The Implementation of the Solid Waste Management Plan in the Cities of

Davao and Tagum, Philippines: A Comparative Study

Emelita S. Somera, MPA and Prof. Gladys Florangel I. Ortiz, MSDA

Abstract:

Solid Waste Management problems present a serious problem to

residents. Understanding perceptions on the extent of implementation of the

Solid Waste Management is a key when considering strategies to be employed.

The purpose of the study was to figure out the perception of respondents on

the implementation of the Solid Waste Management and whether there was a

significant difference in the practices of households between Davao City and

Tagum City.

The study was conducted to compare the Solid Waste Management

Practices of Davao City and Tagum City. This study answered the following

questions: a) What is the profile of the cities in terms of budget, manpower,

facilities and equipment, policies and organizational structure; b) Is there a

difference in the profile of the cities per capita in terms of budget, manpower,

facilities and equipment? c) What is the extent of implementation of SWM as

perceived by the respondents in terms of waste generation; storage; collection;

transfer and transport; processing and recovery; and disposal? d) Is there a

significant difference in the extent of implementation of Solid Waste

Management as perceived by the respondents?

A total of 100 respondents were identified, composed of 50 respondents

from four Barangays in the Poblacion (central) area of Tagum city and 50

respondents from four Barangays in the Poblacion area of Davao City.

 The primary data was collected through questionnaires and secondary

data from the Community Environment and Natural Resource Offices (CENRO)

of the cities of Davao and Tagum.

Weighted mean, frequency and test of difference were the statistical tools

used to answer and analyze the research problems. To explore more insights on

the implementation of the Solid waste management plan, an in-depth analysis

through a Focus Group Discussion was also employed.

Results of the study indicated that there was a higher budget and more

manpower per capita in Davao City compared to Tagum City. Also, there were

more policies enacted prior to RA 9003 in Davao City than Tagum City. Results

of the survey have shown that the extent of implementation of the Solid Waste

Management practices as perceived by the respondents was moderate for both

Davao City and Tagum City.

Furthermore, findings showed that there was a significant difference in

the implementation of the Solid Waste Management practices between Davao

City and Tagum City. Practices in terms of the Solid Waste Management Plan

were perceived to be better implemented in Tagum City compared to Davao City.

Introduction

The increasing volume of garbage in many cities around the world is a

serious issue that should be addressed for the future generations. It requires
utmost attention and cooperation from all the stakeholders to ensure that goals

in terms of solid waste will be achieved.

Solid waste management is an important aspect of society. It is a system

for handling the garbage people dump in cities. As long as humans continue to

live in settled communities, solid waste will always be an issue. Modern

societies generate far more solid waste than early humans ever did (de

Guzman,2003).

Moreover, houses that do not have the space to bury their garbage bury

it instead on the streets. Because of this, cities started to collect garbage for

disposal. Davao city and Tagum City are two of the many cities in the country

that have adopted this system. Prior to RA 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste

Management Act of 2000, Local Government Units were primarily responsible

for its implementation and enforcement. Barangays and cities each have

different responsibilities. The barangays are responsible for the segregation and

collection of biodegradable, compostable and reusable solid wastes. On the

other hand, the city or municipality is responsible for the collection of non-

recyclable materials and special wastes (RA 9003).

The first priority of the Ecological Solid Waste Management (ESWM) is

volume reduction at source. This could be done through segregation, reusing,

recycling and composting at the point of origin, meaning at the grassroots and

our homes. It is important to reuse, reduce and recycle waste because there

are garbages that will take a very long time to decompose.

Strategy is both an act and a science. The starting point must be the
identification of all of the relevant stakeholders. This will involve a surprising

array of clear jurisdictional authority and mandated responsibility for the waste

management (Brown, 1999). For waste management efforts to be effective all

should be serious in making orders and people should follow rules.

In addition, developing nations spend between 20 % and 40% of

municipal revenues on waste management (Bartone, 2000); this is not able to

keep pace with the scope of the problem. While it should be a priority for

environmental health concern, less than 30 % of the population have access to

“proper and regular garbage removal” (Senkoro, 2003).

According to Misra and Pandey (2005), solid waste contributes most

towards environmental degradation compared with other types of waste. This

environmental degradation poses serious threat to the general welfare of the

people and requires utmost attention and cooperation among national

government agencies, local government units and the people in general.

Strategies on solid waste management should be maximized in every local

government unit to ensure positive results. Thus, a study in the differences in

strategies and implementation of the SWM Plan between Davao City and

Tagum City is timely and relevant.

Background

The Solid Waste Management Act of the Philippines: Enactment

 RA 9003 or An Act Providing for an Ecological Solid Waste Management

Program, Creating the Necessary Institutional Mechanisms and Incentives,

Declaring Certain Acts Prohibited and Providing Penalties, Appropriating Funds

Therefore, and for other purposes. It is a legislation that has the potential to

radically transform and improve the solid waste management sector (De Lina,

2002).

De Lina (2002) said that RA 9003 has the potential to effectively address

solid waste management. However, implementation is behind schedule, source

reduction and segregation are happening on an individual barangay level or not

at all, and there is little or no active public participation. A comprehensive,

integrated information, education, and communication plan is critical to the

successful implementation of RA 9003.

Solid waste management has six identifiable functional elements and

these are: waste generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport,

processing and recovery, and disposal (DENR-EMD, 1996).To handle waste

situation, these six functional elements are combined to form a solid waste

management system.

Waste generation

Article 11 Section 21 of RA 9003 states that there should be mandatory

segregation of solid wastes. Segregation of wastes shall primarily be conducted

at the source, to include household, institutional, industrial, commercial and

agricultural sources. The local government unit should provide for the

residents a designated area and containers in which to accumulate source

separated recyclable materials to be collected by the municipality or private

center.

Storage

Article 11 Section 22 states that there shall be a separate container for

each type of waste from all sources. The solid waste container depending on its

use shall be properly marked or identified for on-site collection as

"compostable", "non-recyclable", "recyclable" or "special waste,” or any other

classification as may be determined by the Commission.

