PROPOSED PUBLIC MARKET AND TRANSPORTATION

TERMINAL: A RELOCATION SITE OF SANTA MARIA PUBLIC

MARKET IN BULACAN

A Thesis Presented to the Civil Engineering Department of

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Santa
Maria, Bulacan

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Subject CIEN

3322 – Civil Engineering Project II

by:

Baccol, Karen G.
Cuison, Francis Domini F.
Del Rosario, Carl Jonathan C.
Ricardo, Arison D.
Samaniego, Monica Pauline S.

November 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 We owe our deepest gratitude to our thesis adviser Engr. Catherine C. Bombita for

giving us the opportunity to do this research, and she who guided us all along until the

completion of our study by providing all the necessary information for developing a

successful research.

We would also want to thank one of our professors, Engr. Myla Capuno for guiding

us and giving us ideas throughout the process of this project.

We also want to thank our local government for allowing us to gather all information

needed for our study, specifically Engr. Carmelita Guevarra – Head of Engineering Office,

Engr. Fortunata Lorenzo – Head of MPDO, Mr. Silvestre I. Luciano – Santa Maria Public

Market Office-in-charge, and Mr. Rolando E. San Pablo – Tax Mapping Officer-in-charge.

And we also want to express our deepest gratitude to our respondents who

participated in our survey conducted in different barangays.

Lastly, we would also want to express our appreciation in our beloved university,

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Santa Maria, Bulacan Campus for giving us the

opportunity to make this research possible.

 DEDICATION

We dedicate this project to our Almighty God, our creator, our source of inspiration,

wisdom, knowledge and understanding;

To all of the people who have been affected in

every way possible,

And to our understanding parents who never fail in encouraging and

supporting us throughout this study.

 ABSTRACT

Public market and private businesses are the major areas for the exchange of

goods and services. In Santa Maria, Bulacan private businesses are being developed for

better use, while the public market, specifically the Santa Maria Public Market seems to

have lack of development. This study will only focus and is limited on proposing a public

market and transportation terminal in the Municipality of Santa Maria, Bulacan. This project

intends to design a new two-storey public market with transportation terminal. Aside from

the structural and architectural design of the market, this project will also utilize appropriate

design for an organized transport terminal

The project is a two-storey public market having about 1,090 stalls with

transportation terminal. This Structure will be named Santa Maria Public Market under the

Municipality of Santa Maria and will provide a complete structural design of a modern

public market in Santa Maria, Bulacan. The proposed project is located along JP Rizal

Street, Barangay Poblacion, Santa Maria, Bulacan and a road leading to Walter Mart

Santa Maria Bulacan and Barangay Santa Clara.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Acknowledgements ii

DEDICATION 3

ABSTRACT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

1 The Problem and Its Setting

Background of the Study 1

Project Description

Project Rationale 2

Project Location 2

Project Information 3

Statement of the Problem 3

Theoretical Framework 4

Conceptual Framework 6

Scope and Limitations of the Study 6

Significance of the Study 7

Definition of Terms 8

2 Review of Literature and Studies 10

Public Markets in the 20th Century 10

Public Markets Today 11

Traditions of Public Market 13

The Relationship of Public Market to the Development of Economy 15 Economic and

Technological Challenges to the Public Market 17

The Importance of Public Market 19

Urbanization of Public Market 20

The Contemporary Reinvention of the Public Market 22

The Public Market and Contemporary Urban Revitalization 23

Public Market Advocacy Today 25

Related Projects 29

3 Methodology 43

Research Design 43

Research Procedure 43

Flow Chart 45

Research Respondents 48

Sampling Technique 48

Research Instrument 50

Material Requirements 51

Statistical Treatment 56

4 Presentation of Data and Interpretation of Results 53

I. 400 Customers from Different Barangays 53

II. 30 Public Market Vendors 58

III. 30 Transportation Terminal Drivers 62

Estimated Construction 66

Bill of Materials 66

Source of Budget 67

5 Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

Summary of Findings and Conclusion 69

Recommendation 70

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Population of Santa Maria, Bulacan per Barangay 46

Table 2 Number of Respondents per Barangay 47

Table 3 Interviewed Persons 49

Table 4 Weighted Mean Description 52

Table 5 Tabulated Result of the Response of the Respondents to the Actual

Condition of Santa Maria Public Market (400 Respondents) 57

Table 6 Tabulated Result of the Response of the Respondents to the Actual

62
Condition of Santa Maria Public Market (30 Vendors)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Project Location 3

Figure 2 David O’Neil’s 10 X 10 Public Market Matrix 5

Figure 3 Conceptual Framework 6

Figure 4 Flow Chart 45

Figure 5 Age Distribution of Respondents (400 Respondents) 53

Figure 6 Gender Distribution of Respondents (400 Respondents) 54

Figure 7 Percentage of First Time Customers 54

Figure 8 Frequency of Visit to Public Market 55

Figure 9 Facilities that Need Improvement (400 Respondents) 55

Figure 10 Facilities that can be Incorporated in the Proposed Public

Market (400 Respondents) 56
Figure 11 Percentage of Respondents Agreed on the Idea of Having a Transportation

Terminal near the Public Market (400 Respondents) 57

Figure 12 Age Distribution of Respondents (30 Vendors) 58

Figure 13 Gender Distribution of Respondents (30 Vendors) 59

Figure 14 Number of Years in Service 59

Figure 15 Type of Stall Vendor 60

Figure 16 Facilities that Need Improvement (30 Vendors) 60

Figure 17 Facilities that can be Incorporated in the Proposed

Public Market in Santa Maria, Bulacan (30 Vendors) 61

Figure 18 Age Distribution of Respondents (Drivers) 62

Figure 19 Facilities that can be Incorporated in the Proposed

Transportation Terminal 63

Figure 20 Number of Years as a Driver 63

Figure 21 Percentage of Respondents Agreed on Having a

Transportation Terminal near Public Market (Drivers) 64

Figure 22 Distribution of Respondents Based on Earnings 65

Sufficiency of Area of Service 65
Figure 23

APPENDICES

A Detailed Engineering Design

Loadings

Dead Load

Roofing

Earthquake Parameters
 STAAD Truss Design Result

STAAD Design Result

B Project Plan Proposal

Architectural Plan

Structural Plan

Plumbing Plan

Electrical Plan

C Survey Questionnaire for Buyers

D Survey Questionnaire for Stall Vendors

E Survey Questionnaire for PUV and Tricycle Drivers

F Tax Declaration of Real Property

 Chapter I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Background of the Study

Santa Maria, also known as municipality of Santa Maria, is one of the 21 municipalities in

Bulacan. The municipality of Santa Maria lies 32 kilometers (20 mi) northeast of Manila and is

located at the eastern portion of Bulacan. Being one of a highly urbanized municipality, Santa Maria

is one of the richest municipality in Bulacan with an assets totaling of PHP 1 billion and revenues

reaching of PHP 560 million (Commission on Audit, COA, 2016).

In 2015, its population reached to 256, 454 which represents 7.8% of the province. Being

one of the municipalities in Bulacan with high population growth rate due to migration, establishment

of more commercial and trading activities take place as some people see this as an opportunity for

business.

Public market and private businesses are the major areas for the exchange of goods and

services. In Santa Maria, private businesses are being developed for better use, while the public

market, specifically the Santa Maria Public Market seems to have lack of development.

Santa Maria Public Market, located at Patria Honuria Perez, 7455 JP Rizal St,

Santa Maria, Bulacan, has a land area of 3,600 sq. meter, and was constructed last April 13, 1985. It

was the second Santa Maria Public Market in the history and served as a relocation site of the old

public market in Santa Maria. The very first Santa Maria Public

Market was located at C. De Guzman, Santa Maria, Bulacan which is 230 meters from the Santa

Maria Public Market today. In 33 years after construction, public market of Santa

1
Maria, Bulacan seems to have of lack of development from its exterior appearance, walkways,
drainage system, electrical, lighting and ventilation system. Aside from lacking of development,
another problem that the buyers and vendors are facing is the transportation terminal. Santa Maria
Public Market is 280 m away from the secondary terminal, and 500 m away from the primary
terminal.

Santa Maria Public Market was classified as a public market since it is owned and operated

by the city local government intended to extend the service to the general public on their daily needs.

Today, Santa Maria Public Market is in the stage wherein its physical condition is lacking of

development and not easily accessible because of its distance from the transportation terminal which

affects the efficiency of the public market.

Project Rationale. This project intends to design a new two-storey public market with

transportation terminal in Santa Maria Bulacan. Aside from the structural and architectural design of

the market, this project will also utilize appropriate design for an organized transport terminal.

Project Location. The municipality of Santa Maria is bounded by the municipalities of

Bocaue to the south, Norzagaray to the north, the city of San Jose Del Monte to the east, and Pandi

to the west. The proposed project is located along JP Rizal

Street, Barangay Poblacion, Santa Maria, Bulacan with a lot area of 25, 662 sq. m.

2
 PROPOSED
LOCATION

Figure 1: Project Location

Project Information. The project is a two-storey public market having 1,076 stalls and a

transportation terminal. This structure will be named Santa Maria Public Market under the

municipality of Santa Maria. The Design of foundation of the structure as well as the design of

transport terminal is part of the project.

Statement of the Problem

The research answers the different questions listed below:

1. What are the profile of the respondents in terms of the following:

a. Age?

b. Gender?

c. Barangay?

3
 d. How often do they visit the public market?

2. What are the present problems Santa Maria Public Market faces?
3. What is the rating of the overall experience in the Santa Maria Public Market?

4. What are the different facilities present in the public market?

5. What are the facilities in Santa Maria Public Market that need improvement?

6. What are the facilities that must be added in Santa Maria Public Market?

7. What are the factors that affect the efficiency of the public market?

8. How satisfied are the buyers and sellers on the kind of environment that the Santa

Maria Public Market has?

Theoretical Framework

Senior Associate David O’Neal presents a matrix of ten qualities of successful markets, each

of which is underpinned by nine or ten components. As O’Neal presents the idea that at least ten focal

points are necessary to make a great place, with each of those areas offering ten things to do. Public

spaces exhibiting the Power of 10 offer the depth, meaning and visceral connections that create

satisfying everyday experiences.” O’Neal’s take on the ‘Power of 10’ for public markets is presented

in Figure 2. While these principles are not sufficient to drive a significant market planning process,

they can serve as a quick reference for project planners as they cycle through the many analyses and

conceptual iterations required to bring a market project to fruition.

Much can be learned about what makes places great by observing successful markets - and

vice versa. Project for Public Spaces (PPS), has worked on markets all over the world and carefully

4
studied the classic elements that go into creating successful markets or reviving old ones. And we've

found that much of what makes a great market is identical to what makes a great public space.

Figure 2: David O’Neil’s 10 X 10 Public Market Matrix

5
6
 Source: Project for Public Space (PPS)

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual Framework:

7
 Figure 3: Conceptual Framework

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study will only focus and is limited on proposing a public market and transportation

terminal in the Municipality of Santa Maria, Bulacan. In designing these structures the researchers

will refer to different codes and standards implemented in the

Philippines.

8
 This study will also include creating a complete architectural, structural, plumbing and

electrical plan. To develop and achieve this proposed project, accurate computation, conceptual and

architectural design by using engineering soft wares will also be provided.

Significance of the Study

This research will produce a complete structural design of a modern public market in Santa Maria,

Bulacan. Thus, the study will give benefits to the following:

Municipality of Santa Maria. The design of New Santa Maria Public Market being provided

by the researchers might be used by the municipality since the Mayor together with the Vice and

Councilors of Santa Maria are planning to have a new public market that will serve as a replacement

for the existing public market that can also be

converted/rehabilitated into a multi-purpose structure.

Community. The design will also benefit the residents of Santa Maria and its nearby

municipalities because a new public market that is convenient and spacious will be operating and it

will become a new landmark structure in the town.

Stall vendors. This research will enable them to re-organize in a place where they can sell

their goods in a better, cleaner, safer, and healthier environment and more accessible market.

PUV and tricycle drivers. One of the goals of this study is to provide a design of a public

market with adjacent transportation terminal. This study will benefit the PUV and tricycle drivers

because this will help them have more passengers.

9
 Researchers. This study will create a milieu of awareness about the present condition of Santa

Maria Public Market as well as the need for a new and improved Public

Market.
Future Researchers. This Research will be useful reference for the researchers who would

plan to conduct any related study precisely the standard underlying the

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Program.

Definition of Terms

Carinderia Section

A section in the market where cooked foods or drinks are displayed, sold and/or served.

Dry Good Section

Area in the market where dry goods (e.g., clothing, kitchen utensils, toys, and other similar

items) are displayed for sale.

Dry Market

A market where most of the merchandise displayed are dry goods

Market Administrator

A person who has full control of the administrative direction of all government

owned/operated markets within a local government.

Market Master

10
 Officer-in-charge of the market where he is assigned. He has direct supervision over the

employees of the market.

Passageway or Walkway

A space between rows of stalls utilized as passage by the public.

Public Market
A market owned, operated and/or managed by the government intended to serve the general

public.

