1

HOUSEHOLD BEHAVIOR ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: A CASE OF KATHMANDU METROPOLITAN CITY Abstract This paper tries to show the household behavior of Kathmandu residents towards solid waste management. The paper is the outcome of a primary survey of 432 households covering different parts of the city of Kathmandu. The daily per capita waste generation in Kathmandu is 0.29 kg and is lower in the core zone than in the outer and middle zones. This indicates that as there is more open space to throw the waste people usually generate more waste. Household size and income are the major determining factors for the total quantity of wastes generated in all the zones. About 80% of the households are willing to pay for better management of waste. This comes to about Rs. 72 per household per month. The willingness to pay is highest in the outer zone and lower in the core zone. The main factor determining the Willingness to Pay is income. 1. INTRODUCTION

Prior to 1950, there was hardly any problem of solid waste management in Nepal. The solid waste was locally managed in all the urban areas of Nepal including Kathmandu Valley. Almost all the wastes was organic in nature and was used as manure (Tuladhar 1996). Traditionally, only a special caste (i.e. Pode or Chyame) was involved in waste management activities. In the past, these people collected the waste from settlements using primitive tools such as buffalo ribs to lift the waste and shoulder baskets (Kharpan) to carry the wastes (Tuladhar 1996). The wastes collected were dumped on nearby river banks or in open fields. In those days, the flow of water in nearby rivers was capable in degrading the dumped organic wastes which were small in quantity. But these traditional practices could not continue due to the increasing population densities in urban areas. Increase in population density has lead to the increase in the volume of waste. This has created a massive threat to public health due to the lack of proper solid waste management.

2 Thus after the mid-1960s initiation started in the diagnosis of the problem and some shortterm as well as long term suggestions were given by different studies (Flinthoff1, 1970; Tabasaran, 1976 and 1981; Croll 1978). These studies were basically meant for the smooth functioning of the Solid Waste Management Project and quick collection and disposal of the waste. Some other studies were on the possibility of pricing for garbage services (Agrawal et al. 1982; Flinthoff, 1970; GTZ 1996; SWMB GTZ 1985). 1.2 Rational

Even with all these research and studies, the problem of solid waste management in Kathmandu has been increasing over the years. Presently, the task of solid waste management comes under the auspices of concerned municipalities. The service is provided almost free of charge using funds available at the disposal of the municipalities. Nearly 2025% of the total budget of the Metropolis goes for solid waste management (KMC, Department of Solid Waste Management, 1998). One of the studies conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics shows that unmanaged waste disposal was considered the main cause of environmental problems in Kathmandu followed by unmanaged sewage (CBS 1996, in CBS 1998 a). Thus solid waste management is a growing issue in the context of urban environmental degradation of Kathmandu. The rate of growth of population of the Kathmandu Valley is more than 6%, which is the highest among the cities of Nepal. Due to the rapid increase in population and increase in the consumption of packed goods, the amount as well as the quantum of non-biodegradable waste is increasing over time. Among the total waste generated in Nepal, 80% is generated only from Kathmandu and only 30% of the total urban refuse is being collected in containers and transferred to the landfill site (Thapa et al. 1999). 1.2. Studies on the Economics of Solid Waste Management

Solid waste management is also a non-excludable good as it is difficult to be protected by the general market forces. One way of managing non-excludable goods or services is either by the internalization of costs (by levying charges for the use of the services) or by following a command and control policy or a combination of both. Government intervention is necessary for this. The rationality of the governments intervention can be judged when the costs of
1

Mr. F. Flinthoff was from WHO Regional Office for South East Asia and stayed as a short-term consultant in Kathmandu about the end of 1970 for a period of two months. He gave a report named Assignment Report in the Solid Waste Management in Kathmandu Who-Project Searo. 0150, 1970.

3 producing the good or service decline as more of the good or service is produced and when production or use of the good or service results in "externalities" such as environmental pollution (Macauley and Walls, 1995; Jenkins, 1993). Thus, the major problem for solid waste management is the internalization of costs of waste disposal. In the early days economists discussed about the socio-economic factors influencing waste generation by the households. Wertz (1976) discussed about the economic aspects of household's decisions to produce more or less refuse. He mainly analyzed the theoretical concept about household behavior on waste generation due to the changes in income, price of refuse service, frequency of service, site of refuse collection and packaging. He also discussed on resource implications of the local government policy, which refrains from the pricing of public refuse service to households. Economists also compared the composition and quantity of waste in terms of income level, household size and age structure of the household. The household size, household income and population were important factors affecting the quantity and composition of solid waste. The study shows that grass, yard wastes and newspaper were positively correlated to the level of income (Richardson et al. 1978). The present paper attempts to apply these models in the context of developing country like Nepal with some modification. 1.3 Objectives:

The objectives of this paper are to discuss household behavior regarding waste generation and management of waste; the relationship of the waste component in different zones within the city; and the willingness to pay for changes in the provision of waste management services. 1.4 Methodology:

The study was conducted using primary information. Information from households was collected using a structured questionnaire. The Kathmandu Metropolis is divided into 35 wards. Wards are not homogenous but heterogeneous in terms of population density and land use patterns. 1.4.1 Selection of Areas and size of the Sample:

4 All the wards can be categorized into three main groups i.e. Core, Middle and Outer depending on population density, settlement and land use pattern. 5 wards (15%) out of the 35 were selected for field study. To make the sample more representative, wards were selected in such a way that they covered all the zones i.e. Core, Middle and Outer. Thus, 3 wards from the core, 1 from the outer and 1 from the middle zone were selected. Table 1 shows the detail regarding the selected wards and size of the sample. Table 1 Sample Households Ward Total household s (Nos.) 3460 775 1122 385 2486 8228 Sample household s (Nos.) 173 41 57 31 130 432 Total Area Covered Total Household by sample Population s (%) (Sq. km.) 05 05 05 08 05 05.25 3.03 0.19 0.16 0.07 3.95 7.4 18425 8081 7588 5077 12000 51171 Population Density per sq. Km 6080.9 42531.6 47425.0 72528.6 3038.0 6915

14 18 19 28 35 Total

Total population data is as per the census of 1991. About 5% of the households were selected from among the households of the selected wards. Thus in total 432 households were selected from the selected 5 wards. The households were selected randomly with the help of the voters list. Attempts were made to cover the entire locality within the ward. 1.4.2 Justification of the Sample Size:

To depict the reliability of the overall situation of the population, the selected sample should contain a sufficient number of households. Therefore, to reduce costs, simplify management and control of the quality of the interviews, the sample size was kept within reasonable limits. In order to ensure representative views, each household was provided an equal opportunity to be selected in the sample. Sampling Error (SE): SE is the error inherent in making inferences for the whole population from observing only some of its members. It is considered as a guideline as to what the sample size should be, in order to guarantee a maximum given error when estimating a proportion from the sample.

5 For a pure random sample drawn from an infinite population, the following formula has been taken as the basis for computing the sample size; n = k2 p (1-p)/e2 Where, p is the value of the proportion in the population, e is the acceptable error and k is a coefficient dependent on the confidence level for = 0.95 ( i.e. " 95 % confidence level) k = 1.96. The term p(1-p) is maximum for p = 0.5. Then the formula becomes: n = 0.9604/e2 Thus, to achieve a maximum error of 0.05 (5%) in the estimation of proportion, n = 0.9604/052 = 384. Therefore, a minimum sample size of 384 households is required. 1.4.3 Data Collection Method:

The name and number of the household head was collected from the final voters list of 2000 for the 5 selected wards. After preparing the list of the household head sample households were selected randomly using the random Table. The information from the household was collected with the help of a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was finalized after a pre-test. The pre-test was made in ward no. 14 with 5% (25) of the sample households. The result of the pre-test was presented in a closed door meeting with the team of University Professors. The questionnaire was finalized incorporating all the suggestions provided by the Professors. The questions were on demographic characteristics of the households, information on waste generation by types, waste disposal practices (e.g. throwing in street, river, burning etc.), door-to-door collection systems, monthly fee, and willingness to pay for the better management of waste and causes for not willing to pay. Family income, sources of income, education level, and possession of domestic amenities were also among the questions asked. The questions were filled by visiting the selected households from August to November 2001. The households were visited twice to complete the questionnaire. On the first day socio-economic information were collected and households requested to deposit the wastes in different plastic bags. On the next day the wastes were weighted. Three research assistants (one from each zone) were employed for the work. 1.4.4 Analytical Method:

6 The data were entered in the computer and analyzed using different statistical tools. Data were grouped for the Core, Middle and Outer zones. Some of the information was analyzed using simple statistical tools and others analyzed econometrically. The econometric models used for the analysis of household behavior and Willingness to Pay is given in the relevant sections.

