator and school officials about installing
rainwater tanks.
6. Installing water aerators and automatic shutoff devices on faucets.
7. Using refillable water bottle.

3.83
3.98

1.28
0.97

Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented

4.10

0.90

Implemented

4.12

0.98

Implemented

4.32

0.72

8. Turning the tap off as soon as you've washed

your hands.
9. Placing containers under school water
fountains and use excess water in the garden.
10. Raising awareness of the importance of
water by creating colorful posters on water use
and water saving.

4.42

0.67

4.28

0.76

4.12

0.85

Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Implemented

1. Repairing the leaky faucet.

2. Repairing leaky toilets.

Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation

4.17
Level of acceptability is
implemented

Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 5 reflected that item predictors 1,2,7,8, and 9 got the remarks of highly
implemented.

And item predictors 3,4,5,6, and 10 got the remarks of

implemented. As revealed, item predictor number 8 turning the tap off as soon as
you've washed your hands got the highest mean of 4.42 and with SD of 0.67, and item
predictor number 3 throwing the garbage in the river/lake got the lowest mean of 3.83
and with SD of 1.28.
The overall mean score of 4.17 indicated the status of go green LSPU as to
water conservation is implemented, this is supported as mentioned in the study of
Barba (2005), one of the most critical issues confronting the Philippine water sector is
the lack of an appropriate institutional framework to address issues of development and
management of water and related resources. At present, there are over 30 government
agencies and departments separately dealing with water supply, irrigation, hydropower,
flood control, pollution, watershed management, etc. It is this fragmented approach to
water management which causes an overlap of work and conflicts among agencies and
results in a fractional water management plan that does not adequately meet the
requirements for sustainability.

Table 6 presents the status of go green as to energy conservation.

Table 6 The Status of Go Green LSPU as to Energy Conservation
Item
Mean
Standard
Deviation
1. Turning off the lights when leaving the
4.77
0.53
room
2. Using energy efficient light bulbs.

4.63

0.52

3. Walking or riding a bicycle instead of

driving to school.
4. Switching off the ventilations when not in
use.
5. Fixing dripping hot water faucets.

4.27

0.95

4.45

0.79

4.52

0.68

6. Reusing paper and bottles.

4.37

0.71

7. Recycling materials into a useful one.

4.42

0.67

8. Changing the thermostat settings in rooms

during warmer and cooler months.
9. Closing the door after people walk through
the doorway.
10. Turning off the computer when not in use.

4.43

0.67

4.58

0.62

4.72

0.45

Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation
Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

Verbal
Interpretation
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented
Highly
Implemented

4.52
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented
Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 6 reflected that item predictors 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 got the remarks of
highly implemented. And item predictor 3 got the remark of implemented.

As

revealed, item predictor number 1 turning off the lights when leaving the room got the
highest mean of 4.77 and with SD of 0.53, and item predictor number 3 walking or
riding a bicycle instead of driving to school got the lowest mean of 4.27 and with SD of
0.95.
The overall mean score of 4.52 indicated the status of go green LSPU as to
water conservation is highly implemented, this is supported as stated in an article
entitled Energy-efficient Schools Energy conservation is a critical issue affecting
everyone, including schools. Government policy initiatives and evolving society
awareness are changing energy-use patterns. This change is driven by supply, financial,
and environmental factors. Making change to a schools energy-efficiency practices may
be coordinated by the principal, property manager, caretaker, or a teacher. However,
successful schools tend to involve the whole school and involve students throughout the
process.
Table 7 presents the status of go green LSPU as to greening of classrooms and
offices.
Table 7 The Status of Go Green LSPU as to Greening of Classrooms and
Offices
Item
Mean
Standard
Verbal
Deviation
Interpretation
1. Participating in a clean-up drive.
Highly Implemented
4.43
0.70
2. Following environmental rules and
Highly Implemented
4.38
0.72
regulations strictly.
3. Supporting schools advocacy in
protecting the school environment.
4. Monitoring and evaluating the progress
of greening the school.
5. Adopting an environmental vision
statement to be achieved.
6. Placing of signage about greening the
school in different school areas.
7. Placing of trash bins in different school
areas.

