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, double-

bounded 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-to-

pay 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-to-

pay 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-to-

pay 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 est imate 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-to-

pay 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 willingness-

to-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 willing-

to-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 non-

marketed 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 non-

market 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):

WTP=v∑k=0

N

( probability of acceptance at price kv)

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:

mean WTP = [( 1θ ) ln (1+eα 0+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, whereN*

j = number of not willing-to-pay responsesT*

j = number of samples offered a specific bid

tj = bid price, andf*

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, semi-

annually 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-to-

pay questions were regressed against the household’s willingness-to-pay potential (independent

variables). The regression binary logit model was specified to be:

Y= 11+expz

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 VariablesVariable Definition

Dependent VariableWillingness-to-pay of households on assigned bid price

1 if willing to pay;0 otherwise

Independent VariablesSex

Age

Highest Educational Attainment

Civil Status

Barangay

Household Size

Sex of the participant1 if male;0 otherwise

Age of the household head on the date of interview

1 if attended college;0 otherwise

1 if married;0 otherwise

The barangay where household is located

Household Income

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

Perception on Improved Solid Waste Collection as Solution to Existing SWM Problems

Bid Price

The number of household members including the participant

Total monthly income of the household

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

1 if the study participant said “yes” to question if improved SWC is a solution to existing problems in solid waste management;0 otherwise

Amount that the household will be willing-to-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 Number of Households

Baybay Norte 2,434 288Baybay Sur 1,108 240

Bolho 519 87Mat-y 2,190 112Sapa 575 362Tacas 1,033 183Ubos Ilawod 955 181Ubos Ilaya 909 179TOTAL 9,723 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 SamplingBARANGAY Bid Price 1

(PhP 35.00)Bid Price 2(PhP 60.00)

Bid Price 3(PhP 90.00)

Bid Price 4(PhP 120.00)

TotalHouseholds

1 9 7 7 7 302 9 7 7 7 303 7 9 7 7 304 7 9 7 7 305 7 7 9 7 306 7 7 9 7 307 7 7 7 9 308 7 7 7 9 30

Total Households 60 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) socio-

demographic 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 socio-

demographic 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 Miag-

ao, 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 No.(N=240) %

Willing-To-Pay 177 73.75Not Willing-To-Pay 63 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 socio-

demographic 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 TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

SexMaleFemale

10077

56.5043.50

3330

52.3847.62

133107

55.4244.58

AgeMean Age (in years) 54.95 52.68 54.35

Civil StatusSingleMarriedWidowed/-erSeparated

5127441

2.8271.7524.860.56

104751

15.8774.607.941.59

15174492

6.2572.5020.420.83

Highest Educational Attainment

ElementaryHigh SchoolVocationalCollegeMaster's

33693

711

18.6438.981.69

40.110.56

8291

241

12.7046.031.59

38.101.59

41984

952

17.0840.831.67

39.580.83

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

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

OccupationUnemployedGovernment Employee

58

47

32.77

26.55

15

15

23.81

23.81

73

62

30.42

25.83

Self-EmployedPrivate EmployeeBusinesspersonBarangay Employee

3115188

17.518.47

10.174.52

2391-

36.5114.291.59

-

5424198

22.5010.007.923.33

Monthly Income Mean Monthly Income 3,542 3,622 3,563

Occupation TenureUnemployedTemporary/ContractualPermanentBusinessman/Self- Employed

578026

14

32.2045.2014.69

7.91

16388

1

25.4060.3212.70

1.59

7311834

15

30.4249.1714.17

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

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

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 -

Mean Total Monthly Household Income (in PhP) 14,717 - 17,561 - 15,463 -

Housing OwnershipOwnedRentedInformal Settling

157119

88.706.215.08

63--

100--

220119

91.674.583.75

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

MATERIAL

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay(n=63)

No. % No. % No. %

Food Wastes 176 99.44 63 100 239 99.58Yard Wastes 152 85.88 47 74.60 199 82.92Plastic 128 72.32 61 96.83 189 78.75Paper 113 83.34 55 87.30 168 70.00Can 39 22.03 23 36.51 62 25.83

Glass 28 15.82 13 20.63 41 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

VOLUME OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED

Household TypeWeighed(n=120)Willing-to-Pay

(n=85)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=35)Average Daily Volume of Solid Waste Generated by Households (in kg)

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

BARANGAY VOLUME OF SOLID WASTE GENERATED(in kg)

