Lima-Geganzo, Levi Guillermo. 2013. Who Should Shoulder the Cost on Solid Waste
Management? An abstract submitted to The Philippine Economic Society’s 51st Annual
Meeting.
ABSTRACT
Solid waste management has been a perennial problem in the Philippines. The expanding
urbanization and increasing industrialization are the main reasons on the increase in solid wastes
generated by households. This study focused on the problems related to solid waste management
of urbanizing municipalities, particularly the municipality of Miag-ao, Iloilo – the largest
municipality in terms of land area in the Philippines. Though tagged as one of the best
implementers of solid waste management programs in the country, Miag-ao faces more problems
related to solid waste management annually. Given a very minimal budget allotted for solid
waste management programs and services, the challenge for the municipality on how to levy the
costs of operation has been a difficult task. This study aimed to provide inputs on how to
improve the municipal solid waste collection service in Miag-ao by describing the factors on the
willingness-to-pay (WTP) for an improved municipal solid waste collection service among
households. Data were collected in January to February 2012 from 240 households from all the
eight barangays of the town proper. Solid waste management was identified by the majority of
households as the main environmental issue in Miag-ao. Improved solid waste collection service
was identified by households as the primary solution to solid waste management problems in the
municipality. High knowledge on proper solid waste management was recorded among
households. Households generate an average of 1.44 kilograms of solid waste materials daily, or
approximately a daily solid waste load of 2,350.08 kilograms from all households in the town
proper. Among the participating households in the study, 73.75% were willing-to-pay (WTP) for
an improved municipal solid waste collection service with varying desired characteristics of an
improved service. However, only 29.58% of the total households were certain to pay. Logistic
regression showed that the significant factors affecting the WTP for an improved garbage
collection include sex, age, average daily amount of household waste generated, concern on solid
waste management as main problem of the municipality, knowledge index rating, perception on
improvement of solid waste collection service, and bid price. A review of the current municipal
solid waste management programs and activities is highly recommended. Despite the high
knowledge on proper solid waste management, intensive education is also encouraged to
promote further appreciation of proper solid waste management practices.
Keywords: solid waste management, willingness-to-pay, environmental degradation
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
Background Information
Like other developing countries, Philippines is also faced with the problem in solid waste
management. Increase in the quantity of economic activities in the country’s urbanized and
urbanizing areas generate a proportional amount of waste products. In order to solve the
prevailing problem, it is suggested to intensify solid waste management efforts. The inefficient
waste collection and lack of disposal areas, which are common constraints in solid waste
management, are attributed to the lack of enough resources to fund necessary facilities and
advanced technologies that will support modern waste management activities (Navarro, 2003).
Investing in the modern technologies and equipments for solid waste management by a
relatively poor country can result to greater financial problems. Thus, developing countries often
fail to deal successfully with solid waste management problems resulting to environmental
degradation and imposing health hazards to the public. The inability of the national and local
government units to support and implement proper waste management program in the country
pulls the country down despite an impressive economic growth in the first decade of the 21 st
Century (Atienza, 2011).
According to the National Solid Waste Management Commission (2003), an estimated
10M tons of solid waste is being generated in the municipalities in the country every day. Most
of solid wastes are from urban areas, where a quarter is generally being contributed by metro
cities’ residents and firms. The amount of solid waste generated per individual ranges between
0.30 and 0.71 kg daily.
Republic Act 9003, also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000,
was enacted to address comprehensively the problems on solid waste management. The law
declared the policy of the State to set guidelines and methods to solid waste reduction and proper
solid waste handling (segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal). Solid
wastes include all discarded household, commercial and industrial wastes. The law established
the National Solid Waste Management Commission, under the Office of the President, to oversee
the implementation of solid waste management plans and prescribe policies to achieve the
objectives of the law. The law also prescribed the local government units to be responsible for
the implementation and enforcement of the law within their respective jurisdictions. It is
expected that the practice of solid waste segregation and collection will be passed to the
barangays and the local governments are the ones responsible for providing their own solid waste
management facilities.
In Iloilo, efforts to comply with the requirements of RA 9003 are underway as stated in
the Provincial Development & Physical Framework Plan for CY 2008-2013 (2008). All
municipalities in the province have solid waste collection services, but are limited to the
vicinities of their town proper. It appears that the local governments give less importance to
barangays outside their town proper areas. This can be attributed to the seemingly low volume of
waste generated by household, budget constraints of the municipality, inaccessibility of facilities
available and intensified promotion of the local government units of using compost pit as method
of solid waste disposal option. It was reported that 33 municipalities of the province have
implemented material recovery facilities (MRF) for the recovery of reusable materials at source
for further waste reduction. Moreover, about 60 percent of the municipalities in the province
have converted existing dumpsites to controlled dumpsites.
The municipality of Miag-ao, the nation’s largest municipality in terms of land area
(NEDA – RDC 6, 2010), is dubbed as one of the effective implementers of integrated solid waste
management in the country. It holds the distinction as the Cleanest and Greenest Municipality in
the Region VI (Western Visayas) for three consecutive years from 2004 to 2006 (Espada, 2006).
However, despite its cleanliness, Miag-ao’s increasing economic activities and expansion leads
to problems in solid waste management at the town proper. Increased amount of garbage coming
from households and business establishments are in creeks and waterways, coastal areas, and
public properties.
One of the problems faced by the municipality of Miagao is household solid waste
collection service. The available facilities and services in the local government unit cannot match
the increasing volume of solid waste generated and for collection in the town proper (personal
interview with Isidro Mosura, October 07, 2011).
In 2002, the amount of solid waste collected in Miagao was 5,707.7 cubic meters. These
came from the public market and houses around the town proper. The public market and the
slaughterhouse and their vicinities are considered as the largest contributor of solid waste
materials in the town proper (Miag-ao Accomplishment Report, 2002).
The 2009 Municipal Environment Code of Miag-ao outlines the town’s solid waste
management program. The Code identified the Municipal Environment and Natural Resources
Office (MENRO) - Office of the General Services to be responsible in the daily municipal solid
waste collection in the town proper. Furthermore, the Code states that solid waste must be
collected by the Office and be brought to a controlled dumpsite in Brgy. Tugara-ao, Miag-ao,
Iloilo for material recovery and proper waste disposal. Section 44 of the Code states that
municipal solid waste collection fees must be charged from households for the operations and
maintenance of the Solid Waste Management System in the municipality. Residential units are
charged a monthly garbage collection fee and are issued collection tickets. Households pay a
monthly fee of P30 for solid waste collection to their respective barangays during the first week
of the month. Half of the amount goes to the barangay and half goes to the municipality. The fee
is supposed to finance facility maintenance and waste hauling,
In 2001, the proposed budget amounting to P600,000 for the municipal solid waste
management programs for the whole municipality was asked by the Office of the General
Services (OGS) from the local government of Miag-ao but only PhP 441,920.00 was allotted. To
cover the expenses, the remaining amount must be met by the total collected fees from the
households in the town proper that avail the municipal solid waste collection service (personal
interview with Isidro Mosura, October 07, 2011).
The collection efficiency of Miag-ao was recorded to be only about 40%. From the
interview, it was gathered that the “very little amount of” waste collected by OGS was
interpreted positively - that the households practice recycling, composting, and reusing. It was
also cited that household practice composting. From the interview, it was mentioned that the
municipality has taken necessary measures to increase efficiency in collecting solid wastes from
the households. Problems, however, persists. Most homes are not implementing segregation at
source and the collectors have no choice but to take these wastes from the houses even if the
municipality imposes a strict “No Segregation, No Pickup” policy. Also, solid wastes pile up in
creeks, some in roads and the drainage system of the municipality – which sometimes increase
the chances of some parts of the town proper to be flooded. It was mentioned in the interview
that an improved service could only be possible if there is an increased allocation of the local
government revenue for solid waste management. The “very limited budget” was reported not
enough to sustain the collection services as the waste generated in the municipality increases.
To contribute to the discussion on how to improve solid waste collection services in the
municipality and on how to increase funds to finance it, this research was conducted. The
households as recipients of the services are seen as possible source of funds through higher fee.
This study focused on describing the willingness-to-pay of the households for an improved
household solid waste collection service.
Statement of the Problem
The study addressed this general problem: What is the decision of the households in the
town proper of the Municipality of Miag-ao, Iloilo with regards to paying for an improved
municipal solid waste collection service. The study addressed the following specific questions:
1. What is the socio-demographic and economic profile of the households?
2. What are the solid waste disposal practices of the households?
3. What is the level of awareness of the households on proper household solid waste
management?
4. What are the desirable characteristics of an improved solid waste collection service according
to the households?
5. What is the volume of garbage generated by the households?
6. How much do the households are willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste collection
service?
7. What are the significant factors affecting the willingness-to-pay of the households for an
improved solid waste collection service?
8. What is the preferred payment vehicle of the households for their payment for an improved
solid waste collection service?
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of the study was to describe the willingness-to-pay of the
households in the town proper of the Municipality of Miag-ao, Iloilo for an improved municipal
solid waste collection service. The study addressed the following specific objectives:
1. To describe the socio-demographic and economic profile of the households;
2. To describe the solid waste disposal practices of the households;
3. To determine the level of awareness of the households on proper household solid waste
management;
4. To determine the volume of garbage generated by the households;
5. To identify the desirable characteristics of an improved solid waste collection service according
to the households;
6. To determine how much do the households are willing to pay for an improved solid waste
collection service;
7. To identify the significant factors affecting the willingness-to-pay of the households for an
improved solid waste collection service; and
8. To identify the preferred payment vehicle of the households for their payment for an improved
solid waste collection service.
Significance of the Study
The information derived from the study are important inputs to the design of an improved
household solid waste collection service for the Municipality of Miag-ao. This information
include the households’ solid waste disposal practices, the amount they are willing to pay for an
improved household solid waste collection service, their level of awareness of proper solid waste
management, the volume of solid waste they generate, and their preferred payment vehicle for
their contribution. An improved collection of household waste will benefit the households, the
municipality, and the environment.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
Due to time constraints and other considerations, the researchers covered only the
households in the town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo, Philippines as the area of the study. A total
number of 240 households from the eight (8) barangays in the Miag-ao town proper participated
in the study. For the weighing of waste generated, 120 out of 240 households were selected and
visited only once for weighing. Fieldwork was conducted in January to February 2012.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Solid Wastes and Its Impacts
With rising economic development and changing lifestyle and food habits, the amount of
municipal solid waste also rapidly increase and alter its composition. Over the last decade,
production markets increased the sophistication of packaging by using cans, aluminum foils,
plastics and other non-biodegradable items causing more harm to the environment and public
safety. Problem of waste materials and how it should be dealt with is an issue that affects most
developing countries as it targets public health and sanitation. It is also interlinked with air
pollution, water pollution and transportation problems (Gottinger, 1991).
With the advent of increase in the world population and demand for food and other
necessities, waste generated also starts to increase drastically. The amount of waste generated
daily by each household starts to rise that the municipal waste collection centers cannot handle
the volume of wastes collected anymore. This inefficiencies and mismanagement causes serious
impacts on health and problems to the surrounding environment (Praktiri, 2007).
To lessen the effects of these externalities brought about by municipal solid wastes in the
Philippines, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (Republic Act 9003) was
enacted to promote solid waste management to solve these increasing problems. The law defined
solid waste management to be the systematic administration of activities from solid waste
generation to final solid waste disposal. Solid waste management consists of waste generation,
source segregation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid
waste materials. These activities must be in accordance with the best principles of public health,
economics, engineering, conservation and other environmental considerations.
Solid waste management has been identified as a priority area to be immediately
addressed by most developing countries’ (including Philippines) respective sustainable
development plans. Comprehensive solid waste management systems are being used to prevent
pollution and limit waste generation in these nations. The major highlight of these plans is an
integrated municipal solid waste collection service to the main contributors of wastes in the
community – the households (Atienza, 2011).
Household Waste Disposal Practices
The design of municipal solid waste collection service to be provided to the community
is based on the waste disposal practices of the households. Waste disposal practices of
households determine the capital, equipment and processes to be used in collection of wastes
(Post, 2007).
In developing countries, common waste disposal practices include open dumping, open
burning, dumping in drainages and garbage burying. Waste collection service is also present but
it is not available to most households. These disposal practices have negative effects in public
safety and health (Babayemi and Dauda, 2009). These disposal practices result to frequent
flooding, clogging of streets and drainage systems, water and air pollution and contribute to
increase of breeding sites of insects and rodent vectors (Tapan, 2008).
In the Philippines, half of the population burns their solid wastes. Other methods
households use are municipal solid waste collection system, open dumping, burying, recycling
and composting. Even though burning is popular, collection services offered by the local
governments is becoming a strong option to households. However, the major hindrance faced by
the local governments in supporting municipal solid waste collection services is the lack of
financial resources, thus collection services are mostly available to fewer households (Ballados,
2010).
Level of Awareness of Solid Waste Management
Successful solid waste management is aided through intensive public participation and
involvement in decision and implementation processes. Households’ participation and
involvement is important in solid waste management because government would be able to
provide solid waste management services efficiently and effectively if the government knows the
sentiments of its constituents. Intensive public participation and involvement would only be
made possible if the households are aware of the underlying concerns on proper solid waste
management. The level of awareness of people is generally the major determinant of proper solid
waste management practices that in turn could help in solid waste reduction and efficient solid
waste collection (Ebreo et al., 1999).