Collection

Article III Section 3 states that necessary training shall be given to the

collectors and personnel to ensure that the solid wastes are handled properly;

and collection of solid waste shall be done in a manner which prevents damage

to the container, and spillage or scattering of solid waste within the collection

vicinity.

Transfer and Transport

Article III Section 24 states that for the transfer of solid waste the use of

separate collection schedules and/or separate trucks or haulers shall be

required for specific types of wastes. Otherwise, vehicles used for the collection

and transport of solid wastes shall have the appropriate compartments to

facilitate efficient storing of sorted wastes while in transit.

 Processing and Recovery

Section 32 states that Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in every

barangay or cluster of barangays shall be established. The facility shall be

established in any suitable open space to be determined by the barangay

through its Sanggunian (Council). The MRF shall be designed to receive, sort,

process, and store compostable and recyclable material efficiently and in an

environmentally sound manner.

Disposal

Article 6 Section 37 prohibits the use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste. No

open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice or disposal of

solid waste by any person, including LGUs, which constitutes the use of open

dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the effectivity of the Act. After the

effectivity of this Act, every LGU shall convert its open dumps into controlled

dumps.

The implementation of RA 9003 in Davao and Tagum Cities

It is the responsibility of city governments to assume primary

responsibility for solid waste management and develop and implement

aggressive and effective waste reduction and source separation strategies. It is

therefore interesting to consider how each city practice RA 9003 or the Solid

Waste Management Act.

 Davao City

Davao is a city in Mindanao, Philippines. It is the third most populous

metropolitan area in the country. Davao is also the largest city in the

Philippines in terms of land area. It has an estimated population of 1,530,365

as of 2011. The City Mayors Foundation ranks Davao City as the 87th fastest

growing city in the world, and it has been listed by the FDI Magazine as the

10th "Asian City of the Future".

Implementation of RA 9003 in Davao City

Davao City’s solid waste management plan was entitled City Ordinance

No.0361-10 Series of 2010- An Ordinance providing for an Ecological Solid

Waste Management, prohibiting certain acts and for other purposes. It shall be

known as the Davao City Ecological Solid Waste Management Ordinance of

2009. It was enacted and Feb 2, 2010.

Policies under waste generation state that there should be a ban on non-

biodegradable plastics bags and polystyrene foam as food containers. Only

recyclable, biodegradable or reusable containers are allowed to be used as a

food and beverage containers. Collection and transport under Section 17 states

that segregated collection and transport of solid waste shall be mandatory.

Section 28, states that Individual barangays or cluster barangays shall

establish a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Under disposal, Article X of the

Solid Waste Management plan states that residual and special wastes shall be

disposed in the sanitary landfill of the city.

According to the record of CENRO for December 2010, they have

collected an average of 485 tons everyday. While it slowly went down from 466

tons to Jan 2011 to 431 tons in April, the latest record, which was last May,

increased to 450 tons (City ENRO).

Tagum City

Tagum is the capital city of the province of Davao del Norte, Philippines.

The city is part of the Metropolitan Davao area. According to the 2010 LGPMS

Census, it has a total of 242,801 inhabitants living in 46,651 households.

Tagum City is located 55 kilometers north of Davao City and has a total

land area of 19,580 hectares, which is predominantly agricultural, and

produces various kinds of crops like coconut, rice, Cavendish banana, fruit

trees and other agricultural crops for non-commercial use.

Implementation of RA 9003 in Tagum City

Tagum City’s solid waste management plan was entitled City Ordinance

No.229, S-2006- An ordinance revising the Municipal Ordinance No. 2, S-

1997,”An ordinance establishing the comprehensive Solid Waste Management of

the Municipality of Tagum.” It was enacted and passed on December 18, 2006.

The City Solid Waste Management Plan was created to ensure long-term solid

waste management in all barangays.

In Tagum City, residents must also segregate their solid waste. Then, the

segregated recyclable solid waste should be brought to the designated Material

Recovery Facility (MRF) for clustered or group of households. Section 5 states

that the Barangay Material Recover Facility shall serve as the facility to store,

process solid wastes. Composting Centers should be created so biodegradable

wastes coming from government facilities or public markets shall be processed

into compost or fertilizer. Finally, Residuals of solid waste after resource

recovery shall be disposed of in the city disposal facility, by sanitary landfilling

or other in an ecologically sound method.

In 2003, garbage generation is approximately 389 cu/ day however

collection capability is pegged at 280 cum/day. Despite the gap in collection

capacity, the City's garbage collection service today is a big improvement from

10 years ago, (Tiamson, 2013).Tagum’s manner of disposing garbage in the

1990 was burning- consistent with the national trends as well as with

comparative cities in Region X1. By year 2000, the sample region X1 cities have

improved.

The city's refuse is dumped in a controlled dumpsite in Barangay San

Agustin since 1997. Article 3 Section 17 of RA 9003 states that Open dump

sites shall not be allowed as final disposal sites. Currently, the city is

constructing a sanitary landfill which is due to finish in the year 2014.

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the method of research, sources of data, data

gathering instrument, sampling technique, the procedures and the statistical

tools that were used in this study.

Method Used

This study used the comparative research method. This method is used
to discover answers to the questions who, what, when, where, and sometimes

how (Copper and Schindler, 2008).

Survey method is a type of descriptive method that questions individuals

on a topic and then describing their responses. It allows researchers to study a

larger group of individuals more easily (Jackson, 2008).

Focus Group Discussion is a group discussion of approximately 6-12

persons guided by a facilitator, during which group members talk freely and

spontaneously about a certain topic. Its purpose is to obtain in-depth

information on concepts and ideas of a group. The idea is that group members

discuss the topic among themselves, with guidance from the facilitator

(Varkevisser, Pathmanathan, and Brownlee 2003).

