Cover single 56 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Level of Information and Education Campaign on Solid Waste Management and Household Practices on Solid Waste Disposal in Butuan City FERNANDO T. HERRERA ORCID ID - 0000-0001-6840-0009 fernan_herrera@yahoo.com LILIA Z. BOYLES IAN G. MICULOB Saint Joseph Institute of Technology, Butuan City, Philippines Abstract - The foundation of good Solid Waste Management is consistent practice that meets international requirements. This study investigates the level of Information and Education Campaign (IEC) on Solid Waste Management (SWM) conducted by the LGU and other government agencies in Butuan City. Moreover, it also considered the practices among households of Butuan City in relation to solid waste disposal. Descriptive survey design was used in this study. Using the stratified random sampling, ten (10) communities were selected with households as the main unit of analysis. From eighty-six (86) legitimate communities of Butuan City, five (5) communities were randomly selected from each of the rural and urban communities as classified by NEDA. Results revealed that, the level of IEC in both rural and urban communities of Butuan City was poor. Public forum or general assembly, focus group discussion, installation of tarpaulin and other signs, television ad and radio broadcast, house to house information campaign, and school campaign were seldom carried out. Lack of institutional support and inadequate provision of garbage disposal points and Mass Recovery Facilities (MRF) from other concerned Vol. 10 · October 2012 Print ISSN 2012-3981 • Online ISSN 2244-0445 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7719/jpair.v10i1.182 JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research is produced by PAIR, an ISO 9001:2008 QMS certified by AJA Registrars, Inc. 57 International Peer Reviewed Journal government agencies, non-government organizations and HEIs were evident. It was also reported that majority of the households had their own garbage storage bin with considerable number of them having separators for biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. Some opted to use plastic bags and sacks instead. Many of those in rural areas buried their biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste on the ground. A few of those in the urban areas disposed their bio- degradable wastes on the available garbage station but burned those non-biodegradable waste materials. Some waste materials were sold to scrap shops for monetary considerations. Keywords - Ecology, Information and Education, Management, Practices, Butuan City INTRODUCTION The need for a responsive framework on solid waste disposal is one of the major concerns raised by many concerned solid waste professionals in the Philippines which highlight the need for efficient information and education campaign on proper solid waste disposal. This framework consolidates the efforts of the different agencies namely: Department of Health, Department of Environment and Natural Resources and other government agencies, private and non- government organizations under the Commission as articulated in R.A 9003 on solid waste disposal to ensure the protection of the public health and environment. Most, if not all, LGUs have existing ordinances that deal with solid waste disposal. Examples of these are antilittering and anti-dumping ordinances. In most cases, these ordinances deal with a single concern. They do not address the solid waste management concerns of LGUs in an integrated manner mainly because these ordinances are formulated without an overall framework for the management of solid waste. Worse, these ordinances are seldom strictly enforced. LGUs are required under the IRR (Rule XIX, Section 4) to legislate appropriate ordinances to aid them in the implementation of their plans. A basic requirement for these ordinances, therefore, is that they should be consistent and in accordance with the provisions of RA 9003. Since RA 9003 came into effect only in 2000 and the IRR was issued only in January 2002, many 58 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research LGUs have yet to review their existing ordinances and legislations. In view of the above premises, this study is conceptualized. This paper seeks to find out the level of information and education campaign (IEC) on solid waste management program as initiated by the Local Government Units (LGU) and the household practices on solid waste disposal among residents of Butuan City. Moreover, the study endeavors to generate results which will serve as a basis for a more comprehensive intervention program or solid waste management policy framework to include the revisit of ordinances and legislations in Butuan City pursuant to the relevant provisions of R.A 9003 and R. A. No. 7160 which explicitly defines the LGU’s roles in the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their respective jurisdictions. FRAMEWORK One of the biggest challenges in promoting responsive and efficient SWM framework is to be able to meaningfully deliver quality public services to communities as articulated in R.A 9003. Faced with continued high incidence of waste-related problems, it is imperative to strengthen the role of LGUs in service delivery as they explore new approaches for improving their performance. Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues of people’s participation, practices, environmental sustainability and economic and social equity for more long- term results. There is also a need to acquire knowledge, create new structures, and undertake innovative programs that are more responsive to the needs of the communities and develop mechanisms to strengthen education and wide dissemination of relevant information on efficient solid waste disposal as part of an integrated approach to providing relevant and sustainable services to their constituencies (SDWI, 2003). The Philippine government has recognized the severity of the solid waste disposal problem in the country and has prioritized the establishment of appropriate measures to address it. The most comprehensive piece of legislation is the Republic Act (RA) 9003, known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, which assigns the primary task of implementation and enforcement to LGUs. Among other important framework, the Act emphasizes the 59 International Peer Reviewed Journal importance of Information and Education Campaign (IEC) strategies. R.A 9003 explicitly defines the functions of the LGUs along that area to ensure that proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practice in ecological waste management excluding incineration are evident (SDWI, 2003). The following salient literature and related studies present some prevalent conditions, problems in the Philippines and other countries on solid waste disposal and advocate its proper practices. Viray et al., (2002) reported that every person in Metro Manila contributed about a kilogram of garbage. As a whole, about 40 m kg of garbage are generated by its 8.5 million people. The government expenditures for garbage disposal in metro Manila takes 67% percent of its total budget equal to 523 million pesos. They added that the lack of discipline in garbage disposal of most of the people is the major cause of flooding of the streets during the rainy season which is also happening in Caraga, particularly in Butuan City. Further, they added that the lack of concrete and sustainable plan of proper waste management and the lack of information dissemination on how to sort and reduce wastes at source further aggravates the problem. As solid waste disposal issues gain public awareness, concern has risen about the necessity of IEC and the appropriateness of various disposal methods. Within our modern scheme of waste management, disposal is the last phase. Most people acknowledge that disposal will always be needed (the exception being those advocating zero- waste policies). Solid waste professionals realize that the ideal way to reduce the stress on disposal systems is to reduce the amount of waste that is produced. No single solution completely answers the question of what to do with our waste. Every community or region has its own unique profile of solid waste. Similarly, the attitudes of people in different states and regions of the country vary regarding waste management practices. This is often referred to as the waste management ethic and includes the recycling ethic and litter ethic of a community as subcategories. Community diversity and waste diversity are two reasons why no single approach to waste management has been accepted as the best method. Since there is no preferred method, every community must create its own best approach to dealing with its waste (Heimlich et al., 2005). 