Satellite Market or Talipapa

A type of public market with less than 150 stalls that cater to limited number of customers.

Stall

A compartment or area designated for the display sale of commodities, goods or foodstuffs.

Vendor

Any person who sells goods, commodities, foodstuffs, and other merchandise

Wet Market

A market where most of the commodities for sale are readily perishable foods.

11
 Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES AND LITERATURES

Public Markets in the 20th Century

Public retail markets experienced a resurgence in the years around World War One. The United States

Department of Agriculture developed an Office of Public Markets in 1913 in order to aid local food

distribution. According to Donofrio, “all levels of government” supported public markets at this time.

In 1918, the U.S. Census Bureau undertook a study of municipal markets in all cities having a

population greater than 30,000 persons. This study found that half of the 240 cities surveyed

maintained a public market. According to Pyle, “The distribution [of markets] in 1918 indicates that

although the process of decline continued, the market remained as a source of fresh produce and in

hard times could be reinstituted. No generalizations can be made about the proportion of the total

food supply distributed through markets.”

The overall decline of public markets continued, and the 1940s and 1950s saw a decisive shift in food

sales patterns in the United States. Despite the evolution of the supermarket and a national (and

international) system of food distribution, a study by the United States Department of Agriculture in

1946 identified 401 retail and wholesale markets remaining in American cities, 291 of which sold

12
directly to consumers. At that time, just as World War Two was concluding, supermarkets were

responsible for only 28 percent of national total sales volume. However, just a few years later in 1954,

supermarkets’ share of total sales was up to 48 percent. The post-World War Two landscape of

suburbanization and the creation of the interstate highways only reinforced the ascendancy of the

supermarket.

Yet according to Mayo, many public markets remained profitable. However in many other cities,
including Boston, the public market had essentially failed by the mid-to-late 20th century.

According to Mayo, in addition to quality, safety, and environmental concerns, supermarket pricing

became an issue with consumers as well. Supermarkets frequently sought to maximize profits through

the use of variable pricing, loss-leader products, and other techniques. In Mayo’s words, “The quality

and pricing of food goods led consumers and retailers to support retail alternatives other than the

dominating supermarket.” And a prime alternative was the public market. Mayo again: “As the

ecology movement gained momentum in the United States, a few consumers became more concerned

about being economic, responsible shoppers as well as recapturing a sense of public life, and many

shoppers chose the public market as an alternative.”

This renewed interest in public markets echoes Tangires’s notion of the “moral economy” of public

markets that protected product quality, fair exchange, and trust among buyers and sellers.

Public Markets Today

Throughout the 1970s, there were some significant efforts to revive the public market tradition

elsewhere in the United States. The resulting markets represent a mix of different contexts,

sponsorship entities, scales, and histories. Early in the decade, the renovation of Lancaster,

Pennsylvania’s Central Market was one of the earliest recipients of federal historic preservation

funds. In Vancouver, British Columbia, the peninsula known as Granville Island was transformed

from a derelict industrial area into thriving mixed-use area anchored by a newly created public

13
market. The Granville Island Public Market opened in 1979 and is one of the most popular

destinations in Vancouver for residents and visitors alike. Granville Island is regarded as one of the

major successes of new public market development.

After Seattle’s Pike Place Market escaped urban renewal and demolition through a public referendum,

the City responded to the public mandate for market preservation by creating the Pike Place Market

Preservation and Development Authority (PDA), a quasi-public corporation. The PDA oversaw

redevelopment of the historic market, and by 1990 all of the market buildings were renovated. Today,

Pike Place is likely the best-known public market in the United States. However, heavy tourist

visitation has impacted the market, with fewer local residents shopping there and the merchandise

mix tipping toward catering to the tourist trade. Pike Place is a full-fledged market district, comprising

a variety of indoor and outdoor vending spaces, along with a mix of other uses. The twenty-two acre

Pike Place district includes not only food vendors, but also a range of other uses including mixed-

income housing and social service providers. At this largest scale, a public market can be more than

a forum for exchange, but an entire neighborhood, complete with a

variety of activities.

Other attempts to create new markets have not always been as successful. Several efforts to create a

new public market hall in San Francisco in the 1980s were commercial failures. However, San

Francisco ultimately did develop a public market of sorts with the renovation of the Ferry Building

in 2003. San Francisco’s historic ferry terminal was once the main point of arrival and departure in

the city, predating the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges. Cut off from the heart of the city by the

Embarcadero Freeway in the 1950s, the Ferry Building again became a waterfront focal point when

the freeway was removed following the Loma Prieta earthquake. The plaza in front of the building

has been home to a weekly farmers’ market since 1992. The building itself, owned by the Port of San

Francisco, was redeveloped under a ground lease in 2003 by a partnership between national developer

Equity Office and a local development company. The building houses 175,000 square feet of Class

14
A office space along with 65,000 square feet of retail focused on locally produced foods and local

restaurants.

The upscale shops and eateries in the Ferry Building complement the twice-weekly farmers’ market,

allowing the two venues combined to appeal to a broad range of customers. The farmers’ market is

operated independently by the non-profit Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture

(CUESA). The Ferry Building is an interesting case because of the involvement of a private, for-

profit developer.

Closer to Boston, Portland, Maine constructed a year-round market hall that opened in 1998.

Generous support from philanthropist Elizabeth Noyce’s Libra Foundation funded the market’s

construction as a catalyst for revitalization in downtown Portland, with public market expert Ted

Spitzer serving as market manager from the design through the operational stages. The 37,000 square

foot market featured soaring ceilings with timberframed trusses, and was home to a mix of more than

20 permanent vendors along with day stalls. The Portland Public Market was awarded a silver medal

from the Rudy Bruner Award for Urban Excellence in 1999 on the basis of its “financial competence,

its social values, its attractiveness as a shopping destination, and its contribution to downtown

revitalization.” However, vendor rents did not come close to covering the market’s operating costs,

and the market ran at a loss. In 2006, the Libra Foundation decided to liquidate all its Portland real

estate holdings. The market building was sold in August that year, and the award-winning Portland

Public Market was closed in January 2007. Several of the vendors from the Portland market

regrouped and reopened as The Public Market House in a downtown storefront adjacent to the

location of Portland’s original public market. The Public Market House, coupled with a seasonal

farmers’ market, carries on the spirit of the Portland Public Market.

Traditions of Public Market

15
The tradition of public markets was brought to North America from Europe and spread across the

continent with European settlement (Morrow, Baun, & Spitzer, 1995). The first documented farmers’

market in America occurred in the seventeenth century (Sommer, 1980). These first markets were the

primary means of providing fresh produce, fish, dairy, meat and poultry to urban consumers. Public

markets were often the only place for food commerce within a city because of the control that they

afforded officials over conditions of trade (Morrow, Baun, & Spitzer, 1995). Early report and records

from London, Ontario suggest that the farmers’ market’s commercial importance was significant

enough that the city’s elite went to great lengths to control its location and operations (Gouglas,

1996). At that time, the market was the focal point of urban commerce, attracting people into the city

center.

According to Gale (1997) “One of the main reasons for proliferation of farmers’ markets is the

economic opportunities afforded to both producers and consumers. Small producers may not be able

to sell to conventional wholesalers because of insufficient volumes and stringent demands for product

consistency. Large farmers use direct selling as a sideline operation for additional revenue and a

market for product that does not meet wholesaler specifications.” Farmers’ markets provide

producers with an opportunity to retain valuable returns that would otherwise accrue to wholesalers,

distributors, and retailers who currently handle the bulk of the world’s food supply.

The ever-increasing corporate concentration of food distributors has led to control of the food supply

by a small but powerful group of companies. The control created by a large number of producers

dealing with an ever-shrinking number of buyers significantly increases bargaining power for buyers,

leading to an oligopoly market structure. There is often little ability for the producer to capture returns

associated with improved produce quality through conventional distribution. Sorting often occurs at

other levels of the supply chain and the sorter retains the returns from this process. The producer is

provided with no incentive to improve the quality of his or her product beyond the minimum

standards set by the buyer. By utilizing a farmers’ market, the producer performs all supply chain

16
functions, including storing, grading, marketing, and retailing. With that comes the revenue and costs

that would otherwise go to a long line of intermediaries (Feenstra & Lewis, 1999).

Those who live in the core of the city do not have easy access to fresh fruits and vegetables through

conventional supermarkets. These residents often have low incomes, making it difficult to access

food sources outside their own neighbourhoods. In some cities, farmers’ markets have developed to

serve these carefully disadvantaged groups by providing food preparation demonstrations, utilizing

innovative food stamp programs, and participating in food security programs. (Burns & Johnson,

2006).

According to Sanderson, Gertler, Martz, & Mahabir (2005), Farmers’ markets have existed for

several centuries in North America, at first playing a significant but then dilapidated role in giving

products to customers. However, over the last decades, consumers, producers and community groups

have shown a transformed interest in these markets as a way of bringing farmers and citizens together

for the direct sale of products. The past thirty years has seen a proliferation of farmers’ markets across

the continent as enthusiasm for this traditional form of commerce grows. This intent is to discover

the reasons for the recovery of farmers’ markets and inspect the purposes that such markets serve in

today’s time. The motivations of producers, consumers, and those responsible for initiating these

markets are also discussed.

The Relationship of Public Market to the Development of Economy According to Econsult

(2007), “Public markets are unique economic and social institutions which are increasingly being

viewed as gear to attained a wide variety of goals. These goals include improved access to quality

food, better marketing opportunities for family farmers, improving social interaction in urban

neighbourhoods, increasing social cohesion, providing employment opportunities to local

communities, creating entrepreneurial environment to increase small business formations, and

improving community socioeconomic development.”

17
For public markets to provide the benefits discussed above, they should be economically sustainable,

and this often needs some form of external financial support. A principal issue in obtaining public

and other funding for public markets is whether the markets can validate that they deliver economic

benefits to the community. The goal of this analysis is to examine only one of the potential benefits

of public markets—their direct and indirect impacts on local economic activity.

Market characteristics: First, the market may be selling products that do not directly compete with

nearby retail venues, and second, shoppers in some communities might be inclined to go outside the

local society to purchase the similar goods.

The tradition of public markets was brought to North America from Europe and scatter across the

continent with European settlement (Morrow, Baun, & Spitzer, 1995). The first documented farmers’

market in America occurred in the seventeenth century (Sommer, 1980). These first public markets

were the main means of providing fresh produce, dairy, meat, fish, and poultry to urban consumers.

“Public markets were often the only place for food commerce within a city because of the control

that they afforded officials over conditions of trade” (Morrow, Baun, & Spitzer, 1995).

By contrast, in large city markets, virtually all of the purchases from producers flow outside the local

economy. The outflow of funds from local economies from producers, are however, relatively small

because, producers generally are much smaller in scale than other vendor types.” Public markets are

vital in human life. It creates business opportunities to the small traders and entrepreneurs starting

their businesses and this opportunity will take effect to the economic growth of the community.

Economic and Technological Challenges to the Public Market

Changes in the food system in turn affected the complexion of the public market, eventually leading

to its decline. As Pyle notes, “The pattern of declining importance of city produce markets followed,

with several notable exceptions, the improvement of transportation, the growth of cities, and the

specialization of agriculture.” The 19th century saw the rise of the wholesale system and increasing

18
specialization among sellers and producers as well. Farmers, fishermen, and stockmen were no longer

the primary vendors at America’s public markets. Technological advances, including the railroads,

canning, and refrigeration radically altered the distribution of food. A shift in American attitudes

toward private enterprise placed the public market in competition with both private market houses

and with butchers, grocers and other private retailers. Advances in technology and industry

revolutionized not only food marketing, but also business in general. The later part of the 19th and

the beginning of the 20th centuries saw huge changes in technology with major impacts on the

American food distribution system. Canning emerged in the

1820s, with a canning factory established in Boston by William Underwood in 1822. Canned food

would become increasingly popular as the century progressed. The development of refrigeration in

the late 19th century lengthened supply chains. At first limited to cooling with ice, by the 1890’s

Boston’s Quincy Market had a mechanical cooling system that used brine and ammonia as cooling

agents. Refrigeration combined with widespread railroad shipping to give rise to larger and larger

food companies, such as

Armour and Swift, the mammoth Chicago meatpacking operations. By 1880, New Bedford,

Massachusetts was receiving beef shipped from Chicago’s stockyards instead of beef from Boston’s

Brighton yards.

In addition to transporting goods, the railroad sometimes took a more active role in the food marketing

landscape. For example, the Reading Railroad developed the Reading

Terminal Market in Philadelphia in 1892, absorbing the earlier Farmers’ Market and Franklin Market.

As Mayo states, “If, however, private enterprise could provide a better system for food retailing,

business people should not be deterred, because many local officials felt that government should not

compete with private enterprise.” Additionally, popular conceptions of the businessman changed as

well. According to Tangires, “The concept of the market house as a private business venture was new

19
and could not have existed without widespread faith in the hero of the mid-nineteenth century – the

‘businessman’.” The proliferation of private, independent grocers and butchers eroded public

markets’ role in feeding the city, and the later development of retail chains accelerated the public

market’s decline. Grocery stores posed a major challenge to the customer share of public markets,

and boasted several significant advantages. Grocery stores could operate out of almost any leased

storefront, whereas the centralized public market hall was a specialized facility. This gave grocers

greater locational mobility, and the ability to close up shop in unprofitable locations. Most

importantly, it allowed grocery stores to follow the population as it moved outward with urban growth

and eventually suburban development. Grocers were also free to change their product mix at will,

while public market operators were constrained by leases with their multiple vendors.