Sources of Data

The primary data was from the survey response obtained from the

sample households. On the other hand, secondary data consisted of the solid

waste management plan of the cities of Davao and Tagum, and profile in terms

of budget, manpower, facilities and equipment and organizational structure.

They were taken from the City ENRO of both cities and from available

resources online.

Data Gathering Instruments

A questionnaire modeled after Mapanao’s 2011 study entitled Evaluation

on the Implementation of Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in Digos

City was used for evaluation. The questionnaire was designed to extract

information needed to answer identified problems for this study. The

questionnaire was based on the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.

The survey questionnaires had three parts: the first part tackled the

comprehensive solid waste management plan with indicators such as waste

reduction, collection, information education campaign and final disposal; the

second part discussed the resident’s awareness and practices, and the CENRO

performance with indicators budget, manpower, IEC, collection, facility and

disposal; and the third part discusses the effectiveness of the comprehensive

solid waste management plan implementation of Davao City and Tagum City.

Moreover a comparison on budget, manpower, facilities, policies and

organizational structure was conducted between the two cities under study.

For the extent of the implementation strategies of the solid waste management

plan, the scaling of the said variable is as follows:

Table 1. Scale of options for the extent of implementation on strategies

of Solid Waste Management Plan.
Range of Means Descriptive Level Meaning
4.5O-5.00 Very High If 81 % to 100 of the time the
Solid waste management are
practiced

3.50-4.49 High If 61 % to 80 % of the time the

Solid waste management are
practiced

2.50-3.49 Moderate If 41 % to 60% of the time the

Solid waste management are
practiced

1.50-2.49 Low If 21 % 40 % of the time the

Solid waste management are
practiced

1.00-1.49 Very Low If 0 % to 20 % of the time the

Solid waste management are
practiced

Sampling technique

For the sampling design, the multi stage sampling method was used. A

multi- stage sampling is one in which sampling is done sequentially across two

or more hierarchical levels (Lavrakas, 2011). Four barangays in the Poblacion

area were selected from each of Davao City and Tagum City as the respondent

barangay. Then, purposive sampling was employed to get the exact number of

respondent household for each barangay. Purposive sample is one that is

selected based on the knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study.

The subjects are selected because of some characteristic, (Babbie, 2001).

Representative sample size from each area was determined using the random

number table. As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, these are list and number of
respondents included in the study from Davao City and Tagum City

respectively.

Table 2. Sampling Distribution for Davao City

Barangay Actual Number of
respondents
15-B Poblacion 13
14-B Poblacion 8
36-D Poblacion 11
37- D Poblacion 18
Total 50

Table 3. Sampling Distribution for Tagum City

Barangay Actual Number of
respondents
Magugpo Poblacion 8
Magugpo East 19
Magugpo North 9
Magugpo South 14
Total 50

Procedure of the study

Permission to conduct the study was sought from the Solid Waste

Management Board of Davao City and Tagum City as well as the CENRO Office

and Barangays under study.

The survey questionnaire was distributed to the four different barangays

of Davao City and Tagum City. The questionnaires were given to the individual

persons and households. The questionnaires were then retrieved from the

respondents after filling the form; this served as the primary data along with

the results of the FGD.

Then, a Focus Group Discussion was conducted in one of the Barangays

in each city after conducting the survey. Krueger (1990) said that Focus Group
Discussion is needed to explore the meanings of survey findings that cannot be

explained statistically; i.e., the range of opinions/views on a topic of interest.

This was attended by the Punong Barangay (Barangay Captain or village head),

Barangay Kagawad (barangay councilor or village councilor), Purok Leader ,

Barangay Sanitation Inspector for the assessment of the information from

Barangay Magugpo, Poblacion Tagum City last March 18, 2013. An FGD was

also conducted with the Punong Barangay and several Barangay Kagawad in

Barangay 14-B, Poblacion Davao City last March 19, 2013. An interview of

garbage collectors was done to complete the data. The gathering of data was

done within the month of March 2013. After gathering the data from the field,

the collation and analysis of data was done using the SPSS (Statistical Package

for Social Sciences, version 17).Data was then analyzed and interpreted.

Statistical Treatment

The statistical treatments used in this study were weighted mean,

frequencies and test of difference.

Weighted Mean. This was used to determine the extent of

implementation of the Solid Waste Management practices.

Frequency. This was used to determine the occurrence of the

observations of the residents in the CSWM plan implementation in both cities.

Test of difference. A test on the p-value was conducted to conduct the

test of difference. This was used to test the significant difference between the

perception of the implementation of the solid waste management practices of

Davao city and Tagum city.

 The mean, frequency and test of difference were tested using the data

from the questionnaires.

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

Profile of the Cities

Davao City and Tagum City have different profiles in terms of budget,

manpower, facilities and equipment, policies and organizational structure. The

profile for each is presented below:

Budget. In Davao City, City ENRO was one of the offices that have the

biggest budget. In 2012, the total budget was PhP309,042,009; this is allotted

for the different programs such as street cleaning, beautification, garbage

collection, maintenance of plaza, parks and monuments and general

administration.

Tagum city, on the other hand, has a total of Php P33,016,264.00 budget

for the year 2012. It has allotted budget for beautification, health and

sanitation program, monitoring and sanitation that has the biggest allocation

among all the programs.

Davao

Total Budget Population

As of May 2010
215 601 029 1449296
Tagum

Total Budget Population

As of May 2010
31739284 242,801

Davao City Tagum City

Budget for Population per capita Budget for Population per capita
148 131

Table 5. Budget of CENRO Tagum for 2012

CENRO Budget 2012
Sanitation (garbage collection) P 19,590,870.00
Implementation(including IEC, P 1,089,093.00
Waste Disposal Monitoring P 1,276,980.00
Beautification, Clean & GreenProg P 300,000
Environmental Mgt. Monitoring Prog. P 2,074,941
Health and Sanitation Program P 3,851,970.00
Personal Services P 4,832,410.00
TOTAL P33,016,264.00
Source:CENRO Tagum

Manpower. There are a total of 967 personnel involved in the Solid Waste

Management Program of the City of Davao. 942 were contractual while 25 were

with plantilla positions, contractual workers constituted about 98 percent of

the total workforce. Table 6 shows the number of personnel assigned in the

solid waste management program in Davao City.