Baybay Norte 1.53Bolho 1.48

Ubos Ilaya 1.46Baybay Sur 1.45

Sapa 1.42Ubos Ilawod 1.39

Mat-y 1.39Tacas 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-to-

pay 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

WASTE MATERIAL AND CONTAINER

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay(n=63)

No. % No. % No. %

Food Wastes

Closed ContainerOpen ContainerPlasticSack

738617

-

41.4848.869.66

-

3220101

50.7931.7515.870.02

105106271

43.9344.3511.300.42

Yard Wastes Sack

Open ContainerBasketPlastic

60403319

39.4726.3221.7112.50

28694

59.5712.7719.158.51

88464223

44.2223.1221.1111.56

PlasticClosed ContainerBoxBasketSackPlastic

672512204

52.3419.539.38

15.633.13

2613193-

42.6221.3131.154.92

-

933831234

49.2120.1116.4012.172.12

PaperSackBoxPlasticOpen ContainerClosed ContainerBasket

582014678

51.3317.7012.395.316.197.08

137

121085

20.6311.1119.0515.8712.707.94

712726161513

42.2616.0715.489.528.937.74

CanSackPlastic

327

82.0517.95

221

95.654.35

548

87.1012.90

GlassPlasticClosed Container

1810

64.2935.71

112

84.6215.38

2912

70.7329.27

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

WASTE MATERIAL Household Type All

AND DISPOSAL METHOD

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay(n=63)

No. % No. % No. %Food Wastes

Given/FedCollected

14630

82.9517.05

4914

77.7822.22

19544

81.5918.41

Yard WastesCollectedBuried

11636

76.3223.68

3710

78.7221.28

15346

76.8832.12

PlasticCollectedBuriedIncineratedReused

7924196

61.7218.7514.844.69

50029

81.970

3.2814.57

129242115

68.2512.7011.117.94

PaperCollectedIncineratedReused

61511

53.9845.130.88

6490

10.9189.09

0

67100

1

39.8859.520.60

CanReusedCollectedSell

19146

48.7235.9015.38

10121

43.4852.174.35

29267

46.7741.9411.29

GlassBuriedCollected

244

85.7114.29

112

84.6215.38

2912

70.7329.27

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

WASTE MATERIAL AND FREQUENCY OF

DISPOSAL

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay(n=63)

No. % No. % No. %Food Wastes

DailyTwice A WeekOthers

1441

31

81.820.57

17.61

6-3

95.24-

4.76

2041

34

85.360.42

14.23Yard Wastes

DailyOthers

9062

59.2140.79

3512

74.4725.53

12574

62.8137.19

PlasticDailyWeeklyTwice A Week

793514

61.7227.3410.94

48103

78.6916.394.92

1274517

67.2028.318.99

PaperDailyWeekly

Twice A Week

603419

53.1030.0916.81

231121

41.8220

38.18

834540

49.4026.7923.81

CanDailyWeeklyTwice A Week

26121

66.6730.772.56

11111

47.8347.834.35

37232

59.6837.103.23

GlassDaily 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

AVAILMENT OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Household Availing Solid Waste Collection Service

Household Not Availing Solid Waste Collection Service

122

55

66.93

31.07

38

25

60.32

39.68

160

80

66.67

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

CHARACTERISTICS

Household TypeAll

(N=160)Willing-to-Pay(n=122)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=38)No. % No. % No. %

Waste SegregationSegregating Solid WasteNot Segregating Solid Waste

122-

100-

38-

100-

160-

100-

Overall Container of Solid Waste Material

SackBasketPlasticClosed Container

6331271

51.6425.4122.130.82

2882-

73.6821.055.26

-

9139291

56.8824.3818.130.63

Container ReturnedReturnedNot returned

10913

89.3410.66

371

97.372.63

14614

91.258.75

Pickup AreaHouseholdMain Routes/ HighwayBarangay-Designated Area

99203

81.1516.392.46

22142

57.8936.845.26

121345

75.6321.253.13

Years of Utilization of Service (mean) 7 - 6 - 7 -

Service PaymentPayingNot Paying

9230

75.4124.59

1919

5050

11149

69.3830.63

To Whom Paying Service FeeBarangayMunicipality

7121

77.1722.83

181

94.745.26

8922

80.1819.82

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

CHARACTERISTICS

Household TypeAll

(N=160)Willing-to-Pay(n=122)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=38)No. % No. % No. %