2. 2.1

MAJOR FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Waste Generation in the Households:

The table 2 shows that average waste generation by the households is 0.29kg per capita per day (0.26kg in the core zone, 0.32kg in the outer zone and 0.29kg in the middle zone). Waste generation is higher in the outer zone and lower in the core zone. This may be due to the sufficient open spaces available in the surroundings of the outer zone. In the core zone people have no space and so they may be generating less waste. Table: 2 Per Capita Waste Generation by the households Zone Waste generation (Kg./ HH /day ) 1.91 1.98 1.85 1.91 Std. Dev. Min Max Total waste Per capita ( Kg.) waste generation in a day (Kg.) 824.14 0.29 255.63 0.26 320.43 248.1 0.29 0.32

All zone Core Zone Middle Zone Outer Zone

1.27 1.26 1.28 1.28

0.33 0.53 0.33 0.51

9.15 9.15 6.99 7.63

The percentage of people following the separation practice is also very high in the core zone as compared to other zones (Table 4). This may also be responsible for the low waste generation in the core zone.

7 Table 3 shows about the types and proportion of solid waste. Kitchen waste is the major waste in terms of volume and quantity of the selected households. It accounts for nearly 85% of the total waste. Packing waste (7%) is next to kitchen waste. Plastic content is 3% whereas paper waste is 2 % only. The remaining 2% are other wastes, which include battery, dust etc.

Table: 3 Types of Waste and their Proportion in all Zones Waste types Average per HH per day (Kg.) Kitchen waste Packing 1.63 0.14 1.01 0.26 0.30 0 8.5 3.02 2.05 2 3.02 9.15 703.8 (85) 59.85 (7) 22.71 (3) 16.27 (2) 21.57 (3) 824.14 (100) Std. Dev Min Max Total waste (Kg) Per Capita Waste day (Kg.) 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.29 per

waste Plastic 0.14 0.26 0 Paper 0.04 0.13 0 Other Waste 0.05 0.22 0 Total Waste 1.91 1.27 0.33 Figure within brackets indicate percentage

2.2 2.2.1

Existing Waste Management Practices Separation Practice

Table 4 shows about the separation practices of the sample households. Among the sample households, only 31% of the households reported having separate bins for storage of different types of waste and the remaining households do not have any separate bins. Thus the majority of the households leave their mixed wastes at one place or in plastic bags.

8 Though only 31% households have separate bins, about 65% separate the reusable and recyclable wastes. Among the zones the households having separate bins is the highest (49%) in the middle zone, lowest (7%) in the outer zone and moderate (32%) in core zone. The separation practice is the highest (81%) in the core zone, lowest (52%) in outer zone and moderate (62%) in middle zone. Table 4: Separation Practices of the Households Zones All zones Core Middle Outer households Yes 135 (31) 41(32) 85 (49) 9 (7) Separate bin No 297 (69) 88 (68) 88 (51) 121 (93) Separation practice Yes No 280 (65) 152 (35) 105 (81) 24 (19) 107 (62) 66 (38) 68 (52) 62 (48)

Figures within brackets indicate percentage and absolute number indicate the number of

2.2.2

Door-to-Door Collection:

About 57% of the households are served by the door-to-door collection system. The majority of them receive the service by paying the fee and few are receiving the service not because of the fee but because of the location of their house along the road. Municipal collectors provide the service without receiving any bonus since they are the employees of the municipality. Table 5: Door-to-Door Collection and Disposal of Waste Zones Satisfied with the present collection Environmentally safe disposal of the system Total No. of HH Satisfied with All zones Core Middle Outer Door to 207 (84) 77 (88) 103 (89) 27 (64) Door Collection 245 (100) 87 (100) 116 (100) 42 (100) Not Satisfied 38 (16) 10 (12) 13 (11) 15 (36) 18 (7) 13 (15) 4 (3.4) 1 (2) 46 (19) 7 (8) 181 (74) 67 (77) collected waste Yes No Don't know

26 (22.4) 86 (74.2) 13 (31) 28 (67)

Absolute number indicate the number of households and Figure within bracket indicate percentages

9 The perception of the households towards the present collection system was also captured through the questionnaire. Table 5 shows that most households (86%) were satisfied with the present door-to-door collection system. Only 14% were not satisfied. However, very few households (25%) know where the collected waste is disposed. Only 7% feel that the disposal of such collected waste is environmentally safe, 19% feel that the disposal of such collected waste is not environmentally safe and the remaining 74% could not explain whether it is environmentally safe or not (Table 5). Table 5 also shows the zone-wise details regarding the knowledge on the disposal of the collected waste. The percentage of unsatisfied households is higher in the outer zone relative to the core and middle zones. 2.2.3 Waste Collection and Collectors

About 56 % households are served by the door-to-door collection system. Among them 35 % use the municipal collection system and the remaining uses the private collectors including community-based organizations. Table 6 shows the detail regarding the waste collection and collectors in the sample households. Among the zones, municipal collectors are collecting wastes in the core area whereas NGOs plays dominant roles in the middle zone and a private firm is working in the outer zone. The majority of the private collectors collect the waste 3 times a week and municipal collectors collect the waste every day.

Table 6: Waste Collectors and Collection Frequency Zones Collectors Municip Wage al collector All zone s 87 (35) Worker s 4 (2) 91 (37) 17 (7) 46 (19) 18 7 (43 ) 4 (2) 142 (58) 4 (2) 10 (4) 85 (34) NGO CDC Pvt Collection Frequency in a week 0 2 3 4 6 7

10 Core 79 (91) 4 (4.5) 0 0 4 (4.5) Middl e Outer 0 0 8 (7) 0 91 (78) 0 17 (15) 0 42 (100) 0 42 (33 ) 57 (33 ) 88 (68 0 42 (100) 0 99 (85) 2 (2) 0 3 (3) 2 (2) 0 9 (11 ) 1(1 ) 0 73 (84) 14 (12) 0

) Where, CDC=Community Development Committee and Pvt.= Private, NGO= NonGovernment Organization Absolute number indicate the number of households and Figure within brackets indicate percentages 2.2.4 Management of Waste where no door to door collection

Among the households surveyed about 43 % do not have door-to-door collection system. Table 7 shows the detail regarding management practices of sample households. Households that are not practicing door-to-door collection are managing their waste in different ways (e.g. burying in their own land, composting and burning). Table 7: Waste Management in households, which have no Door-to-Door Collection System Management Practices Total Number Core 42 4 (8) 25 (50) 8 (16) 4 (8) 3 (6) 0 4 (8) 2 (4) 50 (100) Middle 57 7 (5) 22 (14) 23 (15) 36 (24) 22 (14) 5 (3) 35 (23) 3 (2) 153 (100) Outer 88 7 (3) 22 (10) 24 (11) 52 (24) 20 (9) 3 (1) 70 (32) 23 (10) 221 (100)

of HH Total No of HH with No door 187 collection system Throwing in the Container Throwing in the road Throwing in open field Burying in own land Prepare the compost from waste Cattle feeding Burn Throw in the river Total no of HH with different practices 18 (4) 69 (16) 55 (13) 92 (22) 45 (11) 8 (2) 109 (25) 28 (7) 424 (100)

11 Absolute number indicate the number of households and Figure within brackets indicate percentage

2.3.

Waste Generation and its Relationship with Socio-Economic Variables

This section, mainly discusses the empirical analysis of the relationships of quantity and composition of household solid waste to selected social and economic variables. The analysis is based on data for components of household wastes, by type of material judged having recycling potential. 2.3.1 Model, Hypothesis and Data

Normally waste is a function of consumption. The relationship between waste and consumption activities may be expressed as (Richardson et al. 1978): W=C Where, W = vector of components of solid waste

= Vector of technical waste transformation coefficients relating the types and quantities of
solid waste to each consumption activity C = is a vector of consumption activities selected by the household. Any particular waste may be generated by the consumption of more than one commodity. Here no attempt is made to identify the technical waste transformation coefficients associated with the individual products. It mainly tries to compare the relationship between different types of waste generation and socio-economic variables affecting the quantity of waste. The major determinants of household consumption activities are assumed to be household monthly income (TOTI), size of the household (TOTPOP), educational status of the household (GRAD) and extra land area in the house compound (EXTLA). The model for the waste component is: TOTW = 0 + 1TOTI + 2TOTPOP + 3 GRAD + 4 EXTLA+5 CS+e Where: TOTW = quantity of waste per household per day (Kg)

12 TOTI= Monthly income of the household (Rs.) TOTPOP= Household size (numbers of persons) GRAD= Educational status, (number of college graduates) EXTLA = Extra land area within the compound of the selected household (ha.) Here household is assumed as a production unit producing solid wastes. The hypothesis is as follows: 1. Increase in income is expected to increase the demand for convenience factors and services embodied in commodities. The sign of the coefficient is expected to be positive for all types of waste. 2. A larger household size is expected to generate higher quantity of waste since more households are included in the unit; thus, the sign is also expected to be positive. 3. Educated household members work in the office and stay outside of the house for a long time. So the waste generation will be low. However, the generation of packing waste may be higher in case of a fully employed family as they have less time to prepare food. As such, they consume more packed food. 4. It is assumed that higher the extra land area within the compound (EXTLA) less the waste generated by the household. It is also assumed that the household with extra land area may dispose some of the waste in their land, which may not be counted in the total volume of waste generated. Thus extra land area and the total quantity of waste are inversely related and the sign of the coefficient of extra land area will be negative. Data for the analysis were collected from the 432 households in 2001. Attempt has been made to cover all the area within the city i.e. the data will represent the core, middle and outer settlements. To calculate the quantity of waste sample households were given plastic bags and requested for the collection of waste in these bags and the waste was weighed the next day.