60 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Waste disposal is a necessary part of an integrated system for managing solid waste, one in which waste minimization and recycling initiatives should be prioritized. At the same time, practical and achievable waste disposal improvements are required to reduce the acute public health, environmental, and social impacts caused by existing dumping practices. Accurate engineering and other technical data are virtually absent for existing disposal facilities and practices, and an assessment can only be prepared from cursory site observations and verbal site reports. Nevertheless, Metro Manila and all other parts of the Philippines must act immediately to improve waste disposal practices and establish sanitary landfill facilities in accordance with RA 9003. Until this is achieved, waste dumping will continue to cause serious public health, environmental, and social damage (Heimlich et al., 2005). The common problem faced by all the developing countries, especially Asia, is the disposal of solid waste & the availability of dumping grounds. As management of solid waste is a crucial & burgeoning issue, developing countries are coming up with several affordable alternatives & exclusive methods of sustainable solid waste management which is cost effective, technically appropriate & socially acceptable solutions to all (www.nswai.com, 2007). The kinds of articles dumped can tell us a great deal about the nature of the society that produced them (Smith, 2006). In many areas particularly in developing countries, waste management practices are inadequate. The practice which includes poorly controlled open dumps and illegal roadside dumping, spoil the scenic resources, pollute soil and water resources, and produce potential health hazards. Illegal dumping is a social problem as much as a physical one because many people are simply disposing their waste as inexpensively and as often quickly as possible. They may not see dumping their trash as environmental problem. If nothing else, this is tremendous waste of resources; much of what is dumped could be recycled or used. In areas where dumping has been reduced, the keys have been awareness, education and alternatives. Environmental problems of unsafe unsanitary dumping of waste are made known to people through education programs, and funds are provided for cleanup and inexpensive collection and recycle of trash at sites of 61 International Peer Reviewed Journal origin (Botkin and Keller, 2006). According to Viray et al, (2002) Garbage disposal has three major steps. These are the collection, transfer -station, and the disposal. Collection starts from trucks collecting garbage from house to house. The transfer-station is the place where garbage collected were weighed and deodorized. Disposal is the last stage where the trailer truck carrying the deodorized garbage to the disposal site to the dispose the garbage. The collection trucks in metro Manila alone served many cities with a total land area of 638.06 square kilometers of which the estimated total population in 1995 is 9,087,600 persons, 1,697 communities, 1,567,665 households and total of 177 private, public and talipapa markets. The wastes being thrown per year have slight changes depending on the season and place the study was conducted. The 1982 study results indicated 100% change for samples are collected at the curbside residence. The 1988 research has a total of 99.96% based from the collection vehicles en route to the disposal site. The 1992 study results had a total of 99.69% of solid wastes where samples came directly from households and were not subjected to any street scavenging. This study when the weather was generally fair with light rain shower in some afternoons. The 1997 study indicated that 3,402 samples were collected from 9 categories of generation sources from 9 ample areas of Manila, Quezon City, Makati and Parañaque. The prediction for the year 2010 based on the study will have an increased waste collection rate from 65% in 1997 to 83% and an increased rate of recycling from 6% to 10%. Viray et al. (2002) reported the minimum standards and requirements for segregation and storage of solid waste pending collection as follows: • There shall be a separate container for each type of waste from all sources: Provided, that in the case of bulky waste, it will suffice that the same collected and placed in a separate designed area; and • The solid waste container depending on its use shall be properly marked or identified for on-site collection as ‘compostable”, “non-recycleable”, or “special waste”, or any other classification as may be determined by the commission. 62 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research After segregation, recycling is one of the first waste reduction methods that hospitals use when beginning a waste handling program because it is less complex and less technical than other waste management initiatives (Hagland, 1993 as cited by Cox , 1997). Green (1992) as cited by Cox (1997) stated that recycling items such as paper aluminum, silver and cardboard can be effective. He added that setting goals can reduce the total amount of solid waste generated also is important in limiting superfluous supplies use. Education is the information-dissemination component of any SWM system where all sectors of society are informed of their roles and responsibilities in waste management. Public awareness about SWM can be triggered by the tri-Media (TV, radio, and print media). Seminars, workshops, and speakers’bureau are some other examples of how solid waste management can be promoted to the public. To effectively implement and enforce RA 9003, LGU officials need to know or be familiar with the law’s provisions and IRR. Unfortunately, this is presently not the case. Many LGU officials and even LGU staff, who are directly responsible for solid waste management, remain unfamiliar with their responsibilities because of insufficient or inadequate information dissemination (SDWI, 2003). Solid waste disposal has been considered to become a high priority due to the health and environmental risks associated with waste (Roht, et al., 1985). However, this can be prevented if sound management practices combined with high level public awareness through information and education campaign are being done. The following case studies had proved that awareness among the public and proper practices contributes a big factor on solid waste disposal management. In Guimaras Island, a solid waste management system (SWM) was implemented in the mid 1990’s to reduce solid waste through building government-community partnerships. With assistance from the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI), in collaboration with various stakeholders and communities there was an increased information dissemination eliciting public awareness and participation in