Contented with ServiceNot Contented with Service

10022

81.9718.03

299

76.3223.68

12931

80.6319.38

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*

REASONS FOR NON-CONTENTMENT ON EXISTING

SERVICE

Household TypeAll

(N=31)Willing-to-Pay(n=22)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=9)No. % No. % No. %

Wrong ProcessRoute ProblemsBehavior Problems of CollectorsUnreturned and deteriorated

container after collectionExpensive feeOther problems

171516

151313

77.2768.1872.73

68.1859.0959.09

876

1-5

88.8977.7866.67

11.11-

55.56

242222

161318

77.4270.9770.97

51.6141.9458.06

*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*

PROBLEMS ARISING FROM EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE

Household TypeAll

(N=160)Willing-to-Pay(n=122)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=38)No. % No. % No. %

DiseasesClogging of Drainages and WaterwaysStill Unclean SurroundingsFurther Waste ProblemsOthers

54

40432424

44.26

32.7935.2519.6719.67

15

12-6

28

39.47

31.58-

15.7973.68

69

52433052

43.13

32.5026.8818.7532.50

*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*

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Crime in the PhilippinesCorruptionUnemploymentPovertyClimate ChangeEnvironmental DegradationProblems in Health SystemWaste Management ProblemsCalamity and DisasterOverpopulationOther problems

758668565151462736302

42.1548.7038.5331.5328.8128.9326.1015.0320.5616.721.13

29173124161110251510

-

45.4027.6248.5738.7325.4017.7816.5140.3223.8115.87

-

10410399806762565251402

43.3342.9241.1733.4227.9225.8323.3321.6721.4216.500.83

*multiple responses

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*

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

CorruptionSolid Waste Management Problems Problems in Provincial Health System Unemployment in the ProvinceInsufficient Safe WaterAgricultural ProblemsCrime in the ProvinceInsufficient Electricity ProblemsRebel and Leftist GroupsInsufficient Transport ServicesOther problems in the Province

9073714947514447371310

50.9641.1340.0027.6826.3328.9324.9726.4420.797.465.65

33332630161115986-

18.4218.7614.5816.959.156.448.255.084.293.16

-

123106977963635956441910

51.1744.1740.2532.9226.1726.0824.5023.2518.507.834.17

*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 Miag-

ao. 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

Household Type All(N=240)Willing-to-Pay

(n=177)Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Solid Waste Management ProblemsUnclean SurroundingsProblems in the Health SystemCrime in the MunicipalityCorruption in the Local GovernmentAgricultural ProblemsInsufficient Electricity ProblemsInsufficient Safe WaterEffects of Climate ChangeUnemployment in the MunicipalityOther Problems in the Municipality

796265565861414831259

44.7535.0336.5031.7532.9934.6923.1627.0117.5114.125.20

232215221813321415131

35.8734.6024.1334.9228.8921.2751.4321.9024.4420.951.59

10284807876757362463810

42.4234.9233.2532.5831.9231.1730.5825.6719.3315.924.25

*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

Household Type All(N=240)Willing-to-Pay

(n=177)Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Not Very ConcernedNot ConcernedNeutralConcernedVery Concerned

5131243635

28.8117.5113.5620.3419.77

-215

1918

-33.337.94

30.1628.57

5152295553

21.2521.6712.0822.9222.08

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

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Solid Waste Management ProblemsLand ConversionAgricultural ProblemsWater PollutionFloodingAir PollutionClimate ChangeExtinction of Natural ResourcesPestsOther Environmental Problems

12996786150574377

15

72.7754.2444.2934.4628.2532.2024.293.843.848.25

28372637191117737

45.0858.4141.9058.7330.1616.8326.6711.434.76

11.43

15713310598696860141022

65.5055.3343.6740.8328.7528.1724.925.834.089.08

*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

LEVEL OF CONCERN

Household Type All(N=240)Willing-to-Pay

(n=177)Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Not Very SeriousNot SeriousNeutralSeriousVery Serious

339

425340

18.645.08

23.7329.9422.60

919149

12

14.2930.1622.2214.2919.05

4228566252

17.5011.6723.3325.8321.67

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

SOLUTIONS

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Improvement of solid waste collectionProper segregation of wastesRegular home cleanupRegular barangay cleanupImprovement of MRFsUnclogging of Wastes in Drainages and WaterwaysImprovement of RecyclingTeaching of proper SWMLimiting of Plastic UsageOther solutions not provided

