A STUDY ON THE PRELIMINARY IMPACTS OF CITY ORDINANCE 2009-370 BANNING/REGULATING BANNING/REGUL ATING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS IN ANTIPOLO CITY
March 2012
By Grace P. Sapuay
DEDICATION This paper is dedicated to the people of Antipolo City. May their awareness on environmental issues and the protection of their city increase more so that they will leave a legacy of a clean and orderly city, with properly managed waste; so that the next generations will be able to inherit a city which is sustainably managed by environmentally and socially conscious populace who cling to a concept of a world free of waste.
ABSTRACT Among the prevalent local and national issues on solid waste management is the burgeoning problem of plastic litter all over the country. Local governments as well as national legislative bodies are seeking ways to minimize if not to eliminate plastics in solid waste. Recently, Antipolo City implemented a local ordinance regulating/banning the use of plastic bags in the commercial sector. In order to find out the effectiveness of such ordinance in bringing about desired behavioural change a survey was undertaken in the main wet and dry public market of Antipolo City. The survey hoped to determine the initial effects of the ban on the solid waste situation in the city and on the attitudes of the citizens in the community towards the ban and towards the environment. The data gathered survey was analyzed using the Predictive Analysis Software (PASW) Statistics (SPSS (SPSS version 18). The results indicated positive impact of the ban on the use of plastic bags on solid waste situation of the city as well as on the attitude and behaviour of the constituency as proven by higher percentage of those favouring the ordinance and the bringing of reusable bags when shopping. This was due to strict implementation of the ban amidst the difficulty of gaining its acceptance to those primarily affected. This goes to show that strict implementation can serve as a key to
minimization
of
plastics
management of solid waste.
and
perhaps
consequently
effective
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is forever grateful to the following people who have made invaluable contribution to this research: 1. Hon. Nilo Leyble, Mayor of Antipolo City 2. Mr. Melvin A. Cruz, City Administrator of Antipolo (and his staff) 3. Ms. Jocelyn Masangkay, Head of the City Ecological Solid Waste Management Office (and her staff) 4. Mr. Cecilio Panganiban, Public Market Administrator 5. Mr. Jun Jun Gamat of the the City Market Office (and (and his staff) 6. Ms. Maricel G. Rodriguez, Enumerator 7. Ms. Erna E. Canale, Enumerator 8. Mr. Rodel Camonas, Enumerator 9. All participants in the survey 10. Ms. Cora Jose 11. Engr. Samuel Sapuay 12. Prof. Mayu Munarriz (class adviser, Plan 299) 13. Prof. Kevin Carl Santos (U.P. School of Statisitics) 14. Prof. Mark Anthony Javelosa (U.P. School of Statistics) 15. Mr. Tony Gangan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Objectives/Aims Objectives/Aims Of The Study
2
1.3
Significance Of The Study
2
1.4
Scope and Limitations
3
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4
CHAPTER III : FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM
9
CHAPTER IV : METHODOLOGY
12
4.1
Significance of the Survey
12
4.2
Survey Area
12
4.3
Research Design
12
4.3.1.
Data Collection Methodology
12
4.3.2.
Survey Description
13
4.3.3.