local governance processes within the community. Aside from this there was also an improvement in regards to information sharing with the national government and private sectors which forested transparency and accountability in local government priority setting, budgeting, 63 International Peer Reviewed Journal and service delivery of the island. Furthermore, a good relationship between the community groups was also developed through the creation of task forces and lastly, implementation of demonstration projects resulted in the reduction of solid waste and a shift in environment of Guimaras Island. A case study was also made in Thailand wherein public awareness done through information and education campaign was the most vital element to promote waste separation at the source for recyclable materials and for disposing of these materials properly. Not only this, awareness also assists in the implementation of user charges, as the community learns of their environmental responsibility as well as to trust government initiatives. Partnership between the government, communities, and private business were also vital for the success of solid waste management. In this case, the government is responsible for the collection and selling of recyclable materials, and communities are responsible to separate waste at source and dispose of recyclables properly in plastic bags on the assigned days of the week, while private businesses are responsible demanding recycled materials as well as for integrating the buying activities with the government store. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY This study espouses the following objectives: 1. To determine the level of Information and Education Campaign (IEC) on Solid Waste Management (SWM) conducted by the LGU and other government agencies in Butuan City, and, 2. To determine the practices among households of Butuan City in relation to solid waste disposal. MATERIALS AND METHODS Basically, the study utilized the descriptive survey design with households from the randomly selected communities of Butuan City as the main unit of analysis. To further validate the data or information derived from the household respondents, the method of triangulation was employed such as in-depth interview with key informants who are 64 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research focal persons of the LGUs and other agencies under the Commission (such as Department of Environment and Natural Resources / Environment Management Bureau). More precisely, the following are salient methodologies to carry out the objectives of the study. a) Identification of Respondent LGUs and Agencies Using the stratified random sampling, ten (10) communities were selected with households as the main respondents or unit of analysis. From eighty-six (86) legitimate communities of Butuan City, five (5) communities were randomly selected from each of the rural and urban communities as classified by NEDA. For triangulation purposes, key informant agencies were selected through multi-stage sampling for the interview. Selected key personnel from DENR, EMB, DOH and LGU officials being the lead agencies that comprise the National Solid Waste Management Commission were selected from each level. b) Social/Community Preparation The actual field survey was set out by a community or social preparation through communication sent to the City Health Officer, City Administrator and community chieftain from randomly selected five(5) rural and five(5) urban communities of Butuan City informing them about the study. This was followed by a site visit in the communities included in the study to obtain profile and initial data of SWM facilities. c) Validation & Pilot-testing of the Research Instruments The survey instrument of this study was divided into three categories: personal information of the household representative, extent of IEC on solid waste management and household practices on solid waste disposal. Based on the initial data obtained from the site visit and interview with community officials, the instrument was further improved. Content and logical validity were assessed by experts on SWM and statisticians from Caraga State University and Saint Joseph Institute of Technology. 65 International Peer Reviewed Journal Enumerators’ training and pilot test was conducted on March 26, 2010 participated by twelve (12) enumerators, the statistician, and the research team to level off understanding on the items of the questionnaire (Appendix __ training design & attendance sheet). Thirty (30) households were systematically sampled from Baan Riverside, Butuan City as respondents in the pilot test. Baan Riverside, aside of not being included in the list of respondent communities, is the only community of Butuan with Mass Recovery Facility (MRF). With the 30 pilot data, internal consistency of the instrument was determined to analyze the reliability of the instruments. Using the Cronbach alpha, an overall coefficient of 0.789 was obtained which indicates a high reliability of the instrument. More specifically, the following reliability coefficients were obtained from each part of the instrument used: on methods of IEC is 0.777, on content of IEC is 0.818, on support and other technologies is 0.431 and on solid waste disposal practices is 0.845. d) Key Informant Interview Interview with the focal persons of the agencies and LGU focal persons was set before the actual conduct. Other than the constructed interview schedule, collection of existing files and documents (such as brochure, magazines, approved proposal of programs, accomplishment report, etc.) and use of voice recorder and other documentation equipment were employed. Simultaneous with the interview with the LGU focal person, ocular survey was conducted using the checklist and documentation of the existing facilities of the LGU. e) Household Survey From each of the respondent communities, two puroks were randomly chosen where five (5) household respondents were taken by systematic sampling from the list obtained from the community. A list of replacement was prepared prior to the actual interview in case the household respondent was not made accessible during the actual survey. The completed questionnaire was reviewed by the research leader at the end of the day to ensure that all data needed were included. 66 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Theorem 9.2 of Walpole, et.al (1993) was used in the determination of the sample size. The formula is: n = ( zα/2 σ) 2 /α where n is the sample size, α is the acceptable level of error equal to 0.05, σ is the standard deviation of the result of the pilot test equal to 0.5915, and zα/ is the z value leaving an area of α/2 to the right curve equal to 1.96. Thus, the computed sample size n is 537.6 or 538 households. The following table is the distribution of the household respondents in the eighty- five (85) puroks randomly chosen. Table 1. Distribution of community and household respondents included in the study Community Total No. of Puroks Total No. of Households Selected No. of Puroks Selected No. of Households A. Urban 1. Ampayon 16 2,426 14 130 2. Baan Km.3 25 2,008 12 104 3. Fort Poyohon 11 1,014 10 61 4. Leon Kilat 5 42 4 10 5. Sikatuna 4 28 4 10 Sub-total 61 5,518 44 310 B. Rural 6. Cabcabon 7 415 6 26 7. Datu Silongan 7 129 4 16 8. Tungao 34 1,172 10 71 9. Lemon 5 395 10 24 10.Obrero 11 1,989 11 106 Sub-total 64 4,100 41 248 Overall 125 9,618 85 558 Source: City Planning Office, Butuan City as of April 2010 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis of data was employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative method includes the descriptive statistics and 67 International Peer Reviewed Journal exploratory data analysis. More precise techniques were identified according to the type and level of measurement of the