10678586953

4755212518

60.1144.0732.5439.2129.83

26.6731.3012.0914.249.94

4124401629

151

1283

65.0837.4664.1325.0846.03

23.492.22

19.3712.384.76

147102988582

6257343321

61.4242.3340.8335.5034.08

25.8323.6714.0013.758.58

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

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay(n=63)

Knowledge Index Rating (mean) 8.06 7.86 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

LEVEL OF PERCEPTION TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT OF SWC AS SOLUTION TO

SWM PROBLEMS

Household Type All(N=240)Willing-to-Pay

(n=177)Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Definitely YesYesNeutralNo Opinion

9652263

54.2429.3814.691.69

3219102

50.7930.1615.873.17

13475365

55.8331.2515.002.08

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

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Segregation for Solid WastesWaste to be SegregatedWaste not to be Segregated

177-

100-

63-

100-

240-

100-

Overall Solid Waste ContainerPlasticSackBasketOriginal ContainerOthers

7735455

15

43.5019.7725.422.828.47

13291911

20.6346.0330.161.591.59

9064646

16

37.5026.6726.672.506.67

Containers to be ReturnedReturnNot Return

15621

88.1411.86

594

93.656.35

21525

89.5810.42

Pickup AreaHouseholdMain Highway/Route

10869

61.0238.98

4320

68.2531.75

15189

62.9237.08

Who to Pickup WastesCollectorBarangay Personnel

12651

71.1928.81

4122

65.0834.92

16773

69.5830.42

When to Place ContainerBefore the collector arrivesAs collector arrivesRegular pickup by a barangay personnel

7959

39

44.6333.33

22.03

1218

33

19.0528.57

52.38

9177

72

37.9232.08

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

VARIABLE

Household TypeAll

(N=240)Willing-to-Pay(n=177)

Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=63)No. % No. % No. %

Frequency of CollectionDailyTwice a WeekWeekly

954240

53.6723.7322.60

282411

44.4438.1017.46

1236651

51.2527.5021.25

Time of Collection0500 AM – 0900 AM0901 AM – 1200 NN0100 PM – 0400 PM

826332

46.3335.5918.08

262413

41.2738.1020.63

1088745

45.0036.2518.75

Improvements in Collection*Increase in trucksIncrease in personnelOthers

1056926

59.3238.9814.69

19299

30.1646.0314.29

1249835

51.6740.8314.58

*multiple responses

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 willing-

to-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

WTP Replies of Householdswith adjustment to level of certainty

Yes No All 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)

All (N=240) 115 (47.92)

125 (52.08)

240 (100) 71 (29.58) 169 (70.42)

240 (100)

*Figure outside of parenthesis is frequency count and inside is percentage

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

HouseholdsWilling-to-Pay

(n=115)No. %

The household is not contented with the current SWC serviceThe household believes that there is a room for improvement for the SWC serviceThe household believes that SWC improvement is important for the health of the householdThe household believes that SWC improvement is important for a better quality of the environmentThe household believes SWC could increase cleanliness of the municipalityThe household believes that SWC will improve overall proper solid waste managementThe household would like to take part with the improvement of solid waste managementThe household sees improper solid waste disposal practices in current's serviceThe household have trust with the local government for improving the SWCOther reasons not provided

73

54

50

44

21

18

14

11

115

63.48

46.96

43.48

38.26

18.26

15.65

12.17

9.57

9.574.35

*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

Households Not Willing-to-Pay

(n=125)No. %

The household is contented with the current serviceThe household believes that the municipality is still clean and does not need to improve serviceThe household would not allot more of their budget for SWCThe household believes that it is the local government's responsibility and not of the peopleThe household believes that it doesn't have the responsibility over SWM problemsThe household would practice other disposal method/s other than collectionThe household believes that paying more is not a solution in solving SWM problemsThe household have less or not trust with the local government for improving the SWCThe household believes that SWM is not its main priorityOther reasons not provided

29

2319

17

1312

10

997

23.20

18.4015.20

13.60

10.409.60

8.00

7.207.205.60

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

VARIABLEHouseholds Willing-to-Pay

(n=115)No. %

Duration of PaymentMonthlyEvery Collection

8431

73.0426.96

Payment ModeCollection TicketsPay-As-You-Throw

9520

82.6117.39

Payment BasisFlat RateDependent on Quantity of ContainersDependent on Weight of Wastes