Statistical Design
14
CHAPTER V : FINDINGS
16
5.1
Description of the Study Area
16
5.2
Results of the survey
18
5.2.1
Profile of Participants
19
5.2.2
Knowledge and Awareness
22
5.2.3
Attitudes/Behaviour Attitudes/Behaviour towards the Ban
24
5.2.4
Practices
29
5.2.5
Waste Segregation Practices
33
5.2.6
Statistical Analysis
35
CHAPTER VI : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY APPENDICES
41
List of Figure
Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure
1: Framework and Conceptual Diagram of the Study ...................... 11 2: Areal Map of Antipolo Public Market (Google Earth) .................... 17 3: Close up View of Antipolo Public Market (Google Earth). ............. 17 4: Campaign Posters Displayed in Public Places in Antipolo City ....... 24 5: Responses on Bringing Reusable Bags to Shopping .................... 25 6: Preferrence for Current Ordinance and Willingness of Shoppers to Buy Ecobags or Reusable Bags............................................ 26 7: Response on Preference to Reusable Bag Over Disposable Containers/Bags ................................................................... 27 8: Clean Street in Antipolo City .................................................... 33 9: Response on the Segregation of Garbage Indicating a Good Level of Awareness in Urban Environment Management ............. 34 10: Shop-owners’ Practice of Waste Segregation at Home............... 34
List of Tables
Table 1 : Profile of Shop-owners Participants in the Survey ....................... 19 Table 2 : Profile of Shoppers Participants in the Survey ............................ 21 Table 3 : Awareness, Understanding and Satisfaction with the Ordinance ... 23 Table 4 : Shoppers’ Comments on Buying their Own Reusable Bags ........... 28 Table 5 : Shop-owners’ Opinions Regarding the Banning of Plastic Bags ..... 29 Table 6 : Frequency and Percentage of Shoppers and Shop-owners Still Using Plastic Bags ................................................................. 30 Table 7 : Responses of Shop-owners to Whether Customers were Reduced after the Implementation of the Ordinance ............................... 31 Table 8 : Responses on the Reduction of Littering after the Implementation of the Ban on Plastic Bags ............................... 32 Table 9 : Age Group Vs. Choice of Carryout Container .............................. 36 Table 10 : Age Group Vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance .............................. 37 Table 11 : Educational Attainment Vs. Choice of Carryout container ........... 38 Table 12 : Educational Attainment vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance ............. 38 Table 13 : Income Category Vs. Choice of Carryout Container ................... 39 Table 14 : Monthly Family Income Vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance ............ 40
CHAPTER I
:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
1.1
Introduction
Solid waste is among the major issues facing the Philippine society today. More than ten (10) years after RA 9003 (The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act 2001) has been signed into law, littering of solid waste, most notably plastic bags, remain unabated. People’s behaviour towards solid waste has not changed. Most local government units have not complied with the required engineered sanitary landfill (ESLF) mandated by law and waste segregation is being done minimally all over the country. It is said that there is an on-going plastic bags pandemic 1, and the following are some of the facts about plastic bags: 1) Over 1 trillion plastic bags are used annually all over the world; 2) About 1 million plastic bags are used every minute; 3) A single plastic bag can take 2,000 years to degrade; 4) More than 3.5 million tons of plastic bags, sacks, and wraps were discarded in 2008. In the Philippines local initiatives had been launched to find solutions to these issues. One of these initiatives was undertaken by the City of Antipolo when it promulgated a local ordinance banning the use of 1
Facts about plastic bags pandemic, http://www.reuseit.com/learn-more/top-facts/plastic-bag-facts (Accessed Nov. 23, 2011)
1
plastic bags in commercial establishments. This research was done to determine in general if the ban on the use of plastic bags was successful in bringing about the desired change.
1.2
Objectives/Aims Of The Study
The proposed study has the following objectives: a) To determine the initial impacts of the plastic bags ban in terms of: i)
Improvement of the solid waste situation in Antipolo City;
ii)
The reactions of people on the implementation of the ban.
b) To determine the effects of the ban in terms of: i)
Changes in the behaviour of the people towards management of solid waste;
ii)
Changes in the behaviour of the citizens towards environmental awareness.
1.3
Significance Of The Study
While a few Local Government Units (LGUs) have made a move to impose a ban on the use of plastic carryout bags, there is still an on-going deliberation in the Congress as well as in the Senate regarding the banning of plastic bags. Currently, the process is moving towards 2
regulation of plastic bags (production and use) instead of ban on their use. The results of this study will help determine whether a ban is effective in the improvement of solid waste situation in the country as might be exemplified by Antipolo City.
1.4
Scope and Limitations
This research aims to study only the initial impacts of the implementation of the plastic bags ban. As such, it will be limited only to the preliminary determination of its effects for three months starting November 2011 until February 2012. It will not be concerned with waste segregation policies but will be limited only to the initial effects of the ban on the solid waste situation in the city and on the attitudes of the citizens in the community towards the ban and towards the environment. Since the time to study the initial impact period is very short (one month only); hence, the survey area will be limited to the main wet and dry public market of Antipolo, which is located in the Poblacion.