Knowledge in waste reduction strategies can motivate an individual to reduce waste
generation. In a study conducted by Simmons and Widmar (1990), motivating factors and
barriers to recycling were identified in New Jersey, United States. The study found that lack of
knowledge regarding solid waste management and lack of personal salience and efficacy were
identified to be the barriers interfering motivation of a person’s sense of responsibility towards
solid waste management. Without information and perception of individual ability to reduce
waste, an individual would not participate in waste reduction programs.
A same study conducted by Gerhard (1994) on waste reduction and recycling strategies
was done finding a significance relationship in household awareness and proper solid waste
management. It was found out that household waste fraction can be reduced by 10% through
recycling. This would be possible given that there will be successful public educational programs
on solid waste management. This means that the more aware a household will be with waste
reduction strategies through trainings and public advertisements, the more efficient the solid
waste management will be.
In another study conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(2006), only 78% of the surveyed households in Abbotabad, Pakistan were aware of the issues
related to poor waste management. It was discovered that awareness is determined by the
economic status of households. The study found out that awareness is higher in nonpoor families
compared to poor families due to the lapse in educational attainment that both can receive.
Public awareness is highly affected by education households receive. In a study
conducted by Aljaradin, et. al (2011) in Jordan, residents were examined on their knowledge and
awareness on recycling and their willingness to recycle. It was found out that most participants
were not practicing recycling because of their low knowledge on the waste reduction strategy.
The low awareness ratings of the households were attributed by the fact that 64.2% of the
participants were not able to learn much about proper solid waste management practices in
school, university and municipality.
In a study in Vientiane, Laos, it was seen that the public awareness about proper solid
waste management is increasing, but the pace is slow. The effort of the capital city in increasing
clean campaigns and other educational programs paid off as the government had changed public
attitudes and create environmental awareness and the proper behavior toward minimizing
volume (Khanal and Souksavath, n.d.)
Babayemi and Dauda (2009) highlighted the relationship between educational status and
awareness on the proper waste disposal practices in Nigeria. Awareness on waste material
recovery is high among households with tertiary level of education than those who attained lower
education level. This was due to the availability of knowledge about proper solid waste
management acquired in their college education.
Post (2007) found that the level of awareness of households in proper solid waste
management can affect the amount that they are willing to value a solid waste management
service. It was found out that household with higher knowledge in proper solid waste
management value solid waste management services higher than household with lower
knowledge.
Contingent Valuation Method and Willingness-to-Pay
Because of the inadequate amount of budget available for municipal solid waste
management services in developing countries, their governments has to devise a scheme that
uses households’ contribution to cover the remaining shortage in funding these services (Atienza,
2011). Solid waste management services are determined through the waste generated, which is
the externality created by production and consumption. However, these environmental services
have no markets thus no efficient arrangements can be easily made. Deciding on how much
households will value the solid waste management service is difficult as it must be centered on
identifying the means to ensure that externalities are incorporated in the cost of the service. The
most commonly used method in estimating the total economic value of an environmental service
like solid waste management is contingent valuation method (Kumar, 2006).
A contingent valuation (CV) method is done through presenting a hypothetical
description or scenario to a study participant and asking the amount the participant is willing to
value a good or service given the specified terms and conditions of the scenario. The latter is
done by asking how much an individual is willing-to-pay or willing-to-accept on some changes
on the provision. Lastly, response validity is done to relate the willingness-to-pay responses of
the participant to his/her socio-demographic and economic characteristics. Confirmation of a
priori expectations of the relationship between willingness-to-pay and other variables will be an
indicator of significant responses (Ninan, n.d.).
Several elicitation formats are available to perform contingent valuation method.
Common elicitation formats include open-ended contingent valuation, payment card method and
dichotomous choice method. Open-ended CV format is done by asking individuals the maximum
amount they are willing-to-pay for a good or service. Payment card method, on the other hand, is
done by providing an individual a list of option available to describe his/her maximum
willingness-to-pay. Dichotomous choice method could either be single or double-bounded.
Single-bounded dichotomous choice is an elicitation format that asks an individual if he/she will
be willing-to-accept a certain specific amount for a good or service. On the other hand, doublebounded dichotomous choice format asks the same question as the preceding format, but is
combined with the bidding game format. It elicits an additional question that would bid a higher
or lower amount for a good or service depending on the first answer (Pearce et al., 2006).
These elicitation formats are expected to draw the true willingness-to-pay value of
households for specific environmental services. Willingness-to-pay is the maximum amount an
individual is willing to give off in exchange on changes in the provision of resources (Anderson,
2004).
Willingness-to-Pay Studies
Methodologies Used in Some WTP Studies
Several studies were conducted using different methodologies to elicit the willingness-topay of households for solid waste management services. Open-ended elicitation format was used
in the study of Tanrivermis (1998) in Turkey, willingness-to-pay of individuals was assessed on
sharing the burden of environmental damage and to improve environmental quality in Turkey.
The same elicitation format was used by Altaf and Deshazo (1996) when they conducted a study
to determine the maximum monthly amount households were willing to pay for an improved
solid waste management service in Gujranwala, Pakistan. Amiga (2002) also used the same
format on her study conducted in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia on the willingness of households to
pay for an improved solid waste collection service. Navallasca and Templora (2008) also used
open-ended elicitation format in their study on the factors affecting households’ willingness-topay for an improved solid waste collection service in Iloilo City, Philippines.
Payment card contingent valuation format was used by Ezebilo and Animasaun (2011) in
their study conducted in Ilorin, Southwest Nigeria on how much the private sector value waste
management services. The same format was used by Wang, et al (2011) in their study conducted
in Yunnan, China. The study was done to assess the households’ willingness-to-pay for an
improved solid waste collection and treatment service.
Single-bounded dichotomous choice format was used in a study conducted in Osugbu,
Osun State, Nigeria by Adepoju and Salimonu (n.d.). The study was done to examine the general
features of existing solid waste management, determine the amount households were willing-topay for improved solid waste disposal services and identify the factors influencing their decision.
The same elicitation format was used in the study conducted in Mekelle, Ethiopia to estimate the
households’ willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management in the six local
administrations in the city (Hagos et al., 2008). Double-bounded dichotomous choice elicitation
format was used in a study conducted in Kampala City, Uganda to determine the willingness-topay of households’ for solid waste management (Niringiye and Omortor, 2010).
Results of Some WTP Studies
A study conducted in Turkey by Tanrivermis (1998) showed that household’s
willingness-to-pay is varied depending on their socio-demographic characteristics. About
57.31% of households want to make any financial contributions for the improvement of the
living environmental quality varying from 0 to 15,000,000 TL/month. Their mean willingnessto-accept is 30,000,000 TL/month. Factors affecting households’ willingness-to-pay amount
were the households’ level of income, level of education gender, residential location and average
daily solid waste generation.
The study in Kampala City, Uganda showed that the mean willingness-to-pay of
households for solid waste management was UGX 2014/month. The household representative’s
level of education, marital status, quantity of waste generated, household size, and household
expenditure significantly influenced the amounts households are willing-to-pay amount for solid
waste management (Niringiye and Omortor, 2010).
Results showed in a study conducted in Ilorin, Southwest Nigeria that households were
willing-to-pay more than one percent of their total annual household income for an improved
solid waste management. The respondents’ mean willingness-to-pay was NGN 4,676/year. The
amount they are willing-to-pay was influenced by their income level, education, activities of
sanitary inspectors, house type and occupation (Ezebilo and Animasaun, 2011).
Altaf and Deshozo’s study in Gujranwala, Pakistan (1996) showed that 71% of
households in the city were willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste management service. The
study showed that the households’ mean willingness-to-pay for an improved solid waste
management service was Rs 9.80 per month. Socio-demographic and economic factors such as
average number of household members, average education, discretionary income and wealth
were found to affect the households’ willingness-to-pay amount significantly.
A study conducted by Aklilu Amiga (2002) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia showed that almost
91.02 % of the total households in the city were willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste
collection service. Households’ mean willingness-to-pay was found out to be 7.09 Birr per
month. The result of the study showed that the mean willingness to pay is larger than the
expected result and the proposed sanitation fees. Household representative’s education level and
occupation were the significant factors identified to affect the amount households were willingto-pay for the improved service.
Results of the study of Adepoju and Salimonu (n.d.) showed that 87.5 % of the
respondents were willing-to-pay 3% of their income for an improved solid waste collection
service after series of contingent valuation surveys conducted. Logit analysis showed that sex,
educational level and household daily expenditures were found to be the significant factors that
affect their decision in willingness-to-pay.
A study conducted by Navallasca and Templora (2008) showed that 64% of the
households in subdivisions in Iloilo City were willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste
collection service. The mean willingness-to-pay amount of the households was P 117.70 per
month. Age, civil status, employment, number of working household members and income were
found to be the significant factors that affect the households’ decision for an improved solid
waste collection service.
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Theory of Market Failure and Externality
Environmental problems such as pollution created by human production and consumption
happen because of market failure. Market failures in environmental goods and services occur
because the markets do not exist or if the markets do exist, the market prices underestimate the
goods’ and services’ social values by not including the costs created by the externalities. The
main reasons for the non-existence of the markets for these environmental goods and services are
the high costs of creation and operation of these markets. In order to solve these externalities, the
government works for improving the situation by providing the service (in this case, municipal
solid waste collection service). However, due to financial constraints, the government could not
fully provide funding for the expensive service. Correcting externalities through payments will
cut the incentives to those (households) contributing or making negative externalities (generating
wastes/pollution) and may improve outcomes (produce lesser wastes) (Kumar, 2006).
The challenge for the environmental goods and services, however, is to overcome the
barrier concerning their social cost value because these types of commodities (wastes/pollution)
cannot be measured using market valuation methods. In order to monetize the cost of the nonmarketed priced good (municipal solid waste collection service), non-market valuation methods
are being used. Contingent valuation method is a popular valuation method used to measure how
much people value this kind of environmental service.
Contingent Valuation Method and Willingness-to-Pay
Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) is the most widely used non-market valuation
method for estimating the economic value of non-market goods. It uses survey questions to elicit
the people’s preferences for non-marketed goods by asking them how much they will be willing-
to-pay for specified improvements or to avoid decrements in them. Willingness-to-pay for nonmarket goods is an economic concept which refers to the amount an individual is willing to give
up for a certain service (Anderson, 2009).
This study used a single-bounded dichotomous contingent valuation method was used in
the study conducted. This method, also known as the referendum method, is done by randomly
assigning bid prices for the good or service in question (in this case, it was improved solid waste
collection service). The study participants received a randomly drawn price and were asked if
they are willing-to-pay for a specific outcome at an offered price. The participants will then be
asked about their level of certainty in paying the service at the given bid price. The amounts
offered as bid prices were derived from the values obtained in the pilot survey of the study.
Derivation of the Willingness-to-Pay
This formula was used to derive the estimate of the average willingness-to-pay of
households in the study using the single-bound dichotomous valuation method (Agapito and
Guadalupe, 2011):
𝑁
𝑊𝑇𝑃 = 𝑣 ∑(𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑘𝑣)
𝑘=0
Where:
WTP = average willingness-to-pay of households,
v = the interval between prices,
N = number of values of price, and
k = lowest possible value.
Estimation of the Willingness-to-Pay
The estimation model used to determine the mean maximum willingness-to-pay of the
households for an improved municipal solid waste collection service was patterned
to that used by Hanemann (1984) as cited by Subade (2005). This is written as:
1
mean WTP = [(𝜃) ln (1 + eα0+βi+ ∑ βi σi )]
Where:
β1 = coefficient of WTP amount,
α1 = coefficient of constant,
e = natural algorithm,
βi = coefficient of independent variables, and
Σi = mean of independent variables.
There are several cases, however, that the mean willingness-to-pay using the formula
above is either overstated or understated. This happens when the amount of study participants
willing-to-pay for an improved service is not consistently decreasing as the bid price increases.
Thus, a more conservative Turnbull Willingness-to-Pay estimation model will be used in the
study developed by by Haab and Mc Connel (2002) as cited by Subade (2005). This
nonparametric estimation model calculates the lower-bound mean willingness-to-pay values and
confidence interval for every option. Turnbull willingness-to-pay is computed as:
Turnbull Mean Willingness-to-Pay = Σ tj f*j +1
Where:
F*j = N*j / T*j and is the ratio of those who are not willing-to-pay
on an offered bid price, where
N*j = number of not willing-to-pay responses
T*j = number of samples offered a specific bid
tj = bid price, and
f*j = Turnbull estimate of N*j / T*j.
The social wiliness-to-pay of households was computed using the following formula:
Social Mean WTP = (percentage of the participants who are willing-to-pay) x (total number
households of the barangays in the town proper) x (mean WTP)
Payment Vehicle
Payment vehicle was asked after obtaining the willingness-to-pay of the households. The
payment vehicle will be determined in terms of either voluntary contribution or taxes. According
to Boardman, as cited by Agapito and Guadalupe (2011), “payment vehicles include taxes paid
into a fund specifically earmarked for a good or service”. In this case, the service used in the
study was the improved municipal solid waste collection service. Payment vehicles can aid
contingent valuation methods by making it more realistic.
In the study, payment vehicles considered include pay-as-you-throw system, ticket
collection system, community tax, property tax, business permits and other modes as provided by
the household. Frequency of payment was also asked to be either monthly, quarterly, semiannually or annually.