832012

72.1717.3910.43

To Whom To PayBarangayCollectorMunicipality

93157

80.8713.046.09

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 0.26760 26 60 0.433 0.16690 33 60 0.550 0.117120 50 60 0.833 0.283120+ - - - 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 0.30060 44 60 0.733 0.43390 50 60 0.833 0.100120 57 60 0.950 0.117120+ - - - 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 Coefficient Std. Error z p-valueConstant -3.69605 2.39553 -1.5429 0.12286Sex (male) 0.598191 0.305671 1.9570 0.05035*Age 0.0371691 0.0189736 1.9590 0.05011*Highest Educational Attainment (college) 0.0898782 0.355491 0.2528 0.80040Civil Status (married) 0.222864 0.35738 0.6236 0.53289Barangay 0.00405094 0.068569 0.0591 0.95289Household Size 0.0899143 0.101585 0.8851 0.37610Total Monthly Household Income -5.91224e-06 9.02372e-06 -0.6552 0.51235Average Daily Amount of SW Generated by Households -0.231293 0.277545 -0.8334 0.40465Concern on SWM as major problem in the municipality 0.679502 0.409283 1.6602 0.09687*Knowledge Index Rating 0.456338 0.260224 1.7536 0.07949*Perception on Improved Solid Waste Collection Service as Solution to SWM Problems -0.159942 0.338753 -0.4721 0.63682Bid Price -0.0311647 0.00521751 -5.9731 <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-valueConstant -3.93874 3.2792 -1.2011 0.22970Sex (male) 0.720158 0.384529 1.8728 0.06109*Age 0.0234294 0.0234312 0.9999 0.31735Highest Educational Attainment (college) 0.0526517 0.448931 0.1173 0.90664Civil Status (married) 0.399597 0.454281 0.8796 0.37906Barangay -0.0581075 0.0861149 -0.6748 0.49982Household Size 0.0909395 0.129276 0.7035 0.48177Total Monthly Household Income -5.7792e-07 1.1022e-05 -0.0524 0.95818Average 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 0.60243Bid 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-to-

pay 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-to-

pay 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 onAugust 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%20RESOURCES%20MANAGEMENT%20AND%20RURAL%20DEVELOPMENT/4.%20BALLADOS_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 toenvironmentally 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%20Management%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-business-pub/Greening_of_the_Business/Governments/Bhoj_Khanal_Lao_Environmental_Management.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/ the-lgu/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_Valuation_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, 2011 at http://www.cee.mtu.edu/peacecorps/studentfiles/post.pdf

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 astrategy 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

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 WasteDisposal 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://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2011/08/22/000158349_20110822085839/Rendered/PDF/WPS5767.pdf

LEVI GUILLERMO LIMA GEGANZOResearch Assistant

University of the Philippines Visayas Foundation, Inc. (UPVFI)

Villadolid Hall, UPV Miag-ao, Iloilo Philippines 5023

0917.9327.150. / (033) 3155312gourvy@live.com

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES VISAYAS, 2008 – 2012Bachelor of Science in EconomicsUP General Weighted Average: 1.98College Scholar, Academic Year 2011 – 2012

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES HIGH SCHOOL IN ILOILO, 2004 – 2008High School Scholar, 2004 – 2008

SCHOLARSHIPS

DILG – Local Government Scholar 2009 – 2012 Department of Science and Technology – SEI Scholar 2008 – 2009 UP High School in Iloilo – John Nelson Divinagracia Scholar 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 – presentUniversity of the Philippines Visayas Foundation, Inc. – DOE Algae Biofuels ResearchUP Visayas College of Arts and Sciences – Sumitomo FoundationUP Visayas College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences - Institute of Fisheries Policy and Development Studies

Policy Draft Author, September 2012 – November 2012Co-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 FestivalFilm 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 – 2012The 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 15 hours Disaster Preparedness and Vulnerability Assessment 4 hours Banknotes and Coins Training 3 hours Economic Forums (Mixed) 8 hours Aquaculture Forums and Trainings 8 hours DOST Summer Orientation and Enrichment Program 160 hours Research Internship 120 hours Dengue Prevention Forum 4 hours Mass Media and Journalism 12 hours Leadership Trainings 16 hours First Aid Trainings 48 hours Coastal Resource Management 3 hours Eco-Tourism Marketing 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