2.3.2

Equation Results:

13 The estimated coefficients, coefficients of determination (R2), adjusted for degrees of freedom (R2) and t and F values are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Relationship of Waste and Socio-Economic Variables by Zones

Waste Component

Interce pt

Househol HH size Extra d Income (TOTPO (TOTI) P) 0.49 (8.5) 0.52 (5.8) 0.50 (5.5) 0.38 (2.79) land (EXTL A) 0.08 (1.58) -0.84 (-1.9) 0.04 (0.47) 0.09 (1.04)

Educatio n (GRAD) 0.14(2.7) -0.03 (-0.37) -0.32 (-3.72) 0.05 (0.58)

D W

R2

TOTW (all -2.70 zones) TOTW (Core) TOTW (Middle) TOTW (Outer) (7.6) -2.19 (-3.8) -2.7 (-3.6) -3.87 (-6.2)

0.26 (6.24) 0.19 (2.79) 0.26 (3.04) 0.41 (6.08)

1.8 2.0

0.25 0.38

38 18

1.7

0.27

16

2.0

0.27

13

Figure within bracket indicate 't' value

Table 8 shows that generation of waste is related to the total income and total population of the household. The elasticity of the household size is higher relative to the elasticity of the total income in all the zones except outer zone. However, the elasticity of income is higher than the elasticity of the household size in the outer zone. Extra land area has positive but insignificant effect in all the zones except the core zone. In the core zone as there are very few households with extra land area, the result will not be useful in the analysis. 2.4 2.4.1 Economics of Solid Waste Management Willingness to Pay

One of the features of the questionnaire was to find out the "willingness to pay (WTP)" of the residents for the management of waste. The majority of them do not care on the final disposal of the waste. Table 9 shows about the participation in fee collection system and their

14 willingness to pay. About 49 % households participate in the fee based collection system and are paying an average of Rs. 60 per month for collection of their wastes. However, the participation rate is different for different zones. About 67 % are participating in middle and core zone, while in the outer zone the participation is only 32 %. Forty seven percent households are ready to pay for the better management of waste and the average amount of WTP is Rs. 57 per month. Table 9: Participation in Fee collection system and willingness to pay Zone People actually People ready to pay and Total WTP which participating the fee amount of willingness to includes Willingness to collection system pay additional pay and the monthly fee Number Average Tot Numbe Averag Tot Numbe Averag Tot. of HH fee in Rs. . r of e wtp Ave r e Ave Av HH in Rs. Amoun e t in Rs. 213 (49) 87 (67) 116 (67) 60 23 67 30 16 45 202 (47) 89 (69) 47 (27) 57 60 51 27 41 14 336 (78) 111(86 ) 136 (79) 57 29 89 (68) 77 53 72 66 74 57 57 58

All Zone Core Middl e

Outer 42 (32) 74 24 66 (51) Figure within brackets indicate percentage

Here too the zone wise situation is different. The majority of the households who were paying fees for the collection of waste were ready to pay only the amount, which they were paying, as they did not find any problem regarding collection of their waste. Those who were not participating in the fee collection system were also ready to pay only near about the fee amount, which their neighbors were paying. The total willingness to pay is the amount of the actual fee and the amount of willingness to pay since the question was about the willingness to pay over and above the existing fee for the better management of the waste. About 78 % of the sample households are willing to pay for the management of the waste and the average

15 amount is Rs. 72 while the amount is Rs. 66 in the core, Rs. 74 in the middle and Rs. 77 in the outer zones. The average value of the Total willingness to pay is not equal to the sum of the average values of the fee and willingness to pay. The households who are willing to pay are mainly those who are not participating in the fee-based door-to-door collection system. However, they were questioned on the additional willingness to pay for the better management of the waste and some have expressed the willingness to pay. Some expressed that they could not pay more than the present fee. Thus, the average figure is calculated by dividing the applicable number of households and not all the households. Table 10 shows the total average. The average total willingness to pay is only Rs. 57. The average total fee is Rs. 30 and the average amount of willingness to pay is only Rs. 27. While asking the question, the WTP amount was started from Rs.50 but some of the households gave very low figures as their WTP for the waste management. In the core city area the municipal collection system is regular but still the households are willing to pay only a small amount for the collection of their waste. Normally, the municipal employee themselves collect the waste and get nominal amount as tips from the house owners. In the fee structure, households who are paying fees below Rs. 25 are mainly the residences of the core city area. They pay a very small amount of fee for the collection of the waste to the municipal employee. The municipal employees are also happy as they get an extra bonus. The number of the households having door-to-door collection system is slightly higher than the number of households participating in the fee-based door-to-door collection system. It is because the core city households have reported that they have door-to-door collection system but are not paying any fee as they live very close to the collection point. 2.4.2 Willingness to Pay and its Relationship with Other Variables:

A regression analysis was made with the help of the SPSS window program. "Willingness to Pay" was regressed with the Total Income of the household (TOTI), time required to reach the municipal collection center (TTR), extra land area around the house (EXTLA), and the collage graduate people (GRAD). Consciousness Training (COTR) was taken as a dummy variable. Certain hypothesis was made regarding the coefficient of the independent variable. The hypothesises are:

16 1 TOTI will positively affect the Willingness to Pay (TWTP) i.e. higher the income higher will be WTP for better management of the waste 2. TTR will also positively affect to WTP i.e. more the time needed for the disposal of waste at the free collection center, higher the WTP for the collection and safe disposal of the waste 3. COTR will also positively affect to WTP i.e. as people are more conscious regarding the bad effects of haphazard disposal they are ready to pay more for waste management. 4. EXTLA will be negatively related to WTP, i.e. higher the land area around the house, lower will be the Willingness to Pay for waste disposal since people may use their waste as a soil conditioner in the kitchen garden. 5. GRAD will also positively affect to the Willingness to Pay, i.e. educated people will be cautious about the negative effects of haphazard waste disposal and are ready to pay for better management of the waste. 6. The total quantity of the waste (TOTW) also has a positive relationship with WTP i.e. higher the quantity of waste; higher will be the Willingness to pay for the collection and management of the waste. 2.4.3 Willingness to Pay and its Relationship with Socio-Economic Variables

The regression results are presented in Table 10. The result of Equation 1 shows that Willingness to Pay is positively related to the total income. The coefficient of income is positive (0.28), which means that for a 100 % increase in income the WTP will increase by 28 % or to put it in another way, the elasticity of WTP with respect to income is 0.28. The time needed to throw the waste in the public collection point has also a positive and significant relationship with the Willingness to Pay. Greater the time required for throwing the waste, greater the amount that people are willing to pay for better management of the waste. The coefficient of time is .09, which shows that a 100 % increase in time will cause 9 % increase in the Willingness to pay for better management of the waste. Graduate (GRAD) shows a positive relationship with WTP though it is very insignificant. Households having extra land areas have positive but insignificant effects. During the survey, it was found that the majority of the rich households have extra land area and they mainly want to throw the

17 waste even if the organic content is high (see Eq. No 1 in Table 10). Similarly, COTR is negative, which is also contradictory to the assumption (hypothesis). It may be because of the low quality of the training. In the survey it was considered that those who have attended any program, which simply discussed about the waste management or environmental issues, was considered as consciousness training. The training was mainly by NGO or clubs, which were mainly motivated to make the households participate in the fee-based collection system. Thus the quality of the training may not be as desired and as such, it may not be able to have a positive effect. The total explained portion of the adjusted R2 is 0.31 and F value is above 8 and is highly significant. The Durbin-Watson Test is 1.69.