Empirical Model
The socio-demographic and economic factors used in the study that determined the
willingness-to-pay of households for an improved municipal solid waste collection service were
the household representative’s sex, age, highest educational attainment, civil status, barangay,
household size and total monthly household income. Other factors used included the households’
average daily volume of waste generated, concern for solid waste management as main problem
of the municipality, knowledge index rating on proper solid waste management, perception on
solid waste collection as solution to existing SWM problems and the assigned bid price.
In functional form, the relationship of the willingness-to-pay of households for an
improved municipal solid waste collection service is denoted as:
WTP = F (x1, x2, x3,…,x12)
Where, WTP = willingness-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service,
x1 = sex (male),
x2 = age,
x3 = highest educational attainment (college),
x4 = civil status (married),
x5 = barangay,
x6 = household size,
x7 = household’s total monthly income,
x8 = average daily volume of waste generated,
x9 = concern on solid waste management as main problem in the
municipality,
x10 = level of knowledge of household in proper solid waste management,
x11 = perception on improved solid waste collection as solution to existing
SWM problems, and
x12= bid price.
Estimation Model
To identify the factors influencing the willingness-to-pay for an improved municipal
solid waste collection service among households, the household responses to the willingness-topay questions were regressed against the household’s willingness-to-pay potential (independent
variables). The regression binary logit model was specified to be:
𝑌=
1
1 + 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑧
Where, Y is the response of household on their willingness-to-pay, and
z is the sum of the products of the coefficients and the dependent
variables (plus the error term).
The sum of the products of the coefficients and their dependent variables is presented as:
Z = β0+ β1x1 + β2x2 + β3x3 + … β12x12 + e
Where β’s are the set of unknown parameters to be estimated, while x’s represent the set
of determinants/dependent variables for the willingness-to-pay for an improved municipal solid
waste collection service, and e is the error term. Table 1 below shows the definition of the
variables that were used in the binary logit analysis.
Table 1. Definition of Variables
Variable
Dependent Variable
Willingness-to-pay of households on
assigned bid price
Independent Variables
Sex
Age
Definition
1 if willing to pay;
0 otherwise
Sex of the participant
1 if male;
0 otherwise
Age of the household head on the date of
interview
Highest Educational Attainment
1 if attended college;
0 otherwise
Civil Status
1 if married;
0 otherwise
Barangay
The barangay where household is located
Household Size
The number of household members
including the participant
Household Income
Total monthly income of the household
Average Daily Volume of Solid Waste
Generated by Household
Concern on Solid Waste Management as
Main Problem in the Municipality
Level of Knowledge of Household in
Proper Solid Waste Management
Volume of solid waste generated by the
household daily in kilogram
1 if study participant answered yes to the
question if SWM is the main problem;
0 otherwise
Knowledge index rating of household in
proper solid waste management
Perception on Improved Solid Waste
Collection as Solution to Existing SWM
Problems
1 if the study participant said “yes” to
question if improved SWC is a solution to
existing problems in solid waste
management;
0 otherwise
Bid Price
Amount that the household will be willingto-pay for an improved municipal solid
waste collection service
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study described the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the
households in town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo, their solid waste disposal practices and the amount
of garbage they generate, their level of awareness on proper solid waste management, their
willingness to pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service, and their preferred
payment vehicle through the use of descriptive statistics. The willingness-to-pay of households
was presented through Turnbull mean WTP estimation model. The social willingness-to-pay was
also presented. This study also identified the significant factors that affects the households’
decision in the amount they are willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste collection by using a
logistic regression model.
Locale of the Study
The study was conducted in the eight barangays in the town proper of the mMunicipality
of Miag-ao, Iloilo. These barangays are Baybay Norte, Baybay Sur, Bolho, Mat-y, Sapa, Tacas,
Ubos Ilawod and Ubos Ilaya. Each barangay have 30 chosen household participants regardless of
the population distribution in the barangay.
Located North of the island of Negros towards the China Sea, Miag-ao is located East of
the municipality of San Joaquin, Iloilo, southwest of the municipality of Igbaras, Iloilo, southeast
of the municipality of Sibalom,Antique, and West of the municipality of Guimbal, Iloilo. Figure
1 shows the map of the Miag-ao, Iloilo The inset photo shows the eight study barangays.
Miag-ao is a first-class municipality that is partly coastal and partly mountainous. It has
a total population of 60,498 based on the 2007 Census of Population (NSO, 2007). Agriculture is
the main employer of people in the 42.475 hectares of agricultural land (39.75% of total land
use) planted with primary agricultural crops such as rice, eggplants, tomatoes, squash and okra.
The town’s commerce and trade is also expanding as total of 241 micro and 339 small scale
business establishments are present in the Town Proper as of 2002 (Miag-ao Accomplishment
Report, 2002).
Source: Google Maps. © 2011
Figure 1. Map of Miag-ao, Iloilo Town Proper
Data Requirements
Primary and secondary were used in the study. Primary data were taken from personal
interviews with the 240 household representatives using an interview schedule. Data collected
include the socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the household representatives,
their level of awareness on proper solid waste collection, their solid waste disposal practices,
their willingness-to-pay for an improved solid waste collection and their preferred payment
vehicle. The amount of garbage that the households generated was measured by weighing once
the solid wastes generated by 120 randomly selected household participants.
Secondary data were obtained through interviews with the current officer-in-charge of the
Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office of the town, Mr. Isidro Mosura, as well as
the General Services Office Head, Ms. Arlene Nufuar. Questions on solid waste management
activities of the municipality were given answers, specifically on the existing municipal solid
waste collection service. Also, the researchers used published and unpublished works, as well as
electronic sources as secondary data to further present the background of the study conducted.
Study Participants
The participants of the study were 240 household representatives from the eight
barangays of Miag-ao in the town proper. The participants were individuals 18 years old or
older, can read and write and knowledgeable of their household solid waste practices. Table 2
shows the population and number of households in the town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo from
where the study participants were drawn.
Table 2. Population and Number of Households by Barangay in Miag-ao town proper
BARANGAY
Household Population
Baybay Norte
Baybay Sur
Bolho
Mat-y
Sapa
Tacas
Ubos Ilawod
Ubos Ilaya
TOTAL
2,434
1,108
519
2,190
575
1,033
955
909
9,723
Number of Households
288
240
87
112
362
183
181
179
1,632
Source: Miag-ao Environment and Natural Resources Office (2011)
Sampling
A total of 240 households were selected following the bid price sampling as shown in
Table 3. Thirty households were interviewed in every barangay and 60 households were
interviewed in every bid price. A randomly picked point of reference household was designated
in every barangay to be the first to be interviewed. The next household to be interviewed was
determined by k = household population in the barangay/ number of sample household in the
barangay.
Table 3. Bid Price Sampling
BARANGAY Bid Price 1
(PhP 35.00)
1
9
2
9
3
7
4
7
5
7
6
7
7
7
8
7
Total
60
Households
Bid Price 2
(PhP 60.00)
7
7
9
9
7
7
7
7
Bid Price 3
(PhP 90.00)
7
7
7
7
9
9
7
7
Bid Price 4
(PhP 120.00)
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
9
Total
Households
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
240
A total of 120 households were identified for the weighing of household solid waste
being generated by households daily. The household on which household waste were weighed
were randomly selected from the 240 households interviewed. Due to time constraints and other
considerations, the household solid wastes were only weighed once. All weighing of the 120
households’ solid wastes were done on the last week of January to February 2012.
Methods of Collecting Data
A permit was secured from the Office of the Mayor of Miag-ao, Iloilo to allow the
researcher to conduct the study and gather necessary data essential to the study. Various data
regarding the solid waste management activities of Miag-ao, Iloilo were collected through its
Municipal Environment and Natural Resources Office and General Services Office.
To test the accuracy of the interview schedule, a pilot testing of interview schedule was
done. This pilot survey was conducted in the town proper of Guimbal, Iloilo with 60 households
as participants last October 2011. Proper revisions on the interview schedule were made after the
pilot survey was conducted.
The final survey was conducted in the months of December 2011 until February 2012.
Proper permits were secured weeks before the interview and households were advised that an
interview will be conducted on a specific date. The researcher asked for help from the respective
barangay heads of the study area for the determination of the households to be interviewed.
Solid wastes from 120 households were weighed after the final survey in January to
February 2012 to determine the daily amount of solid waste materials being generated by
households in the town proper of Municipality of Miag-ao.
Data Collection Instruments
An interview schedule was used throughout the data collection process consisting of
relevant interview items to answer the eight specific objectives of the study (Appendix B). An
introduction of the study, as well as the cover letter with the mayor’s approval was included in
the interview schedule for the benefit of the participants. An attached informed consent form was
also included for the proper solicitation of voluntary participation of the household head in the
study.
The interview schedule were divided into six parts, which included the: (1) sociodemographic and economic characteristics of the household, (2) the solid waste disposal
practices of the household and average daily amount of solid wastes generated by households,
(3) the level of awareness of household on proper solid waste management, (4) household’s
desired characteristics of an improved municipal solid waste collection service, (5) the
willingness-to-pay of an household for an improved municipal solid waste collection service and
(6) their preferred payment vehicle.
The first part of the interview schedule asked several questions pertaining to the sociodemographic and economic characteristics of the household representative, which included
his/her age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, job tenure. The same part also
looked into the household members’ profile, which included the household size, the number of
working household members, total monthly household income, and the housing profile.
The second part of the interview schedule asked for the solid waste disposal practices of
the household. Sections on household solid waste generation, solid waste materials present,
disposal practices per solid waste material, and frequency of waste disposal were included. A
section on weighing of the household wastes (for 120 out of 240 households) and solid waste
collection service were also included on this part of the interview schedule.
The third part assessed the awareness of the household in proper solid waste
management, particularly in municipal solid waste collection. In this part of the interview
schedule, participants were asked simultaneous questions pertaining to their concerns about
public problems and issues, both in national and local level; level of concern towards
environmental protection; concerns about environmental problems; level of concern towards
solid waste management; knowledge on proper solid waste management; household perception
on an improved solid waste collection service as solution to existing problems in solid waste
management in the municipality. This part included several tables and questions, where the
participant must rank and choose values according to his/her knowledge, perception, view or
opinion.
The fourth part of the schedule was a continuation of the last section of the previous part,
which asked for the household’s view on improved solid waste collection as an answer for the
ongoing problems in the municipal solid waste management. This section asked the household
participants the characteristics of municipal solid waste collection service that they want to
improve given its existing state.
The fifth part looked into the willingness-to-pay of the households for an improved
municipal solid waste collection service that they have specified in the previous part of the
schedule. This part primarily determined the number of households that were willing-to-pay for
an improved service given the bid price assigned. The study participants had to answer either
“yes” or “no” to a randomly assigned bid price and their level of certainty were also asked. The
households also had to give their reasons on why they are or not willing-to-pay for an improved
collection service.
The last part of the interview schedule looked into the payment vehicle that households
prefer for their contribution for an improved municipal solid waste collection. This part includes
questions on the frequency, basis, mode and collector of payment of households willing-to-pay
for an improved municipal solid waste collection service.
A pilot testing of the interview schedule was conducted last October 2011 in sixty (60)
households in the town proper of Guimbal, Iloilo. The municipality also has existing municipal
solid waste collection service in its town proper that constitutes almost the same settings as the
study locale. The bid prices used in the final interview schedule were also determined through
the values identified in the pilot testing.
Data Analysis
The study used descriptive statistics in analyzing the data gathered. This included mean,
frequency and percentage. Mean willingness-to-pay and social mean willingness-to-pay were
computed through Turnbull willingness-to-pay estimation model. Binary logistic regression
analysis was used to identify the significant factors influencing households’ decision of either
paying or not for an improved solid waste collection in the town proper of the municipality of
Miag-ao, Iloilo.
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents and discusses the results of the personal interviews with 240
household representatives in the eight (8) barangays of the town proper of Municipality of Miagao, Iloilo that participated in the study. The presentation of the results is divided into six (6)
parts: socio-demographic and economic profile of the households, household solid waste
disposal practices, level of awareness of households in proper solid waste management,
households’ desired characteristics of an improved municipal solid waste collection service,
decisions of households on willingness-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection
service and the factors affecting their decision, and their preferred payment vehicle.
Throughout the presentation and discussion of the results, the households were classified
into two types based on their willingness-to-pay decision for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service: those who are willing-to-pay and those who are not willing-to-pay (Table 4).
Out of the 240 participants interviewed, 177 were willing to pay (73.50%) and 63 were not
willing-to-pay (26.25%) for an improved service.
Table 4. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay
for an Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Household Type
Willing-To-Pay
Not Willing-To-Pay
No.
(N=240)
177
63
%
73.75
26.25
Socio-Demographic and Economic Profile of Households
Individual Level Information
Table 5 below shows the profile of the household participants based on selected sociodemographic characteristics. The majority of the participants in the interview conducted were
male (55.42%). More male participants than female participants can be noted in households that
were willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service. On the average,
the participants were in their early to mid-fifties. A larger number of younger individuals were
recorded to be less likely willing-to-pay for an improved service than in households that are
willing-to-pay for an improved service. Most of the study participants were married, consisting
of about three quarters of the total study sample (72.50%). Results also show that most of the
study participants were either high school graduates (40.83%) or college graduates (39.58%).