Table 6.Number of Personnel assigned in the Solid Waste Management Program

in Davao City
Personnel Plantilla Contractual Total
Composting 1 14 15
Garbage Collectors 390 390
Garbage Driver 98 98
Monitoring 8 10 18
Street Sweeper 359 359
Basura Patrol (Enforcer) 8 25 33
IEC 8 38 46
Spotter 8 8
Total 25 942 967
Source:City Environmental and Natural Resources Office, Davao City

In the city of Tagum, there were a total of 100 personnel, 80 were

contractual and 20 were for plantilla positions. Table 7 shows the number of

personnel assigned in the Solid Waste Management Program in Tagum City.

This means that almost 98 percent of the solid waste management workforce

and 80 percent were contractual in Davao City and Tagum city respectively.

Table 7. Number of Personnel Assigned in the Solid Waste Management

Program in Tagum City
Personnel Plantilla Contractual Total
Sweepers 56 56
Collectors 14 14
Driver 2 5 7
CENRO personnel 4 4
Office staff 14 5 19
Total 20 80 100
Source:City Environmental and Natural Resources Office, Tagum City

Facilities and Equipment. Davao city currently uses 109 vehicles,

equipment including facilities used for the solid waste management. Fifty-two

(52) out of the 57 garbage trucks are outsourced since it saves on cost and

maintenance to ensure regular supply of trucks. The monitoring team uses 17

vehicles for its everyday operation

Table 8. Vehicles/equipment and Facilities used by the City Government of

 Davao for Solid Waste Management
Vehicles/equipment Number of Unit/s Status

Garbage collection
Dump trucks
-government 5 Operational
-private 52 Operational
Compactors 10 Operational

Canal Clean-up
-mighty mite 1 Operational
- backhoe 1 Operational
-vactor (big) 1 Operational
-vactor (small) 1 Under Repair

Monitoring team
-motorcycle 13 Operational
-jeep 2 Operational
-pick-up 2 Operational
Composting Facility
-shredder 3 Operational
-weighing scale 1 Operational
Sanitary Landfill 1 Operational
-WEIGH BRIDGE 1 Operational
-WASH BAY 1 Operational
-LANDFILL COMPACTOR 1 Operational
Bulldozer
Payloader 1 Under Repair
1 Operational
MRF 11 Operational
TOTAL 109

Tagum city on the other hand used 23 facilities, equipment and

transport for its solid waste management program. There were 4 trucks and 2

compactors, all owned by the government. They have a dumpsite located in

Nueva Fuerza with 1 bulldozer and they have yet to construct a sanitary

landfill that will be used by year 2014.

Table 9. Vehicles/equipment and Facilities used by the City Government of Tagum

for Solid Waste Management
 Vehicles/equipment Number of Unit/s Status

Garbage collection
Dump trucks
-government 4 Operational

Compactors 2 Operational

Dumpsite 1
-1 bulldozer 1 Operational
MRF 11 Operational
Composting Facility
Shredder 1 Operational
Weighing scale 1 Operational
Monitoring
Motorcycle 1
Multicab 1
TOTAL 23

Davao City

Total Vehicles Population

86 1449296

Tagum City

Total Vehicles Population

9 242 801

Davao City Tagum City

Vehicles for Population per capita Vehicles for Population per capita
16794 26977

Davao City
 Total equipment Population

22 1449296

Tagum City

Total equipment Population

14 242 801

Davao City Tagum City

Equipment for Population per Equipment for Population per capita
capita
65,877 17342

Differences in the Profile between Davao and Tagum City

This section presents the difference between Davao City and Tagum City

in terms of profile such as: budget, manpower, facilities and equipment, and

organizational structure.

Budget. As reflected in Table 20, budget per capita for solid waste is 1:

P 213 pesos in Davao and 1:135 pesos in Tagum City. Davao City has more

budget per capita than Tagum city with a 78 peso difference. In a study

conducted by Shamshiry, et al, (2011), she said that a municipality could

spend up to more than 75 % of its budget for collection and transportation of

solid waste especially for fuel consumption and work force. Further, she said

that optimizing and mechanizing collection and transportation processes

expedite operation and will require less cost. Therefore, as discussed in the
previous parts of this research, since Tagum City is segregating at source and

optimizing collection with residual wastes only.

Table 20. Comparison of Budget per Capita

Area Budget (2012) in Population Budget per capita
peso as of May, 2010
Davao 309,042,009 1,449,296 P 213.00

Tagum 33,016,264 242,801 P 135.00

Manpower. As reflected in Table 21, personnel per capita is 1: 1498 in

Davao and 1:2428 in Tagum City. Davao City has more personnel per capita

than Tagum city with 867 difference in the number of personnel. On the other

hand, 75 % of the total solid waste management cost is related to collection,

and a high proportion of that amount is related to worker and manpower,

(Shamsiry,2011). Shamsiry further said that the major portion of the budget for

solid waste is spent on salary. However, when collection is optimized and

mechanized it will require less manpower.

Table 21. Comparison of Manpower per Capita

Area Total number of Population Manpower per capita
personnel as of May,2010
Davao 967 1,449,296 1498

Tagum 100 242,801 2428

Facilities and equipment. As reflected in Table 24, facilities/vehicles

and equipment per person is 1: 13,296 in Davao and 1: 10,556 in Tagum City.

This means that there are more facilities/equipment per capita in Tagum
compared to Davao.

Table 24.Comparison of facilities and equipment per capita

Area Facilities/vehicles Population (as of May Facilities and equipment
and equipment 1,2010) per capita
Davao 109 1,449,296 13,296

Tagum 23 242,801 10,556

Trucks and compactors. As reflected in Table 25. Trucks and

compactors per capita for solid waste is 1: 21,613 in Davao and 1: 40,466 in

Tagum City. Davao City has more trucks and compactors per capita than

Tagum City.