data gathered. The level of IEC dissemination was measured in terms of frequency of occurrence and quality of implementation along the areas of method/strategy of IEC, coverage of IEC and in the institutional and technology support. The frequency of occurrence was quantified as shown: Descriptive Rating Qualitative Description Method of IEC Coverage of IEC Support 5 always applied (A) Always covered (A) Always available (A) 4 often applied (O) Often covered (O) Often available (O) 3 sometimes applied (S) Sometimes covered (S) Sometimes available(S) 2 seldom applied (Se) Seldom covered (Se) Seldom available (Se) 1 never applied (N) Never covered (N) Never available (N) While the computed mean was described using the following distribution: Mean range Method of IEC Coverage of IEC Support 4.51 5.00 always applied (A) Always covered (A) Always available (A) 3.51 4.50 often applied (O) Often covered (O) Often available (O) 2.51 3.50 sometimes applied (S) Sometimes covered (S) Sometimes available(S) 1.51 2.50 seldom applied (Se) Seldom covered (Se) Seldom available (Se) 1.00 1.50 never applied (N) Never covered (N) Never available (N) On the other hand, quantification and scoring on the nature of IEC were based on the maximum number of appropriate information provided by the respondents. They are as follows: 68 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research A. On the Methods of IEC Methods Score/Wt. Public information thru meetings 5 Focus group discussion 3 Flyers and newsletters 3 Tarpaulin and signs 3 Instructional materials 3 Television ad 3 Radio broadcast 3 House-to-house information campaign 3 School campaign 3 Others 3 Total 32 B. On the Content of IEC Content / Coverage Score/Wt. 1. Republic Act on Solid Waste Management 3 2. City Ordinance on Solid Waste Management 3 3. Community Ordinance on Solid Waste Management 3 4. Waste Management Problems 3 5. Benefits of Proper Solid Waste Management 3 6. Concepts of Re-use, Recyle and Reduce (3R’s) 3 7. Composting 3 8. Toxic Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Infectious Wastes 3 9. Proper Management of estuaries and can 3 Total 27 69 International Peer Reviewed Journal C. On the Institutional and Technology Support Support Score/Wt. 1. Support from other agencies 5 2. Household modeling technique 3 3. Monitoring and evaluation of residents 6 Total 14 Scores were taken relative to the responses obtained. Scores of every respondent in A, B and C were converted to percentages and their mean was obtained to describe extent of IEC as perceived by the individual respondent on the quality of implementation. Finally, mean p was transmuted to equivalent 5-point scaling to summarize the description on the extent of IEC using the frequency of occurrence (measured in 5-point Likert scale) and quality of implementation (scores converted in p). The percentage p was transmuted to values Tp in the interval [1,5] using the following transmutation: Tp = 1.00 for p<1%, and Tp =1+4p for p≥1%. Thus, the extent of IEC is described using the scaling from 1 to 5 with mean range interpreted as follows: Mean range Extent of IEC 4.51 5.00 Very high 3.51 4.50 High 2.51 3.50 Moderate 1.51 2.50 Low 1.00 1.50 Very low A. Socio-Demographic Profile Table 2 shows that the majority (74.9%) of the respondents in both rural and urban communities were female. Greater proportion of male respondents was obtained from urban communities. On the city level, most of the respondents were 36 to 50 years old. This indicates the age trend which symmetrically or uniformly decreases in both sides of this modal age – below and above it. The age profile in 70 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research the city level is consistent in both rural and urban communities. Only 0.5% in the entire communities accounted for respondents with no schooling while a very minimal (1.1%) finished any advanced program. About 18.1% and 17.2% finished high school and college courses, respectively. In terms of occupation, 48.6% of the total respondents had no job while 20.40% were self-employed. Very few were government employees (5.0%) and professionals (4.3%). Looking at their monthly income, most (42.1%) of them had no income in their own. This is consistent from the report on the respondents’ occupation status which reveals that most of them have no occupation. A considerable number (37.6%) of the respondents had a monthly income below P5,000 while 16.7% had an income between P5,001 to P20,000.00. Only 3.6% of the entire respondents had a monthly income above P20,000.00. In terms of the number of siblings, most (44.4%) of them had only three (3) or less number of children while 11.1% had no siblings. Rural brarangay respondents had lower number of respondents without siblings compared to the urban community respondents. Respondents with more than 7 siblings were lowest in number for both in urban and rural areas. Table 2. Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents in the Rural and Urban Communities Variables Categories Rural Urban Total Freq % Freq % Freq % SEX Female 194 78.2 224 72.3 418 74.9 Male 54 21.8 85 27.4 139 24.9 AGE 20 yrs & below 3 1.2 14 4.5 17 3 21-35 yrs 69 27.8 85 27.4 154 27.6 36-50 yrs 92 37.1 107 34.5 199 35.7 51-65 yrs 56 22.6 84 27.1 140 25.1 Above 65 yrs 28 11.3 20 6.5 48 8.6 71 International Peer Reviewed Journal EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT No schooling 3 1.2 0 0.0 3 0.5 Elementary level 28 11.3 21 6.8 49 8.8 Elementary graduate 12 4.8 34 11.0 46 8.2 High school level 60 24.2 67 21.6 127 22.8 High school graduate 41 16.5 60 19.4 101 18.1 Vocational 6 2.4 1 0.3 7 1.3 College level 57 23.0 66 21.3 123 22.0 College graduate 39 15.7 57 18.4 96 17.2 Masteral 2 0.8 4 1.3 6 1.1 OCCUPATION None 114 46.0 157 50.6 271 48.6 Enterpreneur 14 5.6 22 7.1 36 6.5 Self-employed 66 26.6 48 15.5 114 20.4 Hired services 27 10.9 26 8.4 15 2.7 Skilled-worker 10 4.0 22 7.1 32.0 5.7 Professionals 9 3.6 15 4.8 24.0 4.3 Government employee 8 3.2 20 6.5 28.0 5.0 MONTHLY INCOME None 104 41.9 131 42.3 235 42.1 Less than P500 1 0.4 10 3.2 11 2.0 P501 – P1,000 9 3.6 14 4.5 23 4.1 P1,001 – P 5,000 90 36.3 86 27.7 176 31.5 P5,001 – P10,000 27 10.9 36 11.6 63 11.3 P 10,000 – P 20,000 10 4.0 20 6.5 30 5.4 More than P 20,000 7 2.8 13 4.2 20 3.6 NUMBER OF SIBLINGS None 20 8.1 42 13.5 62 11.1 3 or less 112 45.2 136 43.9 248 44.4 4 – 7 101 40.7 110 35.5 211 37.8 More than 7 15 6.0 22 7.1 37 6.6 POSITION IN Community Member 219 88.3 288 92.9 507 90.9 Officer 29 11.7 22 7.1 51 9.1 Finally, the majority of the respondents were community residents who are plain members; only about 9.1% were community or purok officials. A greater proportion of community officials in the rural communities participated in the study. 