Study participants that reached higher education (high school, college and graduate studies) were
observed to be more willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service.
Table 5. Distribution of Participants by their Decision to Pay for an Improved Collection
Service and Individual Personal Profile
Household Type
All
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=240)
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Sex
Male
100
56.50
33
52.38
133
55.42
Female
77
43.50
30
47.62
107
44.58
Age
54.95
52.68
54.35
Mean Age (in years)
Civil Status
Single
5
2.82
10 15.87
15
6.25
Married
127
71.75
47 74.60
174
72.50
Widowed/-er
44
24.86
5
7.94
49
20.42
Separated
1
0.56
1
1.59
2
0.83
Highest Educational
Attainment
Elementary
33
18.64
8 12.70
41
17.08
High School
69
38.98
29 46.03
98
40.83
Vocational
3
1.69
1
1.59
4
1.67
College
71
40.11
24 38.10
95
39.58
Master's
1
0.56
1
1.59
2
0.83
The participants were also classified based on their occupation, income and tenure as
shown in Table 6. Government employees, barangay employees and businesspersons were found
to be more willing-to-pay for an improved service than private workers and self-employed
individuals. Low-income individuals were those who were more willing to pay for an improved
service than high-income individuals. When classified by their tenure in their respective
occupations, permanent workers and businesspersons were more willing-to-pay for an improve
service than temporary or contractual employees.
Table 6. Distribution of Participants by their Decision to Pay for an Improved Collection
Service and Means of Income
Household Type
VARIABLE
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
No.
Occupation
Unemployed
Government
Employee
Self-Employed
Private Employee
Businessperson
Barangay Employee
Monthly Income
Mean Monthly Income
Occupation Tenure
Unemployed
Temporary/Contractual
Permanent
Businessman/SelfEmployed
%
Not Willing-toPay
(n=63)
No.
%
All
(N=240)
No.
%
58
32.77
15
23.81
73
30.42
47
31
15
18
8
26.55
17.51
8.47
10.17
4.52
15
23
9
1
-
23.81
36.51
14.29
1.59
-
62
54
24
19
8
25.83
22.50
10.00
7.92
3.33
3,542
3,622
3,563
57
80
26
32.20
45.20
14.69
16
38
8
25.40
60.32
12.70
73
118
34
30.42
49.17
14.17
14
7.91
1
1.59
15
6.25
Household Level Information
Table 7 shows profile of the study households. The households on the average, had four
members. Bigger household size was noted among households that were willing-to-pay, for an
improved municipal solid waste collection (5 versus 4 members). The number of working
household members, however, was the same for both types of households (2 members per
household).
Households with higher total household income were less likely to pay for an improved
service than households with lower total household income. Nine out of ten (92%) study
participants owned the house they lived in. All study participants that rent houses and those who
were informally settling were willing-to-pay for an improved service. Meanwhile, 88.70% of all
study participants owning their respective houses were also willing-to-pay for an improved
municipal solid waste collection service.
Table 7. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Household Level Information
Household Type
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
VARIABLE
All
(N=240)
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Household Size (mean)
5
-
4
-
4
-
Mean Number of Working
Household Members (mean)
2
-
2
-
2
-
14,717
-
17,561
-
15,463
-
Mean Total Monthly
Household Income (in PhP)
Housing Ownership
Owned
Rented
Informal Settling
157
11
9
88.70
6.21
5.08
63
-
100
-
220
11
9
91.67
4.58
3.75
Household Solid Waste Disposal Practices
Kind and Volume of Solid Waste Generated
Table 8 shows the distribution of the households based on the kind of solid waste
materials generated in the past twenty-four (24) hours to the time the interview was conducted.
Food wastes topped the list of solid waste materials present in all study participants’ households
(99.58%). The list is followed by yard wastes, plastics, paper products, cans and glass materials.
Households that were willing-to-pay for an improved solid waste collection service had more
yard wastes generated than those who were not willing-to-pay (85.88% versus 74.60%). Higher
percentage of households not willing-to-pay for an improved service generated more food
wastes, plastic, paper, cans and glass materials than households willing-to-pay for an improved
service.
Table 8. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Kind of Solid Waste Materials They
Generate
Household Type
MATERIAL
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
No.
Food Wastes
Yard Wastes
Plastic
Paper
Can
Glass
%
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=63)
No.
%
176
99.44
63
152
128
113
39
28
85.88
72.32
83.34
22.03
15.82
47
61
55
23
13
100
74.60
96.83
87.30
36.51
20.63
All
(N=240)
No.
239
199
189
168
62
41
%
99.58
82.92
78.75
70.00
25.83
17.08
Average daily amount of waste generated by households were also measured, as shown in
Table 9. The average daily amount of solid wastes generated by households was 1.44 kilograms.
The average daily solid waste load of the municipality was 2,350.08 kilograms. The study found
out that not willing-to-pay households produced larger amount of wastes as compared to
households, which were willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service
(1.51 versus 1.41 kilograms).
Table 9. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Daily Average Volume of Solid Waste
Being Generated
Household Type
VOLUME OF SOLID
WASTE GENERATED
Average Daily Volume
of Solid Waste
Generated by
Households (in kg)
Willing-to-Pay
(n=85)
Not Willing-toPay
(n=35)
Weighed
(n=120)
1.41
1.51
1.44
Households’ average volume of solid waste generated per barangay was also computed as
shown in Table 10. Baybay Norte’s households have the highest average volume of solid waste
generated among all eight barangays in the town proper (with 1.53 kilograms). The high solid
waste volume is due to the fact that the municipal market is located in the barangay. Bolho, Ubos
Ilaya, Baybay Sur and Sapa follow, and are barangays located near the vicinity of the
municipality’s center and are barangays located in coastal and riverine areas.
Table 10. Daily Average Volume of Solid Waste Generated by Households per Barangay
VOLUME OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED
BARANGAY
(in kg)
Baybay Norte
1.53
Bolho
1.48
Ubos Ilaya
1.46
Baybay Sur
1.45
Sapa
1.42
Ubos Ilawod
1.39
Mat-y
1.39
Tacas
1.38
Solid Waste Containers
Table 11 shows the distribution of participating households by their use of container for
every kind of solid waste material they generated. Plastic containers and sacks were the preferred
solid waste containers by households. Closed containers, open containers and baskets are among
the other least preferred container types.
Households preferred to throw their yard wastes, papers and cans in sacks. Their food and
plastic wastes were preferred to be placed in closed containers, and glass wastes were commonly
thrown in plastic containers. Open containers, boxes, plastics and closed containers were more
likely the substitutes of households as solid waste containers. Willing-to-pay households
preferred to throw most of their solid waste generated in sacks. On the other hand, not willing-topay households preferred to throw their waste materials in sacks, closed containers and plastic
containers.
Table 11. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Container They Use for Different Kinds
of Solid Waste Materials Generated
Household Type
WASTE MATERIAL AND
CONTAINER
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
No.
Food Wastes
Closed Container
Open Container
Plastic
Sack
Yard Wastes
Sack
Open Container
Basket
Plastic
Plastic
Closed Container
Box
Basket
Sack
Plastic
Paper
Sack
Box
Plastic
Open Container
Closed Container
Basket
%
All
(N=240)
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
73
86
17
-
41.48
48.86
9.66
-
32
20
10
1
50.79
31.75
15.87
0.02
105
106
27
1
43.93
44.35
11.30
0.42
60
40
33
19
39.47
26.32
21.71
12.50
28
6
9
4
59.57
12.77
19.15
8.51
88
46
42
23
44.22
23.12
21.11
11.56
67
25
12
20
4
52.34
19.53
9.38
15.63
3.13
26
13
19
3
-
42.62
21.31
31.15
4.92
-
93
38
31
23
4
49.21
20.11
16.40
12.17
2.12
58
20
14
6
7
8
51.33
17.70
12.39
5.31
6.19
7.08
13
7
12
10
8
5
20.63
11.11
19.05
15.87
12.70
7.94
71
27
26
16
15
13
42.26
16.07
15.48
9.52
8.93
7.74
Can
Sack
Plastic
Glass
Plastic
Closed Container
32
7
82.05
17.95
22
1
95.65
4.35
54
8
87.10
12.90
18
10
64.29
35.71
11
2
84.62
15.38
29
12
70.73
29.27
Methods of Solid Waste Disposal
Households’ solid waste disposal methods were also examined as shown in Table 12.
Food wastes were disposed by households by either giving to their neighbors or feeding to their
pet animals (81.59%). Yard wastes, plastics and paper wastes were disposed by households
through the existing collection service. Meanwhile, cans were being reused by households
(46.77%) and glass were mostly being buried by households (70.73%).
Table 12. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Method of Solid Waste Disposal
Household Type
WASTE MATERIAL AND
DISPOSAL METHOD
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
No.
Food Wastes
Given/Fed
Collected
Yard Wastes
Collected
Buried
Plastic
Collected
Buried
Incinerated
Reused
Paper
Collected
Incinerated
Reused
Can
Reused
%
All
(N=240)
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
146
30
82.95
17.05
49
14
77.78
22.22
195
44
81.59
18.41
116
36
76.32
23.68
37
10
78.72
21.28
153
46
76.88
32.12
79
24
19
6
61.72
18.75
14.84
4.69
50
0
2
9
81.97
0
3.28
14.57
129
24
21
15
68.25
12.70
11.11
7.94
61
51
1
53.98
45.13
0.88
48.72
35.90
6
49
0
10.91
89.09
0
67
100
1
39.88
59.52
0.60
10
43.48
29
46.77
19
Collected
Sell
Glass
Buried
Collected
14
6
15.38
12
1
52.17
4.35
26
7
41.94
11.29
24
4
85.71
14.29
11
2
84.62
15.38
29
12
70.73
29.27
Frequency of Solid Waste Disposal
The frequencies of solid waste disposal of the participating households were also
observed. Table 13 shows the distribution of the different solid waste disposal frequencies of
households for every solid waste material.
Table 13. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Frequency of Solid Waste Disposal
Household Type
All
WASTE MATERIAL AND
Willing-to-Pay
Not
Willing-to-Pay
(N=240)
FREQUENCY OF
(n=177)
(n=63)
DISPOSAL
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Food Wastes
Daily
Twice A Week
Others
Yard Wastes
Daily
Others
Plastic
Daily
Weekly
Twice A Week
Paper
Daily
Weekly
Twice A Week
Can
Daily
Weekly
Twice A Week
Glass
Daily
144
1
31
81.82
0.57
17.61
6
3
95.24
4.76
204
1
34
85.36
0.42
14.23
90
62
59.21
40.79
35
12
74.47
25.53
125
74
62.81
37.19
79
35
14
61.72
27.34
10.94
48
10
3
78.69
16.39
4.92
127
45
17
67.20
28.31
8.99
60
34
19
53.10
30.09
16.81
23
11
21
41.82
20
38.18
83
45
40
49.40
26.79
23.81
26
12
1
66.67
30.77
2.56
11
11
1
47.83
47.83
4.35
37
23
2
59.68
37.10
3.23
28
100
13
100
41
100
Almost all solid waste materials were being disposed by households on a daily basis.
Some waste materials were preferred by households to be disposed either weekly or twice a
week.
Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Table 14 shows the distribution of participating households and their availment of the
existing municipal solid waste collection service. Two-thirds (66.67%) of the total households
participating in the study currently availed the collection service.
Table 14. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Their Availment of Existing Municipal Solid
Waste Collection Service
Household Type
AVAILMENT OF SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION SERVICE
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
No.
Household Availing Solid Waste
Collection Service
Household Not Availing Solid Waste
Collection Service
%
Not Willing-toPay
(n=63)
No.
%
All
(N=240)
No.
%
122
66.93
38
60.32
160
66.67
55
31.07
25
39.68
80
33.33
Table 15 shows the distribution of the collection service-availing households based on the
characteristics of the existing municipal solid waste collection service. All households that
availed the existing collection service segregated their solid wastes. Sack is mostly being used by
these households to be the overall container of solid waste material. Other containers based on
the preference of the households were baskets, plastics and closed containers.
Table 15. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Characteristics of Existing Solid Waste
Collection Service
Household Type
CHARACTERISTICS
No.
Waste Segregation
Segregating Solid Waste
Not Segregating Solid Waste
Overall Container of Solid Waste
Material
Sack
Basket
Plastic
Closed Container
Container Returned
Returned
Not returned
Pickup Area
Household
Main Routes/ Highway
Barangay-Designated Area
Years of Utilization of Service
(mean)
Service Payment
Paying
Not Paying
To Whom Paying Service Fee
Barangay
Municipality
All
(N=160)
Not Willing-toPay
(n=38)
No.
%
Willing-to-Pay
(n=122)
%
No.
%
122
-
100
-
38
-
100
-
160
-
100
-
63
31
27
1
51.64
25.41
22.13
0.82
28
8
2
-
73.68
21.05
5.26
-
91
39
29
1
56.88
24.38
18.13
0.63
109
13
89.34
10.66
37
1
97.37
2.63
146
14
91.25
8.75
99
20
3
81.15
16.39
2.46
22
14
2
57.89
36.84
5.26
121
34
5
75.63
21.25
3.13
7
-
6
-
7
-
92
30
75.41
24.59
19
19
50
50
111
49
69.38
30.63
71
21
77.17
22.83
18
1
94.74
5.26
89
22
80.18
19.82
Overall solid waste containers of households for the existing solid waste collection were
mostly returned (91.25% versus 8.75%). The majority of the households availing the current
service have their solid wastes collected directly from their homes (75.63%). Other households
have to bring their solid wastes to the main routes/highways to have their wastes collected and a
small amount have their wastes placed in a designated area in the barangay for pickup (21.25%
and 3.13%). The average amount of years of households availing the existing service was 7
years. Households willing-to-pay for an improved service availed the solid waste collection
service longer than those who were not willing-to-pay for an improved service (7 years versus 6
years).