Table 25. Comparison of Trucks and Compactors per capita

Area Trucks and Population Trucks and compactors
compactors as of May,2010 per capita
Davao 67 1,449,296 21,613

Tagum 6 242,801 40,466

Policies. Davao City and Tagum City have enacted a number of policies

to manage the issues pertaining to the solid waste management.

Table 10 shows the policies enacted by the local governments of Davao

and Tagum pertaining to Solid waste.

Table 10. Policies Enacted by the Local Government of Davao and Tagum
Pertaining to Solid Waste Management.
Davao City Tagum City
Policy Number and Title Policy Number and Title

Ordinance No.0361-10, series of 2010
An ordinance providing for an ecological
solid waste management, prohibiting
certain acts and providing penalties for
violations, and for other purposes.
City Ordinance No. 229, series of 2006
An ordinance establishing the
comprehensive solid waste management
of the municipality of Tagum and
providing penalties for violation thereof.

Executive Order No. 41, series of 2004 City Ordinance No 689, series of 1998
An order requiring barangays in the City of An ordinance regulating the disposal by
Davao to implement a comprehensive commercial areas, residential and
barangay solid waste Management industrial area, the time of collection
Program, which highlights waste reduction and providing penalties in case of
and recovery schemes. Effective Jan 23, violation thereof
2004.
City Ordinance 044 series of 2002 Ordinance No. 216 S-1991
An ordinance known as the “Davao City An ordinance requiring owners of
Ecological Solid Waste Management Board subdivisions to keep their premises free
Ordinance of 2002”, which highlights the of waste materials in the City of Tagum.
creation of a body that is mandated to
prepare, submit and implement a plan for
the safe and sanitary management of solid
waste generated in areas under its
geographic and political coverage.
City Ordinance No 105 series of 1991
An ordinance amending Ordinance No.98,
series of 1957, otherwise known as an
ordinance penalizing acts of littering,
scattering or any careless disposal of waste
materials, refuse and other unsanitary
things in street, parks, public building and
other public areas in the City of Davao.
City Ordinance No. 194
An ordinance prohibiting amending section
3, Chapter X1X of Ordinance No.56 series
of 1948, otherwise known as the Sanitary
Ordinance of the City of Davao”
City Ordinance No.56, series of 1948
A sanitation ordinance, regulating the
disposal of human waste manure, garbage,
refuse and ashes, domestic animal and
general provision.
Source: Sangguniang Panglungsod Archival Division, Davao City and Sangguniang
Panglungsod Tagum City

Organizational Structure. Davao city, has 4 divisions under the City

Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). The Environmental and

Waste Management Division has three subdivisions: these are the: Pollution

management Section, Industrial waste and management section and the Solid

Waste Management Section. Environmental and Waste Management Division is

the one responsible for the implementation of the Solid waste management

program.

Figure 2. Organizational Structure, City ENRO Davao

Tagum City
 Organizational Structure of CENRO. The City Environment and

Natural Resources Office (CENRO) is responsible for the disposal and collection

of garbage in Tagum City. The solid waste management team is responsible for

implementation. Garbage collection unit is under the Sanitation unit which is

under the office of the City Mayor. This set up is political according to an

interview with one of the CENRO staff- which results from the wide latitude of

authority by the Mayor of the City.

City Government
Assistant

City Government
Dept.Head

Administration Division
] Environmental and waste
management division

Solid waste management Accounting Supply and Mgmt

Natural Resources
Operations Division

Mines and Geosciences

Division
Figure 3. Organizational Structure, City ENRO Tagum

Extent of Implementation of the SWM Plan in Davao City and Tagum City
 Waste Generation

The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City in terms

of the practices on waste generation is presented in Table 12.

As reflected in Table 12, Davao City got a moderate descriptive rank with

2.98 overall mean. Meanwhile, Tagum City got a high descriptive rank with an

overall mean of 3.57. This indicates that waste segregation was moderately

practiced in Davao city but highly practiced in Tagum City based on the

perceptions of the respondents.

Table 12.Comparative perception of respondents

on waste generation.
Waste Generation Davao Tagum

Reuse bottles, plastics,containers and 3.58 4.24

other reusable items High High
Backyard composting 2.96 3.72
Moderate High
Segregation of waste to 2.86 3.72
biodegradable,recyclable Moderate High
Implements take back programs for 3.12 2.36
chemical containers and other non- Moderate Low
biodegradable containers
Availability of MRF to separate, process 2.40 3.82
and store recyclable materials Moderate High
Overall Mean 2.98 3.57
Moderate High

The findings imply that waste segregation practices such as reusing

bottles, composting, segregation and availability of Material Recovery Facility

(MRF)is adequately observed and a common practice in Tagum City however

moderately practice in Davao.

Storage
 The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City in terms

of the practices on storage is presented in Table 13.

The respondents’ perception on storage practices was rated

moderate in Davao city with an overall mean of 3.22 as indicated in Table 13.

This means that practices were adequately observed and a common household

practice. Meanwhile, in Tagum City, a moderate rating was also observed with

an overall mean of 3.11 which means moderate level of household practices as

perceived by the respondents.

Table 13. Comparative perception of respondents

on storage.
Storage Davao Tagum

Expandable plastic sacks were present to store 3.06 3.66

segregated wastes in the household Moderate High
Waste segregator facility is available in public places 3.38 2.50
such as parks Moderate Moderate
In commercial and institutional areas waste segregator 3.54 3.10
facility is available High Moderate

Adequate sturdy containers to store segregated wastes 3.58 2.98

is available in every barangay High Moderate
Every barangay constructed MRF stations to segregate 2.58 3.34
and store reusable, recyclable wastes Moderate Moderate
Overall Mean 3.22 3.11
Moderate Moderate

The findings imply that household practices in terms of storage are

moderately practiced in both cities as perceived by the respondents. Weighted

mean for the presence of waste segregator and containers in every barangay or

public place was higher in Davao than in Tagum.