The rise of a national food distribution system, along with the sorts of unsavory practices described

by Upton Sinclair in his 1906 novel The Jungle, led to calls for federal regulation of food markets

and food safety. In an essay discussing the origins of federal food regulation, Alden Manchester

identifies several key constituencies that pushed for federal regulation. Farmers and farm groups

advocated regulation of the railroads and large food processors. Concerns about food safety led to

calls for regulation from consumers. Finally, the food industry itself, including the large meatpackers,

desired regulation in order to create a level playing field among market competitors and consistency

in regulation from state to state. The advent of federal food safety and marketing regulations

essentially rendered obsolete yet one more function of local public markets - that of regulating fair

trade and safe food.

Broader structural changes in the economy and the labor market would also act to reduce the role of

the public market in America’s food system. Mayo describes these changes as a shift from “local

mercantilism” to “national corporatism.” In his account, the rise of national corporations, including

chain grocery stores, served to undermine the local networks of middlemen and independent

businesses that thrived in the public market setting. Similarly, there was a corporatization of labor.

Small and local businesses, unable to compete with national chains, shuttered their own businesses

20
and went to work for larger firms. The shift to a food system dominated by national and regional

corporate enterprise ended the reign of the public market in American food retailing.

The Importance of Public Market

Urban revitalization in America and perhaps in other developing countries as well is defined as

construction of a highway, an office complex, a convention center or any public and private projects

costing billions of dollars in investment that claims to provide jobs for the citizens. However, for the

past years, the financial remuneration of these investments has produced unproductive jobs instead

and serious damage to the urban structure, which, in turn, directs to economic stagnation or worse,

collapse of the economy.

Urban revitalization practitioners from all sectors and organizations are beginning to recognize that

public gathering places and public spaces that connect everything create limitless potential for urban

revitalization and economic development. One such place is public market where people of different

ethnic groups and income are gathered, inviting and safe public spaces are created, low- and

moderate-income neighborhoods and smallscale economic activity are strengthened, fresh and high-

quality products are provided for the town residents and open spaces and farms are preserved,

addressing most of the

difficult problems of the cities.

A public market is traditionally owned by the town or city’s municipality where vendors market fresh

food from open stalls. Some public markets today are owned and operated by different types of

organizations and sell a wide range of different products, including but not limited to farmers’

produce, crafts and antiques. Public markets have three distinguished characteristics: (1) possess

public goals including among many others affordable retailing opportunities to small-scale businesses

21
and farmland preservation in the region; (2) encompass an inviting, safe and lively public space in

the community; and

(3) acquire locally owned, independent businesses for the local flavor of the market (Project for Public

Spaces, Inc., 2003).

Urbanization of Public Market

Food safety concerns are a driving force behind the spread of the farmers’market phenomenon in the

European Union in the last decade (Holloway & Kneafsey, 2000). The growing number of strictly

organic farmers’ markets provides evidence of this. Organic farms are often small and the farmers

prefer the premiums associated with direct selling, while consumers of these products prefer to deal

directly with the producer so as to increase their confidence that the product is organic (Gale, 1997).

According to Zade (2009) “public markets were once central components of the urban food system

in American cities, but the decline in number and importance by the middle of the 20th century.

Despite a diminished role in feeding the city, public markets have perished, and interest abounds in

both existing markets and the development of new ones.” In addition to creating an alternative to the

mainstream commercial food system, public markets can generate a range of community benefits.

These includes small business opportunities, preservation and promotion of local foods and food

ways and social interactions among them. According to Ford Foundation (2003), Urban

revitalization, economic development, and progress were justified by billions of dollars in public and

private investments by the jobs that presumably go with them. The term public market has changed

in meaning over time and still differs from place to place. A public market has been defined as a

municipally owned building where vendors and sellers sell fresh food from open stalls. While some

public markets still match this definition, public markets now come in many shapes and settings, give

a wide range of different products and goods, and are owned and operated by different types of

22
organizations, not just city governments. At their most basic, markets include vendors or merchants

who meet at the same location on a regular basis under the aegis of a sponsoring entity that has legal

and financial responsibility to oversee operations and, sometimes, structures or facilities to house the

marketactivity. What distinguish public markets from other types of related retail activity are the

following three characteristics: public goals, location of the market, and made by locally owned and

independent business owners. In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the farmers’ market

served as both a food source and focal point for interaction between urban and rural dwellers. “The

market,” Sean Gouglas (1996) wrote, “proved a social and economic arena, a center of urban and

rural relations, outside of which economic failure proved a real possibility.”

A survey of New Jersey farmers’ market managers (Govindasamy, 1998) revealed: “In order to assign

the spaces available in the facility, different criteria were used. First come first served was the

prevalent method and most markets tended to honor seniority…. Some markets, however, assigned

spaces according to the size of the farmers’ operations or by lottery drawing”. With regard to

positioning vendors to meet specific market goals, the same study indicated that 58 percent of

managers did not take into consideration similarity of products when deciding whether to place

vendors side by side. Only one manager stated that farmers’ personalities were taken into account

when planning the market layout (Govindasamy, 1998). As described above, the awesome majorities

of Oregon farmers’ markets assign vendor spaces in advance and arrange vendors to meet specific

market goals.

The Contemporary Reinvention of the Public Market

The Project for Public Spaces has been a singular force in promoting the development of public

markets, based on their traditional role in urban food provisioning. Published in 1995, Public Markets

and Community Revitalization offers a model for developing a successful public market, making the

23
first extended claim for their relevance in modern cities (Spitzer and Baum 1995). It proposes, in

effect, to bring to life the otherwise abstract economic concept that anchors the rationalities of

neoliberal thought: ‘‘the market’’ as it advances human well-being. Appealing to an ideal of the

‘‘universal market experience’’ and the vision of a renewed sense of public life ‘‘alive with vitality

and commerce,’’ the public market embodies an authentic place of locally-based exchange, a

common ground ‘‘where people feel comfortable to mix, mingle and enjoy the serendipitous

pleasures of strolling, socializing... and shopping in a special environment’’ (Spitzer and Baum

1995,). To this end, the authors note the need for a wider, more inclusive concept of ‘‘public market’’

that moves beyond municipal ownership and operation to embrace entities of ‘‘different shapes and

settings’’: ‘‘many farmers’ markets, crafts markets, and even some flea markets’’ (Spitzer and Baum

1995). Three overarching (if tautologically assigned) determinants now define a market as ‘‘public’’:

(1) public goals that define the public purpose or benefit derived from the market activity (2) the

market’s location in (or creation of) a public space—defined as open, easily accessible, and

hospitable—and

(3) tenants comprised of locally owned and operated businesses (Spitzer and Baum

1995).

The reinvention of the public market as a sign of the ‘‘traditional marketplace’’ nonetheless masks

its reality as a commercial business enterprise (Zade 2009; also DeLind 2011). It locates the historic

origin of urban life and spontaneous social interaction in the ‘‘free market’’ of capitalist society (Goss

1996; Agnew 1979), serving the claim that ‘‘public markets can address social and economic

problems without the need for on-going subsidy.’’ The public market thus achieves ‘‘public sector

goals through the harnessing of private sector means’’ (Spitzer and Baum 1995). These goals include

promoting public health through increased access to healthy, local fresh food; linking rural and urban

economies for enhanced regional development; providing economic opportunity through small

24
business and entrepreneur incubation, especially for minorities, immigrants and women; and creating

active, diverse public spaces (Spitzer and Baum 1995; Project for Public Spaces, n.d.(a). In the

following sections we investigate how public market managers navigate these goals.

The Public Market and Contemporary Urban Revitalization

Marketplaces of various types—public markets, farmers’ markets, and the like—are at a crossroads;

in them purposes old and emergent, are rediscovered and realized. (Morales, 2011)

In the proliferating studies of alternative food networks, relatively little attention has been paid to the

modern revival of the public market. Scholars defer instead to farmers markets as ‘‘the most prevalent

and public institution within alternative agrifood systems,’’ one thus providing an ‘‘important

standpoint from which to examine the everyday discourses and practices that fulfill the movement’s

vision’’ (Alkon and McCullen 2011). What it means to be a ‘‘public institution’’ warrants greater

consideration, however. Although fewer in number, public markets arguably have harnessed more

formalized support on the part of foundations, non-governmental agencies, and municipal planning

authorities than farmers markets. The identification of farmers markets as ‘‘public institutions’’ also,

if indirectly, raises a question regarding the categorical relationship between ‘‘farmers markets’’ and

‘‘public markets.’’ The USDA, for example, does not distinguish between them ; Brown’s (2001)

influential discussion of market classification does, but she largely parses their material differences.

Thus, farmers markets are ‘‘generally considered to be recurrent markets at fixed locations where

farm products are sold by farmers themselves’’; public markets are ‘‘the various forms of retail food

markets that, while containing multiple vendors, possibly including some producers, do not enforce

regulations about product origin’’ (Brown 2001; compare Moran 2013).

The source of this confusion, we will suggest, is inherent in the political and economic systems of

thought underlying the modern reinvention of the public market, which subsume these different types

25
of markets into the category of ‘‘marketplace.’’ More immediately relevant is the legal history of the

public market as a form of urban

infrastructure critical to the regulation of food and its equitable distribution to city residents.

Superintended by city authority, it was a mechanism of social as well as civic order (see Baics 2012;

Donofrio 2007; Goodwin 1929; Mayo 1991; Novak 1993; Rogers 1919; Steel 2013; Tangires 1997,

2003). More profoundly, their operations expressed the ideals of distributive justice and a public

economy in which commerce, trade, and economics were regarded as fundamentally public in nature,

‘‘created, shaped, and regulated by the polity via public law’’ (Novak 1993). The near disappearance

of public markets during the midtwentieth century, and their re-emergence in the late twentieth

century—more or less coincident with the national surge in farmers markets—should alert us to larger

structural transformations reshaping the role of state authority in the governance of food and urban

spaces.

In other words, the public market is an institution explicitly implicated in, and thus symptomatic of,

transforming regimes of food distribution and, by extension, discourses of food equity. We set its

reappearance in the context of neoliberal urban policy experiments ‘‘to mobilize city space as an

arena both for market-oriented economic growth and for elite consumption practices’’ (Brenner and

Theodore 2002; also Zukin 1990).

Signs of a ‘‘public market revival’’ were visible in the United States by the late 1980s, characterized

as part of the efforts to revitalize urban spaces by rebuilding urban food security (Burke 1978;

Deering and Ptucha 1987). In the twenty-first century, public markets have nominally joined farmers

markets as, simultaneously, ‘‘alternatives to the industrial food distribution system and as civic

institutions capable of generating a wide range of public benefits’’(Zade 2009). Urban planners, non-

governmental organizations, preservationists and others identify public markets as spurs for

community and economic development (Lum 2007; Morales 2009, 2011; Spitzer and Baum 1995;

26
Donofrio 2009) and, in the case of historic markets, anchors for a ‘‘long-held sense of identity and

place within many cities and towns’’ (Gentry 2013).

Public Market Advocacy Today

As the recent experiences of Portland and San Francisco illustrate, public market development can

be both challenging and rewarding. Despite the difficulties associated with developing and operating

public markets, proponents continue to advance a wide range of arguments in favor of maintaining

and developing public markets. Concerns over food quality and environmental impact that brought

customers back to the public market in the 1960s and 70s are still potent forces, perhaps more so in

the wake of recent food safety scares. Another set of arguments in favor of public markets positions

them as important institutions in local food systems. As a response to the energy consumption and

environmental damage that stem from conventional agriculture and food distribution, many

commentators advocate a shift in emphasis to local foods, including chef Alice Waters, journalist

Michael Pollen, and environmentalist Bill McKibben.

Public markets are important economic channels for local food producers and processors. Cornell

University Sociologist Gilbert Gillespie, along with several coauthors, identifies farmers’ markets —

that is to say public markets featuring direct sales between producer and consumer — as the keystone

to rebuilding local food systems.80 Direct sales do not necessarily have to be between farmer and

consumer: bakers, cheese makers, coffee roasters, and other food artisans can also benefit from direct

sales. Gillespie and his coauthors identify four ways in which direct sales between producer and

consumer serve to strengthen local food systems:

1. By increasing the visibility of local producers;

2. By encouraging diversification in local food production;

3. By incubating and supporting small businesses; and

27
4. By creating a space for both economic and social transactions.