The existing collection service fee was P30.00 and collection tickets were being used by
households during solid waste collection. Seven out of 10 (69.38%) households were paying for
the current collection service. Three quarters (75.41%) of the total households willing-to-pay for
an improved service were paying for the existing collection service. Meanwhile, half of the
households not willing-to-pay for an improved service were paying for the existing service
(50%). Eight out of ten (80.18%) of the total households were paying their collection service fee
to their respective barangays. The rest were paying directly to the municipality (19.82%).
Table 16 shows the distribution of existing collection service-availing households based
on their contentment on the current solid waste collection service. An average of 80.63% of the
total households was contented with the existing municipal solid waste collection service. Higher
percentage of not contented households can be noted from households not willing-to-pay for an
improved collection service than those who were willing-to-pay for an improved service (23.68
versus 18.03).
Table 16. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Contentment on the Existing Solid
Waste Collection Service
Household Type
CHARACTERISTICS
Willing-to-Pay
(n=122)
No.
Contented with Service
Not Contented with Service
100
22
%
81.97
18.03
Not Willing-toPay
(n=38)
No.
%
29
9
76.32
23.68
All
(N=160)
No.
129
31
%
80.63
19.38
Table 17 presents the distribution of the non-contented collection service-availing
households and the reasons for their non-contentment on the existing collection service. Wrong
processes during collection service were identified by households to be the top reason of their
discontentment. Collection route problems and behavior of collectors during collection were the
next identified reason of households’ discontentment (both 70.97%). Other reasons identified
were unreturned and deteriorated container after collection, (51.61%) expensive existing fees
(41.94%), and other problems such as status of dump tracks used in collection, lack of signaling
devices before time of collection, and outdated equipments.
Table 17. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Reasons for their Non-Contentment on
Existing Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service*
Household Type
All
REASONS FOR NONNot Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=31)
CONTENTMENT ON EXISTING
Pay
(n=22)
SERVICE
(n=9)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Wrong Process
17
77.27
8
88.89
24
77.42
Route Problems
15
68.18
7
77.78
22
70.97
Behavior Problems of Collectors
16
72.73
6
66.67
22
70.97
Unreturned and deteriorated
container after collection
15
68.18
1
11.11
16
51.61
Expensive fee
13
59.09
13
41.94
Other problems
13
59.09
5
55.56
18
58.06
*multiple responses
Table 18 shows the distribution of the 160 collection service-availing households and the
solid waste problems they were experiencing with the existing municipal solid waste collection
service. Diseases topped the list (43.13%) of the common problems experienced by households
with the current service followed by clogging of drainages and waterways (32.50%), no
improvement in surrounding’s cleanliness despite presence of existing collection service
(26.88%) and further waste problems resulting from collection (18.75%).
Table 18. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Problems They Experience with the
Existing Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service*
Household Type
All
PROBLEMS ARISING FROM
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=160)
EXISTING SOLID WASTE
Pay
(n=122)
COLLECTION SERVICE
(n=38)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Diseases
54
44.26
15
39.47
69
43.13
Clogging of Drainages and
Waterways
40
32.79
12
31.58
52
32.50
Still Unclean Surroundings
43
35.25
43
26.88
Further Waste Problems
24
19.67
6
15.79
30
18.75
Others
24
19.67
28
73.68
52
32.50
*multiple responses
Perception and Concern of Households on Solid Waste Collection
Table 19 shows the major national issues as identified by the study participants. Results
showed that the study participants were more concerned with non-environmental issues than
environmental ones. These issues include crime (43.33%), corruption (42.92%), unemployment
(41.17%), and poverty (33.42%). Climate change (27.92) and environmental degradation
(25.83), both of which are environmental issues, were the major environmental issues identified
by households in the national level.
Other issues, both environmental and non-environmental types, identified by households
were problems in the national health system, waste management problems, calamity and disaster
and overpopulation. This shows that the study participants were more concerned with their
security and economic issues than any other problems related to the environment. However, a
greater proportion of the study participants willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service identified environmental issues as a major issue.
Table 19. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Identified Major National Issues*
Household Type
All
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=240)
VARIABLE
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Crime in the Philippines
Corruption
Unemployment
Poverty
Climate Change
Environmental Degradation
Problems in Health System
Waste Management Problems
Calamity and Disaster
Overpopulation
Other problems
*multiple responses
75
86
68
56
51
51
46
27
36
30
2
42.15
48.70
38.53
31.53
28.81
28.93
26.10
15.03
20.56
16.72
1.13
29
17
31
24
16
11
10
25
15
10
-
45.40
27.62
48.57
38.73
25.40
17.78
16.51
40.32
23.81
15.87
-
104 43.33
103 42.92
99 41.173
80
3.42
67 27.92
62 25.83
56 23.33
52 21.67
51 21.42
40 16.50
2
0.83
Table 20 shows the distribution of the responses of the households by the major issues
they identified in the province. More than half (51.17%) of the households identified corruption
as a major issue in Iloilo. Solid waste management problems come next with 44.17% of the total
households identifying it as a major problem in the province. Other major problems identified
were mostly non-environmental problems: problems with provincial health system,
unemployment, insufficient safe water, agricultural problems, crimes, insufficient electrical
energy, rebel and leftist groups and problems in transport systems. There were no significant
differences on the major issues identified by both kinds of households except for those
households willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection that identified more
environmental problems as major issues, as contrasted to those who are not willing-to-pay for an
improved collection service.
Table 20. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Identified Major Issues in the Province of
Iloilo*
Household Type
All
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=240)
VARIABLE
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Corruption
Solid Waste Management Problems
Problems in Provincial Health System
Unemployment in the Province
Insufficient Safe Water
Agricultural Problems
Crime in the Province
Insufficient Electricity Problems
Rebel and Leftist Groups
Insufficient Transport Services
Other problems in the Province
90
73
71
49
47
51
44
47
37
13
10
50.96
41.13
40.00
27.68
26.33
28.93
24.97
26.44
20.79
7.46
5.65
33
33
26
30
16
11
15
9
8
6
-
18.42
18.76
14.58
16.95
9.15
6.44
8.25
5.08
4.29
3.16
-
123
106
97
79
63
63
59
56
44
19
10
51.17
44.17
40.25
32.92
26.17
26.08
24.50
23.25
18.50
7.83
4.17
*multiple responses
Problems in the municipal level were also identified. Table 21 shows the distribution of
the participating households based on their identified major issues in the Municipality of Miagao. Two environmental issues topped the list of major issues in the municipality as households
identified solid waste management problems (42.42%) and unclean surroundings (34.92%) as
main municipal problems. Problems in the health services, crime, corruption, agricultural
problems and insufficient electricity and water problems strongly follow as identified by
households. Other problems identified were effects of climate change and unemployment in the
municipality. Both household types identified solid waste management as the major issue in the
municipality of Miag-ao. However, a larger proportion of households willing-to-pay for an
improved service identified problems in solid waste management as the major issue among other
issues in the municipality.
Table 21. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Identified Major Issues in the Municipality
of Miag-ao*
VARIABLE
Solid Waste Management Problems
Unclean Surroundings
Problems in the Health System
Crime in the Municipality
Corruption in the Local Government
Agricultural Problems
Insufficient Electricity Problems
Insufficient Safe Water
Effects of Climate Change
Unemployment in the Municipality
Other Problems in the Municipality
Household Type
Willing-to-Pay
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
79
44.75
23
35.87
62
35.03
22
34.60
65
36.50
15
24.13
56
31.75
22
34.92
58
32.99
18
28.89
61
34.69
13
21.27
41
23.16
32
51.43
48
27.01
14
21.90
31
17.51
15
24.44
25
14.12
13
20.95
9
5.20
1
1.59
All
(N=240)
No.
102
84
80
78
76
75
73
62
46
38
10
%
42.42
34.92
33.25
32.58
31.92
31.17
30.58
25.67
19.33
15.92
4.25
*multiple responses
Table 22 shows the level of concern of households in the municipality towards
environmental and resource protection. Results show that higher proportion of the study
participants believed that the households in the municipality were concerned with the
environment and natural resources. More households willing-to-pay for an improved municipal
solid waste collections service, however, believed that more households in the municipality were
not concerned with their environment as compared to those households not willing-to-pay for an
improved service.
Table 22. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Opinion on the Level of Concern
of All Households in the Municipality Towards Environmental Protection
LEVEL OF CONCERN
Not Very Concerned
Not Concerned
Neutral
Concerned
Very Concerned
Household Type
Willing-to-Pay
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
51
28.81
31
17.51
21
33.33
24
13.56
5
7.94
36
20.34
19
30.16
35
19.77
18
28.57
All
(N=240)
No.
51
52
29
55
53
%
21.25
21.67
12.08
22.92
22.08
The study participants were asked to identify the important environmental problems in
the municipality of Miag-ao. This aimed to see whether households are concerned with solid
waste management as a major environmental problem in the town proper.
Table 23 shows the distribution of the households based on their identified major
environmental issues. Problems in municipal solid waste management (65.50%) were identified
by the study participants to be the major environmental problem in the Municipality of Miag-ao,
Iloilo. Land conversion, agricultural problems, water pollution and flooding follow. Seven (7)
out of 10 households (72.77%) willing-to-pay for an improved collection service identified
problems in solid waste management as main environmental issue. Meanwhile, about half
(45.08%) of the households not willing-to-pay for an improved service identified problems in
SWM as main environmental issue.
Table 23. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and the Identified Major Environmental Issues*
VARIABLE
Solid Waste Management Problems
Land Conversion
Agricultural Problems
Water Pollution
Flooding
Air Pollution
Climate Change
Extinction of Natural Resources
Pests
Other Environmental Problems
Household Type
Willing-to-Pay
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
129
96
78
61
50
57
43
7
7
15
72.77
54.24
44.29
34.46
28.25
32.20
24.29
3.84
3.84
8.25
28
37
26
37
19
11
17
7
3
7
45.08
58.41
41.90
58.73
30.16
16.83
26.67
11.43
4.76
11.43
All
(N=240)
No.
157
133
105
98
69
68
60
14
10
22
%
65.50
55.33
43.67
40.83
28.75
28.17
24.92
5.83
4.08
9.08
*multiple responses
The study participants were also asked of their opinions regarding the level of seriousness
of the problems of the municipality on solid waste management. Table 24 shows the distribution
of the households based on their opinion on the level of seriousness of the municipality’s
problems in solid waste management. Most households believed that the municipality has serious
problem in solid waste management. More households willing-to-pay for an improved municipal
solid waste collection service believe that the municipality is facing serious problems in solid
waste management, as opposed to those who are not willing-to-pay that believe that solid waste
management was not a serious problem of the municipality.
Table 24. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Opinion on the Level of Seriousness of
the Municipality’s Problems in Solid Waste Management
Household Type
All
Willing-to-Pay
Not Willing-to-Pay
(N=240)
LEVEL OF CONCERN
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Not Very Serious
Not Serious
Neutral
Serious
Very Serious
33
9
42
53
40
18.64
5.08
23.73
29.94
22.60
9
19
14
9
12
14.29
30.16
22.22
14.29
19.05
42
28
56
62
52
17.50
11.67
23.33
25.83
21.67
Participants were then asked on their five proposed solutions to solve the problems in
municipal solid waste management. Table 25 shows the distribution of participating households
based on their identified solutions on problems in municipal solid waste management.
Improvement of solid waste collection service (61.42%) was identified as the major solution to
the problems in the municipality’s solid waste management. Proper segregation (42.33%) and
regular home cleanup (40.83%) were also identified by participants to be other solutions to the
problems. Both household types believed that improvement of solid waste collection service is
the best solution to the municipality’s problem in solid waste management.
Table 25. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Identified Solutions on Problems in
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Household Type
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
SOLUTIONS
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
Improvement of solid waste collection
Proper segregation of wastes
Regular home cleanup
Regular barangay cleanup
Improvement of MRFs
Unclogging of Wastes in Drainages
and Waterways
Improvement of Recycling
Teaching of proper SWM
Limiting of Plastic Usage
Other solutions not provided
All
(N=240)
No.
%
106
78
58
69
53
60.11
44.07
32.54
39.21
29.83
41
24
40
16
29
65.08
37.46
64.13
25.08
46.03
147
102
98
85
82
61.42
42.33
40.83
35.50
34.08
47
55
21
25
18
26.67
31.30
12.09
14.24
9.94
15
1
12
8
3
23.49
2.22
19.37
12.38
4.76
62
57
34
33
21
25.83
23.67
14.00
13.75
8.58
Table 26 shows the average Knowledge Index Rating of the study participants. This was
derived from their score on their awareness questions that measured their knowledge regarding
proper solid waste management. The average score of all study participants was 8.00. The
Knowledge Index Rating of households willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service was slightly higher than housholds not willing-to-pay for an improved service.