72 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research B. Methods on SWM Information and Education Campaign (IEC) Table 3 shows the summary of the responses on the methods applied and status in the Information and Education Campaign (IEC) on solid waste management (SWM). There were six (6) methods confirmed by the residents utilized in the dissemination of the SWM in the city level, namely; public information through meeting, focus group discussion, tarpaulin and signs, television and radio broadcast, house-to-house information campaign, and school campaign. As to the frequency of application in the citywide context, IEC through meetings was sometimes applied while the rest of the methods were just seldom applied. This trend is consistent in both rural and urban communities except for the focus group discussion and school which were identified to be applied in a higher level in the rural areas (sometimes applied) than in the urban areas (seldom applied). It is worth noting that the public meeting yielded the highest mean rating in terms of frequency of application. As to the nature of meetings conducted, data revealed that it was during general assembly on regular schedule that SWM was presented and discussed. This activity was more prevalent in the rural areas as indicated by the majority (63.7%) of the responses. Special meeting with concerned citizens such as businessmen or local proprietors was also evident method in IEC as confirmed by a substantial number of responses (28.1%). Next to the public meeting is the focus group discussion which was noted to be occasionally applied in rural communities but seldom on urban areas. About 65.7% of the respondents in rural communities confirmed that SWM Information and Education Campaign was carried out through discussion with the Purok President than through open forum. Next to the focus group discussion is school campaign. Accordingly, this method was occasionally applied in rural communities but seldom applied in urban areas. It can be seen that most of the respondents in both rural(47.6%) and urban (31.00%) communities admitted that such method was simply reinforced by concerned teachers. While the above methods for SWM information and education campaign had varying status, the following methods were found to be consistent and were seldom applied. Such methods were as follows: 73 International Peer Reviewed Journal installation of tarpaulin and signs, television ad and radio broadcast, and house to house information campaign. In an interview conducted with seven (7) LGU officials and three(3) personnel of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and two (2) from Environment Management Bureau (EMB), they both confirmed that IEC in Butuan City was not sustained. They both further confirmed that municipalities and/or communities outside Butuan City were given more priorities in the implementation of IEC program.(municipal beruela, esperanza, socoro and magallanes and hinatuan, endorsed to national level as entry for zero waste competition. Table 3. Summary of Responses in the Methods and Status on SWM Information and Education Campaign Methods of IEC Rural Urban Total Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Public information thru meetings 3.08 (S) 1.24 2.82 (S) 1.28 2.94 (S) 1.27 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % General assembly on regular schedule 158 63.7 89 32.2 259 46.5 Special meeting with concerned residents 68 27.4 101 29.0 157 28.1 Meeting of community officials only 32 12.9 57 18.4 89 15.9 No appropriate effort for IEC 26 10.5 20 6.5 46 8.2 Focus group discussion 2.67 (S) 1.37 2.20 (Se) 1.29 2.41 (Se) 0.45 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Open forum in general assembly 17 6.9 48 15.5 65 11.6 Discussion with the purok Pres. 163 65.7 119 38.4 282 50.5 Problem with solid wastes 0 0.0 16 5.2 16 2.9 Flyers, newsletters & IMs 1.47 (N) 1.06 1.18 (N) 0.60 1.31 (N) 0.85 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % 74 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Distributed the community council proceedings 22 8.9 18 5.8 40 7.2 Flyers posted 19 7.7 4 1.3 23 4.1 School & community distributed flyers 16 6.5 2 0.6 18 3.2 Xerox copy of SWM materials 38 15.3 23 7.4 61 10.9 Tarpaulin and signs 1.77 (Se) 1.25 1.90 (Se) 1.14 1.84 (Se) 1.19 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Clear/easily remembered content 64 25.8 141 45.5 205 36.7 Written on easily noticed locations 24 9.7 8 2.6 32 5.7 Posted instruction 8 3.2 1 0.3 9 1.6 Television ad & radio broadcast 2.07 (Se) 1.38 2.00 (Se) 1.29 2.03 (Se) 1.33 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % News & advertisement 51 20.6 27 8.7 78 14.0 TV patrol world & other international programs 87 35.1 87 28.1 174 31.2 Local & national programs 38 15.3 87 28.1 125 22.4 Bombo radio 81 32.7 103 33.2 184 33.0 House-to-house information campaign 2.28 (Se) 1.55 2.03 (Se) 1.33 2.14 (Se) 1.44 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Performed by community officials 74 29.8 70 22.6 144 25.8 Purok officials reinforcing 44 17.7 47 15.2 91 16.3 Motivated by activities 7 2.8 31 10.0 38 6.8 School campaign 2.60 (S) 1.58 1.97 (Se) 1.27 2.25 (Se) 1.45 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Strict implementation in school 35 14.1 9 2.9 44 7.9 Teachers reinforcement 118 47.6 96 31.0 214 38.4 Advocacy projects/programs 22 8.9 21 6.8 43 7.7 Others 1.19 (N) 0.63 1.25 (N) 0.77 1.22 (N) 0.71 75 International Peer Reviewed Journal Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Pahina with fines of P50/P20 28 11.3 29 9.4 57 10.2 Reminders from community officials 6 2.4 10 3.2 16 2.9 Agreed on LGU’s spearheading SWM campaign 247 99.6 310 100 557 99.8 C. Application of Methods of IEC of SWM Figure 1 shows the summary of the level of application of the methods of IEC in the city of Butuan. Overall analysis shows that the methods identified were seldom applied in the city in the IEC of SWM as evidenced by a higher proportion of responses obtained in low level of IEC in both rural and urban communities. 76 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Level Rural Urban Total f % f % f % Very high 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.18 High 22 8.87 2 0.65 24 4.3 Moderate 73 29.4 98 31.6 171 30.6 Low 141 56.9 158 51 299 53.6 Very Low 11 4.44 52 16.8 63 11.3 Statistics Mean Stdev 2.45 (Low) 0.68 2.17 (Low) 0.61 2.29 (Low) 0.66 Figure 1. Level of application of methods used in information and education campaign Data further reveal that application of the methods of IEC (Figure 1) in the rural communities had a higher mean rating than in the urban areas though the level may be not significantly different. Higher variability in the mean ratings was obtained in the rural areas than in the urban and overall data. D. Topics Covered in the IEC of SWM Table 4 shows the different topics covered in the IEC of SWM in the city of Butuan – the frequency and nature of IEC coverage. Analysis of the data reveals nine (9) specific contents in the IEC of SWM, namely: Republic Act on SWM, City Ordinance on SWM, Community Ordinance on SWM, Waste Management Problem, Benefits of Proper SWM, Concepts of 3Rs, Composting, Toxic Hazardous and Infectious Waste, and Proper Management of Estuaries and Canals. In both rural and urban communities, topics such as city ordinance on SWM, community ordinance on SWM, waste management problem, and benefits of proper SWM were moderately or occasionally covered in the IEC. During the IEC, majority (59.3%) of the respondents attested that information about the city ordinance was made known occasionally. However, it only covered an issue in relation to the city ordinance being the sole basis of crafting a community ordinance (b.o.). Others (8.4%) had only learned through experiences and learning from school. Another information noted as occasionally covered was 77 International Peer Reviewed Journal the information on community ordinance. It was through recurring offense and subsequent fines that concerned respondents (14.5%) had known about the community ordinance. This case was more prevalent in rural communities than in urban communities. Some (16.3%) were saying that b.o. was merely crafted and believed to not conform to the city ordinance. Others (26.9%) were aware of the b.o. or b.o. being introduced only after when they were asked fines for improper solid waste disposal. Only 18.1 % of the respondents said there was an ordinance but not fully implemented. Other areas occasionally covered in the IEC as attested by the respondents were on waste management problems. Majority (67%) believed that the absence of swm facilities was the major factor attributed to the waste problems. This was followed by improper solid waste disposal. Majority (88.7%) from rural areas and the greater number (49.7%) from urban claimed such was true. Some (22.2%), however, gave their negative feedback indicating that waste management problem