In addition to these economic benefits for merchants and food producers, public markets can serve

other purposes outside the realm of food sales. These other benefits are perhaps best articulated by

the Project for Public Spaces (PPS), a non-profit corporation “dedicated to helping people create and

sustain public spaces that build stronger communities.” The organization was founded in 1975, and

draws heavily on the ideas of William H. Whyte, a scholar of public spaces. Public markets are one

of PPS’s main project areas, and the organization serves as market planning and management

consultants to a wide range of clients. PPS authored the first study for a new Boston Public Market

in 1998, and in the autumn of 2008 prepared a study for the Boston Redevelopment Authority on

planning a new market district organized around the existing Haymarket pushcart vendors, with PPS

associate David O’Neil taking a major role in both studies. Along with the Urban Land Institute, PPS

co-published a handbook for public market development that counted Theodore Spitzer, Hillary

Baum, and David O’Neil among its authors. This handbook identifies three sets of benefits generated

by public markets: “stimulating economic opportunity”, “creating dynamic places”, and “instilling

community spirit and cultural exchange”.

In addition to the benefits of direct sales described by Gillespie et al., PPS identifies economic

benefits from public market operations that accrue to market vendors, to market customers, and to

the broader public. Vendors benefit from low barriers to entry, particularly the limited need for start-

up capital, which is especially important for minority and immigrant entrepreneurs who may lack

access to traditional business financing. Spitzer et al. describe public markets as an ideal setting for

micro-finance loan programs, through which small amounts can be lent to sta businesspeople without

the underwriting strictures of conventional lending.

Compared with conventional retailing, public markets give customers the benefit of internal

competition among different vendors selling similar products, leading to greater variety in pricing,

28
selection of goods, and customer service. Customers in areas underserved by conventional food stores

may also benefit from food access provided by public markets, including low-income neighborhoods,

downtown areas, and other urban locations. A recent MIT Master’s thesis by Jeffrey Schwartz found

that neighborhood public markets helped to provide food access to underserved neighborhoods in

New Orleans devastated by Hurricane Katrina, the food needs of which were inadequately met by

either mainstream food stores or government programs. Broader economic benefits of public markets

include job creation for market vendors, managers, and maintenance workers.

Another benefit is the catalytic effect public markets can have on their surrounding areas.
People attracted to public markets may also patronize neighboring businesses outside the market, and

additional business activity in and around the market can lead to increases in property values and thus

higher property tax revenues for local government.

The second group of benefits from public markets described by Spitzer and his PPS colleagues fall

under the category of “instilling community spirit and cultural exchange.” Spitzer and his co-authors

describe markets as public spaces that encourage people to

“gather, make connections, discover their similarities, and appreciate their differences.” These human

interactions occur not only among customers, but also in the actual buying and selling itself.

Commerce in a multivendor public market features a much higher level of interaction between buyer

and seller. Compared to a supermarket shopper, a buyer at the public market may have to interact

with half a dozen or more vendors in order to make her or his purchases. Other market components,

such as street performers and musicians, may add additional layers of interaction to the market

environment. However, more recent forms of conventional retail, including both festival

marketplaces and lifestyle centers, offer similar entertainment.

Markets may also serve as a venue for social services, whether as a permanent part of the market or

as an occasional feature. Public health workers can set up booths for blood pressure or other health

screenings on selected market days. In some markets such as Detroit’s Eastern Market or Seattle’s

29
Pike Place, clinics or other public health facilities are a part of the market’s permanent program.

Spitzer also discusses the educational opportunities created by public markets. Public market

programs can include cooking demonstrations or talks by farmers and nutritionists, which provide

direct educational experiences. Informal education also happens as customers interact with vendors

and other shoppers to learn more about market products and their origins.

The third category of public market benefits described in Spitzer’s PPS handbook deals with the

market’s virtues as a public space. Both outdoor markets and spillover activity from indoor markets

help to activate the streets, sidewalks, and plazas in and around the market neighborhood. Spitzer and

his co-authors argue that active public spaces are both safer and more inviting, attracting additional

users and discouraging loitering, drug use, and other undesirable activity. The activity generated by

a public market can also help to set the stage for future development by introducing activity into

formerly desolate areas.

Related Projects:

1. Marikina Public Market

Location: Captain Venciong Street, Marikina City.

According to Philippine Statistics Authority the result of the 2015 nationwide Census of Population

(POPCEN) there are 450,741 persons in City of Marikina which is ranked 11 among the cities in

metro manila. There are almost 7,000 people that use to buy in the market since 2015. Often regarded

as one of Metro Manila’s most well-maintained public markets, Marikina Public Market offers a

clean and orderly shopping experience even if it’s right in the center of a busy city. And since the

entire city of Marikina has banned any use of plastics, the experience is also very eco-friendly. The

place offers fresh produce and meat at the wet market section while dry goods such as clothing, shoes,

and toys can be found in the dry market section. Marikina Public Market is a safe haven for the

people. There are uniformed market personnel roaming around advising people to take care of their

30
belongings. A market concierge is installed just at the center of the area for you to ask directions. A

police station is at the ground level of the main public market lest you have some concerns. But again,

always be mindful of your surroundings when you’re in a public place- a customer first tip. You can

also monitor basic commodity prices at their bulletin board posted in front of the concierge. The

reason why the market is referred to Marikina Market Mall is its sub-customer. Sometimes the prices

here are much cheaper than what is offered in the main Market. The cheapest price, according to

Palengkeras’

31
friend-Palengkenita is the Pamilihan ng Sto. Nino, just in front of the Aglipay Church. Here are some

of the sub- customers. Recently, the local government of Marikina issued an ordinance of “No Plastic

bag” policy. So the customer bought one of these reusable bags for his finds. After an hour of Market

delight, the Palengkenita-friend was kind enough to prepare and cook for brunch. There are more to

write about the goodness of this Palengkera sanctuary; however the customer has to end with a word

to describe it.

32
 2. Baguio City Public Market

Location: 38 Rajah Soliman Street, Baguio City, Benguet

Apart from having many tourist spots and being one of the prime travel destinations in the entire

country, Baguio City’s public market is also worth checking out. Baguio City Public Market boasts

of being the four C’s: cool, clean, complete, and cheap. Very wellmaintained and not at all humid

thanks to Baguio’s cooler temperature, the market also has a wide variety of products to choose from

and haggling is even possible. You can find all of Baguio’s delicacies here—from peanut brittle and

ube jam to fresh strawberries and even antique trinkets—and since they are not yet exported, they

come at much lower prices.

33
 3. Cubao Farmer’s Market

Farmers Market is considered one of the best dry and wet markets in Metro Manila. It is located

within the Araneta center area in Cubao commercial district adjacently located on the long stretch

of Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue (EDSA). The best part about the market is the variety of goods

offer starting from early in the morning. Historically, it is one of the first structures built roughly 30

years ago in the Araneta center area after the construction of the Araneta coliseum. The market

Farmers Market is one of the best “wet” markets in Metro Manila. Good and convenient location, airy

set-up, wide aisles, numerous vendors, organized sections, excellent variety and competitive prices

make for a great shopping experience. Any metro foodie from near or far should walk its aisles at

least once. I believe great markets thrive when there is a meeting of two groups of people: vendors

who offer quality, variety, good prices, consistency, volume, etc. and consumers who come regularly

armed with serious aggregate buying power. Farmers (as it is called by regulars) has plenty of both

groups – thus its success.

Farmers Market is a bit of a misnomer as it does not appear to be made up of farmers who cart their

produce to the market then return to the farm after their harvest has been sold. Instead, it is more of a

traditional wet market where vendors are simply middlemen/women sourcing the best the country has

to offer and selling to a wide variety of consumers ranging from the middle class housewife, the cook

or major domo of a wealthy family or the buyer of a nearby restaurant or cafeteria. I raise this point

34
as farmer’s markets are popping up all over North America and there has been a growing trend of

getting the freshest produce directly from the source – think Union Square Farmer’s Market in New

York City, for example.

Farmers Market in Cubao is located right on EDSA, beside the Cubao Shopping Complex and adjacent

to the Cubao MRT station. It has a very central and accessible location. You can take your car and

use nearby parking (though it tends to get full later in the day), you can take an MRT, and there are

all types of public transportation such as buses, jeepneys and taxis nearby. It’s tough to miss this

landmark that has been around for roughly 30 years. The structure is rather large with approximately

3-4,000 square meters of covered area, possibly more.

Everything is covered by a warehouse type roof that sits very high above the market, which provides

an airy and less dark interior. The market is apparently private and seems better organized than most

public markets. There are two levels at farmers, the upper that houses fruits, vegetables, flowers, etc.

and the lower level that has the seafood and meat sections. Hygiene is generally good on the upper

level but less consistent in the lower level. Depending on the time of day and the last pick-up of

garbage, some parts of the market can be grotty.

The best part about the market is the variety of goods on offer. There are hundreds of vendors total.

the Vegetable section had all the staples in stock plus lots of interesting finds such as small sweet

korean squashes, very orange kamote, baby corn, leafy herbs, etc. The fruit section had a good

selection of local and imported items. Flowers were abundant but too many chrysanthemums for my

liking. The seafood section was terrific – several counters offering fresh sushi grade tuna displayed

on ice (probably for nearby restaurants), galunggong, talakitok, lapu-lapu, 6 kinds of seaweed, etc.

The meat section looked extensive and besides the usual had goat meat, live native chickens, etc. Go

early in the morning if you want first pick.

35
 4. Calapan Public Market

A new and state of the art two-storey public market has been operating for almost two months after

being introduced and inaugurated by President Noynoy Aquino together with local and provincial

officials on December 15, 2011 in Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.

In his message during the inauguration of the New Calapan City Public Market here, the President

commended the locals for facing up to the challenges and showing unity in such

trials.

36
“Tunay na sagisag ang gusaling ito sa kasipagan at katatagan ng mga Mindorenos. Ilang beses man tinupok

ng apoy ang inyong naipatayong pamilihan, hindi kayo nagpatinag.

Bumangon kayo at muling nagsumikap”, the President said.

From the old public market which was burned to ashes for the third time in May of 2008, the 200 million-

new public market was built not just as a state-of-the-art edifice, but more over, as a significant structure

symbolizing progress and testament to the resiliency and strength of an entire city.

Contradicting to the ordinary public market design, its wet market like meat, fish and vegetable stalls

can be found on its second floor while those of dry products such as RTW and household items can

be found on the first. The 188 million mall-like public market was colored orange, followed after the

color of Calapan City Mayor Doy Leachon.

The new modern public market and passenger terminal won the Outstanding

37
Development Projects award for 2010 by the Association of Development Financing Institutions in Asia and

the Pacific (ADFIAP).

The ADFIAP award recognizes and honors institutional members which have undertaken and assisted

projects that have created development in their respective countries. ADFIAP is the focal point of all

development banks and other financial institutions engaged in the financing of development in the

Asia-Pacific region. Founded in 1976, its mission is to advance sustainable development through its

120 member-institutions in 43 countries.

5. Maramag Bukidnon Public Market

Location: Maramag, Bukidnon

Going as far as being labelled as the “cleanest market in the entire country,” the Maramag Bukidnon

Public Market sheds a whole new light to the term “market” in the Philippines. With organized stalls,

good ventilation, and spotless public toilets in both the wet and dry sections, the market also offers

fresh produce, meat, and seafood which the vendors can also cook for the customers.

These public markets do not only sell a wide variety of produce and meat, they also make public

market shopping bearable—enjoyable, even. And although all these public markets might not be

accessible to you, you should definitely give them a visit once the opportunity

strikes.

38
 6. Guadalupe Public Market

Location: Guadalupe Commercial

Center, Bgy. Guadalupe Nuevo,

Makati City, Guadalupe Nuevo,

Metro Manila

The Guadalupe Public Market is the

biggest of its kind in Makati. Here you can find plenty of stalls selling fresh meat, seafood, vegetables,

and fruits. But just like any public palengke or wet market, this place is not for the faint of heart.

Expect the floors in the meat and fish area to be wet and smelly. And since this is an old establishment,

the paint on the walls are already peeling off and the general condition of the place is grimy. However,

if you can look way past the appearance of this public market, you'll find that it's actually a good place

to buy not only wet items, but dry goods as well. Guadalupe Public Market also has stores selling

traditional baskets, plastic items, affordable apparel, household cleaning materials, and even cheap

diapers. Another advantage of patronizing

39
this public market is that you can develop loyalty with your favorite sellers and they would be more

than willing to give you the choicest cuts and huge discounts on your purchases. The Guadalupe Public

Market is very accessible because it's near jeepney terminals and bus stops along EDSA. Plus, it has

access to the Guadalupe MRT station.

7. La Boqueria

Location: Barcelona, Spain

40
The Mercat de Sant Josep de la Boqueria, often simply

referred to as La Boqueria, is a large public market in

the Ciudad Vieja district of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain,

and one of the city's foremost tourist landmarks, with an

entrance from La Rambla, not far from the Liceo,

Barcelona's opera house. The market has a very diverse

selection of goods.

The first mention of the Boqueria market in Barcelona

dates from 1217, when tables were installed near the old

city gate to sell meat. From December 1470 onwards, a

pig market was held at this site; at this time it was

known as Mercadi Bornet. Later, until 1794, it was

known simply as Mercat de la Palla, or straw market. In the beginning, the market was not enclosed and had

no official status, being regarded simply as an extension of the Plaza Nueva market, which extended to the

Plaza del Pino. The current name is believed to derive from the Catalan boc, meaning "goat", therefore a

boqueria would be a place where goat meat is sold.