This means that households which were willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service has higher level of knowledge on proper solid waste management than those
who are not willing-to-pay.
Table 26. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Level of Knowledge on Proper Solid Waste
Management
Household Type
VARIABLE
Knowledge Index Rating (mean)
Willing-to-Pay
(n=177)
Not Willing-to-Pay
(n=63)
8.06
7.86
All
(N=240)
8.00
Households were also asked of their perception towards improvement of municipal solid
waste collection as solution to the problems in municipal solid waste management of the
Municipality of Miag-ao. Results show (Table 27) that most households believed that
improvement of the municipal solid waste collection service is definitely a very good solution to
the problems of the municipality in solid waste management. Results also show that both types
of households believed that improvement in the collection service would lead to a better solid
waste management in the municipality of Miag-ao, Iloilo.
Table 27. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and Perception Towards Improvement of Solid
Waste Collection Service as Solution to Problems in Solid Waste Management
Household Type
LEVEL OF PERCEPTION
All
TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT
Willing-to-Pay
Not Willing-to-Pay
(N=240)
OF SWC AS SOLUTION TO
(n=177)
(n=63)
SWM PROBLEMS
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Definitely Yes
Yes
Neutral
No Opinion
96
52
26
3
54.24
29.38
14.69
1.69
32
19
10
2
50.79
30.16
15.87
3.17
134
75
36
5
55.83
31.25
15.00
2.08
Desired Characteristics of an Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Participating households were then asked of their desired characteristics of an improved
municipal solid waste collections service. The following section is divided into two parts: the
desired preparation methods of households for collection and their desired characteristics of the
collection service.
Preparation for Collection
Table 28 shows the distribution of participating households based on their desired
preparation methods for an improved collection service. All study participants still wanted to
have their solid wastes segregated before it will be collected. Plastic containers were preferred by
households to be the overall solid waste container for collection (37.50%), followed by sacks and
baskets (both 26.67%) and original containers (2.50%). Households willing-to-pay for an
improved municipal solid waste collection service preferred plastic as overall solid waste
container, in contrast with households not willing-to-pay that preferred sacks as overall
container.
Table 28. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Desired Preparation Methods for an
Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Household Type
All
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
(N=240)
VARIABLE
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Segregation for Solid Wastes
Waste to be Segregated
Waste not to be Segregated
Overall Solid Waste Container
Plastic
Sack
Basket
Original Container
Others
Containers to be Returned
Return
Not Return
Pickup Area
Household
Main Highway/Route
Who to Pickup Wastes
Collector
Barangay Personnel
When to Place Container
Before the collector arrives
As collector arrives
Regular pickup by a barangay
personnel
177
-
100
-
63
-
100
-
240
-
100
-
77
35
45
5
15
43.50
19.77
25.42
2.82
8.47
13
29
19
1
1
20.63
46.03
30.16
1.59
1.59
90
64
64
6
16
37.50
26.67
26.67
2.50
6.67
156
21
88.14
11.86
59
4
93.65
6.35
215
25
89.58
10.42
108
69
61.02
38.98
43
20
68.25
31.75
151
89
62.92
37.08
126
51
71.19
28.81
41
22
65.08
34.92
167
73
69.58
30.42
79
59
44.63
33.33
12
18
19.05
28.57
91
77
37.92
32.08
39
22.03
33
52.38
72
30.00
Solid waste containers were preferred by most households to be returned (89.58% versus
10.42%). Households also preferred to have their solid waste containers picked up directly from
their households (69.58% versus 30.42%). Households interviewed preferred to place their
containers before the collector arrives (37.92%). More households not willing-to-pay for an
improved municipal solid waste collection service, however, preferred to have their wastes to be
regularly picked up a barangay personnel (52.38%), as compared to households willing-to-pay
for an improved collection service that preferred to place their solid waste containers before the
collector arrives.
Characteristics of Collection Service
Table 29 shows the desired characteristics of households for an improved municipal solid
waste collection service as identified by the households. More than half (51.25%) of the
municipality’s households preferred a daily solid waste collection. Most households (45.00%)
preferred to have their solid wastes collected at any time between 05:00 AM to 09:00 AM.
Improvements wanted to be seen by households in the collection service were primarily increase
in collection trucks (51.67) and increase in the number of working personnel (40.83%). Other
responses (14.58%) included increase in the number of MRFs, eco-centers and public waste
cans.
Table 29. Distribution of Participating Households by their Decision to Pay for an
Improved Collection Service and their Desired Characteristics of an
Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Household Type
Not Willing-toWilling-to-Pay
Pay
(n=177)
(n=63)
No.
%
No.
%
VARIABLE
Frequency of Collection
Daily
Twice a Week
Weekly
Time of Collection
0500 AM – 0900 AM
0901 AM – 1200 NN
0100 PM – 0400 PM
Improvements in Collection*
Increase in trucks
Increase in personnel
Others
*multiple responses
All
(N=240)
No.
%
95
42
40
53.67
23.73
22.60
28
24
11
44.44
38.10
17.46
123
66
51
51.25
27.50
21.25
82
63
32
46.33
35.59
18.08
26
24
13
41.27
38.10
20.63
108
87
45
45.00
36.25
18.75
105
69
26
59.32
38.98
14.69
19
29
9
30.16
46.03
14.29
124
98
35
51.67
40.83
14.58
Willingness-to-Pay of Households to Pay for An Improved
Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Willingness-to-pay of the study participants for the improvements they have previously
identified were sampled from all eight (8) barangays in the town proper of the Municipality of
Miag-ao, Iloilo is presented in Table 30. Each of the four bid prices (P35.00, P60.00, P90.00 and
P120.00) were randomly assigned to 60 of the total 240 study participants. It was noted that the
proportion of the study participants willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste
collection service is decreasing as the bid price increases. The succeeding tables are presented
depending on the households’ responses’ certainty: (1) without adjustment to level of certainty
and (2) with adjustment to level of certainty.
In the willingness-to-pay replies without adjustment to level of certainty, 47.92% of the
study participants were willing-to-pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service,
while 52.08% were not willing-to-pay for an improved service. The proportion of study
participants who answered “no” increases as the bid prices increases. The willingness-to-pay
replies of households adjusted to their level of certainty showed a drastic increase in not willingto-pay responses. The reason for this increase was due to the setting of household responses to
their level of certainty responses, making those who are not sure of their WTP answers be
counted as its opposite. Households not certain but willing-to-pay for an improved service were
counted as not willing-to-pay households. On the other hand, households not certain but were not
willing-to-pay for an improved service were counted as willing-to-pay households. After
adjusting to the household’s level of certainty, only 29.58% of the total households were certain
and willing-to-pay for an improved service.
Table 30. Distribution of Participating Households by their Willingness-to-Pay for An
Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service Given a Specific Bid
Price*
Bid Price
(in PhP)
WTP Replies of Households without
adjustment to level of certainty
Yes
No
All
WTP Replies of Households
with adjustment to level of certainty
Yes
No
All
35 (n=60)
44 (73.33)
16 (26.67)
60 (100)
42 (70.00)
18 (30.00)
60 (100)
60 (n=60)
34 (56.67)
26 (43.33)
60 (100)
16 (26.67)
44 (73.33)
60 (100)
90 (n=60)
27 (45.00)
33 (55.00)
60 (100)
10 (16.67)
50 (83.33)
60 (100)
120 (n=60)
10 (16.67)
50 (83.33)
60 (100)
3 (5.00)
57 (95.00)
60 (100)
240 (100)
71 (29.58)
115
125
169
(47.92)
(52.08)
(70.42)
*Figure outside of parenthesis is frequency count and inside is percentage
240 (100)
All (N=240)
Study participants who replied “yes” in the randomly assigned bid price gave their
reasons why they were willing to pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service
(Table 31). Households said that they wanted to pay for an improved service because they were
not contented with the current solid waste collection service of the municipality (63.48%).
Other reasons identified by participating households included: presence of a room for
improvement for the current service (46.96%), the positive effect of an improved solid waste
collection to the health of the household (43.48%), and the contribution of the improved
municipal solid waste collection service to a better quality of the environment.
Table 31. Distribution of Participating Households by the Main Reasons on Why They
Are Willing-to-Pay for an Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection
Service*
REASONS
The household is not contented with the current SWC service
The household believes that there is a room for improvement for the SWC
service
The household believes that SWC improvement is important for the health
of the household
The household believes that SWC improvement is important for a better
quality of the environment
The household believes SWC could increase cleanliness of the municipality
The household believes that SWC will improve overall proper solid waste
management
The household would like to take part with the improvement of solid waste
management
The household sees improper solid waste disposal practices in current's
service
The household have trust with the local government for improving the
SWC
Other reasons not provided
Households
Willing-to-Pay
(n=115)
No.
%
73
63.48
54
46.96
50
43.48
44
38.26
21
18.26
18
15.65
14
12.17
11
9.57
11
5
9.57
4.35
*multiple responses
On the other hand, study participants who gave a “no” answer to their assigned bid price
reasoned out that they were still contented with the existing municipal solid waste collection
service (23.20%). Other reasons identified by households were: that there is no need to pay
because the municipality is still clean (18.40%), that the household would not allot more of their
budget for an improved service (15.20%), and that it is the local government’s responsibility to
improve the service at no cost to people (13.60%).
Table 32. Distribution of Participating Households by the Main Reasons on Why They
Are Not Willing-to-Pay for an Improved Municipal Solid Waste Collection
Service
REASONS
The household is contented with the current service
The household believes that the municipality is still clean and does not need
to improve service
The household would not allot more of their budget for SWC
The household believes that it is the local government's responsibility and
not of the people
The household believes that it doesn't have the responsibility over SWM
problems
The household would practice other disposal method/s other than collection
The household believes that paying more is not a solution in solving SWM
problems
The household have less or not trust with the local government for
improving the SWC
The household believes that SWM is not its main priority
Other reasons not provided
Households Not
Willing-to-Pay
(n=125)
No.
%
29
23.20
23
19
18.40
15.20
17
13.60
13
12
10.40
9.60
10
8.00
9
9
7
7.20
7.20
5.60
Preferred Payment Vehicle
Table 33 shows the distribution of the households based on their preferred payment
vehicle for the improved municipal solid waste collection service. Most households preferred a
monthly payment (73.04%) through collection tickets (82.61%). Flat rate as basis for payment
for the improved service was preferred by most households (72.1%. Eight out of ten (80.87%)
households preferred to pay their service fees to their respective barangays.
Table 33. Distribution of Participating Willing-to-Pay Households by their
Preferred Payment Vehicle
Households Willing-to-Pay
(n=115)
VARIABLE
No.
%
Duration of Payment
Monthly
Every Collection
Payment Mode
Collection Tickets
Pay-As-You-Throw
Payment Basis
Flat Rate
Dependent on Quantity of Containers
Dependent on Weight of Wastes
To Whom To Pay
Barangay
Collector
Municipality
84
31
73.04
26.96
95
20
82.61
17.39
83
20
12
72.17
17.39
10.43
93
15
7
80.87
13.04
6.09
Mean Willingness-to-Pay and Social Willingness-to-Pay Estimates
The mean willingness-to-pay and social willingness-to-pay estimates were computed
using the more conservative Turnbull WTP estimation that provides a lower bound mean
willingness-to-pay. Due to the increase of number of those who were not willing-to-pay for an
improved municipal solid waste collection service as the bid price increases, certainty responses
were incorporated in the computation. Those who were uncertain with their responses to the
willingness-to-pay question were regarded as not willing-to-pay, vice versa. The mean WTP of
the study participants without adjustment to level of certainty amounted to P58.34 and the social
WTP was P45, 621.88. However, the mean WTP with adjustment to level of certainty was
P37.69 and the social WTP was P18,206.98. The computations of the mean willingness-to-pay
and social willingness-to-pay estimates are shown below.
Table 34. Computation of Mean WTP of Households for an Improved Municipal
Solid Waste Collection Service without Adjustment to Level of Certainty
tj
Nj
Tj
Fj*
fj*
35
16
60
0.267
0.267
60
26
60
0.433
0.166
90
33
60
0.550
0.117
120
50
60
0.833
0.283
120+
0.167
Turnbull WTP = Σ tj f*j +1 = 0 (0.267) + 35 (0.166) + 60 (0.117) + 90 (0.283) + 120
(0.167)
= 0 + 5.81 + 7.02 + 25.47 + 20.04
= Php 58.34
Social Mean WTP = (percentage of the participants who are willing-to-pay) x
(total number households of the barangays in the town proper) x
(mean WTP)
= (115/240) x (1,632) x (PhP 58.34)
= 0.479 x 1632 x 58.34
= PhP 45, 621.88
Table 35. Computation of Mean WTP of Households for an Improved Municipal
Solid Waste Collection Service with Adjustment to Level of Certainty
tj
Nj
Tj
Fj*
fj*
35
18
60
0.300
0.300
60
44
60
0.733
0.433
90
50
60
0.833
0.100
120
57
60
0.950
0.117
120+
0.050
Turnbull WTP = Σ tj f*j +1 = 0 (0.300) + 35 (0.433) + 60 (0.100) + 90 (0.117) + 120
(0.050)
= 0 + 15.16 + 6 + 10.53 + 6
= Php 37.69
Social Mean WTP = (percentage of the participants who are willing-to-pay) x
(total number households of the barangays in the town proper) x
(mean WTP)
= (71/240) x (1,632) x (PhP 37.69)
= 0.296 x 1632 x 37.69
= PhP 18,206.98
Factors Affecting the Willingness-to-Pay Decisions of Households for An Improved
Municipal Solid Waste Collection Service
Table 36 shows the regression result with willingness-to-pay for an improved municipal
solid waste collection service in the Municipality of Miag-ao, Iloilo as dependent variable.