4.52

0.62

Highly Implemented

4.25

0.68

Highly Implemented

4.22

0.76

Highly Implemented

4.12

0.98

Implemented

4.40

0.85

Highly Implemented

8. Segregation of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable waste materials.

9. Inform the school community about
solid waste management.
10. Participating in tree planting activities.

Overall Mean
Overall Interpretation
Legend:
Scale
5
4
3
2
1

Range
4.21-5.00
3.41-4.20
2.61-3.40
1.81-2.60
1.00-1.80

4.44

0.90

Highly Implemented

4.33

0.91

Highly Implemented

Highly Implemented
0.62
4.35
Level of acceptability is highly
implemented

4.40

Interpretation
Highly Implemented
Implemented
Moderately Implemented
Lowly Implemented
Not Implemented

Table 7 reflected that item predictors 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9, and 10 got the remarks of
highly implemented. And item predictor 6 got the remark of implemented.

As

revealed, item predictor number 3 supporting schools advocacy in protecting the

school environment got the highest mean of 4.52 and with SD of 0.62, and item
predictor number 6 placing of signage about greening the school in different school
areas got the lowest mean of 4.12 and with SD of 0.98.
The overall mean score of 4.35 indicated the status of go green LSPU as to
water conservation is highly implemented, this is supported as mentioned in the
study of Articona (2012), Toril National High School was the first Pilot School to
implement the National Greening Program in 2011 in coordination with DepEd, CHED,
DSWD, DBM, private sectors and other concerned agencies and institutions and
declaring the implementations of the National Greening Program as a government
priority.

Table 8 presents the effect of the adaptation program on climate change to go green
LSPU.
Table 8 The Effect of the Adaptation Program on Climate Change to
Go Green LSPU
Level of
Status of Go
Computed
P-Value
Interpretation
Adaptation
Green
Value
Solid Waste
Reducibility
0.6373
0.0445
Significant

Reusability

Recyclability

Management
Water Conservation
Energy Conservation
Greening Of
Classrooms and
Offices
Solid Waste
Management
Water Conservation
Energy Conservation
Greening Of
Classrooms and
Offices
Solid Waste
Management
Water Conservation
Energy Conservation
Greening Of
Classrooms and
Offices

0.6821
1.7374
0.5415

0.074
0.0187
0.0105

Not Significant
Significant
Significant

0.6366

0.0441

Significant

0.6814
1.7356
0.5409

0.0735
0.0189
0.0104

Not Significant
Significant
Significant

0.9125

0.3644

Not Significant

0.9767
2.488
0.7754

0.4644
0.0003
0.1678

Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant

Table 8 reflected that the level of adaptation of programs on climate change

reducibility of the status of go green in LSPU in terms of solid waste management,
energy conservation, and greening of classrooms and offices with a computed value of
0.6373, 1.7374, 0.5415 and p-value of 0.0445, 0.0187, 0.0105, respectively, with a
remarks of significant. But the water conservation with a computed value of 0.6821 and
p-value of 0.074 with a remark of not significant.

As to the level of adaptation of programs on climate change reusability of the

status of go green in LSPU in terms of solid waste management, energy conservation,
and greening of classrooms and offices with a computed value of 0.6366, 1.7356,
0.5409 and p-value of 0.0441, 0.0189, 0.0104, respectively, with a remarks of
significant. But the water conservation with a computed value of 0.6814 and p-value of
0.0735 with a remark of not significant.
As to the level of adaptation of programs on climate change recyclability of the status of
go green in LSPU in terms of solid waste management, water conservation, and
greening of classrooms and offices with a computed value of 0.9125, 0.9767, 0.7754
and p-value of 0.3644, 0.4644, 0.1678, respectively, with a remarks of not significant.
But the energy conservation with a computed value of 2.488 and p-value of 0.0003 with
a remark of significant.