3
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Legislation banning the use of plastic is a fairly recent development in the Philippines. No research has yet been conducted in the country as regards
to
its
success,
behavioural
changes
of
the
citizens
or
improvement in solid waste management. With the dearth of material in the library, literatures for this study were sourced from the internet, which can be easily accessed within less than a second through the search engine Google2. It has been known that the convenience of using plastic bags has its accompanying detrimental effects to the environment, which is the main reason for the creation of policies regulating such use. Begum I (undated) extensively tackled the lifecycle of plastics and the ecological
2
The key words “plastic bags ban ordinance” yielded 218,000 results within 0.08 seconds. The
selection was scanned and only those materials pertinent to this study, which focus primarily on researches regarding banning of plastic bags and its effects on the state of solid waste management as well as the behaviour of people towards the ban and towards solid waste particularly plastic bags, were selected and downloaded for review. Over seventeen (17) articles were chosen and these were further screened to come down with a total of five (5) pertinent literatures, three (3) of which are published in international journals, while two (2) are discussion papers. Of the five (5) papers selected, three (3) papers directly deal with the results of the ban and its effect on the behaviour of consumers as well as on the environment while two (2) papers deal with the adverse effects of plastics on the environment. The papers were chosen for their relevance to the proposed research as well as their importance in providing some insights on how such a research might be conducted. They also provided some ideas on the rates of success as well as sustainability in terms of the reduction of plastic usage and waste production in relation to such policies.
4
consequences of its disposal on the environment particularly in India. The author has also included in her discussion some policy instruments which are being used all over the world especially the developing world, limiting the use of plastic bags in order to manage plastic wastes. Ireland and Australia, in particular have used these policy instruments with much success. A levy on plastic bags at 0.15 Euro per bag in retail outlets except fresh produce (which levies bags at 0.70 euro) resulted in a 90% decrease in the use of disposable plastic bags in Ireland. Awareness campaigns backing a Voluntary Code of Practice (which serves as warning to retailers in Australia that a 25-cent levy will be enforced by 2005 if the 50% reduction target was not met) was able to reduce plastic bag consumption by 22% in 2002. A survey was conducted by Legese Adane and Diriba Muleta (2011) particularly concerning the use, disposal and impacts of plastic bags on the environment in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia in order to assess the impacts of plastic bags on the environment of the aforementioned city. The study consisted of a survey on who uses the plastic bags and how many of the respondents use plastic bags, how they dispose of such bags after use and determined the impacts of plastic bags waste on the surroundings around Jimma City. The results indicated a high proportion of population using plastic bags because of affordability (cheap) and easy availability. The study also found that open dumping is the manner of disposal practiced widely by the respondents in the survey and that such 5
practices resulted in blockage of sewers and deterioration of the natural beauty of the environment in their area. The authors found that a city level legislation is necessary in curbing the use of plastic bags and end the practice of distribution of free plastic bags by retailers as well as manage plastic waste littering the streets of the City of Jimma. Such legislations against the free use of plastic bags aim to manage production and the rampant utilization of plastic bags in order to reduce plastic bags waste, which were found littering the streets, canals, and all other bodies of water. After a policy in China was implemented limiting the use of free plastic bags from retailers to consumers in 2008 Xiufeng Xing (2009) studied the trend consumer behaviour towards the use of plastic bags as well as the environmental awareness of the public with regards to the use of plastics and the impact of the ban, putting emphasis on the results following imposition of the ban. The author noted that after the policy took effect, it was seen that there has been a decrease in the use of plastic bags in the supermarkets and that the total use of plastic bags was reduced to roughly two-thirds of its previous use. However, this policy seems difficult to implement in markets wherein traders were found to use national standard plastic bags for inspection while using the flimsier (illegal) type for regular use. In another study on the same policy conducted
by
Chan-Halbrendt,
et
al,
(2009)
who
measured
the
preferences of residents in Tianjin, China between non-degradable plastic bags and degradable non-plastic materials through a Conjoint Choice 6