Results show that sex (at 10% level of significance), age (at 10% level of significance),
knowledge index rating (at 10% level of significance), concern on solid waste management as
major problem in the municipality (at 10% level of significance) and the randomly assigned bid
prices (at 1% level of significance) significantly affect the willingness-to-pay of the study
participants without adjustment to their level of certainty.
Table 36. Determinants of the Willingness-to-Pay of Households for Improved Municipal
Solid Waste Collection Service without Adjustment to Level of Certainty
VARIABLE
Constant
Sex (male)
Age
Highest Educational Attainment
(college)
Civil Status (married)
Barangay
Household Size
Total Monthly Household Income
Average Daily Amount of SW
Generated by Households
Concern on SWM as major
problem in the municipality
Knowledge Index Rating
Perception on Improved Solid
Waste Collection Service as
Solution to SWM Problems
Bid Price
Coefficient
-3.69605
0.598191
0.0371691
Std. Error
2.39553
0.305671
0.0189736
z
-1.5429
1.9570
1.9590
p-value
0.12286
0.05035*
0.05011*
0.0898782
0.222864
0.00405094
0.0899143
-5.91224e-06
0.355491
0.35738
0.068569
0.101585
9.02372e-06
0.2528
0.6236
0.0591
0.8851
-0.6552
0.80040
0.53289
0.95289
0.37610
0.51235
-0.231293
0.277545
-0.8334
0.40465
0.679502
0.456338
0.409283
0.260224
1.6602
1.7536
0.09687*
0.07949*
-0.159942
-0.0311647
0.338753
0.00521751
-0.4721
-5.9731
0.63682
<0.00001***
Number of cases 'correctly predicted' = 166 (69.2%)
Likelihood ratio test: Chi-square(13) = 61.1359 [0.0000]
On the other hand, Table 37 shows the factors that affect the decision of households to
pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service with their WTP responses adjusted
to their level of certainty. Results show that sex (at 10% level of significance), average daily
amount of solid waste generated by households (at 5% level of significance), concern on solid
waste management as major problem in the municipality (at 10% level of significance),
knowledge index rating (at 5% level of significance) and their randomly assigned bid price (at
1% level of significance) significantly affect the decisions of the households to pay for an
improved service.
Table 37. Determinants of the Willingness-to-Pay of Households for Improved Municipal
Solid Waste Collection Service with Adjustment to Level of Certainty
VARIABLE
Coefficient
Std. Error
z
p-value
Constant
-3.93874
3.2792
-1.2011
0.22970
Sex (male)
0.720158
0.384529
1.8728
0.06109*
Age
0.0234294
0.0234312
0.9999
0.31735
Highest Educational
Attainment (college)
0.0526517
0.448931
0.1173
0.90664
Civil Status (married)
0.399597
0.454281
0.8796
0.37906
Barangay
-0.0581075
0.0861149
-0.6748
0.49982
Household Size
0.0909395
0.129276
0.7035
0.48177
Total Monthly Household
Income
-5.7792e-07
1.1022e-05
-0.0524
0.95818
Average Daily Amount of SW
Generated by Households
-1.0046
0.401049
-2.5049
0.01225**
Concern on SWM as major
problem in the municipality
0.898359
0.508741
1.7658
0.07742*
Knowledge Index Rating
0.761121
0.361791
2.1038
0.03540**
Perception on Improved Solid
Waste Collection Service as
Solution to SWM Problems
0.216363
0.415359
0.5209
0.60243
Bid Price
-0.0505938
0.00777496
-6.5073 <0.00001***
Number of cases 'correctly predicted' = 202 (84.2%)
Likelihood ratio test: Chi-square(13) = 96.2522 [0.0000]
The p-value of the chi-square in both estimations indicates the fitness of the model at 5%
level of significance, and the number of cases correctly predicted (69.2% for model without
adjustment to level of certainty and 84.2% for model with adjustment to level of certainty) was
high that indicates the significance of the model.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted mainly to describe the willingness-to-pay of households of the
town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo for an improved municipal solid waste collection service.
Specifically, this study aimed to describe the socio-demographic and economic profile of the
households, their solid waste disposal practices, their level of awareness of households in proper
solid waste management, their desired characteristics of an improved municipal solid waste
collection service, their willingness-to-pay for an improved service, and their preferred payment
vehicle.
Primary data were gathered through personal interviews with 240 household
representatives from eight (8) barangays of the town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo namely Baybay
Norte, Baybay Sur, Bolho, Mat-y, Sapa, Tacas, Ubos Ilawod and Ubos Ilaya. Secondary data
were gathered through interviews with the officer-in-charge of the municipality’s Municipal
Environmental and Natural Resources Office and the head of the General Services Office.
Seven out of 10 households interviewed were willing-to-pay for an improved municipal
solid waste collection service. Most of which were males, in their mid-fifties, married and
college graduates. Most of them if unemployed were government employees, or contractual or
temporary workers. The average number of household members was 4 and the average number
of household members earning income was 2. The mean total monthly household income was
PhP 15,463.00. Ninety-one percent of the houses were owned.
Food wastes, yard wastes, plastic and paper waste materials were common kinds of waste
materials being generated by households. Households produced an average of 1.46 kilograms of
solid wastes daily. The daily average solid waste load of the municipality was 2,350.08
kilograms. Baybay Norte’s households generate the highest average volume of solid waste
materials on a daily basis. Plastic containers and sacks were the preferred solid waste containers
of households. Most households preferred solid waste collection as method of solid waste
disposal. Most waste materials are being disposed daily by households in their respective solid
waste containers.
Two-thirds of the total households were availing the existing collection service. All
households were found to be segregating their waste materials for solid waste collection. Sacks
were preferred as overall container of solid waste materials. Most of the containers used for
collection were being returned by the collectors to the households. Solid wastes were picked up
from the households on existing service. An average of 7 years was the length of service
utilization of households on the existing solid waste collection service. Not all household were
paying for the collection service of PhP 30.00 monthly. Only 69.38% were paying for the
existing service in their respective barangays with collection tickets as mode of payment.
Eight out of 10 households were contented with the existing solid waste collection
service. The remaining households pointed out wrong processes, existing collection route
problems and behavior of collectors as reasons for discontentment on the existing service.
Diseases associated to wrong collection processes were the primary problems encountered by
households in the existing collection.
Most households believed that crime, corruption, unemployment and poverty were the
major issues our nation faces. Climate change was the top environmental problem households
identified. Corruption and solid waste management problems in the provincial level were the
major identified issues by households. Solid waste management problems were identified to be
the major issue being faced by the municipality according to the households.
The study participants believed Miag-aoanons were concerned with their environment
and natural resources. Problems in solid waste management, however, were identified by
households to be the major environmental problem in the municipality. Households also believed
that the municipality has a serious problem in solid waste management.
The households have Knowledge Index Rating of 8.00, which shows the strong
knowledge of households in proper solid waste management. Improvement in municipal solid
waste collection service was identified by most study participants as major solution to the
problems in the municipality’s solid waste management.
Study participants were asked of their desired characteristics of an improved municipal
solid waste collection service. It was found out that most households wanted their solid wastes to
still be segregated. Households preferred to place their solid waste materials in plastic containers,
which later must be returned by the collectors after the collection. Solid wastes were preferred by
households to be picked up directly from their households by the collectors. Also, study
participants preferred to have their solid waste containers to be placed before the collector
arrives.
Other attributes of an improved municipal solid waste collection service preferred by
households was to make the solid waste collection daily at any time within 05:00 AM to 09:00
AM. Increase in collection trucks and increase in the number of working personnel were
identified by households to further improve solid waste collection.
After being asked of their preferred characteristics of an improved municipal solid waste
collection service, households were asked of their willingness-to-pay at a given bid price. Bid
prices were PhP 35.00, PhP 60.00, PhP 90.00 and PhP 120.00. About forty-eight percent
(47.92%) of households were willing-to-pay for a given bid price without adjustment in level of
certainty and 29.58% of households were willing-to-pay for an improved service with their
decisions adjusted to their level of certainty. The amount of households willing-to-pay for a
given bid price for both cases (adjusted and not adjusted to level of certainty) were decreasing as
the bid price increases. The reasons stated for their decision to pay included their service
discontentment, belief on possible service improvement and health reasons. On the other hand,
the remaining households identified several reasons for not being willing-to-pay for an improved
collection service. This includes existing service contentment, belief that the municipality is still
clean for a service improvement to be imposed and that local government must improve services
at no additional costs to people. Most study participants preferred to pay the service fee for the
improved service at a monthly flat rate through collection tickets. Households also preferred to
pay their service fee through their respective barangays than directly to the municipality.
The mean willingness-to-pay of households without adjusting to their level of certainty
was PhP 58.34. Meanwhile the mean WTP of the households with adjustment to their level of
certainty was PhP 37.69. The social mean willingness-to-pay was recorded to be only PhP
45,621.88 and PhP 18,204.57, respectively.
The study participants’ sex, age, concern on solid waste management as major problem
of the municipality, knowledge index rating and randomly assigned bid price were the identified
significant factors for their decision to pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection
service without adjustment to their level of certainty at 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance.
On the other hand, the participants’ sex, concern on solid waste management as major problem
of the municipality, knowledge index rating, randomly assigned bid price and household’s
average daily amount of solid wastes generated were the determinants for the households’
decision to pay for an improved service with their level of certainty adjusted.
Conclusion
Households in the town proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo were mostly concerned with solid waste
management as a problem in their municipality. Households identified improvement in
municipal solid waste collection service as the key solution to the problems in solid waste
management. However, less than half of the households in the town proper of Municipality of
Miag-ao, Iloilo would pay for an improved municipal solid waste collection service even though
a need for service improvement was manifested by these households. Their willingness-to-pay
replies in the randomly assigned bid prices showed that households were less likely to pay for
their desired improved service.
Households have high knowledge and concern level on issues pertaining to solid waste
management in both household and community level. These level of knowledge and concern
were significantly observed to be affecting the households’ decision to be more willing-to-pay
for an improved municipal solid waste management services, in this case – municipal solid waste
collection service. It was therefore concluded that study participants would be more willing-topay for an improved service if they were well-informed about proper solid waste management.
The choices of households for an improved municipal solid waste collection service
package were almost similar. There were no specific attributes that the households desired to
change with the existing service and payment vehicle, except for a designation of a particular
time of solid waste collection and improvements of the facilities used in the service.
Recommendations
This study showed the need for the municipality of Miag-ao to improve their solid waste
collection service. There was a high level of contentment of households on the existing service
but several solid waste problems persist. However, the major constraint identified by the study
was that most households were not willing-to-pay for the service improvement.
The researcher recommend the local government to review the existing municipal solid
waste collection service. Several problems were identified by the households to be present with
the current service. It is also recommended that the municipality must check if the existing
processes and equipments used in the collection service comply with public health and safety
standards.
It is also recommended that households must be intensively educated with proper solid
waste management. Knowledge index ratings in the study conducted affect the willingness-topay decisions of households and the government must intensify its proper solid waste
management education to increase the awareness and knowledge level of households on the
collection service.
While it is given too little attention, urbanizing municipalities must continue to strive for
a feasible solid waste management for the purpose of avoiding the larger problems these could
create in the future. If the community will be not very much willing to help in shouldering the
cost of solid waste management, the government will have no choice but to extract their efforts
to alleviate the situation. It is recommended that local governments should work on both
incentive-based and punitive-based schemes for solid waste management.
Moreover, the researcher recommend that further studies that will explain the factors
affecting willingness-to-pay of households on various solid waste management services,
especially solid waste collection, should be conducted. It will help the local policymakers and
municipal planners to redesign and improve existing municipal solid waste management
programs and services.
REFERENCES
Adepoju, A.A. and K.K. Salimonu. n.d. Household Willingness To Pay For Improved
Solid Waste Management In Osun State, Nigeria. Downloaded on August 06, 2011 from
http://www.appropriatetech.net/files/HOUSEHOLD_WILLINGNESS
_TO_PAY_FOR_IMPROVED_SOLID_WASTE_MANAGEMENT_IN_OSUN_
STAT1.pdf
Agapito, A. and R. Guadalupe. 2011. Factors Affecting the Willingness-to-Pay for
Mangrove Conservation by Households in Dumangas, Iloilo. An undergraduate
research presented to the Division of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines –
Visayas.
Aljaradin, Mohammad, Kenneth M. Persson and Al-Itawi Hossam. 2011. Public
Awareness And Willingness For Recycle In Jordan. International Journal of
Academic Research, Vol 3, No. 1, 507 – 510.
Altaf, Mir Anjum and J.R. Deshazo. 1996. Household Demand for Improved Solid Waste
Management: A Case Study of Gujranwala, Pakistan. Downloaded on August 06, 2011
from http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsacd/cd43/altaf.pdf
Amiga, Aklilu. 2002. Households’ Willingness To Pay For Improved Solid Waste
Management: The Case Of Addis Ababa. Downloaded August 06, 2011 from
http://etd.aau.edu.et/dspace/handle/123456789/762
Anderson, David A., 2004. Environmental Economics and Natural Resource
Management First Edition. Ohio, USA: Thomson South-Western Learning.