Later, the authorities decided to construct a separate market on La Rambla, housing mainly

fishmongers and butchers. It was not until 1826 that the market was legally recognized, and a

convention held in 1835 decided to build an official structure. Construction began on March 19, 1840

under the direction of the architect Mas Vilá. The market officially opened in the same year, but the

plans for the building were modified many times. The inauguration of the structure finally took place

in 1853. A new fish market opened in 1911, and the metal roof that still exists today was constructed

in 1914.

8. Kreta Ayer Wet Market

41
 Location: Singapore

Singapore’s Kreta Ayer Wet Market has been named one of the best fresh markets in the world by the

international news network CNN and has become a must-stop for locals and tourists as well. A 'Wet

Market' is a fresh fish and seafood market and the name comes from the floor being washed regularly,

meaning is usually wet!

For those worried about going to a fresh market, Kreta Ayer Wet Market carefully follows in

accordance with Singapore’s hygiene standards and the cleanliness factor gives the market its name.

The market’s floor is washed regularly to follow hygiene standards and gains its name “Wet Market”

from the work of cleanliness toward protecting the consumer. The Kreta Ayer market is located in

Chinatown, locals and tourists alike come to the market for a variety of food products, though mainly

seafood and fish, though there's everything from vegetables to pork chops available. Tourists on their

first trip to the market can find a medley of Asian vegetables while locals go to the market to pick up

everyday foods from bok choi to choi som. As one of the top markets in the world, Kreta Ayer Wet

Market also offers consumers a walk on the wilder side of food with a selection of live frogs, snakes,

eels and turtles along with preserved eggs.

For those that are not into the meat scene, Kreta Ayer Wet Market also has a large variety of tofu

products and further veggie options. For the ones that are looking for the medical solution; the market

has available Chines herbal remedies in addition to its vast food selection.

The Wet Market draws its name after the oxen-pulled carts that were used to deliver water to the area.

For the shopper/tourist that finds him/herself tired after browsing the market, why not take a break in

the hawker located on the upstairs concourse. This area offers the a huge range of consumer breakfast

and lunch options such a bowl of noodle soup or some other local food specialty.

Kreta Ayer Wet Market location and hours

42
Located at Kreta Ayer Road and Keong Siak Road, Singapore’s Kreta Ayer Wet Market is a necessary

stop while visiting Singapore. When planning a visit, stay in a nearby

Singapore hotel and plan to get to the market early (around 6 a.m. to beat the crowds).

The market closes for the day around 1 pm and is at its busiest right before closing.

9. Kowloon City Wet Market

Location: Nga Tsin Wai Road, Kowloon

Kowloon City Wet Market in Hong Kong has been dubbed as one of the best fresh food markets in the world.

It is also one of the biggest, wet markets in Hong Kong.

Housed within a 3-story building whose porthole windows give its exterior the appearance of a

deconstructed cruise ship, the market features over 500 stalls selling a variety of food merchandise

from imported meats to seafood so fresh they still move.

43
Kowloon City Wet Market is also a haven of exotic fruits and succulent vegetables from the farms of

the New Territories and Mainland China, as well as other parts of the globe. Exotic fruits from

Southeast Asia such as mangoes, rambutan and longan are abundant here as well as the infamous

durian, known for its dangerous spikes, peculiar scent and unique flavor that is described as a cross

between butterscotch and sweet onions.

The first two levels of the Kowloon City Wet Market building are dedicated to the massive wet market,

while the top floor is home to numerous food outlets serving a wide variety of local delicacies such

as Hong Kong-style breakfasts and deliciously spicy Thai dishes courtesy of the large Thai population

in Kowloon.

Kowloon City Wet Market is situated at 100 Nga Tsin Wai Road, Kowloon. It is open daily, from 6am to

8pm.

10. St. Lawrence Market

Location: Toronto, Canada

St. Lawrence Market is a major public market in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is located at Front St.

East and Jarvis St in the Old Town district of Toronto. Until 2015 there were two buildings in the

44
complex, with different purposes. Until it was demolished to make way for redevelopment, St.

Lawrence Market North, on the north side of Front St, hosted weekly farmer's markets and antique

markets. A public market had been held on the north building site since 1803. Several buildings

housed the market, the most recent built in 1968. Starting in 2015, the North building has shut to allow

for redevelopment. While the North site is redeveloped, its market functions have moved to south of

the South building in a temporary building.

St. Lawrence Market South, on the south side of Front St, is open Tuesday to Saturday, featuring food

stalls, restaurants and the St. Lawrence Market Gallery. The South building dates to 1845, has been

rebuilt twice, and still incorporates a section of its original building that was used as Toronto City

Hall from 1845. St. Lawrence Hall is an event and office building on King at Jarvis, built in 1850.

St. Lawrence Market was named the world's best food market by National Geographic in April 2012.

45
 Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

In designing a structure it is important to decide what kind of approach the researchers should

consider. In creating the proposed structure, the researchers will use a descriptive method and

qualitative strategy, to gather significant data about the public market regarding its present situations

and conditions. The tactics are observation, interviews, and surveys, collection of data from secondary

sources, photo documentation and case studies. This method will help the researchers to create a

proposed structure effectively and accurately.

Research Procedure

46
 To produce a well design structure the researchers should know the accurate step by step

process of the project. Thus, the proponents will lead with the structural design, structural analysis,

data, data evaluation and interpretation and estimation of the whole cost of the project.

The first phase of this project is data gathering by conducting a personal interview with the

knowledgeable person/s from different implementing agencies and related offices, and by conducting

survey of the present Santa Maria Public Market. The main objectives of this survey is to know the

present condition of Santa Maria Public Market.

The second phase is the evaluation and interpretation of the data gathered by the conducted

survey. These data will be used as a basis on the aspects that need to be prioritized in order to come

up with a new public market.

The third phase is the design. Designing a structure involves more than the physical design,

structural integrity must also be prioritized. In designing the proposed structure the researchers, aside

from the data from the survey, will also be use other codes and standards which are related in the

structure being proposed.

The fourth phase of this project is the structural analysis. The proposed design must be tested and

evaluated. In this phase, the researchers will use standard analysis software to provide a more safe

structure.

The fifth phase is about estimating the cost of the whole project and the construction of miniature.

And the last phase is the finalization and rechecking of the whole project.

47
Flow Chart

48
Research Respondents

The respondents of this research will be the netizens of Santa Maria Bulacan with the total

population of 282,443. And in order to know the sample size population, the researchers used the

Slovin’s formula:

𝑁
𝑁=
(1 + 𝑁𝑁 )

Where:

49
 n= number of sample

N= total population

e= error tolerance

The percentage of accuracy will be 95%. By applying Slovin’s formula, the total number of
respondents to the used is 400. This 400 respondents will be composing of different persons from
different barangays which are chosen randomly.

Barangay Projected Population for 2018

Santa Maria 282,443
Bagbaguin 9,815
Balasing 8,700
Buenavista 2,683
Bulac 10,161
Camangyanan 5,934
Catmon 14,685
Cay Pombo 31,882
Caysio 15,821
Guyong 16,243
Lalakhan 2,573
Mag-asawang Sapa 10,323
Mahabang Parang 4,803
Manggahan 2,641
Parada 9,304
Poblacion 14,181
Pulong Buhangin 40,632
San Gabriel 9,323
San Jose Patag 12,425
San Vicente 18,581
Sta. Clara 13,342
Sta. Cruz 10,144

50
 Sto. Tomas 6,295
Silangan 2,233
Tumana 9,719

Table 1. Population of Santa Maria, Bulacan per Barangay

Source: Municipal Planning and Development Office

The above table is the population of each barangay in Santa Maria. The researchers computed the

ratio of the population present in each barangay and the total population. The computed ratio will be

the factor to be used to identify the required number of respondents in each barangay in the 400 total

respondents.

No. of respondents in each barangay to be surveyed = n (400)

Where:

n = ratio of the total population in the barangay over the total population of Santa Maria

Barangay Ratio Number of Respondents

Bagbaguin 0.035 14
Balasing 0.031 12
Buenavista 0.009 4
Bulac 0.036 14
Camangyanan 0.021 8
Catmon 0.052 21
Cay Pombo 0.113 45
Caysio 0.056 22
Guyong 0.058 23
Lalakhan 0.009 4
Mag-asawang Sapa 0.037 15
Mahabang Parang 0.017 7
Manggahan 0.009 4
Parada 0.033 13
Poblacion 0.050 20

51
 Pulong Buhangin 0.144 58
San Gabriel 0.033 13
San Jose Patag 0.044 18
San Vicente 0.066 26
Sta. Clara 0.047 19
Sta. Cruz 0.036 14
Sto. Tomas 0.022 9
Silangan 0.008 3
Tumana 0.034 14
Total: 1 400

Table 2: Number of Respondents per Barangay

Aside from the 400 respondents from different barangays, the researchers will also survey 30

vendors of Santa Maria Public Market, 15 PUV drivers and 15 tricycle drivers who drive along

Santa Maria.

Sampling Technique

Random sampling was used in this study, this means, respondents from 24 barangays will be chosen

randomly as well as the vendors, PUV and tricycle drivers. In this technique, each member of the

population has an equal chance of being selected as subject.

Research Instrument

In gathering necessary information and knowledge required for this thesis, the researchers must know

the supplementary means of data gathering to have a better understanding of the nature of the proposed

project.

Interview. Interview is a formal consultation qualification and one of the most essential ways

in data gathering. In understanding the nature of the project, it is important to conduct a personal

52
interview with the knowledgeable person/s from different implementing agencies and related offices.

Listed below are the persons who were interviewed.

Interviewed Person Position Office Address

Engr. Carmelita Guevarra
Engr. Fortunata Lorenzo
Santa Maria Public Market Officerin-
Mr. Silvestre I. Luciano
Mr. Rolando E. San
Pablo
Poblacion, Santa Maria,
Head of Engineering Department
Bulacan
Poblacion, Santa Maria,
Head of MPDO
Bulacan
Poblacion, Santa Maria,
charge Bulacan
Poblacion, Santa Maria,
Tax Mapping Officer-in-charge
Bulacan

Table 3. Interviewed Persons

Questionnaire. It is a written set of questions that are given to people in order to collect facts or

opinions about something.

a. For Consumers

The researchers made a survey questionnaire to know the actual condition and the level of

satisfaction of the respondents with regards to the present environment of Santa Maria Public Market.

53
This questionnaire is exclusive only for the 400 respondents from 24 barangays of Santa Maria,

Bulacan. The result of the satisfaction survey will be the basis on the aspects that need to be prioritized

in designing a new market and what must be improved in order to come up with a new public market

which is more efficient and better than it was.

b. For Stall Vendors

Separate questionnaire was made exclusive only for stall vendors of Santa Maria. This

questionnaire aims to know their profile, and opinion about the condition of the public market.

c. For PUV Drivers and Tricycle Drivers

Another separate questionnaire was made exclusive only for PUV drivers. This

questionnaire aims to know their profile and their opinion about having a transportation terminal beside the

public market.

Engineering Softwares. In this project, advance engineering software will be used for the

entire conception of the structural plan. Software like STAAD will be a tool for the computation of

shear, moment and reactions due to the load present on the building. This will help the researchers

design the beams, columns, slab and trusses efficiently and effectively. It is also used to determine

whether the designed structural element/s is/are suitable for the structure and help the researchers to

redesign and meet the required standards if there is a failure.

Meanwhile, software like AutoCAD and SketchUp will also be used for architectural and conceptual design.

54
Material Requirements

The design of the proposed public market is ensured to comply with every appropriate

standards and requirements. All procedures and design considerations will be based on different codes

and standards listed below:

A. For Design Clearances

• Sanitation Code of the Philippines, Chapter IV: “Markets and Abattoirs”

• E. O. No. 648, HLRUB, Article IV: “Implementing Rules and Regulation in

Processing of Application for Locational Clearance of Markets”

• National Building Code of the Philippines

• R.A. 4136, Land Transportation and Traffic Code of the Phillipines

B. For Structural Design

• National Structural Code of the Philippines

Statistical Treatment:

To interpret the date effectively, the researcher will employ the following statistical treatment. The

Percentage, Weighted Mean are the tools use to interpret data.

1. Percentage

This will employ to determine the frequency counts and percentage distribution of personal related variables

of the respondents. Formula:

55
 %= 𝑁 100
𝑁

% is the percentage

F is the Frequency

N is the total number of respondents

100 is a constant value

2. Weighted Mean

This is the average wherein every quantity to be averaged has a corresponding weight. These weights

represent the significance of each quantity to the average. Statistically, the weighted mean is

calculated using the following. Formula:

𝑁𝑁
𝑁=
𝑁

X is the weighted mean F is the frequency x is the

weight of each item

N is the number of case

To interpret the data using the weighted mean, the scores were converted and have given description as
follows:

RANGE QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION

1.00-1.79 Highly favorable

1.80-2.59 Favorable

2.60-3.39 Neutral

56
 3.40-4.19 Unfavorable

4.20-5.00 Highly unfavorable

Chapter IV

PRESENTATION OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

This chapter presents the data gathered by the proponents to tabulate, analyze and interpret. It

includes the gathered data from surveys (400 persons from different barangays of Santa Maria, 30

public market vendors, and 30 PUJ and tricycle drivers), observation and research. It also consists of

tables with percentage which will help to determine the majority in the subject.