Experiment (CCE), which is based on the idea that any good can be described in terms of its attributes or characteristics and level of these attributes. This was also used to explore the willingness of consumers to pay for plastic carryout bags. Results of the study showed a preference for bags which are made from materials other than non-degradable plastic bags if such are sold cheaper. However, the experiment showed that there are preference distinctions among age groups, which can be exploited to devise strategies in promoting the effective implementation of the policy. The researchers found that the policy has been carried for over a year with some success, reducing the consumption of plastic bags by as much as 66%. Joining the growing number of countries creating tax levies as a policy instrument to regulate the use of plastic bags is Botswana. In assessing the effect of such legislation on the environment Johane Dikgang and Martine Visser (2010) studied the behavioural responses of people in Botswana towards plastic bags tax to curb demand on the use of plastic bags. By analysing the sensitivity of consumers to the plastic bags charges, the authors found out that the increase in the plastic bags levy resulted in a sharp decline of consumption of plastic bags in shopping per 1,000 BWP (Botswana Pulas) of retail purchases and the use of plastic bags dropped to 24% weeks after the policy was implemented. The lowincome retailers experienced the steepest decline in consumption at 42% followed by the high-income retailer at 39%. In comparing the effects of 7
such legislations in Ireland and South Africa, the authors found that higher levies on plastic bags sustains the decrease in plastic shopping bags demand and predicted that a high levy on plastic shopping bags in Botswana will sustain such environmental effect. In summary, the findings of the researchers have shown that policies banning the use of free plastic bags as well as putting a levy on plastic bags can help in limiting the use of plastic bags, consequently reducing plastic waste in the areas of study. The studies, however, were generally confined to consumer purchases in big supermarkets and did not include those in the countryside, which was noted to have bigger use of disposable plastic bags.
8
CHAPTER III : FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM
During the height of typhoon Ondoy, Metro Manila and the outlying provinces were submerged in the flood for many days. Plastic bags were the most noticeable solid waste found floating in the flood and clogging the waterways. The plastic bags were, therefore, blamed as the cause of the sluggishness of the flow of floodwaters in moving towards the watercourses,
which
took
so
long
to
recede,
inundating
many
communities for several days. In view of this, some LGUs have made the move to legislate ordinances banning the use of plastic bags in their localities. Among them was Antipolo City, which promulgated City Ordinance 2009-370. After a two-year moratorium, the ordinance is now being implemented starting November 2011. The study expects to find positive impacts of the imposition of the ban, which is meant to improve the solid waste situation in the city, similar to the findings of the studies conducted as mentioned in the literature reviewed. In compliance with the ordinance, it is expected that supermarkets and public markets in the city will be using paper bags instead of plastic bags and that there will be a decrease in the use of plastic bags in public markets as well as in the supermarkets where the dry goods are no longer allowed to be carried in plastic bags. Instead, paper bags are to be 9
used for this purpose. Due to this, the consumers are expected to use plastic bags less frequently and that, since traders in the city will no longer use plastic bags. Hence, whatever plastic bags the consumers use might be sourced outside Antipolo, where for example they are given plastic bags from supermarkets in places where there is no such ordinance. As an initial reaction to the ban, it is expected to find a part of the population still using plastic bags, though less frequently since IEC may not yet be that thorough, or that some who shop from neighbouring localities without such a ban would be carrying their goods in plastic carryout bags. Others will have opted to use reusable bags that are sold in the markets. Still others will be found no longer using plastic bags since reusable bags area available and that these consumers might have agreed that the ban is good so they tend to follow not just the ordinance but their environmental conscience as well. These preliminary impacts are expected to cause environmental awareness among the consumer population such that they will also start to segregate their solid waste at home since it has already been declared (through RA 9003) that they must segregate their waste. At this point people will start to realize that the ban on plastics is another step to better solid waste management. Hence, most of them might start disposing their plastic bags and other waste properly. The resulting effect will be a reduction in the volume of plastic waste in the city. Therefore, it is highly expected that the solid 10
waste situation in the city has been greatly improved. This can be better expressed in the following diagram, and which was used as framework of the study: PLASTIC BAGS WASTE
ORDINANCE BANNING THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS
IMPLEMENTATION
Methods of Implementation (Fines/penalties)
PRELIMINARY IMPACTS
IN PUBLIC MARKETS