Eq.No 1

Table 10 Willingness to Pay and its Relationship with other Variables Dep. Independent Variables R 2 Variable Const Toti Grad Ttr Extla Cotr Totw TWTP 1.86 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.01 -0.17 0.31 't' value 4.95* 1.59 0.28 4.75* 1.62 0.35 5.31* 1.45 0.25 2.44* 0.4 0.02 0.256 0.39 1.32 2.46* 0.07 1.96* * 0.06 1.31 0.11 2.16* * 0.38 -0.001 -.036 0.05 1.33 -0.04 -0.96 2.35* * -

F 8

d w 1. 62

TWTP 't' value

-0.11 1.91* * -

0.27

1. 45 1. 54

TWTP 't' value

0.14

TWTP 't' value

0.32

1. 55

* **

Significant at 99 % level of significance Significance at 95% level of significance

If one variable is dropped i.e. variable COTR, the regression result is shown in Equation 2, Table 10. The total income and time needed to reach the municipal collection center are significant and land area other than house and education has an insignificant effect on the Willingness to Pay.

18 An attempt was made to see the relationship of total waste and total willingness to pay. If we look at the regression result after adding total waste (TOTW) as an independent variable, it shows a negative relation with Willingness to Pay. This shows that the volume and quantity of waste have a very low effect on the Willingness to Pay. It seems to be true in this context since the ability to pay is very important for the Willingness to Pay. The rich people may be generating low volume of waste and the poor may be generating high volume of waste since waste volume/quantity is highly related with the size of the population (Equation 3, Table 10). An attempt was made to see the relationship between wealth and the Total Willingness To Pay (TWTP). The possession of different assets was taken as the proxy for wealth. The possession of only a TV is considered as a poor household and the possession of a car, computer, motorcycle, refrigerator etc. by households were considered rich and households between these are considered as middle-income groups. Thus, regression was made with the households who possess only a TV. The Equation No. 4 (table 10) shows the relationship of TWTP and the independent variables in case of those households, who possess only a TV. The regression result shows that Total Income (TOTI) and Time required to dispose the waste at the public collection center (TTR) have positive relations with TWTP as hypothesized and are highly significant. Here extra land area has a negative coefficient, which indicates that poor people use their waste in the kitchen garden as a soil conditioner and are not willing to pay for waste management. The total explained portion of the regression (i.e. adjusted R2) is 0.32. The value of F is around 4 and highly significant (Equation 4, Table 10).

2.4.3

Relationship of WTP with Other Variables in Different Zones

The zone wise relationship of WTP with the variables is presented in table 11. The regression results show that in the outer zone the extra land area has a negative effect on TWTP. It shows that greater the extra land area, more the waste is used as compost and low willingness to pay for waste management. Total income, time to dispose the waste and the number of graduate members in the house have significant positive relations with the willingness to pay which are as hypothesized. However, extra land area has a positive relation with the

19 willingness to pay in the core and middle areas. In the core area the households with extra land area are very low in number (about 12 %). In the core area, extra land area does not mean the availability of a kitchen garden. The land is for the car parking or for the chouk2. Table 11 Willingness to Pay and its Relation with other Variables by Zones Zone Dep. Var Adj.R2 DW F Const Coefficient of Independent Variable LEXTRA Total Outer Core Middl LTWT P LTWT P LTWT P LTWT 0.27 0.57 0.62 0.25 1.45 8.6 0.99 25 5 1.95 2.85 1.59 -0.12 2.94 2.77 -001 -0.05 1.29* 0.01 LTTR 0.07** 0.10 0.34** 0.03 LTOTI LGRA 0.28* 0.47* 0.52* 0.16** D 0.02 0.03 -0.73* 0.19**

e P * Significant at 99 % level of significance ** significance at 95 % level of significance

Thus, the waste will not be used in the extra land area and may not be true for our assumption. In the middle area also, the coefficient of the variable extra land area possesses the positive sign against the hypothesis. It may be because the area is very small and used for other than kitchen garden purposes. As such the waste may not be used in the extra land as compost, but rather prefer to through the waste out. The coefficient of the graduate people has a positive sign in all cases except for one case of the core area. Though the value is insignificant, it indicates that though people are college graduate they do not take the case of waste management seriously. It also may be because the respondent may not be a college graduate even if the house members are graduates. Thus, though many household members are college graduates, they do not care about waste management. One of the reasons of unwillingness to pay may be because they feel the waste management problem is not their problem. They may feel that it is the duty of the municipality, since the municipality has managing it for a long time without any fee charged to the generator.
2

Chouk is an open space between few houses in the core city area.

20 2.4.4 Causes of Not Willing to Pay

Questions were asked regarding the unwillingness of the households to pay. Households have given more than one reason for not willing to pay for the management of the waste. Table 12 shows that the majority of the households (53%) were not willing to pay as their waste was collected and they do not have any problems from the waste. Some (21%) of them do not feel the problem from the waste since they have sufficient space to throw the waste either within their compound or outside. Few households were not ready to pay, as their income was very low. They account for only 12 % among the unwilling households (8 % of the total surveyed households). They feel that their priority is hand to mouth survival and not the waste. Very few households feel that it is the duty of the municipality and the government and so they are not willing to pay. Table: 12 Causes of not willing to pay Causes Total Number of HH It is the duty of the Municipality 14 (5) It is the duty of the government 2 (1) Income is very low and could not 35 (12) afford My house's waste had not made any 62 (21) problem to me Waste collection is continue in one 158 (53) or other way and no other problem Volume and quantity is very low 7 (2) Majority of waste is reusable and 19 (6) Core 1 (2) 0 6 (12) 8 (17) 31 (65) 2 (4) 0 Middle 6 (4) 2 (1) 7 (4) 28 (17) 103 (64) 1 (1) 15 (9) Outer 7 (8) 0 22 (25) 26 (30) 24 (28) 4 (4.5) 4 (4.5)

applicable to own self Absolute number indicate number of households and Figure within bracket indicate percentage

3.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The per capita waste generation is 0.29 kg./person/day in all the zones of the city. It seems to be slightly lower than that of the earlier studies (0.46-0.5 kg./person/day) (Rai, 1990; RESTUC, 2000) and higher than the recent study of the Municipality. Recent study by Kathmandu Metropolitan City also shows the low rate of waste generation (0.225

21 kg./person/day) (KMC/KVMP 2001). The low per capita waste generation may be due to the increase in household sorting of paper and bottles at the point of generation since they are easily sellable. The per capita waste generation is found to be the lowest in the core zone and highest in the outer zone. It was also found that segregation practices are the highest in the core zone relative to other zones. Thus, the low per capita waste generation in the core zone may be due to the household sorting of waste more intensively in the core zone than in other zones. This may also be true because the core zone people have been facing the waste problem since a long time whereas the outer and middle zone people have open space and have no problem of waste disposal. Thus, as there is more open space people usually generate more and vice versa. About 57 % households are participating in the door-to-door collection by paying certain fee. However, people are not much aware of the environmental problems and safe disposal of the waste. It still shows that the households of Kathamndu have the feeling of NIMBAY (i.e. not in my backyard). About 75 % of the city people do not know where the collected waste is disposed. In terms of zones, people living in the core zone seem to be less aware than in other zones. This shows that people are conscious regarding the waste problem within their compound but they do not care where and how the waste is disposed. Few people know about the disposal place of the collected waste. However, those who know the disposal site do not know whether the disposal practice is environmentally safe or not. More than 90 % of waste collectors are municipal workers in the core zone where as their proportion in other zone is negligible. In the middle zone it is a NGO (SILT Environment), which covers 78 % of the households practicing door -to-door collection, and a private firm is collecting waste from the outer zone. In the core zone households, which are not participating in the door-to-door collection system, are managing their wastes mostly by throwing it on the streets. Whereas in the middle and outer zones the majority households are managing their wastes either by burying or burning on their land. They also prepare compost within the compound. The waste component relationship shows that size of the household and income are the major factor determining the total quantity of the waste in all the zones. It was also found that education has a negative effect on waste generation.