57
I. 400 Customers from Different Barangays A. Age Distribution of Respondents

Age Distribution of Respondents

(Customers )

1%14 % Less than 18

32%
18-25
25%
26-35
28 % 36-45
46 above

Figure 1.0 shows the age distribution of the respondents. Age of 46 years old above garnered the

highest percentage of 32% which is 127 out of 400 respondents, followed by 36-45 years old with a

percentage of 28% which is 112 out of 400 total respondents, 2645 years old with a percentage of

25% which is 98 out of 400 respondents, next is 18-25 years old with a percentage of 14% which is

57 out of 400 respondents, lastly, respondents with less than 18 years of age garnered a percentage of

1% which is 6 out of 400 respondents.

B. Gender Distribution of Respondents

58
 Gender Distribution of Respondents
(Customers )

35 %
Female
65 % Male

Figure 2.0 shows that in gender distribution of respondents, female garnered 65% which is 261 out of

400 respondents, and male respondents garnered 35% which is 139 out of total 400 respondents.

C. Percentage of First Time Customers

Percentage of First Time

Customers

0.5 %

Yes

99.5 % No

Figure 3.0 concludes that almost all of the respondents from different barangays have already visited

the Santa Maria Public Market multiple times. 99.5% of the respondents have already visited the

market many times, while only 0.5% of the respondents said that they have visited the market once.

It is clearly represented in this chart that the public market is used often and is of big help and

importance to different barangays.

59
 D. Frequency of visit to Public Market

Frequency of visit to Public

Market

15 % 19 % Everyday
14 % 3-6 x
52% 1-2 x
Once a month

Figure 4.0 In this chart 14% of the respondents goes to the public market 3 to 6 times a week, 15% of

them are using the market once a month, while 19% do visit the public market every day, and 52%

goes to the market at least once or twice a week.

E. Facilities That Need Improvement

Facilities that Need Improvement

250
200
150
100
50
0
Fruits & Meat & Dairy Carideria Storage Clothing Comfort Admin
Vege. Fish

Figure 5.0 shows that most of the respondents choose meat and fish Section as one of the facilities

that need improvement having a total votes of 235, followed by fruits and vegetables section with

182, comfort room with 170, storage area with 101, dairy sections with 73, admin office with 66,

carinderia sections with 62, and lastly, clothing with 22.

60
 F. Facilities That Can Be Incorporated in the Proposed Public Market in Santa Maria, Bulacan

Figure 6.0 shows the different facilities that can be incorporated in the proposed public market in

Santa Maria, Bulacan. Most of the respondents voted additional clothing section with 240, additional

carinderia section with 190, additional fruits and vegetables sections and information desk with both

104 votes, transportation terminal with 96, parking area with 79, followed by additional meat and fish

sections with 44, baggage counter with 34, storage area with 14,and lastly, additional dairy section

and lost and found section tied with 8 votes.

G. Percentage of respondents Agreed on the Idea of Having a Transportation Terminal near the Public
Market

61
 2%

Yes
No
98%

Figure 7.0 shows that almost all of the respondents between different barangays inside Sta. Maria

agrees on having a transportation terminal near the public market. Only 2% of the respondents

disagreed with the said idea, while an abundant 98% agreed to the idea of having a transportation

terminal near the Santa Maria Public Market.

H. Tabulated Result of the Response of the Respondents to the Actual Condition of Santa Maria Public
Market

Items Weighted Mean Qualitative Description

Store Exterior 1580 3.95 Unfavorable
Walkways 1602 4.01 Unfavorable
Whole Market 1622 4.06 Unfavorable
Stalls 1601 4.00 Unfavorable
Storage 1620 4.05 Unfavorable
Restrooms 1584 3.96 Unfavorable
Amenities 1595 3.99 Unfavorable
Comfort & Ambiance 1584 3.96 Unfavorable
Lighting & Ventilation 1141 2.85 Neutral
Drainage System 1716 4.29 Highly Unfavorable
Roofing System 1103 2.76 Neutral

62
 Electrical System 1100 2.75 Neutral
Temperature 1185 2.96 Neutral
Safety & Security 1141 2.85 Neutral
Accessibility 1130 2.83 Neutral
Parking Space 1690 4.23 Highly Unfavorable
Space 1691 4.23 Highly Unfavorable
Overall Appearance 1622 4.06 Unfavorable

II. 30 Public Market Vendors

A. Age Distribution

Age Distribution

3% 10%
Less than 18
40 % 13%
18-25
26-35
34 % 36-45
46 above

Figure 9.0 shows that most of the respondents are with the age of 46 and above with 40 %, 36-45 with

34%, 26-35 of age with 13% of the respondents, 18-25 with 10%, and lastly, less than 18 years of age

with 3% of the respondents.

63
 B. Gender Distribution

Gender Distribution

20 %

Female
80 % Male

Figure 10.0 shows that 80% of the respondents are female and 20% of the respondents are male.

C. Number of Years in Service

Number of Years in Service

13 %
3%
Less than 3
20 % 3-5
64 %
6 -10
11 above

Figure 11.0 shows that 64% of the respondents are 11 years and above in service, 6-10 years with

20%, less than 3 years with 13%, and lastly, 3-5 years with 3% of the respondents.

64
 D. Type of Stall Vendors

Type of Stall Vendor

0% 20 %
7% Meat
Fish
37% 13 % Vegetables and Fruits
Dry Goods
23%
Carinderia
Others

Figure 12.0 shows that 37% are dry goods vendors, 23% are vegetables and fruits vendors, 20% are

meat vendors, 13% are fish vendors, and lastly, 7% of the respondents are carinderia vendors.

E. Facilities that Need Improvement

Facilities that Need

Improvement
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fruits & Meat & Dairy Carideria Storage Clothing Comfort Admin
Vege. Fish

65
Figure 13.0 shows that most of the respondents choose meat and fish section as one of the facilities

that need improvement having a total votes of 15, followed by fruits and vegetables section with 10,

storage area with 9, comfort room with 8, dairy sections with 6, carinderia sections and clothing

sections tied with 3, and lastly, admin office with 2.

F. Facilities That Can Be Incorporated in the Proposed Public Market in Santa Maria, Bulacan

Figure 14.0 shows the different facilities that can be incorporated in the proposed public market in

Santa Maria, Bulacan. Most of the respondents voted additional parking area with11, additional meat

and fish section and transportation terminal tied with 10 votes, additional fruits and vegetables

sections with 6 votes, baggage counter with 5 votes, additional storage area with 4 votes, carinderia

and dairy sections tied with 3 votes, clothing section with 2 votes, lost and found section with 1 vote,

and lastly information desk with 0 votes.

G. Tabulated Result of the Response of the Respondents to the Actual

Condition of Santa Maria Public Market

66
 Items Weighted Mean Qualitative Description
Store Exterior 95 3.17 Neutral
Walkways 91 3.03 Neutral
Whole Market 103 3.43 Unfavorable
Stalls 87 2.90 Neutral
Storage Rooms 96 3.20 Neutral
Restrooms 84 2.80 Neutral
Amenities 93 3.10 Neutral
Comfort & Ambiance 92 3.07 Neutral
Lighting & Ventilation 87 2.90 Neutral
Drainage System 103 3.43 Unfavorable
Roofing System 99 3.30 Neutral
Electrical System 89 2.97 Neutral
Temperature 93 3.10 Neutral
Safety & Security 84 2.80 Neutral
Accessibility 83 2.77 Neutral
Parking Space 89 2.97 Neutral
Space 97 3.23 Neutral
Overall Appearance 87 2.90 Neutral

III. 30 Transportation Terminal Drivers

A. Age Distribution

67
 Age Distribution

0%
7%
30 % Less than 18
27 %
18-25
26-35
36% 36-45
46 above

Figure 15.0 shows the age distribution of drivers. Out of 30 driver respondents, most of the drivers are

between 36-45 years old which is 36% in the graph, while 30% of the drivers are 46 years old and

above, a 27% is garnered by drivers which are 26-35 years old, 7% of the drivers are 18-25 years old,

and a 0% of less than 18 years old

B. Facilities that Can be Incorporated in Transportation Terminal

Figure 16.0 shows that based on the drivers the most favorable facilities that may be incorporated are

Comfort Room and Waiting Lounge which got 18 votes, and few of them think that they need

Information Desk with 1 vote.

68
 C. Number of Years as a Driver

Figure 17.0 shows that in 30 drivers, 77% of them are with less than 18 years of experience as a driver,

7% of them are having 26-35 and 36-45 driving experience, while 6% of them are having 18-25 years

of experience as a driver, and only 3% having 46 years and above of experience.

D. Percentage of respondents agreed on having a transportation terminal near

Public Market

Percentage of respondents agreed on

having a transportation terminal
near Public Market

17 %

Yes

83% No

Figure 18.0 this graph shows that 83% of driver respondents approved in the idea that transportation

terminal near the public market would be a big help and 17% of them disagree.

69
 E. Distributions of respondents based on earnings

Distributions of respondents based

on earnings

37 %
Sufficient earning
63% Insufficient earning

Figure 19.0 this figure shows that 63% of drivers are having an insufficient income in the transportation

terminal they belong and only 37% says that their earning enough.

F. Sufficiency of Area of Service

70
 Sufficiency of Area of Service

37%

Enough
63%
Not enough

Figure 20.0 this figure shows that 63% of driver respondents sees that the area of the transportation terminal

they belong is sufficient enough and 37% disagree.

Estimated Construction

The estimated cost of the proposed proposed public market and transportation terminal will cover the

building cost and land acquisition cost. It has a total cost of PHP

137,543, 430.56.

Bill of Materials

71
 .

Possible Source of Budget

A. Primary Source

• Municipality of Santa Maria Bulacan

72
B. Secondary Source

• Provincial Government of Bulacan

• Santa Maria Public Market

According to Mr. Luciano I. Silvestre, Santa Maria Public Market garners about Php 333,

900 from the monthly rental of stall (data as of January 1, 2018). This monthly rentals from

stalls, can be an additional budget for the the construction of the project being proposed.

73
 • Private Sectors or Investors

Chapter V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary of Findings and Conclusion:

74
1. Most of the respondents (both vendors and residents of Santa Maria), agreed that fruits and

vegetables section as well as the meat and fish Section are the facilities in the present Santa

Maria Public Market that badly need improvement. Therefore, the researchers conclude that

the design of fruits and vegetables section and the wet section must be more organized and

developed.

2. Most of the respondents (in the perspective of buyers) agreed that additional clothing sections

and carinderia sections must be incorporated in the proposed public market. On the other

hand, most of the vendors agreed that additional parking space, meat and fish stalls and a

transportation terminal must be incorporated in the proposed project. Thus, the researchers

conclude that the proposed project must have more clothing section, carinderia section, more

available space for parking, and a transportation terminal.

3. Drainage system, parking space and space inside the public market got a highly unfavorable

remark based on Likert Scale having an average of 4.25. For this reason, the researchers

concur that the design of the public market must have a more organized drainage system,

more available space for parking, and must have more available space inside the public

market.

4. Almost all the respondents (both vendors and residents of Santa Maria), agreed on the idea

of having a transportation terminal near the public market. Therefore, the researchers

conclude that a transportation should be incorporated in the proposed public market.

5. Most of the respondents agreed that comfort room and waiting lounge are the facilities that

must be incorporated in the proposed transportation terminal. Thus, the researchers concur

that the proposed terminal should have both comfort room and waiting lounge.

75
Recommendation:

In light of the aforementioned findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations

were drawn:

1. The researchers recommend this design of public market and transportation terminal to the

Municipality of Santa Maria, Bulacan. The design of the structure is intended to benefit the

residents of Santa Maria as well as the residents of its nearby municipalities.

2. The researchers recommend to continue the construction of this proposed public market and

transportation terminal.

3. The researchers recommend to have further investigation in flood control system and water

treatment plant.

4. Parallel studies on this topic may be conducted to improve the findings of this study.

76
 Structural Design

The structural codes used in the design of the public market conform to the National Structural

Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 Volume 1 (Buildings and other Vertical Structures) and

to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code for Buildings. Minimum design loads are

considered based from the NSCP 2015, as well as the seismic considerations. For the seismic

loadings, STAAD were used and complied with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997

requirement.