Collection
 The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City in terms of

the practices on collection is reflected on Table14.

The respondents’ perception on storage practices was rated moderate in

Davao city with an overall mean of 2.99 and also moderate for the city of

Tagum with a weighted mean of 3.19 as indicated in Table 14. This means

that collection of solid waste is perceived by the respondents as adequately

observed.

Table 14. Comparative perception of respondents

in terms of collection.
Collection Davao Tagum

Schedule of collection is well disseminated 3.94 2.94

High Moderate
Schedule of garbage collection is regular 3.54 3.26
High Moderate
Collection of garbage is done in a manner that spillage 2.78 2.96
or scattering of waste within the collection of vicinity is Moderate Moderate
prevented
Only specified residual wastes are collected to ensure 2.42 3.32
absolute segregation at source Low Moderate
Practices no segregation, no collection policy 2.28 3.48
Low Moderate
Overall mean 2.99 3.19
Moderate Moderate

The findings imply that in Davao city respondents were highly satisfied

with the schedule of collection.

Transfer and Transport

The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City

in terms of the practices on transfer and transport is reflected on Table 15.

The respondents’ perception on transfer and transport practices was

rated moderate in Davao city with an overall mean of 3.07 and also moderate

for the city of Tagum with a weighted mean of 3.40 as indicated in Table 15.

This means that transfer and transport of solid waste was perceived by the

respondents as adequately observed.

Table 15. Comparative perception of respondents

on transfer and transport.
Transfer/Transport Davao Tagum

Vehicles used in transporting garbage are appropriate 3.04 3.80

Moderate High
Residual/non recyclable wastes are brought out along 3.04 3.54
the collection route of the vehicle strictly during the Moderate High
collection period
Transport vehicles are in good running condition 3.50 3.12
High Moderate
Vehicles are designed in a way that odorous smell from 2.56 3.18
garbage does not escape Moderate Moderate
Vehicles have covered compartments to ensure 2.52 3.38
containment of solid waste while in transit Moderate Moderate
Overall mean 3.07 3.40
Moderate Moderate

Based on the data above, it is evident that transportation of solid waste

is perceived as properly handled in both cities. However, the practice on the

delivery of residual wastes only in garbage bins should be practiced more in

Davao city segregation should also be practiced.

Processing and Recovery

The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City in terms

of the practices on processing and recovery is reflected on Table 16.

The respondents perception on processing and recovery practices was

rated moderate in Davao city with an overall mean of 2.74 and also moderate
for the city of Tagum with a weighted mean of 3.40 as indicated in Table 16.

This means that processing and recovery of solid waste is adequately practiced

in both cities as perceived by the respondents.

Table 16. Comparative perception of respondents on processing and recovery.

Processing and Recovery Davao Tagum

Adequate sturdy containers to store segregated 2.50 3.32

wastes is available at the barangay level for Moderate Moderate
collection
Barangay composting is properly practiced 3.38 3.32
Moderate Moderate
Every barangay or sub-barangay constructed MRF 2.70 3.70
stations to segregate and store reusable,recyclable Moderate High
wastes.
MRF’s are properly used for processing wastes into 2.64 3.28
construction materials or into other uses Moderate Moderate
MRF’s are maximized for its potential such as selling 2.50 3.38
recyclable solid waste to local junk shops. Moderate Moderate
Overall mean 2.74 3.40
Moderate Moderate
 Recyclable Waste
Coming from residential, commercial
sources (absolute segregation is done)

Satellite MRF
Purok Storage and marketing system

Needed
immediate Barangay MRF
disposal No Brgy. Storage & marketing
system
Yes
Local junk yard

Big Buyers in Davao City

Figure 4. Design Scheme and Flow of Recyclable Solid Waste Transfer Scheme A.

Source: CENRO Tagum

(Residence, Small Business Establishments)

Final disposal

The perception of respondents between Davao and Tagum City

in terms of the practices on final disposal is presented in Table 17.

The respondents’ perception on final disposal practices was rated

moderate in Davao city with an overall mean of 2.76 as indicated in Table17.

This means that practices were adequately observed. Meanwhile, in Tagum City,
a moderate rating was also observed with an overall mean of 3.05 which means

moderate level in terms of final disposal as perceived by the respondent.

Table 17. Comparative perception of respondents on final disposal

Processing and Recovery Davao Tagum

Residents are properly informed on the schedules of 2.14 2.98

wastes delivery on MRF’s. Moderate Moderate
Composting plant for market and commercial wastes 2.46 3.02
are present in the barangay. Moderate Moderate
The Barangay has a functional and operational MRF 2.36 3.24
Moderate High
There is no open dumping and burning of wastes. 3.44 3.48
Moderate Moderate
Sanitary landfill is present for disposals of special 3.40 2.56
wastes and those that could no longer be recycled, Moderate Moderate
reused or process.
Overall mean 2.76 3.05
Moderate Moderate

The findings imply that household practices in terms of final disposal are

adequately practiced in both cities as perceived by the respondents. It is

important to note however that in Davao City where there are no MRFs present

in the four Barangays under study, they were not informed about the schedule

of delivery to the MRF but instead to the throwing of garbage at collection

points.

Perception on the Implementation of Strategies of the Comprehensive

Solid Waste Management Plan in Davao City and Tagum City

Presented in Table 18 is the summary of the respondents’ perception on

the extent of implementation of the solid waste management plan in Davao city

and Tagum City. In general, the respondents perceived that the extent of
implementation of the strategies of the Solid Waste Management plan of Davao

city is moderately implemented with an overall mean score of 2.96. Meanwhile,

in Tagum City it is higher with an overall mean of 3.28 although still in

moderate level of implementation based on the perception of the respondents.