22 About 80 % of the households are willing to pay for the better management of waste. The average amount of only households who are Willingness to Pay is Rs. 72 per month. However, it we take the average of all the households WTP is Rs. 57 per household. The willingness to pay is highest in the outer zone and lowest in the core zone. It may be due to the free3 collection by the municipality that the core people are not willing to pay. However, in the middle and outer zones the municipality rarely collects the waste. Thus the willingness to pay is higher in outer and middle zones and lower in the core zone. Again the environmental awareness of the households seems to be very low and due to this they are willing to pay for environmentally safe land filling. However, they simply want the waste to be out from their house. They are ready to pay only for this. Thus, the average willingness to pay seems to be lower than that of the cost required for the management of the waste. The Willingness to pay is also positively related to the household income and household size. Most households feel that the lack of stiff penalty and non-execution of law is the basic problem for the effective management of waste. Thus, provision of strong penalties and effective execution of the law will be the major tool to reduce the problem of solid waste management in Kathmandu. It is found that environmental awareness is very low among the residents of Kathmandu. Thus, stringent regulations with environmental awareness programs for household sorting and composting can reduce the volume and quantity of waste for land filling. It could be suggested that a fee be charged as per the electricity or water bill to the households to cover the costs, since the willingness to pay is positively related to the level of income. At the initial stage only regular direct cost should be covered by the charge and fixed cost as well as environmental costs should be subsidized. Other wise there will be the possibility of illegal dumping. After the successful implementation of this scheme then only full cost pricing of the solid waste generation should be initiated and this will be the only sustainable way for the better management of waste of Kathmandu Metropolis.

In the core zone the area coverage by the ward is very small and the municipality with some subsidy collects the waste by its tractors along the road and majority of the households are covered. Where as in middle and outer zone the area coverage by the ward is high and municipality rarely collects the waste from the door of the households.

23

References Agrawal, G. N. et al. ( September, 1982) "Report on Proposal for Solid Waste Disposal Fee for Kathmandu/Lalitpur Town Panchayats" Report Submitted to Nepal Solid Waste Management Project, His Majesty's Government/Nepal, Ministry of Works and Transport, Department of Housing, Building and Physical Planning and Federal Republic of Germany, German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) LTD. Beede, D. N.; D. E. Bloom (1995), "The Economics of Municipal Waste" The World Bank research Observer , Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 113-150 Betts, Mitchel et al (1982) Report of an Evaluation of the Project " Solid Waste Management in the Kathmandu Valley" GTX Project No. 76. 2051.1 Beukering, Piter Van et.al., ( 1999) Analysing Urban Solid Waste in Developing Countries: a Perspective on Banglore, India, Working Paper No. 24, Collaborative Research in the Economics of Environment and Development (CREED), London. Enayetullah, Iftekhar and A. H. Maqsood Sinha (2000) 'Community Based Decentralized Composting: Experience of Waste Concern in Dhaka' in Sinha A. H.Maqsood et al. (Eds.) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh Flinthoff, F. (1970) Assignment Report in the Solid Waste Management in Kathmandu WhoProject Searo. 0150, GTZ (1996) 'Report on Fact Finding Mission for the Solid Waste Management in Nepal' Prepared on behalf of GTZ. KMC/KVMP (2002) Special Cleaning Program for SAARC Summit, Kathmandu Metropolitan City/ Kathmandu Valley Mapping Project, Kathmandu Lal, Mewa (2000) 'Profits from Waste: NGO Led Initiative for Solid Waste Management in Lucknow' in Sinha A. H.Maqsood et al. (Eds.) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh

24 Macauley, Molly K.; Margaret A. Walls (1995) Solid Waste Reduction and resource Conservation: Assessment Policy, Resource for the Future Discussion Paper 95-32 Murtaza, Md. Gulam and Mohammad Abdur Rahman (2000) 'Solid Waste Management in Khulana City and a Case Study of a CBO: Amader Paribartan' in Sinha A. H.Maqsood et al. (Eds.) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh Nirmal, M.B. (2000) 'Community Based Solid Waste Management:: Experience of Exnora' in Sinha A. H.Maqsood et al. (Eds.) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh Qureshi, Arjum Parvez (2000) 'Waste Busters: An Experience of Pakistan' in Sinha A. H.Maqsood et al. (Eds.) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka, Bangladesh Rai, Y.(1990) Statement on the Prospect of Further Vitalizing the Waste-Recycling concept for Nepal, Report on the Workshop "Recycling of Waste in Nepal", SWMRMC, Kathmandu. RESTUC (2000) A Study of solid Waste and its Management in Kathmandu, Research and Study Center (RESTUC); Kathmandu Nepal Richardson, Robert A. (1978) Economic Analysis of the Composition of Household Solid Wastes Journal of Environmental Economics and Mangement 5, 103-111, 1978 Sinha, A.H. Maqsood et al (eds.) (2000) Community Based Solid Waste Management: The Asian Experience, Waste Concern, Dhaka , Bangladesh Solid Waste Management Board (SWMB) and (GTZ) Gmbh (1984) Solid Waste Collection Fee, SWMB and GTZ SWMB and GTZ (1985) Report on Service Fee Collection, SWMB and GTZ. Tabasaran, O (1976) Experts Report on the Reorganization of Solid Waste Disposal in the Kathmandu - Valley especially in the Cities of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur; Report submitted to German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and His Majesty's Government of Nepal.

25 Tabasaran, O. et al. (1981) Report Regarding the Possibility of Composting of Municipal Refuse in Kathmandu Valley Especially in Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur, Report submitted to the His Majesty's Government of Nepal and GTZ. Thapa, Gopal B. and Surendra Raj Devkota (1999) " Managing Solid Waste in Metro Kathmandu" Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology Timilsina B. P. (2000) 'Reuse and Recycling: Options for Waste Diversion from LandfillingA Case Analysis in Kathmandu Valley' A Journal of Environment, Ministry of Population and Environment, Nepal Tuladhar, Bhusan (1996) ' Kathmandu's garbage simple solution going to waste', Studies in Nepali History and Society Vol.1, No. 2, A Mandala Book Point Journal Wertz L. Kenneth; 1976 Economic Factors Influencing Households Production of Refuse JEEM 2, 263-272 (1976) Waste management refers to the collection, transportation, processing, recycling and disposal of waste materials. These waste materials are solid, liquid, gaseous and even radioactive substances. Managing these human-generated wastes requires reducing their effect on health and the environment as well as recovering resources from it. There are existing waste management methods that include disposal methods, recycling methods and avoidance and reduction methods. Despite the fact that waste handling and transport varies from region-to-region, country-to-country, there are waste management concepts that are universally accepted and implemented. These are the waste hierarchy or the 3Rs (reduce, reuse and recycle), the extended producer responsibility (EPR) and the polluter pays principle. Consolidating the matter directed on the implementation of a solid waste management program in every region in every country. Solid waste management programs, in particular, are designed to better manage solid wastes for the purpose of protecting communities and enhancing the public health and the environment.

26 In Asia however, there are emerging waste management trends in respond to daily generation of municipal solid waste at 760, 000 tonnes and therefore contributing to financial burden of the governments. The very premise is that though governments are responsible for solid waste management by and large, these governments lack capacity to do such and thus requires the involvement of other levels of government, businesses and the general community. The rationale behind this qualitative research focuses on exploring how five Asian governments (to be sampled) ensure the protection of the public health and environment and how they utilize environmentally-sound methods of managing solid wastes. The drive is to determine how these governments act on solid waste avoidance and volume reduction as well as minimizing waste measures. How these governments adhere to best environmental practices and encourage cooperation among various sectors will be also addressed. http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2008/08/solid-waste-man.html

Chapter 1THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGBackground of the Study Zero Waste is a philosophy that encourages the redesign of resource lifecycles so that all products are reused. In industry, this process involves creatingcommodities out of traditional waste product, especially making old outputs andnew inputs for similar or different industrial sectors. It can represent an economicalalternative to waste systems, where new resources are continually required toreplenish wasted row materials, (www.wikipedia.com).Recycling has become a national habit, a daily ritual practiced by over 100million people every day. Yet recycling alone will not end our dependency onlandfills and incinerators, nor reverse the rapid depletion of our natural resources.As world population and consumption continue to rise, it is clear that our one-waysystem of extracting virgin resources to make packaging and products that willlater be buried or burned is not sustainable. Zero Waste is a new way of looking ato u r w a s t e s t r e a m . I n s t e a d o f s e e i n g u s e d m a t e r i a l s a s g a r b a g e i n n e e d o f disposal, discards are seen as valuable resources. A pile of "trash" represents jobs, financial opportunity, and raw material for new products. Other countriesa r o u n d t h e w o r l d a n d s o m e U . S . c o m m u n i t i e s h a v e b e g u n t o e v a l u a t e a n d redesign their current systems to encourage resource recovery and to create amore materials-efficient economy. American companies who do business overseasare already redesigning their products and manufacturing processes to meet the