A. Load Combination (Sec. 203.3.1)

1.4D

1.2DL+ 1.6LL

1.2DL +1.0E + f1L

Where f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8 kPa, and

for garage live loads

B. Loadings

i. Dead Load

LOADS
Dead Loads
1. Selfweight
Concrete Unit Weight = 24 kN/m3

2) Member Load
150mm CHB 3.11 kN/m per meter height
100mm CHB 2.98 kN/m per meter height
 Floor Load Floors Roof kPa
150mm slab 3.600 - kPa kPa
kPa kPa
roof framing - 0.307 kPa kPa
Deck, metal 20 gage - 0.120 kPa
6.380 0.807 kPa
Skylight, 10mm wire glass - 0.380
Floor Finish 1.530 -
Interior Partition 1.000 -
ii. Live Load
Utilities 0.200
Waterproofing 0.050
The ground floor will not

carry live loading since slab-on-grade will be utilized. On the second floor, wholesale stores will be

expected which is equivalent to 6.0 kPa of load.

iii. Earthquake Load Parameters

Earthquake parameters were established based from the material to be used for the design,

seismic zone, occupancy, and distance from a fault line, soil type, and structural system.

Seismic load computation was done by STAAD software. The structure is located

17.5 km away from the West Valley Fault.

 Ct 0.0731
Zone Factor 0.4
Importance Factor, I 1.0
Seismic Source Type A
Na 1.0
Nv 1.0
Soil Type SD
Ca 0.44Na
Cv 0.64Nv
Overstrength Factor, 3.5
R

Note: Ct = 0.0731 (Reinforced Concrete)

Material Properties

Unit Weight of Concrete, γ 24 kN/cu.m.

28 day Compressive Strength of Concrete, F'c 21 Mpa
Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Ec (4700 √ F’c 21.538 MPa
Yield Strength of Main bar, Fy 414 MPa
Yield Strength of Secondary Rebar, Fy 276 MPa
Elastic Modulus for Steel Reinforcement, Es 200 GPa
APPENDICES
 Job No Sheet No Rev

1
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title TRUSS - PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 28- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_TRUSS_schem e Date/Time 30- Oct -2018 21:59

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 01:00 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 1 of 4
 Job No Sheet No Rev

2
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title TRUSS - PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 28- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_TRUSS_schem e Date/Time 30- Oct -2018 21:59

Section Properties
Prop Section Area Iyy Izz J Material
2 4 4 4
(cm ) (cm ) (cm ) (cm )
1 TUB50403 20.258 332.985 466.179 609.212 STEEL
2 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
3 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
4 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
5 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
6 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
7 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
8 L25254 SD 15.355 109.476 58.534 2.059 STEEL
9 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
10 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
11 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
12 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
13 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
14 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
15 L25253 SD 11.626 81.791 45.606 0.887 STEEL
16 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
17 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
18 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
19 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
20 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
21 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
22 L25253 5.813 36.459 9.148 0.452 STEEL
23 L30305 11.484 100.146 25.715 2.486 STEEL

Materials
Mat Name E Density
2 3
(kN/mm ) (kg/m ) (/°C )
1 STEEL 199.947 0.300 7.83 E +3 6.5 E -6
2 STAINLESSSTEEL 197.930 0.300 7.83 E +3 18 E -6
3 ALUMINUM 68.948 0.330 2.71 E +3 23 E -6
4 CONCRETE 21.718 0.170 2.4 E +3 10 E -6

Primary Load Cases

Number Name Type

1 SEISMIC X Seismic
2 SEISMIC Z Seismic
3 DEAD LOAD Dead
4 ROOF LIVELOAD Roof Live

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 01:00 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 2 of 4
 Job No Sheet No Rev

3
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title TRUSS - PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 28- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_TRUSS_schem e Date/Time 30- Oct -2018 21:59

Combination Load Cases

Comb. Combination L/C Name Primary Primary L/C Name Factor

5 1.4 DL 3 DEAD LOAD 1.40

6 1.2 DL+1.6LL 3 DEAD LOAD 1.20
4 ROOF LIVELOAD 1.60
7 1.2 DL+1.0E+1.0LL 3 DEAD LOAD 1.20
1 SEISMIC X 1.00
2 SEISMIC Z 1.00
4 ROOF LIVELOAD 1.00

UBC Loading Definition

Zone Importance Rw X Rw Z Site Ct Period X Period Z Accidental
Z Factor Soil (sec ) (sec ) Torsion
0.400 1.000 3.500 3.500 4.000 0.073 - - No

Selfweight included

Node Displacement Summary

Node L/C X Y Z Resultant rX rY rZ
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (rad) (rad) ( rad )
Max X 5303 5:1.4DL 2.389 -16.025 0.001 16.202 -0.000 -0.000 -0.004
Min X 2244 6:1.2DL+1.6LL -5.788 -48.194 0.009 48.541 0.001 -0.000 0.001
Max Y 5782 6:1.2DL+1.6LL -0.489 1.318 -0.012 1.405 0.000 -0.000 -0.000
Min Y 3533 5:1.4DL -1.350 -60.009 -0.248 60.024 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
Max Z 844 7:1.2DL+1.0E+ -2.991 -22.771 8.658 24.544 0.002 0.000 0.000
Min Z 5516 5:1.4DL -1.687 -25.997 -4.987 26.525 0.002 -0.000 -0.000
Max rX 11 7:1.2DL+1.0E+ 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 -0.000 0.000
Min rX 838 5:1.4DL -1.749 -26.671 2.244 26.822 -0.005 0.000 -0.000
Max rY 2069 7:1.2DL+1.0E+ -3.031 -22.469 2.291 22.788 0.003 0.005 0.000
Min rY 846 7:1.2DL+1.0E+ -2.927 -22.779 2.282 23.079 0.003 -0.005 -0.000
Max rZ 5768 5:1.4DL 1.078 -21.464 0.280 21.492 -0.000 -0.000 0.004
Min rZ 3325 5:1.4DL -2.738 -26.617 0.290 26.759 -0.000 -0.000 -0.004
Max Rst 3538 5:1.4DL -1.765 -60.008 0.107 60.034 -0.000 0.000 -0.000

Beam Displacement Detail Summary

Displacements shown in italic indicate the presence of an offset
Beam L/C d X Y Z Resultant
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) ( mm )
Max X 10789 5:1.4DL 3.600 2.389 -16.025 0.000 16.202
Min X 11401 6:1.2DL+1.6LL 3.600 -20.796 -44.011 -0.242 48.678
Max Y 15334 6:1.2DL+1.6LL 0.347 -0.606 1.359 -0.009 1.488

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 01:00 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 3 of 4
 Job No Sheet No Rev

4
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title TRUSS - PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 28- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_TRUSS_schem e Date/Time 30- Oct -2018 21:59

Min Y 13387 5:1.4DL 1.800 -1.919 -60.642 -0.005 60.672

Max Z 1703 7:1.2DL+1.0E+ 0.875 -3.136 -22.763 9.689 24.938
Min Z 14608 5:1.4DL 0.360 -1.705 -25.877 -5.029 26.416
Max Rst 13387 5:1.4DL 1.800 -1.919 -60.642 -0.005 60.672
Failed Members

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 01:00 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 4 of 4
 Job No Sheet No Rev

1
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 31- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_COLUMNSxBE A Date/Time 07- Nov -2018 17:13

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 17:16 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 1 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

2
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 31- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_COLUMNSxBE A Date/Time 07- Nov -2018 17:13

Primary Load Cases

Number Name Type

1 SEISMIC X Seismic
2 SEISMIC Z Seismic
3 DEADLOAD Dead
4 LIVELOAD Live

Combination Load Cases

Comb. Combination L/C Name Primary Primary L/C Name Factor

5 1.4 DL 3 DEADLOAD 1.40

6 1.2 DL + 1.6LL 3 DEADLOAD 1.20
4 LIVELOAD 1.60
7 1.2 DL + 1.0E + 1.0LL 3 DEADLOAD 1.20
1 SEISMIC X 1.00
2 SEISMIC Z 1.00
4 LIVELOAD 1.00

UBC Loading Definition

Zone Importance Rw X Rw Z Site Ct Period X Period Z Accidental
Z Factor Soil (sec ) (sec ) Torsion
0.400 1.000 3.500 3.500 4.000 0.073 - - No

Selfweight included

Beam End Displacement Summary

Displacements shown in italic indicate the presence of an offset
Max X 1156 665 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 12.694
Min X 1185 694 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.676
Max Y 1139 648 1:SEISMIC X 12.133
Min Y 1232 741 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.507
Max Z 1206 715 2:SEISMIC Z 0.000
Min Z 1099 608 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.025
Max Rst 1160 669 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 12.455
Beam Node L/C X Y Z Resultant
(mm) (mm) (mm) ( mm )
-1.567 9.753 16.084 -1.674 -
0.084 1.807 0.232 -0.037 12.136
-2.253 0.217 2.320
0.128 11.850 11.851 -0.777 -
0.714 1.055 -1.812 11.602 17.118

Beam End Force Summary

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 17:16 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 2 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

3
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title PROPOSED SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET Ref

By Date 31- Oct -18 Chd

Client File
PUPSMB THESIS_COLUMNSxBE A Date/Time 07- Nov -2018 17:13

The signs of the forces at end B of each beam have been reversed. For example: this means that the Min Fx entry gives the largest tension value
for an beam.
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Beam Node L/C Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kNm) (kNm) ( kNm )
Max Fx 143 154 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 2.81 E +3 -47.565 31.112 -0.040 -29.735 -44.642
Min Fx 65 65 1:SEISMIC X -239.474 80.245 0.267 0.037 -0.436 139.592
Max Fy 414 326 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 20.281 1.09 E +3 -0.137 -0.325 0.476 1.31 E +3
Min Fy 410 323 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 20.281 -1.09 E +3 0.137 0.325 0.476 1.31 E +3
Max Fz 646 308 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 1.01 E +3 0.235 58.745 -0.141 -101.602 0.688
Min Fz 23 23 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 1.25 E +3 71.356 -119.043 0.842 174.679 120.047
Max Mx 417 320 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 5.474 -27.459 0.695 84.243 -1.487 34.075
Min Mx 418 329 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 5.474 -27.459 -0.695 -84.243 1.487 34.075
Max My 567 229 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 663.677 51.646 -116.373 1.610 237.874 119.411
Min My 567 425 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 635.403 51.646 -116.373 1.610 -227.619 -87.172
Max Mz 410 323 6:1.2DL + 1.6LL 20.281 -1.09 E +3 0.137 0.325 0.476 1.31 E +3
Min Mz 624 482 7:1.2DL + 1.0E 633.872 119.075 -49.979 -1.350 -85.298 -232.722

Failed Members
There is no data of this type.

Print Time/Date: 07/11/2018 17:16 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 3 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

1
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title THESIS_TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL Ref

By Date 11-Nov -18 Chd

Client File Date/Time

PUPSMB THESIS_TRANSPORTAT 11-Nov -2018 16:14

Print Time/Date: 11/11/2018 16:17 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 1 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

2
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title THESIS_TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL Ref

By Date 11-Nov -18 Chd

Client File Date/Time

PUPSMB THESIS_TRANSPORTAT 11-Nov -2018 16:14

Section Properties
Prop Section Area Iyy Izz J Material
2 4 4 4
(cm ) (cm ) (cm ) (cm )
1 PIPS7 103.378 1.790 1.790 0.136 STEEL
2 PIPS20 355.600 34.422 34.422 2.269 STEEL
3 TUB25253 10.581 58.272 58.272 96.512 STEEL
4 C9X15 28.387 79.500 2.12 E +3 7.625 STEEL

Materials
Mat Name E Density
2 3
(kN/mm ) (kg/m ) (/°C )
1 STEEL 205.000 0.300 7.83 E +3 12 E -6
2 STAINLESSSTEEL 197.930 0.300 7.83 E +3 18 E -6
3 ALUMINUM 68.948 0.330 2.71 E +3 23 E -6
4 CONCRETE 21.718 0.170 2.4 E +3 10 E -6

Primary Load Cases

Number Name Type

1 DEAD LOAD Dead

2 LIVE LOAD Live

Combination Load Cases

Comb. Combination L/C Name Primary Primary L/C Name Factor

3 1.4 DL 1 DEAD LOAD 1.40

4 1.2 DL + 1.6LL 1 DEAD LOAD 1.20
2 LIVE LOAD 1.60

Node Displacement Summary

Node L/C X Y Z Resultant rX rY rZ
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (rad) (rad) ( rad )
Max X 28 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 0.862 -0.142 5.254 5.327 -0.003 0.003 0.001
Min X 26 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.862 -0.142 5.254 5.327 -0.003 -0.003 -0.001
Max Y 1 1:DEAD LOAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 -0.000 0.000
Min Y 42 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.364 -5.295 -0.000 5.308 -0.020 0.000 0.000
Max Z 41 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.345 -5.279 10.074 11.378 -0.020 0.000 0.000
Min Z 362 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.345 -5.279 -10.074 11.378 0.020 -0.000 0.000
Max rX 363 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.364 -5.295 0.000 5.308 0.020 -0.000 0.000
Min rX 42 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.364 -5.295 -0.000 5.308 -0.020 0.000 0.000
Max rY 617 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.853 -0.574 -5.998 6.086 0.008 0.004 -0.002
Min rY 297 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.853 -0.574 5.998 6.086 -0.008 -0.004 -0.002
Max rZ 314 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 0.853 -0.574 5.998 6.086 -0.008 0.004 0.002