was partly caused by some complacent garbage collectors. They said that some garbage collectors did not regularly accomplish their expected tasks in collecting the waste, even those waste deposited in some designated depository areas. Meanwhile, information on Republic Acts on SWM, concepts of 3Rs, composting, toxic hazardous and infectious wastes and proper management of estuaries and canals were seldom covered. As related by most of the respondents from both rural (38.3%) and urban (27.1%) communities, they learned the Republic Act on SWM through concerned LGUs. Some (15.2%), however, happened to learn the RA from other sources within the community. Very few (7.9%) admitted they have used their initiatives to learn said RA in their own. The concept of 3Rs (Reduce, Re-use, Recycle), on the other hand, was seldom covered in the IEC. Only 16.4% of the overall households were saying they never knew the concepts of 3Rs but were, in their own initiatives and judgment, selling reusable wastes for monetary considerations. Some (6.1%) were using the waste materials for decors and households uses instead of throwing them away. It should be noted that though proper management of estuaries and canals was not very evident in IEC, several advocacies for drainage management were initiated by the LGU in the local level such as scheduling in the cleaning of canal near common laundry area and 78 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research outsourcing services to maintain drainage and canals. The residents were made to understand that solid wastes may cause blockage in the drainage. Further, they were informed that regular cleaning of canals can prevent propagation of mosquitoes in the area. Table 4. Summary of responses on the coverage of SWM information and education campaign Information on Content Rural Urban Total Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Republic Act on SWM 2.20 (Se) 1.46 2.13(Se) 1.39 2.16(Se) 1.42 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % LGU presented to/informed residents 95 38.3 84 27.1 179 32.1 Learned from other source within community 16 6.5 69 22.3 85 15.2 Personal effort/initiative 20 8.1 24 7.7 44 7.9 City Ordinance on SWM 2.53 (S) 1.40 2.56 (S) 1.33 2.55 (S) 1.36 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Implemented bill fo violation P50/P300 33 13.3 27 8.7 60 10.8 City ordinance as basis for BO 133 53.6 198 63.9 331 59.3 Information from experience & school 29 11.7 18 5.8 47 8.4 Community Ordinance on SWM 2.87 (S) 1.30 2.87 (S) 1.27 2.87 (S) 1.28 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Fine as to nature & frequency of offense 51 20.6 30 9.7 81 14.5 Implemented own crafted BO 72 29.0 19 6.1 91 16.3 Aware of fines for improper SWD 47 19.0 103 33.2 150 26.9 City ordinance in community implementation 13 5.2 74 23.9 87 15.6 Presence of BO but not implemented 47 19.0 54 17.4 101 18.1 Waste Management Problem 3.08 (S) 1.29 3.07 (S) 1.22 3.08 (S) 1.25 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % 79 International Peer Reviewed Journal Absence/inadequate SWM facilities 220 88.7 154 49.7 374 67.0 Improper SWM 161 64.9 107 34.5 268 48.0 Negligence of residents & scavengers 83 33.5 54 17.4 137 24.6 Complacency of garbage collectors 52 21.0 72 23.2 124 22.2 Benefits of Proper SWM 2.60 (S) 1.32 2.77 (S) 1.32 2.70 (S) 1.32 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Income from direct selling of reusable wastes 163 65.6 136 44.0 299 53.6 Fertilizer generation 67 27.0 13 4.2 80 14.3 Savings & livelihood opportunity 39 15.7 34 11.0 73 13.1 Healthy environment & people 5 2.0 55 17.7 60 10.8 Concepts of 3Rs 2.33 (Se) 1.33 2.39 (Se) 1.46 2.37 (Se) 1.40 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Selling reusable wastes 43 17.2 49 15.7 91.33 16.4 Converting biodegrable to fertilizer/humus 4 1.6 3 1.0 7 1.3 Recycling for decors & household uses 7 2.8 27 8.7 34 6.1 Healthy environment from reduced wastes 4 1.6 41 13.2 45 8.1 Composting 2.42 (Se) 1.50 1.60 (Se) 1.13 1.96 (Se) 1.37 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % For generating fertilizer 12 4.8 3 1.0 15 2.7 Separating wastes for composting 185 74.6 90 29.0 275 49.3 Toxic, Hazardous & Infectious Wastes 2.15 (Se) 1.26 2.04 (Se) 1.14 2.08 (Se) 1.19 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Bury to dispose 60 24.2 50 16.1 110 19.7 Keep away from children 76 30.6 54 17.4 130 23.3 Incorrect practices 144 58.1 98 31.6 242 43.4 80 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Proper Mgt of Estuaries & Canals 2.37 (Se) 1.46 1.89 (Se) 1.38 2.10 (Se) 1.44 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Drainage blocked with solid wastes 95 38.3 22 7.1 117 21.0 Advocacy programs for drainage mgt 64 25.8 21 6.8 85 15.2 Regular cleaning prevents mosquito 65 26.2 78 25.2 143 25.6 Level Rural Urban Total f % f % f % Very high 7 2.8 1 0.3 8 1.4 High 83 33.5 46 14.8 129 23.1 Moderate 94 37.9 130 41.9 224 40.1 Low 58 23.4 121 39.0 179 32.1 Very Low 6 2.4 12 3.9 18 3.2 Statistics Mean Stdev 3.15 (Moderate) 0.82 2.70 (Moderate) 0.74 2.90 (Moderate) 0.81 Figure 2. Level of content coverage in the information and education campaign 81 International Peer Reviewed Journal E. Institutional Support and Other Technologies in the SWM IEC Results on the extent of institutional support and technologies in the SWM Information and Education Campaign are shown on Table 5. Very few (10.80%) of those from urban communities (7.10%) and from rural communities (15.3%) admitted that the level of support from other organizations involving most of the HEIs and other government and non-government sectors were seldom demonstrated. Approximately 31.5% from rural and 18.7% from urban also said that support from government line agencies such as DSWD, DOT, DENR, City Health and DOH was also seldom demonstrated. However, many(32.60%) of the respondents especially those from urban areas (37.70%) consented that a few of HEIs in the city donated garbage cans and that they were taught on proper segregation of wastes at home on occasional basis. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, this support was not as well so evident from among the concerned households which is also similar among the kagawad /BHW/CVO. Many of these households claimed that this support was seldom evident. Considerable number (11.1%) of the respondents said that part of what they have done as support was demonstrated whenever competition on cleanest house and purok was initiated in their own community. 82 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Table 5. Summary of responses on the institutional support and other technologies in the SWM information and education campaign Institutional Support & Other Technologies Rural Urban Total Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Mean Stdev Support from Other Organizations 1.60 (Se) 1.10 1.85 (Se) 1.37 1.74 (Se) 1.26 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Higher Education Institutions - FSUU,SJIT,Butuan Doctors,Xavier University,CSU 38 15.3 22 7.1 60 10.8 Government line agencies - DSWD, DOT, DENR, City Health, DOH 78 31.5 58 18.7 136 24.4 Non-government organizations – religious sector, women’s organization, Water District 9 3.6 51 16.5 60 10.8 Household Modeling Technique 2.36 (Se) 1.39 2.77 (S) 1.40 2.59 (S) 1.41 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % FSUU students immersed in every household teaching SWM and donated garbage can 55 22.2 26 8.4 81 14.5 children taught with segregation of wastes at home 65 26.2 117 37.7 182 32.6 practiced SWM at home - segregation and recycling 11 4.4 82 26.5 93 16.7 Monitoring and Evaluation of Residents 2.05 (Se) 1.27 2.09 (Se) 1.33 2.07 (Se) 1.30 Additional Information Freq % Freq % Freq % Cleanest house/purok competition 38 15.3 24 7.7 62 11.1 Community survey by kagawad/ BHW/CVO 123 49.6 138 44.5 261 46.8 Other