In particular, the indicator on waste generation in Tagum garnered the

highest rating among the practices of solid waste with a weighted mean of 3.57

which means high level of solid waste implementation. The high level of

implementation means waste segregation is highly practiced in Tagum city

based on the perception of the respondents.

Moreover in Davao City, a moderate descriptive equivalent on the SWM

implementation showed in the following indicators: storage with 3.22

compared to Tagum with 3.11 weighted mean- moderate; collection with 2.99

weighted mean compared to Tagum with 3.19 weighted mean –moderate;

transfer/transport with a 3.07 weighted mean compared to Tagum with 3.40

weighted mean- moderate; processing and recovery with 2.74 weighted mean

compared to Tagum 3.40-moderate; and final disposal with 2.76 weighted

mean compared to Tagum 3.05 weighted mean- moderate. These mean that

indicators were adequately observed and were common practice for both cities.

The findings imply that both cities moderately practice solid waste

management practices except for waste management where Tagum city had a

high descriptive mean. Both moderately practice the indicators with a slightly

higher mean for Tagum in all practices except for storage where Davao city got

an average weighted mean of 3.22.

Table 18. Summary on the extent of implementation of the Solid waste
management plan in Davao City and Tagum City.
Variable Davao Descriptive Tagum Descriptive
Rating Rating
Waste generation 2.98 Moderate 3.57 High

Storage 3.22 Moderate 3.11 Moderate

Collection 2.99 Moderate 3.19 Moderate

Transportation/transfer 3.07 Moderate 3.40 Moderate

Processing and Recovery 2.74 Moderate 3.40 Moderate

Final Disposal 2.76 Moderate 3.05 Moderate

Overall Mean 2.96 Moderate 3.28 Moderate

Test of Difference

This section presents the results of the test of difference between Davao

City and Tagum City based on the household practices of the five indicators of

the Solid Waste Management Plan.

As reflected in Table 19, in the overall mean , thus the

null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a

significant difference between the implementation of the solid waste

management practices in Davao City and Tagum City with a t-value of 5.656.

This means that the implementation of the solid waste management practices

was highly implemented in Tagum City as perceived by the respondents.

Table 19. Summary of the Test of difference results
Area Mean Sig. (2-tailed) Significance
Overall Tagum 3.2893 .000 Significant
Davao 2.9633 .000
Waste Tagum 3.5720 .000 Significant
generation Davao 2.9840 .000
Storage Tagum 3.1120 .338 Not significant
Davao 3.2280 .338
Collection Tagum 3.1920 .087 Not significant
Davao 2.9920 .087
Transfer Tagum 3.4040 .009 Significant
and Davao 3.0720 .009
Transport
Processing Tagum 3.4000 .000 Significant
and Davao 2.7440 .000
Recovery
Disposal Tagum 3.0560 .009 Significant
Davao 2.7600 .009

In terms of waste generation , thus the null hypothesis is

rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a significant difference

between the implementation of waste generation in Davao City and Tagum City

with a t-value of 5.259. This means that the implementation of waste

generation practices is highly implemented in Tagum City than in Davao City

as perceived by the respondents.

Meanwhile, for storage , thus the null hypothesis is

not rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is no significant difference

between the implementation of waste generation in Davao City and Tagum City

with a t-value of -.963. This means that the implementation of storage

practices is equally implemented in Davao city and Tagum city as perceived by

the respondents.

Furthermore, in terms of collection, , thus the null

hypothesis is not rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is no

significant difference between the implementation of collection in Davao City

and Tagum City with a t-value of 1.727.

This means that the implementation of collection practices is equally

implemented in Davao city and Tagum city as perceived by the respondents.

For transfer and transport , thus the null hypothesis is

rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a significant difference

between the implementation of transfer and transport in Davao City and

Tagum City with a t-value of 2.671.

This means that the implementation of transfer/transport practices is

highly implemented in Tagum as perceived by the respondents.

Processing and recovery on the other hand has ,

thus the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a

significant difference between the implementation of processing and recovery in

Davao City and Tagum City with a t-value of 4.513. This means that the

implementation of processing and recovery practices is highly implemented in

Tagum as perceived by the respondents.

Finally, for disposal , thus the null hypothesis is rejected.

Therefore, we can conclude that there is a significant difference between the

implementation of disposal in Davao City and Tagum City with a t-value of

2.682. This means that the implementation of disposal practices is highly

implemented in Tagum as perceived by the respondents.

Summary

A survey was conducted on the respondents from Tagum City and Davao

city on March 2013. This is to test perception of respondents of both cities in

terms of the implementation of Solid Waste Management Plan. The study

determined the following: the Solid waste management household practices

between the cities of Davao and Tagum in terms of: a) waste generation,

b)storage, c) collection, d)transfer/transport, e) processing and recovery, f) final

disposal.

A survey of 50 respondents from Tagum City and Davao City was

conducted focusing in the Poblacion areas of each city.

Results of the study have shown that the Solid Waste Management

practices were perceived to be moderate by the respondents of Davao City and

Tagum City. It means that Solid Waste Management practices were well

implemented in both cities.

Meanwhile, there is a significant difference in the implementation of the

Solid Waste Management practices. Results of the study have shown that

practices in terms of Solid Waste Management were perceived to be better

implemented in Tagum City than in Davao City by the respondents from the

Barangays under study.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

In general, the respondents perceived that the extent of implementation

of the strategies of the Solid Waste Management Plan of Davao City was

moderately implemented with an overall mean score of 2.96. Meanwhile, in

Tagum City it was higher with an overall mean of 3.28 although still in

moderate level of implementation.

In particular, indicator such as waste generation in Tagum garnered the

highest rating among the practices of solid waste with a weighted mean of 3.57

which means high level of solid waste implementation compared to the waste

generation in Davao with 2.98 weighted mean- moderate.