27 Zero Waste standards adopted by other countries. If they can do it there, they cando it here, (http://www.ecocycle.org/ZeroWaste/index.cfm).Spectrum Blue Steel Corporation announced the launch of the Blueprint for Zero Waste Philippines. Under the Arroyo administration, the Philippines haves e e n s o a r i n g e n e r g y c o s t s . T h e g o v e r n m e n t h a s c o m m i t t e d t o m o v i n g t o renewable energy under the Medium Term Development Plan for the Philippines.Spectrum Blue Steel has an exclusive license from the Global Environment EnergyC o r p o r a t i o n t o u s e t h e b i o s p h e r e p r o c e s s i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s , (www.matternetwork.com/2008/8/philippines-movetoward-zero-waste.cfm)I n T a g u m C i t y , a f t e r t h r e e y e a r s o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e S o l i d W a s t e Management Program, the City Governments spending for garbage collection isnow P3 million less than its P17 million annual budget. At least seven of nine urbanbarangays are now earning from recyclable waste materials. Under the R.A. 9003or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, every barangay or cluster of barangays is mandated to put up its own material recovery facility (MRF). MRFis where waste segregation, recycling, composting of biodegradable waste andstoring of recyclable materials are supposed to be made. In 2006, the City Councilof Tagum passed Ordinance No.229establishing the comprehensive Solid WasteM a n a g e m e n t o f t h e C i t y o f T a g u m . U n d e r t h e O r d i n a n c e , a S o l i d W a s t e Management board was created, composing the City Mayor, city councilors, non-g o v e r n m e n t organization representative, barangay federation p r e s i d e n t , manufacturing representative and recycling industry representative, (Pantaleon A.,2008). We are motivated to conduct the study about the Students Perception of the Zero Waste Management to enable us to determine the students differentreactions towards the implementation of such policy, and as well as to evaluate theeffectiveness of Zero Waste Management among the students of the differentdepartments from elementary to college. Statement of the Problem This study aims to determine the relationship of Students Perception andZero-Waste Management implementation in St. Marys College.Specifically, this answers the following questions:1.What is the extent of Students Perception?2 . W h a t i s t h e e x t e n t o f Z e r o - W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i n S t . Marys College in terms of: 2.1 Information Dissemination 2.2 Processing/ Implementation of the Project 2.3 Policy and Enforcement? 3. Is there a significant difference on the extent of Students Perception whenanalyzed according to department and gender? 4.

28 Is there a significant difference on the extent of Zero-Waste Managementi m p l e m e n t a t i o n i n S t . M a r y s C o l l e g e w h e n a n a l y z e d a c c o r d i n g t o department and gender? 5. Is there a significant relationship between the extent of Zero W a s t e Management implementation and the extent of students perception. Hypotheses 1. There is no significant difference on the extent of students perception whenanalyzed according to department and gender. 2. There is no significant difference on the extent of Zero-Waste Managementimplementation when analyzed according to department and gender.3 . T h e r e i s n o s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e e x t e n t o f Z e r o W a s t e Management implementation and the extent of students perception. Review of Related Literature This present furthers information that is relevant to the present study. Theseare facts taken from books, journals, internet, and different authorities that willstrengthen the validity of results. Zero Waste Management. According to the study conducted by James Lactao(2008), unlike the garbage of long ago, our present rubbish includes syntheticmaterials that keep piling up unlike natural ones that degrade and eventually returnto earth. Thus, disposal becomes a problem. Aside from this, garbage is also ahealth hazard- being a melting pot of all sorts of disease. As todays throwawaysociety consumes more and more products, we also generate more and morewaste. Much of this waste gets burned in incinerators or buried in landfills, causinga series of environmental problems including water pollution and loss of openspace,Sheehan (2000), According to the latest concepts, waste is a visible face of inefficiency in terms of material utilization. Waste handling is a major concern,e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e i m p r o p e r w a s t e t r e a t m e n t c a u s e s i n c r e a s e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l deterioration. The last few decades have seen the emergence of new measures tohandle waste effectively, but most of them are not flawless. Zero waste, aninnovation of the 1990s in waste handling, emphasizes planning for the eliminationof waste rather than managing waste.According to Carolyn Allen (2006), the Zero Waste International Alliance,means that zero waste is the designing and managing products and processes toreduce the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them. The simple t e c h n o l o g y a n d m e t h o d s required to achieve Zero Waste exist in every community around the world.Zero Waste Management Group (2008), Environmental sustainability andwaste management are the most important issues of our time. An important stept o w a r d s achieving environmental sustainability and r e s p o n s i b l e w a s t e management involves reducing our impact on the environment. It is through thesuccessful implementation of our waste management and diversion programs thatwe commit ourselves to continually satisfy our client's needs. The main principalst h a t a r e employed by Zero Waste Management Group involve r e s o u r c e preservation and waste reduction. These are the core fundamental

29 components of the 'Zero Waste Philosophy'. This is done by means of recycling all potential wasteand reusing those materials in different ways, creating a circular system of use andre-use. Implementing this philosophy, bring solutions to all segments of society.T h i s i s d e m o n s t r a t e d b y o u r c o m m i t m e n t t o w o r k w i t h a n d p r o v i d e e f f i c i e n t solutions to individuals, groups and municipalities.Zero Waste is a critical steppingstone to other necessary steps in theefforts to protect health, improve equity and reach sustainability. Zero Waste canbe linked to sustainable agriculture, architecture, energy, industrial, economic andcommunity development. Every single person in the world makes waste and assuch is part of a non-sustainable society. However, with good political leadership,everyone could be engaged in the necessary shift towards a sustainable society.Good political leadership in this matter involves treating citizens as key allies top r o t e c t h u m a n health and the environment and in making the transition t o a sustainable future. Governments need to govern rather than attempt to managet h i s c h a n g e t o s u s t a i n a b l e r e s o u r c e c o n s e r v a t i o n p r a c t i c e s . T h i s i n c l u d e s a significant investment in public outreach and education so that citizens can helpc o m m u n i t i e s m a k e t h e m o s t i n f o r m e d c h o i c e s . (http://www.zwia.org/main/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=58).Over the last few decades, the dumping and burning of garbage generatedin cities, towns and villages in wetlands and waterbodies, have resulted in seriousa i r , soil and water pollution. Zero Waste Management is a n e w s y s t e m o f managing solid waste, which strives for m a x i m u m w a s t e r e c o v e r y t h r o u g h recycling and reuse, aiming at zero waste to be disposed onto dump yards andlandfills. All over the world, Zero Waste Management has been accepted (and isbeing practiced) as the best solution to the problem of waste, for the followingreasons. Waste is segregated and resources are recovered through composting of organic waste and recycling of inorganic waste. Compost generated through ZeroWaste Management is used to promote organic farming, bringing down the use of chemicals in agriculture. Zero Waste Management helps reduce the rate of virginr a w m a t e r i a l extraction and resource depletion. Zero Waste M a n a g e m e n t minimizes waste disposal at dumpsites and reduces pollution of air, ground water a n d s o i l t h a t r e s u l t f r o m d u m p i n g . ( http://www.exnoragreencross-vellore.org/zero.html).Studies have shown that waste disposal directly contributes to climatechange with the discharge of GHGs such as methane from dumps and landfills and carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide from incinerators. Waste disposal also indirectlyd r i v e s climate change by depriving the economy of reused, r e c y c l e d a n d composted materials.By adopting Zero Waste, we cut greenhouse gas emissionsf r o m w a s t e d i s p o s a l s i t e s a s w e l l a s f r o m t h e e n e r g y - i n t e n s i v e e x t r a c t i o n , processing and

30 transportation of virgin materials to replace the buried or burneddiscards, Manny Calonzo, Co-Coordinator of the Global Alliance for Incinerator A l t e r n a t i v e s ( G A I A ) , a n o t h e r me mb e r of t h e E c o Wa s t e C oa l i t i on . (http://ecowastecoalition.blogspot.com/2009/06/green-groups-urge-shift-fromwaste.html)Zero waste is a philosophy of waste management that aims to reduce totala m o u n t o f w a s t e t o z e r o b y r e d e s i g n i n g r e s o u r c e - u s e s y s t e m s . R a t h e r t h a n maintaining a linear waste system you throw something away, it ends up in alandfill zero waste initiatives work toward extending current practices of recyclinga n d r e u s e i n t o a c i r c u l a r w a s t e s y s t e m . This stra tegy maximizes recycling,minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to ber e u s e d , r e p a i r e d o r r e c y c l e d back into nature or the m a r k e t p l a c e . (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/footprintswaste-management-taking-steps-toward-zero-waste.php). Information Dissemination. As education begins in the home, zero w a s t e management groups will initiate programs that will raise awareness of recyclingand environmental issues that families can implement together. One such methodwill be the distributions recycling guides with tips on recycling and composting tohouseholds, schools and business in local communities. These easy-to-guides will i n c r e a s e awareness about the importance of being environmentally f r i e n d l y highlight the importance of reducing, reusing, and recycling the resources withoutcompromising daily routine, (http:/zerowastemg.com/communityinvolvement.ph/)Environmental education is an essential tool for achieving effective resourcem a n a g e m e n t a n d sustainable development. Environmental education in i t s broadcast sense encompasses awareness raising, acquiring new perspectives,values, knowledge and skills and both the formal and informal process that lead toc h a n g e d b e h a v i o r i n s u p p o r t o f s u s t a i n a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t , (http//www.crra.com/zerowaste/links/education.htm).Environmental information has been described as central to the issues of solid waste management and disposal. This study investigated the availability andaccessibility of environmental information to the solid waste policy formulators andi m p l e m e n t o r s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m e d i a / c h a n n e l s u s e d f o r d i s s e m i n a t i n g environmental information to the public. A descriptive survey design was adoptedfor the study. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the sample andthe method produced 205 respondents that consisted of 185 Policy Implementorsand 20 Policy Formulators. A total of 147 cases were finally analyzed, whichincluded 16 Policy Formulators (80% of total sample) and 131 Policy Implementors(71% of total sample). Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statisticss u c h a s p e r c e n t a g e s a n d f r e q u e n c y counts. Findings show that the PolicyI m p l e m e n t o r s