Print Time/Date: 11/11/2018 16:17 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 2 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

3
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title THESIS_TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL Ref

By Date 11-Nov -18 Chd

Client File Date/Time

PUPSMB THESIS_TRANSPORTAT 11-Nov -2018 16:14

Min rZ 297 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.853 -0.574 5.998 6.086 -0.008 -0.004 -0.002 Max Rst 41 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL -0.345 -5.279
10.074 11.378 -0.020 0.000 0.000

Beam Displacement Detail Summary

Displacements shown in italic indicate the presence of an offset
Max X 14 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 2.100 1.352
Min X 13 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 2.100 -1.352
Max Y 1 1:DEAD LOAD 0.000 0.000
Min Y 666 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 2.000 -0.363
Max Z 31 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 0.600 -0.344
Min Z 975 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 0.600 -0.344
Beam L/C d X Y Z Resultant
(m) (mm) (mm) (mm) ( mm )
-0.099 6.084 6.233
-0.099 6.084 6.233
0.000 0.000 0.000 -30.370 0.000

30.372 -5.279 10.074 11.378

-5.279 -10.074 11.379 -30.370
0.000 30.372
Max Rst 666 4:1.2DL + 1.6LL 2.000 -0.363

Print Time/Date: 11/11/2018 16:17 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6) 20.07.11.33 Print Run 3 of 3
 Job No Sheet No Rev

4
Part
Software licensed to
Job Title THESIS_TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL Ref

By Date 11-Nov -18 Chd

Client File Date/Time

PUPSMB THESIS_TRANSPORTAT 11-Nov -2018 16:14

Failed Members

Print Time/Date: 11/11/2018 16:17 STAAD.Pro V8i (SELECTseries 6)

20.07.11.33 Print Run 4 of 3
 SURVEY OF SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET
(May we please have 5 minutes of your time to let us know your experience with the public market)

Instruction: Check all the circles or boxes that suits your answer. (Lagyan ng tsek “” ang lahat ng mga bilog o mga
kahon na naaayon sa iyong sagot.)

Barangay: ____________________________ Age: ______ Gender: ______

*Is this your first time to visit Santa Maria Public Market? (Ito ba ang iyong unang pagkakataon na bisitahin ang
palengke ng Santa Maria?)
Yes No

*If this is not your first time, how often do you visit Santa Maria Public Market? (Kung hindi, gaano ka kadalas
bumisita sa Santa Maria Public Market?)
Choose one of the following answers
Everyday 1- 2x a week less than once a month
3-6x a week once a month

*From this point onwards, please rate this market using a 5 - point scale as follows, (Mula sa puntong ito, mangyaring i-rate ang
mga sumusunod gamit ang 5-point scale),
1 - Very Satisfied 2 – Satisfied 3 – Neutral 4 – Dissatisfied 5 - Very Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1. Cleanliness of store exterior

(Panlabas na kalinisan ng palengke)

2. Cleanliness of walkways
(Kalinisan ng daanan)

3. Cleanliness of the whole market

(Kalinisan ng buong palengke)
4. Cleanliness & orderliness of the stalls
(Kalinisan at kaayusan ng mga bawat pwesto ng
tidahan)
5. Cleanliness of storage areas
(Kalinisan ng imbakan ng ibang gamitan o
bodega)
6. Cleanliness of restrooms
(Kalinisan ng palikuran )
7. Completeness of restroom amenities (soap,
water, etc)
(Kumpletong kagamitan ng mga palikuran)

8. Comfort & ambiance

9. Lighting and Ventilation

(Saat nailaw at bentilasyon)

10. Proper drainage system

(Wastong sistema ng paagusan)
11. Proper Roofing System
(Wastong sistema ng bubong)

12. Proper Electrical System

(Wastong sistema ng elektrisidad)

13. Temperature inside the market

(Temperatura sa loob ng palengke )

14. Safety and security inside the market

(Kaligtasan sa loob ng palengke)

15.Accessibility
(Madaling puntahan at may malapit na terminal)

16. Enough parking space

(Sapat na paradahan)

17. Enough space inside the market

(Sapat na daanan ng mga tao)

18. Structure overall appearance

(Kabuuang hitsura ng palengke)

*What are the facilities in the public market you think need an improvement? Choose 3 or below from the
following. (Sa iyong palagay, ano-ano ang mga parte o pasilidad ng palengke ang kailangang ayusin? Pumili ng tatlo o
mas mababa mula sa mga pagpipiliian. )
Fruits and Vegetable Section
Meat and Fish Section
Dairy and Goods Section
Carinderia Stalls
Storage Area
Clothing Section
Comfort Room
Admin Office
Other Suggestion/s: _______________________________________________________________________________

*What are the facilities you want to have in the public market? Choose 3 or below from the following. (Ano-ano ang
mga parte o pasilidad ng palengke ang nais mong maidagdag? Pumili ng tatlo o mas mababa mula sa mga pagpipiliian.)
Additional Fruits and Vegetable Stalls Information Desk
Additional Meat and Fish Stalls Lost and Found Section
Additional Dairy and Goods Stalls
Additional Carinderia Stalls
Bigger Parking Space
Baggage Counter
Additional Storage Area
Additional Clothing Section
Transportation Terminal
Other Suggestion/s: _______________________________________________________________________________

* How would you rate your OVERALL EXPERIENCE with this market? (Paano mo i-rate ang iyong
PANGKALAHATANG KARANASAN sa palengke na ito?)
Choose 10 for excellent, 0 for poor

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
*How likely would you recommend this market to your friends, relatives, colleagues? (Gaano mo kagusto
irekumenda ang palengke na ito sa iyong mga kaibigan, kamag-anak, kasamahan?)
10 - Extremely likely to recommend, 0 - Not at all

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*On your opinion, would it be a big help if there will be a transportation terminal near the public market? (Sa iyong
palagay, magiging malaking tulong ba kung magkakaroon ng terminal malapit sa palengke?)
Yes No

*Do you agree with the idea of having a transportation terminal near the public market? (Pabor ka ba kung
magkakaroon ng terminal malapit sa palengke?)
Yes No
SURVEY OF SANTA MARIA PUBLIC MARKET

(May we please have 5 minutes of your time to let us know your experience with the public market)

Instruction: Check all the circles or boxes that suits your answer. (Lagyan ng tsek “” ang lahat ng mga bilog o mga
kahon na naaayon sa iyong sagot.)

Number of year/s as a stall vendor in Santa Maria Public Market: _________ Age: ______ Gender: ______

*Type of stall vendor:

Meat Vendor
Fish Vendor
Vegetable and Fruit Vendor
Dry Goods Vendor
Carinderia Vendor
Others, please specify: ________________________

*From this point onwards, please rate this market using a 5 - point scale as follows, (Mula sa puntong ito,
mangyaring i-rate ang mga sumusunod gamit ang 5-point scale),
1 - Very Satisfied 2 – Satisfied 3 – Neutral 4 – Dissatisfied 5 - Very Dissatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1. Cleanliness of store exterior

(Panlabas na kalinisan ng palengke)

2. Cleanliness of walkways
(Kalinisan ng daanan)

3. Cleanliness of the whole market

(Kalinisan ng buong palengke)
4. Cleanliness & orderliness of the stalls
(Kalinisan at kaayusan ng mga bawat pwesto ng
tidahan)
5. Cleanliness of storage areas
(Kalinisan ng imbakan ng ibang gamitan o
bodega)
6. Cleanliness of restrooms
(Kalinisan ng palikuran )
 7. Completeness of restroom amenities (soap,
water, etc)
(Kumpletong kagamitan ng mga palikuran)

8. Comfort & ambiance

9. Lighting and Ventilation

(Saat nailaw at bentilasyon)

10. Proper drainage system

(Wastong sistema ng paagusan)

11. Proper Roofing System

(Wastong sistema ng bubong)

12. Proper Electrical System

(Wastong sistema ng elektrisidad)

13. Temperature inside the market

(Temperatura sa loob ng palengke )

14. Safety and security inside the market

(Kaligtasan sa loob ng palengke)

15.Accessibility
(Madaling puntahan at may malapit na terminal)

16. Enough parking space

(Sapat na paradahan)

17. Enough space inside the market

(Sapat na daanan ng mga tao)

18. Structure overall appearance

(Kabuuang hitsura ng palengke)

*What are the facilities in the public market you think need an improvement? (Sa iyong palagay, ano-ano ang mga
parte o pasilidad ng palengke ang kailangang ayusin?)
Fruits and Vegetable Section
Meat and Fish Section
Dairy and Goods Section
Carinderia Stalls
Storage Area
Clothing Section
Comfort Room
Admin Office
Other Suggestion/s: _______________________________________________________________________________

*What are the facilities you want to have in the public market? (Ano-ano ang mga parte o pasilidad ng palengke ang
nais mong maidagdag?)
 Additional Fruits and Vegetable Stalls Information Desk
Additional Meat and Fish Stalls Lost and Found Section
Additional Dairy and Goods Stalls
Additional Carinderia Stalls
Bigger Parking Space
Baggage Counter
Additional Storage Area
Additional Clothing Section
Transportation Terminal
Other Suggestion/s: _______________________________________________________________________________

* How would you rate your OVERALL EXPERIENCE with this market? (Paano mo i-rate ang iyong
PANGKALAHATANG KARANASAN sa palengke na ito?)
Choose 10 for excellent, 0 for poor

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*On your opinion, would it be a big help if there will be a transportation terminal near the public market? (Sa iyong
palagay, magiging malaking tulong ba kung magkakaroon ng terminal malapit sa palengke?)

Yes No

*Do you agree with the idea of having a transportation terminal near the public market? (Pabor ka ba kung
magkakaroon ng terminal malapit sa palengke?)
Yes No
SURVEY OF SANTA MARIA TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL
Instruction: Check all the circles that suits your answer. (Lagyan ng
tsek “” ang lahat ng mga bilog na naaayon sa iyong sagot.)
4) On your own perception, is there enough area of service
inside the current transportation terminal? (Sa iyong
tingin, sapat ba ang espasyon sa kasalukuyang terminal
upang magbigayang serbisyong ang mga tao?) o Yes o No

SURVEY OF SANTA MARIA TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL

Name: ________________________________________________
Age: _____
Instruction: Check all the circles that suits your answer. (Lagyan ng
Name of JODA/TODA: ___________________________________ tsek “” ang lahat ng mga bilog na naaayon sa iyong sagot.)
Number of years as a driver: ____
Name: ________________________________________________
Age: _____
1) Are you earning enough money inside the current
transportation terminal? Name of JODA/TODA: ___________________________________
(Sapat ba ang kinikita mo sa kasalukuyang terminal ngayon?) Number of years as a driver: ____
o Yes
o No
2) What facilities do you think the transportation terminal 1) Are you earning enough money inside the current
should have? transportation terminal?
(Anu-anong mga pasilidad ang sa tingin mo ay meron dapat (Sapat ba ang kinikita mo sa kasalukuyang terminal ngayon?)
sa terminal?) o Yes
o CR o No
o Waiting Lounge o Information Desk o 2) What facilities do you think the transportation terminal
Others, please should have?
specify______________ (Anu-anong mga pasilidad ang sa tingin mo ay meron dapat
3) Do you think a transportation terminal besides the public sa terminal?)
market will be a big help? o CR
(Sa iyong palagay malaking tulong ba kung magkakaroon ng o Waiting Lounge o Information Desk o
terminal sa tabi ng palengke?) Others, please
o Yes specify______________
o No 3) Do you think a transportation terminal besides the public
market will be a big help?
 (Sa iyong palagay malaking tulong ba kung magkakaroon ng
terminal sa tabi ng palengke?)
o Yes
o No
4) On your own perception, is there enough area of service
inside the current transportation terminal? (Sa iyong
tingin, sapat ba ang espasyon sa kasalukuyang terminal
upang magbigayang serbisyong ang mga tao?) o Yes o No
 REFERENCES

Santos, Reyson C., et. al. (2012), “Proposed Redevelopment of Pasig City Public Market:

Invigorating Public Market through the Design of its Built Environment”

Nancy B. Kurland, “From Civic Institution to Community Place: The Meaning of the Public

Market in Modern America”

Almoro, Kevin Rowe C., et. al.” A Public Market Design Engineered towards Environmental

Sustainability in Minalin, Pampanga”

Eunice Sheene Fulgencio, “5 Public Markets in the Philippines Worth Checking Out”,

https://shoppersguide.com.ph/magazine/2018/01/12/5-public-markets-in-the-philippines-

worthchecking-out

Joshua Charles Zade, “Public Market Development Strategy: Making the Improbable

Possible”

Ten Qualities of Successful Public Market, https://www.pps.org/article/tencharacteristics2

Top 5 Farmers' Markets in the Philippines, https://www.skyscanner.com.ph/news/top-

5farmers-markets-philippines

Public Markets Phase I Report: An Overview of Existing Programs and Assessment of

Opportunities as a Vehicle for Social Integration and Upward Mobility, Project for Public Spaces,

Inc.

10 of the world's best fresh markets, https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/17/travel/worldsbest-

freshmarkets/index.html