institutions surveyed SWM such as City Health, FSUU & school in the community 32 12.9 22 7.1 54 9.7 83 International Peer Reviewed Journal Level Rural Urban Total f % f % f % Very high 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 High 4 1.6 10 3.2 14 2.5 Moderate 54 21.8 92 29.7 146 26.2 Low 135 54.4 142 45.8 277 49.6 Very Low 55 22.2 66 21.3 121 21.7 Statistics Mean Stdev 1.99 (Low) 0.82 2.08 (Low) 0.74 2.04 (Low) 0.81 Figure 3. Level of available support and other technologies in information and education campaign 84 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Level Rural Urban Total f % f % f % Very high 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 High 4 1.6 10 3.2 14 2.5 Moderate 54 21.8 92 29.7 146 26.2 Low 135 54.4 142 45.8 277 49.6 Very Low 55 22.2 66 21.3 121 21.7 Statistics Mean Stdev 2.64 (Moderate) 0.44 2.36 (Moderate) 0.45 2.49 (Moderate) 0.46 Figure 3. Summary on the level of information and education campaign on solid waste management F. Household Practices on Solid Waste Disposal Table 6 presents the household practices on solid waste disposal in both selected rural and urban areas. It can be gleaned that majority (95.70%) of the residents from both 85 International Peer Reviewed Journal urban and rural communities had storage bin most (48.60%) of whom have separators for biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. The majority of the household respondents (58.2%) claimed they were separating biodegradable wastes from non-biodegrable wastes despite the non-availability of their own storage bin with separators. Among those with storage bin, majority of the household respondents living in both rural(50.0%) and urban (68.40%) communities were using plastic bags; the rest (about 43%) were using sacks. A considerable number (21.30%) of those who admitted have no storage bin buried their biodegradable wastes in the ground. Those who live in urban areas, instead of burying the non- biodegradable wastes in the ground (as some who are in rural areas are practicing), were selling the wastes materials to scrap shop to earn money. In addition, the majority admitted that the amount of waste disposed daily weighed approximately from 1-5 Kg which was more prevalent in rural areas (80.20%). Very few of those living in rural areas (35.9%) were aware that the community they are living in has garbage stations. Unlike in urban areas, majority (68.10%) of the households were aware that garbage station is made available in their own community. However, despite this level of awareness of the garbage stations, only 18.1% in rural areas had thrown their wastes in the designated garbage station while 44.8% did so in urban areas. Among those who did not throw their waste at the designated community garbage stations, majority (67.3%) from rural areas preferred compost pit. As to the means of transporting solid wastes, many (38.10%) of them were hiking to transport their waste at their designated community garbage stations. Some (34.40 %) of them from both rural and urban areas preferred open dumping. A considerable number (20.80%) of households living in urban areas were dependent on the garbage collector. 86 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Table 6. Household practices on the storage of solid waste Areas Rural Urban Total Freq % Freq % Freq % Has Storage Bin in House for Garbage 232 82.9 302 97.4 534 95.7 Storage bin with separator (biodegradable from non-biodegrable) 117 41.8 154 49.7 271 48.6 Type of Storage Bin Used * Metal bin 2 0.71 8 2.58 10 1.79 * Individual plastic bin 26 9.29 41 13.2 67 12 * Plastic bag 140 50.0 212 68.4 352 63.1 * House containers drum 17 6.07 16 5.16 33 5.91 * Communal drum 9 3.21 2 0.65 11 1.97 * Concrete bin 3 1.07 8 2.58 11 1.97 * Containers roll-on/roll-off 8 2.86 0 0 8 1.43 * Sack 110 39.3 128 41.3 238 42.7 * Others (basket, ice bucket, cartoon, gallon, pail) 9 3.21 13 4.19 22 3.95 Separated biodegradable wastes from non- biodegrable wastes 149 53.2 176 56.8 325 58.2 Storage of biodegrable wastes * Placing in available storage bin in community 38 13.6 54 17.4 92 16.5 * Throwing to the river 2 0.71 7 2.26 9 1.61 * Burying in the ground 72 25.7 47 15.2 119 21.3 * Using as fertilizer 27 9.64 65 21 92 16.5 * Burning 26 9.29 39 12.6 65 11.6 * None at all (disposing to garbage truck/ collector in the community) 11 3.93 25 8.06 36 6.45 Storage of non-biodegrable wastes * Placing in available storage bin in community 42 15 34 11 76 13.6 * Burying in the ground 83 29.6 33 10.6 116 20.8 * Burning 26 9.29 63 20.3 89 15.9 * Selling to scrap shop 51 18.2 159 51.3 210 37.6 * Recycling 10 3.57 17 5.48 27 4.84 * None at all (disposing to scrappers/child scavengers or garbage collectors) 9 3.21 38 12.3 47 8.42 87 International Peer Reviewed Journal Areas Rural Urban Total Freq % Freq % Freq % Aware that community has garbage station 89 35.9 211 68.1 300 53.8 Disposed solid wastes to community garbage station 45 18.1 139 44.8 184 33 Means of transporting solid wastes to community garbage station * Using wheel barrows 4 1.61 0 0 4 0.72 * Using push cart 22 8.87 1 0.32 23 4.12 * Through vehicles/sikad 15 6.05 29 9.35 44 7.89 * Hand-carry and hiking 49 19.8 118 38.1 167 29.9 * Through garbage collector 5 2.02 9 2.9 14 2.51 Disposal of solid wastes other than in the community garbage station * Open dumping 88 35.5 104 33.5 192 34.4 * Controlled tipping(with occasional soil cover) 11 4.4 2 0.6 13 2.3 * Sanitary landfill (with daily cover) 12 4.8 3 1.0 15 2.7 * Burning on site/backyard 12 4.8 2 0.6 14 2.5 * Compost pit 167 67.3 92 29.7 259 46.4 * Garbage collector/truck 42 16.9 74 23.9 116 20.8 88 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research amount of wastes Rural Urban Total freq % freq % freq % below 1kg 29 11.7 118 38.1 147 26.3 1-5 kg 199 80.2 167 53.9 366 65.6 6-10kg 16 6.45 20 6.45 36 6.45 more than 10 kg 4 1.61 5 1.61 9 1.61 Figure 4. The estimated amount of household solid wastes stored daily G. Frequency of Solid Waste Disposal Majority of the respondents (38.7%) from both rural and urban areas disposed their solid wastes, which had an average of 1-5kg a day, once a week. Only 28.5% from both rural and urban areas said they disposed their wastes once a day. Rural areas had the highest frequency in terms of daily disposal while urban areas had the highest in terms of weekly waste disposal. 89 International Peer Reviewed Journal Frequency of disposal Rural Urban Total f % f % f % Once a day 69 27.8 90 29 159 28.5 Twice a week 48 19.4 30 9.68 78 14 Every other day 21 8.47 17 5.48 38 6.81 Once a week 56 22.6 160 51.6 216 38.7 Depends on the garbage truck 40 16.1 11 3.55 51 9.14 Five times a week 2 0.81 0 0 2 0.36 three times a week 12 4.84 2 0.65 14 2.51 Figure 5. Frequency of solid wastes disposal among households amount of wastes Rural Urban Total f % f % f % below 1kg 63 25.4 97 31.3 160 28.7 1-5 kg 176 71 143 46.1 319 57.2 6-10kg 7 2.82 46 14.8 53 9.5 more than 10 kg 2 0.81 24 7.74 26 4.66 Figure 6. Estimated amount of household solid wastes disposed daily 90 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research SYNTHESIS 1. On the Level of IEC 1.1 As to the frequency of application in both rural and urban Communities, IEC through meetings was sometimes applied while the rest of the methods such as: focus group discussion, installation of tarpaulin and other signs, television ad and radio broadcast, house-to- house information campaign, school campaign, were seldom applied. This trend was consistent in both rural and urban communities except for the focus group discussion and school campaign which were applied in a higher level in the rural areas (sometimes applied) than in the urban areas (seldom applied). It is worth noting that the public meeting yielded the highest mean rating in terms of frequency of application. 