31 preferred the use of personal contact as the c h a n n e l f o r disseminating environmental information, whereas the Policy Formulators relied onthe use of posters, radio/TV talks, and professional meetings. Some barriers to disseminating information to the public included: lack of access to informationsources, lack of standards for acquisition of information, and lack of funds top u b l i s h i n f o r m a t i o n m a t e r i a l s . ( http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/ueec/2009/00000008/00000 001/art00007).This individual achievement however would remain individual had it notbeen shared with the community. As soon as the use of fire was shared, the scopefor its future use and development was widened. Throughout time, other membersof the community would discover or come up with new practical application for it,l i k e c o o k i n g a n d p r o d u c t i o n o f t o o l s a n d i t e m s . T h e s e a s s o c i a t e i n n o v a t i o n s reinforced the initial idea, contributed to its use and were at least as significant asthe primary innovation. But the question remaining is what could have prompted allother communities to adopt the use of fire too? One can only speculate, but it maybe that fire with all its derivative uses gave communities that used it a competitiveadvantage. Better fed, better equipped, as these communities prospered over timeand migrated they simply either spread the knowledge of fire to others or triggeredtheir extinction. Perhaps some neighboring villages even stole fire, in an attempt toe v e n t h e o d d s . ( http://www.kazakhstudents.org/all/other_topics/effects_of_environ ment_information_dissemination_and_competition_on_the_pace_of_innovation_and_p rogress/)Information collection and storage involve the day-to-day processes of g a t h e r i n g a n d s t o r i n g d a t a f r o m o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s , p a r t n e r s , a n d stakeholders. More sensitive information being managed is usually personal information subject to the various state and i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r i v a c y l a w s o r information that is proprietary to a corporation or other organization. The variousstate and international privacy laws Information provisional impact levels aredocumented in the Personal Identity and Authentication information type. Suchinformation will often be assigned a moderate confidentiality impact level. Wherea n y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o be managed can be expected to have a h i g h confidentiality, impact level, then the information management information must bea s s i g n e d a h i g h c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y i m p a c t l e v e l . W h e n the data being managedb e l o n g s t o o n e o f t h e information types described in this guideline, t h e confidentiality impact assigned to the system is that o f t h e h i g h e s t i m p a c t information type processed by the system.

32 Depending on the organization and themission being supported, the sensitivity of the information can range from none( p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n ) t o h i g h . (http://www.unifiedcompliance.com/it_compliance/systems_info_class/information_ te chnology_managem/information_management.html)At Basingstoke and Deane we firmly believe in integrating environmentali s s u e s a n d a c t i o n i n t o the culture of our borough. One of the key factors i n achieving this is education with schools and colleges and working with businessesand the community. Another essential element is the enforcement of environmentallegislation. As part of our drive to make the borough of Basingstoke and Deane ac l e a n e r a n d g r e e n e r e n v i r o n m e n t w e intend to target offenders who commitenvironmental crime. We work closely with }cny external organizations onenforcement ranging from the Environment Agency and t l e P o l i c e t o l o c a l landowners. Basingstoke and Deane also employs12two Dog Wrdens who arep p o v i f e d b y a c o n t r a c t o r . (http2//www.bas)ngstoke.gov.uk/environment/envawareness/envenforcement.htm) Whilst rising awareness, promoting a more responsible approach to our environment and educating youngsters are all means of reducing instances of l i t t e r i n g a n d d o g f o u l i n g t h e r e w i l l a l w a y s b e t h o s e w h o r e f u s e t o a l t e r t h e i r behavior. The enforcement powers of the wardens enable them to prosecuteindividuals for littering and dog fouling. Fixed penalty notices can also be issued tooffenders who are caught allowing their dogs to foul and not removing the waste or f a i l i n g t o d i s p o s e o f t h e i r l i t t e r i n a correct manner. The amounts of the fixedp e n a l t i e s a r e s e t b y t h e W e l s h A s s e m b l y . ( http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/english/env_services/community_services/amenity_ warden.htm) Processing/ Implementation of the Project. I t t y p i c a l l y d e s c r i b e s t h e a c t o f taking something through an established and usually routine set of procedures toc o n v e r t i t f r o m one form to another, as a manufacturing or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e ( www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process(science); R e t r i e v e d , 2 0 1 0 ) T h e barangay is responsible for the segregation of waste at source, collection o f biodegradable and recyclable components and setting up of a materials recoveryfacility (MRF). There are about 976 MRFs nationwide. The municipality or cityg o v e r n m e n t s a r e responsible for the collection and disposal of

33 r e s i d u a l nonbiodegradable and hazardous waste, except inMetro Manilawhere disposal is w i t h i n t h e m a n d a t e o f t h e M e t r o M a n i l a D e v e l o p m e n t A u t h o r i t y (MMDA).(http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php? title=National_Solid_Waste_Management_Commission)To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, The City has committed to the goalof closing the Albuquerque landfill by 2030 by diverting all material out of the wastestream or into a system to convert the waste to energy. In order to achieve theZero Waste goal for Albuquerque, aggressive steps need to be taken now. ZeroWaste can be achieved by recycling existing waste and reducing the need for r e c y c l i n g b y r e d u c i n g a n d r e u s i n g e x i s t i n g m a t e r i a l s . ( http://www.cabq.gov/cap/strategies/recycling-and-zerowaste/recycling-and-zero-waste)There are multiple solutions that Zero Waste Management Group providest o a c h i e v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l s u s t a i n a b i l i t y a n d w a s t e m a n a g e m e n t . T h e m a i n principals that are employed by Zero Waste Management Group involve resourcepreservation and waste reduction. These are the core fundamental components of t h e ' Z e r o W a s t e P h i l o s o p h y ' . O u r t e a m o f e x p e r i e n c e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s understands and lives by the Zero Waste Philosophy. Through rigorous researchand development we have created the "Zero Waste Solution" . This is done bymeans of recycling all potential waste and reusing those materials in differentways, creating a circular system of use and re-use. Implementing this philosophy,w e b r i n g s o l u t i o n s to all segments of society. This is demonstrated by o u r commitment to work with and provide efficient solutions to individuals, groups andmunicipalities.(http://www.zerowastemg.com/about.php) Policy and Enforcement. Enforcement as a motivating factor should not b e overlooked. Behavior studies have shown that monetary incentives, both positive(rewards) and negative (fines) are effective motivators, especially if combined withother motivating factors, such as education (De Young, 1985-6). Furthermore,enforcement of requirements for adequate recycling collection and storage areas inmulti-family buildings can actually eliminate barriers to participation. Indeed it is int h e Citys interest to use all of the tools available to e n c o u r a g e a n d e n a b l e residents to recycle, reuse and compost properly. Only by doing so can we ensurethe success of a zero waste program. However, we should not overlook the factthat enforcement fine can be a valuable revenue enhancement tool that can helpt o f i n a n c e a z e r o w a s t e p r o g r a m . ( http://www.consumersunion.org/other/zerowaste/enforcement.html)Manchester is working hard to ensure that the city and it's wards are cleanand safe. Like any city, Manchester suffers from it's own share of environmentalcrime, perpetrated by the irresponsible few. Environmental Crime blights our city,causing eyesores, and more often than not a health or safety hazard. Our Teamsare working hard to