Moreover in Davao City, a moderate descriptive equivalent on the Solid

Waste Management Plan implementation showed in the following indicators:

storage with 3.22 compared to Tagum with 3.11 weighted mean- moderate;

collection with 2.99 weighted mean compared to Tagum with 3.19 weighted

mean –moderate; transfer/transport with a 3.07 weighted mean compared to

Tagum with 3.40 weighted mean- moderate; processing and recovery with 2.74

weighted mean compared to Tagum 3.40-moderate; and final disposal with

2.76 weighted mean compared to Tagum 3.05 weighted mean- moderate. These

mean that indicators were adequately observed and were common practices for

both cities.

Results of the study have shown that there is a significant difference in

terms of the practices on waste generation with a t value of 5.656, transfer and
transport with a t-value of 2.671, processing and recovery with a t-value of

4.513, and disposal with 2.682. This means that practices in terms of waste

generation, transfer and transport, processing and recovery and final disposal

is perceived practiced highly among the respondents from Tagum City

compared to Davao City.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following

recommendations are offered:

1. Tagum City can provide more budget and manpower for the implementation

of its Solid Waste Management Plan. Although it is perceived moderately

practiced by the respondents, the budget and the size of manpower wholly

affects the Solid Waste Management implementation of the city.

2. Davao City can make some improvements in terms of the Solid Waste

Management practices to fully maximize the provisions in the Solid Waste

Management Plan.

3. Davao City ENRO and Tagum City ENRO may take the results as basis for

realigning, continuing and expanding the Solid Waste Management practices.

4. Furthermore, other researchers may conduct parallel studies on solid waste

management implementation in other areas utilizing other respondents.

 REFERENCES

Aden, B. 2010.Factors that Influence Effective Solid Waste

Management in Garissa Municipality, Kenya.

Babbie, E. 2001. The Practice of Social Research: 9th Edition. Belmont,

CA. Wadsworth Thomson.

Bartone, C. 2000. Strategies for Improving Municipal Solid Waste

Management: Lessons from World Bank Lending and CWG Activities.

Workshop on Planning for Sustainable and Integrated Solid Waste

Management, Manila, 18-22 September 2000. Washington, DC: Urban

Management Division, World Bank.

Brown, K.1999.Key Elements of a Successful Solid Waste Strategy.

Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Bula, K. 2011. Level of Knowledge, Awareness, and Practices of Solid

Waste Management of Student. Obrero, Davao City. Unpublished

Master’s Thesis. University of Southeastern Philippines.

Cooper and Schindler. 2008. Research Methodologies: A Review.

Centennial Convergience Inc.

De Guzman, A., and Reyes, J. (2003). Solid Waste Management for

Local Government: Options and Solutions at the Local Level. Philippines-

Canada Local Government Support Program.

De Lina, E. 2002. LGU Solutions and Benefits from Good Integrated

Solid Waste Management practices. Philippine Environmental

 Governance Program (EcoGov). Pg 98.

De Young, R., Duncan, A., Frank, J., Gill, N., Rothman, S., Shenot, J.,

Shotkin, A., and Zweizig, M. 1993. “Promoting source reduction behavior:

The role of motivational information.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 25,

No. 1, 70-85.

Ebreo, A., Hershey, J., and Vining, J. 1999. “Reducing solid waste:

Linking recycling to environmentally responsible consumerism.”

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 1,107-135.

Ebreo, A. and Vining, J. 2001. “How similar are recycling and waste

reduction? Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as

predictors of self-reported behavior.”Journal of Environment and Behavior,

Vol. 22, No. 3, 424-448.

Ecological Solid Waste Management for Households. National

Management Bureau. Environmental Management. Department of

Environment and Natural Resources.

Figueroa, M. 1998. “The community as a resource for solid waste

management”, in E. Thomas-Hope (ed.), Solid Waste Management: Critical

Issues for Developing Countries.

Jackson, S. (2008). Research Methods: A Modular Approach. Thomson

Wadsworth, Thomson Higher Education:Belmont, CA.Kingston, Canoe

Press, pp. 27-46.

Hamilton, K and Mohammed, S. 2007. Input- Process-OutputModel of

Team Effectiveness. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Krueger, R.A.(1990) Focus Groups:Theory and Practices.SAGE,UK.

Lehmann, D.R., Gupth, S., and Steckel J.H. (1998). Marketing

Research. Addison Wesley Longman Inc.

Mapanao, R. 2011. Evaluation on the Implementation of

Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan in Digos City. University

of Southeastern Philippines unpublished thesis.

MLG&E. 2006. Solid Waste Management Project. Ministry of Local

Government and Environment, retrieved on 3 July 2006,

http://www.mlge.gov.jm

Misra, R and Pandey, P.2005. Improving Efficiency in Solid Waste

Handling.Better Use of Resources Towards Outcome for all.

Mukherjee, N.2009. Understanding our Civic Issues. Solid Waste

Management in Mumbai.

Orbeta- Robles, M.G. Solid Waste management practices of Davao City

(2004).Unpublished master’s thesis. Davao City, Philippines:

University of Southeastern Philippines.

Republic Act 9003, Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of the

Philippines.

Senkoro, Hawa. 2003. Solid Waste Management in Africa: A WHO/

AFRO Perspective. Paper 1, presented in Dar Es Salaam at the CWG

Workshop, March 2003. Retrieved electronically: http://www.

Skat.ch/sf-web/activities/ws/cwg/pdf/cwg-01.pdf

Schultz, P. and Oskamp, S. 1996. “Effort as a moderator of the

 attitude-behavior relationship: General environmental concern and

recycling.” Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 4, 375-383.

UNDESA. 2005. Agenda 21- Chapter 21 Environmentally Sound

Management of Solid Wastes and Sewage-related Issues. Division for

Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and

Social Affairs. (Available online at

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm )

UNDP. 2007. United Nations Millennium Development Goals. United

Nations Development Programme, retrieved on 24 January 2007,

http://www.undp.org/mdg/

Varkvisser, C.M., Pathmanathan, I, and Brownlee, A. (2003).

Designing and Conducting Health Systems Research Projects, Volume I:

Proposal Development and Fieldwork. World Health Organization/

International Development Research Centre.