Animasaun, Emmanuel D. and Eugene E. Ezebilo. Economic Valuation of Private Sector
Waste Management Services. Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol 4, No. 4, 38-46
Atienza, Vella. 2011. Review of Waste Management System in the Philippines:
Initiatives to Promote Waste Segregation and Recycling through Good Governance.
Economic Integration and Recycling in Asia: An Interim Report (Institute of Developing
Economies), pp 65 – 97.
Babayemi, J.O and K. T. Dauda. Evaluation of Solid Waste Generation, Categories and
Disposal in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Nigeria. Downloaded on
August 06, 2011 at http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jasem/article/ viewFile/55370/43836
Ballados, Ma. Teresa B. 2010. Assessing the Solid Waste Management Practices in
Bacolod City, Philippines. Downloaded on August 06, 2011 from
http://www.arsa1996.org/pictures/pdf/ARSA_IV_PRCDGS_VOL2/ANALYSIS%20OF
%20POLICIES%20RELATED%20TO%20AGRICULTURE,%20NATURAL%20RESO
URCES%20MANAGEMENT%20AND%20RURAL%20DEVELOPMENT/4.%20BAL
LADOS_37-44.pdf
DOH. 2010. Reducing the Burden of Disease. National Objectives for Health Philippines
2005 – 2010. Downloaded on July 21, 2011 at http://www.scribd.com/doc/10054349/
NOH20052010may15
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.
Espada, 2006. Miag-ao, Guimbal top 2006 Clean and Green. Downloaded on August 06,
2011 at http://www.thenewstoday.info/2006/11/22/miagao.guimbal.top.
2006.clean. and.green.html
Fernandez, Elaine B. 2006. Conservation Value of Miag-ao Church World Heritage Site:
Household Survey in San Joaquin, Iloilo. An undergraduate thesis presented to the
Division of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines – Visayas.
Gerhard. 1994. Waste Minimization and Recycling Strategies and their Chance of
Success. Waste Management and Research 12(3): 271–283.
Gottinger, Hans-Werner. 1991. Economic Models and Applications of Solid Waste
Management. Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers
Hagos, Fitsum, Tewodros Tadesse and Arjan Ruijs. 2008. Households Willingness To
Pay For Improved Solid Waste Management: The Case Of Mekelle City, Ethiopia.
Downloaded
on
August
06,
2011
from
http://www.webmeets.com/files/papers/WCERE/2010/983/Households
%20Willingness%20to%20Pay%20for%20Improved%20Solid%20Waste%20Manageme
nt%20the%20Case%20of%20Mekelle%20City%20Ethiopia.pdf
Khanal Bhoj Raj and Bounsouk Souksavath. n.d. Environmental Management Measures
And Current Practices In Solid Waste Management: A Case Study From Vientiane, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic. Downloaded at August 06, 2011 from
http://www.greengrowth.org/download/green-businesspub/Greening_of_the_Business/Governments/Bhoj_Khanal_Lao_Environmental_Manag
ement.pdf
Kumar, K.S. Kavi. 2006. Economics of Municipal Solid Waste Management.
Downloaded on April 07, 2012 from http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th/UpdData/
Presentations/DRKSKA.PDF
Miag-ao, Iloilo. 2002. Accomplishment Report 2002. Downloaded on July 21, 2011 at
http://www.miag-ao.tripod.com/downloads/ar2002.pdf
Miag-ao, Iloilo. 2009. An Ordinance Enacting the Municipal Environment Code of Miag-
ao, Iloilo. Downloaded on July 21, 2011 at http://www.miagao.gov.ph/index.php/ thelgu/legislative/ordinances/item/49-municipal-environment-code-of-2009
Navarro, Rhea Abigail. 2003. A Systems Approach on Solid Waste Management in
Metro Manila, Philippines. Downloaded on July 21, 2011 at http://www.lumes.
lu.se/database/alumni/02.03/theses/navarro_rhea_abigail.pdf
Navallasca, Julius Lawrence B. and Templora, Ron Offero T. 2008. Factors Affecting
The Decision To Pay For An Improved Solid Waste Collection Service Among
Households in Subdivisions in Iloilo City. An undergraduate thesis presented to the
Division of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines – Visayas.
NEDA, RDC 6, 2010. Iloilo First Congressional District Profile. Downloaded April 07,
2012 from http://www.neda-rdc6.ph/downloads/2010CongressionalProfiles/
Iloilo1st%20Congressional%20District%20Profile.pdf
Ninan, K. N. n.d. Contingent Valuation Method. Downloaded October 07, 2011 from
http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/245/Presentations/11_13_08_Contingent_V
aluation_Method.pdf
Niringiye, Aggrey and Douglason Omortor G. 2010. Determinants of Willingness to Pay
for Solid Waste Management in Kampala City. Current Research Journal of Economic
Theory, 2, 3, 119 - 122
Pearce, David, Giles Atkinson and Susana Mourato. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis and the
Environment. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Post, Jennifer L. 2007. Solid Waste Management In Jamaica: An Investigation Into
Waste
Reduction
Strategies.
Downloaded
on
August
06,
http://www.cee.mtu.edu/peacecorps/studentfiles/post.pdf
2011
Praktiri - CMS, 2007. Solid Waste Management: Principles and Terminologies.
Downloaded August 06, 2011 from http://cmsdu.org/organs/solid_waste_
management.pdf
Province of Iloilo. 2008. Provincial Development and Physical Framework Plan
Province of Iloilo CY 2008 - 2011. Iloilo, Philippines: Province of Iloilo.
Simmons, D. and Widmar, R. 1990. “Motivations and barriers to recycling: Toward a
strategy for public eduction.” The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 22, 13-18.
Subade, Rodelio F. 2005. Valuing Biodiversity Conservation in a World Heritage Site:
Citizens’ Non-use Values for Tubbataha Reefs National Marine Park,
Philippine.s. Downloaded October 07, 2011 fromhttp://www.idrc.ca/
uploads/user-S/11201434921RodelRR4.pdf
at
Tanrivermis, Harun. 1998. WillingnessTo Pay (WTP) and Willingness To Accept (WTA)
Measures in Turkey: May WTP and WTA Be Indicators to Share the Environmental
Damage Burdens: A Case Study. Journal of Economic Cooperation Among Islamic
Countries, 19, 3: 67 – 93
Tapan, Narayana. 2008. Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: From Waste
Disposal to Recovery of Resources. Waste Management 29 (2009) 1163-1166. Journal of
Waste
Management.
Downloaded
on
August
06,
2011
at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18829290
Wang, Hua, Jie He, Yoonhee Kim and Takuya Kamata. Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Small Towns: An Economic Analysis Conducted in Yunnan, China.
Downloaded
April
07,
2012
from
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/08/22/000158349_20110
822085839/Rendered/PDF/WPS5767.pdf
LEVI GUILLERMO LIMA GEGANZO
Research Assistant
University of the Philippines Visayas Foundation, Inc. (UPVFI)
Villadolid Hall, UPV Miag-ao, Iloilo Philippines 5023
0917.9327.150. / (033) 3155312
gourvy@live.com
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS, 2008 – 2012
Bachelor of Science in Economics
UP General Weighted Average: 1.98
College Scholar, Academic Year 2011 – 2012
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES HIGH SCHOOL IN ILOILO, 2004 – 2008
High School Scholar, 2004 – 2008
SCHOLARSHIPS



DILG – Local Government Scholar
Department of Science and Technology – SEI Scholar
UP High School in Iloilo – John Nelson Divinagracia Scholar
2009 – 2012
2008 – 2009
2004 – 2008
SIGNIFICANT COURSEWORK
Economics Research, Environmental Economics, Market Management, Public Policy and Economics,
Development Economics, Business Management and Project Implementation
WORK EXPERIENCES
Research Assistant, June 2012 – present
University of the Philippines Visayas Foundation, Inc. – DOE Algae Biofuels Research
UP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences – Sumitomo Foundation
UP Visayas College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences - Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development
Studies
Policy Draft Author, September 2012 – November 2012
Co-author of the Draft National Framework of the Coastal Resource Management Plan and National
Framework for Protection of Marine Sanctuaries of the Republic of Liberia
Chief of Staff and Marketing Assistant, January 2012 – February 2012
2012 Iloilo International Film Festival
Film Development Council of the Philippines and the Iloilo City Government
RECENT RESEARCH WORKS
Subade, Rodelio F., Fernandez, PRJ., Geganzo, LGL. 2013. Protecting Caluya’s Biodiversity and
Building the Voices of Caluya’s Seaweed Farmers. A paper to be presented in Philippine Association of
Marine Science’s 12th National Symposium on Marine Science.
Boeh, William Y., Subade, RF., Geganzo, LGL. 2013. Zooming-In Co-Management Of Coastal
Resources To Community Level: A Case In Southern Iloilo, Philippines. (Presented in 2013 Asian
Fisheries and Aquaculture Forum (Yeosu, South Korea) (First International Journal))
Boeh, William Y., Subade, RF, Geganzo, LGL. 2012. Evolving Co-Management Initiatives in Coastal
Resource Management of Barangay Sinogbuhan, San Joaquin, Iloilo.
Subade, Rodelio F. (Assisted). Comparative Analysis of Japan’s Influence and Contribution in Iloilo,
Philippines and North Sulawesi, Indonesia
Geganzo, Levi Guillermo L., 2012. Willingness-to-Pay for an Improved Municipal Solid Waste
Collection Service Among Households in the Town Proper of Miag-ao, Iloilo. A research paper submitted
to the University of the Philippines Visayas.
Geganzo, Levi Guillermo L., 2011. Reproductive Health Issues of Young Urban Professionals Working
in Business Process Outsourcing Industry Workers in Metro Iloilo. A research paper submitted to the
University of the Philippines Visayas.
Geganzo, Levi Guillermo L., et al. 2010. Economic Feasibility Study of the Iloilo Perimeter Boundary
Terminal: A Project Evaluation and Policy Analysis of the Revised Ordinance Establishing Boundaries
for Provincial Public Utility Vehicles Entering Iloilo City. A policy paper submitted to the University of
the Philippines Visayas.
Geganzo, Levi Guillermo L., et al. 2008. The Effectiveness of Commercial Feeds Produced Locally and
Abroad, and Egg Yolk to the Growth of Indian White Shrimp, Penaeus indicus. A research paper
submitted to the University of the Philippines High School in Iloilo.
MEMBERSHIPS IN PROFESSIONAL, CIVIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
Philippine Economics Society, 2012 – present (member through JPES)
The largest federation of economists in the Philippines / The largest confederation of economics students
in the Philippines (First UP Visayas student to join the confederation)
UPV Oeconomicus, 2009 – 2012
The largest economics organization in the Visayas (President)
 During term, UPV Oeconomicus reached its status of being one of the best performing student
organizations in UPV and amongst JPES-membering organizations
 Created both the socio-civic and academic extension subsidiaries of the organization that
produced most activities of the organization
 Have the most integrated communication system in the campus, that utilizes mobile, social media
and print platforms
 Have the most comprehensive financial statement among all student organizations
Film Development Council of the Philippines, 2012 – present
 Served as the head of the mobile cinema that brought worthwhile films to the people
 Served as a marketing assistant and chief of staff of the council during the 2012 Iloilo
International Film Festival
 Served as the director of the social media platform of the film festival publicity scheme
Philippine Red Cross – Red Cross Youth, 2000 – present
 One of the first to join the Red Cross Youth in the Iloilo Chapter for as early as in grade school
 Awarded as the Most Outstanding Red Cross Youth in 2007 by the Iloilo Chapter of the
Philippine National Red Cross
UP High School in Iloilo – Senior Red Cross Youth Council, 2004 – 2008
 During term as President, UPHSI – SRCYC was the best-performing school organization next to
the school’s Student Council
 Created the emergency response team of the organization and equipped the organization with
necessary facilities despite lack of financial support
 Integrated the emergency scheme of the organization with the young and emerging internet and
mobile platforms
RECENT SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED AND NUMBER OF TRAINING
HOURS













Stocks Investing and Training
Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Assessment
Banknotes and Coins Training
Economic Forums (Mixed)
Aquaculture Forums and Trainings
DOST Summer Orientation and Enrichment Program
Research Internship
Dengue Prevention Forum
Mass Media and Journalism
Leadership Trainings
First Aid Trainings
Coastal Resource Management
Eco-Tourism Marketing
15 hours
4 hours
3 hours
8 hours
8 hours
160 hours
120 hours
4 hours
12 hours
16 hours
48 hours
3 hours
4 hours
CONSULTING EXPERIENCE







Private Business Financial Statement Auditor, February 2012
Executive Event Organizer, 11th Young Economists’ Mini-Convention Visayas, September
2011
Head Event Organizer, Vision 2020 Philippines (with Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc., World
Youth Alliance, DepEd, CHED, NEDA, JPES and the Iloilo Cty Government), February 2012
Research Writer, Writers.PH – Makati, March 2011 – May 2011
Paper Consultant, UPV Young Economists’ Convention Paper Finalist, August 2011
Guest Radio Host – Commentator, Radyo ng Bayan – Iloilo, January 2008
Paper Consultant, UPV – Economics Research, June 2012 – November 2012