34 prosecute these offenders that damage, spoil and pollute thecommunity we live in.Manchester City Council takes a very strict enforcement approach againstp e o p l e w h o c o m m i t t h e s e c r i m e s . W o r k i n g t o g e t h e r , t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Enforcement family are responsible for investigations to secure successfulp r o s e c u t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l c r i m e (http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500012/environmental_en forcement/912/envir onmental_crimes_and_enforcement/1A local environmental enforcement program is a program that your localc o u n t y o r c i t y g o v e r n m e n t c a n i n i t i a t e t o c o m b a t i l l e g a l d u m p i n g i n y o u r community. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources encourages localcommunities to start their own enforcement program to combat illegal dumping.The department retained the services of a consultant to produce a manual entitled How to Establish and Operate an Environmental Enforcement Program . This is anin depth manual that is designed to help local governments start an enforcementprogram or improve an existing enforcement program to combat illegal dumping.From 2000 through 2002, twelve workshops held throughout the state explainedh o w t o s t a r t a n d i m p l e m e n t t h e p r o g r a m o u t l i n e d i n t h e m a n u a l . (http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/pubsreports/litter.htm)Our Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) are local authority inspectors,who want you to meet all of the necessary requirements. If your organization ishigher risk (a factory, a building site, a mine, an offshore chemical plant and/or nuclear installation), then the Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for m o n i t o r i n g y o u . ( http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroom/speeches/information-dissemination-andclimate-change ) Theoretical and Conceptual Framework This study is anchored on the theory of Florence Nightingale EnvironmentalTheory on which she linked health with five environmental factors: pure or fresh air,pure water, efficient drainage, cleanliness and light specially direct sunlight, (Kozier and Erbs, 2008)

Significance of the Study

35 This study aims to determine the effectiveness of implementation of ZeroWaste Management to the student nurses at St. Marys College. Moreover theresult of this study will inspire the following: Students. The data of this study will provide students a w a r e n e s s o f t h e i r responsibility to the said project which is zero waste management. Teachers. The outcome will help the school teachers to promote the zero wastemanagement implementation towards the students, specifically the student nurses. School Administrators . The result of the study can provide information a n d feedback to the administrators for them to know if the zero waste management iseffective or been improved. Definition of Terms For easy understanding, the major term used in this study i s d e f i n e d conceptually and operationally. Zero Waste Management . Is literally the process of managing waste materials(normally those produced as a result of human activities). It involves the collection,t r a n s p o r t , p r o c e s s i n g a n d / o r d i s p o s a l o f w a s t e m a t e r i a l s (www.wordiq.com/waste_management; Retreived,2010) . I n t h i s s t u d y i t r e f e r s t o the schools imperative method in the use of strategies to creating a garbage-free campus, with the participation of every individual in the school whos responsiblefor generating their own wastes. This includes proper segregation/disposal of garbage and enforcing disciplinary actions against those who violates. Information Dissemination. This is the process of distribution or spreading of information to the people or to the public to educate them about a specific issues,events, or facts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information;retrieved, 2010 ). In thisstudy, it refers to the massive and continuous information and education to alldepartment and offices, and all waste generators in which they are encouraged topractice reduction, reuse, and recycling of waster generated at source as ane f f e c t i v e minimization technique. In the conduct of i n f o r m a t i o n e d u c a t i o n campaign, waste generators will be educated on the proper method of compostingas an environment friendly way of disposing waste. Processing/Implementation of the project. T h i s i s t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f a n application, or execution of aplan, idea,model,design, specification,standard, algorithm, or policy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implementation) .

36 In this study thisr e f e r s t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f M R F f o r r e c y c l i n g a n d c o m p o s t i n g o f g a r b a g e materials. This also refers on establishing marketing linkages with potential buyersfor recyclables. MRF consists of; Botanical and Ecological Garden, where ino r g a n i c v e g e t a b l e s g a r d e n s h a l l b e p l a n t e d w i t h h i g h v a l u e c r o p s , i t s h a l l b e established in vacant space after Marian Hotel; Warehouse, the existing carpentrys h o p c a n b e constructed into a MRF with roof out of existing r e c y c l a b l e construction materials; shedder (for garden and kitchen wastes), the shedder can produce humus or fertilizer which can be sold by sack or use in botanical andecological garden as fertilizer. Policy and Enforcement. A policy is typically described as a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). The term is not normallyu s e d t o denote what is actually done, this is normally referred to as either procedure or protocol. Where as a policy will c o n t a i n t h e ' w h a t a n d t h e w h y ' procedures or protocols contain the 'what' the 'how' the 'where' and the 'when'.Enforcement is a term that refers to the process by whichlegislation, o r p a r t o f legislation, andtreatiescomes to havelegalforce and effect. The term is closely related to thedateof this transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy; retrieved; 2010). In this study it refers to the policies and implementation of disciplinaryactions or sanctions to facilitate obedience of all waste generators. in this study,T h e D S A a n d D i s c i p l i n e C o o r d i n a t o r s w i t h t h e h e l p o f t h e S C E B , S E C , G A B officers including administrators, teaching and non-teaching personnel have them o r a l duty to help by listing down names of the violators, IDs c a n a l s o b e confiscated if necessary.

37 Chapter 2METHODS Presented in this chapter are the research design, the subject a n d respondents, the instrument, the data gathering procedure, and the statisticaltreatment of the data. Research design A Descriptive-study Method of research will be employed in this study. It is amethod that tries to reveal patterns associated with specific phenomena without ane m p h a s i s o r p r e - s p e c i f i e d h y p o t h e s i s . S o m e t i m e s t h e s e s t u d i e s a r e c a l l e d hypothesis generating studies (to contrast them with hypothesis testing study), (www.children.mercy.org./stats/definition/descriptive.htm: retrieved, 2010)This design is adopted since the main problem of the study is to determinethe extent of students perception and zero waste management implementation inSt. Marys College. Research Subject The respondents of this study will be the students in the d i f f e r e n t department of St. Marys College enrolled in the school year 2010-2011.T h e y w i l l b e chosen on the basis of stratified random sampling. Thissampling technique will be used in order to get the exact representation o f respondents of this study. Using the Slovins Formula, a sample of 223 student-respondents weretaken. The sample size of the population and the distribution of respondents bygender and section using stratified random sampling.S t r a t i f i e d random sampling will be used in this study as samples aregathered from the different department to the used s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e a n d Slovins Formula.

38

39 Research Instrument The instrument used in this study was the researcher made aquestionnaire using a Likert scale. The questionnaire was used to assess theeffectiveness of the implementation of Zero-waste management among the nursingstudents in St. Marys College. The statements of sentences were made simple,brief, and concrete to provide the respondents basic understanding about thepurpose of the study.The five scale scoring has the following qualitative description:S c a l e D e s c r i p t i v e E q u i v a l e n t D e s c r i p t i o n 5 V e r y in e x t e n s i v e t h e St. Z e r o T h i s m e a n s

t h a t implemented alwaysobserved. 4 t W h a a s t t e E x

W a s t e Management

MarysCollege was very much evident or

v t

e h

T e

e Z

a e

n r

s o

Management implemented in St. MarysC o l l e g e often evident or observed. means that the

was 3

most

Moderately

extensiveThis

zero

w a s t e Management implemented in St. MarysCollege was very much

relatively evidentin most cases. 2 L e s s e x t e n s i v e T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e Z e r o W a s t e Management implemented in St. MarysCollege was acknowledged to be presentbut only slightly felt. 1 N o t e x t e n s i v e T h i s m e a n s t h a t t h e Z e r o W a s t e Management implemented in St. MarysCollege was almost non-evident.

40 Data Gathering Procedures The following steps will be observed in the gathering of data: Seek Permission to conduct the Study. The researcher will send a letter to thep r e s e n t s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r , a s k i n g p e r m i s s i o n t o a l l o w t h e r e s e a r c h e r s t o conduct the study at St. Marys College, Tagum City. Administration and Retrieval of Questionnaire. The researcher will personallydistribute and administer the questionnaire. They will be instructed no to leave anyitem unanswered. The students will also be given enough time to answer all thei t e m s . A n d a f t e r a n s w e r i n g t h e r e s e a r c h e r w i l l r e t r i e v e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e immediately. Checking, Collating and Processing of Data. The researcher will gathered allt h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e c h e c k e d t h o r o u g h l y i f a l l i t e m s w e r e a n s w e r e d a n d collated of score followed. It was checked, collated and processed appropriatestatistical tools. Statistical Treatment To answer the questions proposed in this study, the data were subjected tostatistical treatment. The following statistical operations were used: Average Weighted Mean. It is a method used by multiplying each of the scores byt h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f r e q u e n c y . T h i s w a s u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t o f t h e implementation of Zero Waste Management among Nursing Student in St. MarysCollege. This answered question 1.

Mean . It is the average of the set of data used to determine the extent of t h e implementation of Zero Waste Management among Nursing Students in St. MarysCollege. This answered question 1. Z- test . It is a statistical tool used in comparing the difference between two means.This was used to test the significant difference on the extent of the implementationof Zero Waste Management implementation in St. Marys College. This answeredquestions 2 and 3.