2. As to the nature of meetings conducted, it was during general assembly on regular schedule that SWM was presented and discussed. This activity was more prevalent in the rural areas as indicated by the majority (63.7%) of the responses. Special meeting with concerned citizens such as businessmen or local proprietors was also evident method in IEC as confirmed by a substantial number of responses (28.1%). This result is also consistent in the context of rural and urban communities. 3. On the coverage of IEC, parameters or topics such as city ordinance on SWM, community ordinance on SWM, waste management problem, and benefits of proper SWM were moderately or occasionally covered or discussed. 4. As to institutional support and other technologies in the IEC, very few (10.80%) of the respondents, especially those from urban communities (7.10%), admitted that the level of support from other organizations involving most of the HEIs and other government and non-government sectors were seldom demonstrated. However, many (32.60%) of the respondents especially those from urban areas (37.70%) said that a few of HEIs in the city donated garbage cans and that they were taught on proper segregation of wastes at home on occasional basis. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, this support was not as well so evident from among the concerned households which was 91 International Peer Reviewed Journal also similar among the kagawad /BHW/CVO wherein many of these households declared that this support is seldom evident. 5. As to household practices in solid waste disposal, results revealed that majority (95.70%) of the residents from both urban and rural communities have storage bin most (48.60%) of whom are with separators for biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. The majority of the household respondents claimed they were separating biodegradable wastes from non-biodegradable wastes despite the non-availability of their own storage bin with separators. Among those with storage bin, majority of the household respondents living in both rural (50.0%) and urban (68.40%) communities were using plastic bags; the rest (about 43%) were using sacks. 6. A considerable number (21.30%) of those who admitted have no storage bin buried their biodegradable wastes in the ground. Those who live in urban areas, instead of burying the non-biodegradable wastes in the ground (as some who are in rural areas are practicing) were selling the wastes materials to scrap shop to earn money. In addition, the majority admitted that the amount of waste disposed daily was ranging from 1-5 Kg, which was more prevalent in rural areas (80.20%). 7. Very few of those living in rural areas (35.9%) were aware that the community they are living in has garbage disposal point. Unlike in urban areas, majority (68.10%) of the households were aware that garbage disposal point is made available in their own community. However, despite the availability of the garbage facility, most (44.8%) of those in urban areas did not throw their waste in the designated garbage disposal point. Among those who did not throw their waste at the designated community garbage point, majority from rural areas preferred compost pit. 8. As to the means of transporting solid wastes, many (38.10%) of them were hiking to transport their waste at their designated community garbage point. Some (34.40 %) of them from both rural and urban areas preferred open dumping. A considerable number (20.80%) of households living in urban areas were dependent on the garbage collector. 92 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research CONCLUSIONS 1. Overall, the level of IEC in both rural and urban communities of Butuan City was poor. Data provide evidence that methods such as public forum or general assembly, focus group discussion, installation of tarpaulin and other signs, television ad and radio broadcast, house to house information campaign, and school campaign were seldom carried out. 2. Lack of institutional support and inadequate provision of garbage disposal points and Mass Recovery Facilities (MRF) from other concerned government agencies, non-government organizations and HEIs were evident. 3. Majority of the households had their own garbage storage bin with considerable number of them having separators for biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes. Some opted to use plastic bags and sacks instead. Many of those in rural areas buried their biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste on the ground. A few of those in the urban areas disposed their bio-degradable wastes on the available garbage station but burned those non-biodegradable waste materials while some were sold to scrap shops. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. It is imperative to revisit and strengthen the role of lead agencies (DENR, CENRO, EMB, DOH and LGUs) and develop an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan and sustainable implementation in the city . Strategies and mechanisms for effective service delivery must take into consideration issues and concerns encountered, people’s participation, practices, environmental sustainability and economic and social equity for more long- term results. 2. Collaborative efforts form different government and private agencies should be encouraged to properly manage the waste with most efforts being made to reduce the final volumes and to generate sufficient funds for waste management. If most of the waste could be diverted for material and resource recovery, then a substantial reduction in final volumes of waste could be achieved and the recovered material and resources could be utilized to generate revenue to fund 93 International Peer Reviewed Journal waste management. This forms the premise for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) system based on 3R (reduce, reuse and recycle) principle. ISWM system must be well received by local authorities. It has been shown that with appropriate segregation and recycling system significant quantity of waste can be diverted from landfills and converted into resource. 3. Local government units in collaboration with other sectors, HEIs government line agencies to develop strategic development plan or mechanisms (e.g. competition, provision of rewards for most clean community) to further push or motivate concerned residents to observe proper waste disposal. 4. Similar studies be conducted in other communities especially those along Agusan River and hospital premises in Butuan City. LITERATURE CITED Hagland, M. 1993 Generating environmental challenges of the 90s. Health Forum. Heimlich et al. 2005 Waste management: towards a sustainable society. O.P. Kharbanda and E.A Stallworthy. HD 4482 K5. 1990 Republic Act No. 9003 2000 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act. Republic Act No. 7160 Roles and functions of LGU as key units responsible for implementing or enforcing the solid waste management program. SDWI 2003 Urbanization and the Paradigms for Change in Solid Waste Management, Viloria, L. and M.L. Rebullida, DPA Center for Integrative and Development Studies (CIDS), University of the Philippines. 94 JPAIR: Multidisciplinary Research Viray et al. 2002 Waste disposal : management and practice , TD 791 S58 http:// geic.hq.unu.edu/ENV/files/InnComm%20Report/case%20 study%208%20 Philippines.pdf www.nswai.com, 2007 Pursuant to the international character of this publication, the journal is indexed by the following agencies: (1) Public Knowledge Project, a consortium of Simon Fraser University Library, the School of Education of Stanford University, and the British Columbia University, Canada; (2) E-International Scientific Research Journal Consortium; (3) Philippine E-Journals; (4) Google Scholar; (5) Index Copernicus; (6) Scholastica; (7) Researchgate; (8) Lacriee of France; and, (9) University Library of Leipzig, Germany.