On Sources of plastic
CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR 1. STILL USE PLASTIC BAGS 2. NO LONGER USE PLASTIC BAGS 3. USE OF REUSABLE BAGS
DECREASE IN THE USE OF PLASTIC BAGS IN PUBLIC MARKETS
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS OF CONSUMERS
WASTE SEGREGATION AT HOME and PROPER DISPOSAL OF PLASTIC BAGS AND OTHER WASTE IN PUBLIC MARKETS
REDUCED PLASTIC WASTE Figure 1: Framework and Conceptual Diagram of the Study 11
CHAPTER IV : METHODOLOGY
4.1
Significance of the Survey
Surveys are significant in that they can be used to determine the beliefs, attitude and behaviours towards prevailing trends, laws, and other aspects in the community. The results of the survey present the preliminary evaluation of a policy (in this case the ban on plastic bags) which will give a glimpse at how well the implementation is being carried out at the beginning of implementation. 4.2
Survey Area
Due to time and budgetary constraints, the survey was conducted in one place, which is the major wet and dry public market along the main thoroughfare of Antipolo City. Since this is the main public market, this a one of places where most people come to do their shopping for their daily needs and is where the ordinance is mostly implemented, also since the office of the public market administrator holds office in the vicinity. 4.3
Research Design
4.3.1. Data Collection Methodology
12
Gathering of primary data was done through a survey and key informant
interviews
with
an
actual
ocular
observation
of
the
surroundings. Secondary data, such as monitoring and accomplishment reports, were gathered from the Environmental Services Office of Antipolo City. Photo-documentation was conducted as part of the data or evidence of outcome of the implementation of the legislation. Face-to-face and selfadministered interviews were done with the aid of semi-structured questionnaires. 4.3.2. Survey Description An ocular inspection of the streets of the city as well as its waterways was conducted to present a situational analysis and determine the prevailing solid waste situation in the city. This was followed by interviews at the chosen site. Three groups or sectors will be surveyed for this study. The first group was the implementers, the second group consisted of the vendors or shopkeepers, and the third group consisted of the consumers. Survey was done through either a face-to-face interview as well as by distributing questionnaires to the selected respondents. A focused interview was done for the 1st group of respondents. The questionnaires for the shop-owners were distributed among the market vendors and retrieved
after
a
few
hours.
The
accomplishment
rate
of
the
questionnaires was sixty per cent (60%). Some of the vendors were busy with sales work and did not want to answer the questionnaires while some 13
of them simply did not want to answer the questionnaires and were not returned. 4.3.3. Statistical Design A simple random sampling was conducted for interviewing the shoppers. Sixty (60) samples were taken and interviewed using face-toface survey technique. This was done by randomly selecting shoppers. Samples were selected at random at certain times of the day. For example, twenty (20) samples were interviewed in the morning until 12:00 noon, twenty (20) samples were interviewed in the afternoon, and another twenty (20) samples were interviewed early evening. This was done to determine whether there is a difference among the shoppers at certain times of the day. For the shop-owners, convenience sampling was done since they were busy with their businesses, such that only those willing to answer the survey forms were interviewed while the others were given the forms and retrieved after a few hours. Thirty (30) samples were gathered for this study. Key informants were also interviewed for this study in order to determine the extent of implementation and how such implementation is conducted within the entire LGU. For this purpose, the City Administrator, the Public Market Administrator, as well as the head of the Ecological Waste Management Office were interviewed. This was conducted by
14
visiting their respective offices. Secondary data were also requested from their offices regarding solid waste as well as the ordinance.
15
CHAPTER V : FINDINGS
5.1
Description of the Study Area
The survey was conducted within the confines of Antipolo City’s main public market, which is located two blocks away from the city hall. The public market is a two-story establishment which houses dry goods merchandise (clothing, home decors, cooking paraphernalia, trinkets, etc.) on its second level. The meat and fish section, fresh fruits and vegetables and all other ingredients for cooking as well as cooked foods are located on the first floor of the public market. Located in Bgy. San Roque, it occupies the entire block in the heart of Antipolo along ML Quezon Street on the west, J. Sumulong Street on the north, F. Manalo St. on the east, and J. Simeon Street on the south (see areal views on the next page). The market is filled with people of all walks of life during the day. It is busiest during the early morning until 12’o’ clock noon and during late afternoon until eight o’clock in the evening. This place was chosen to be the study site for the survey since many people from various places in Antipolo come here to buy all sorts of goods and merchandise and that this is the place most likely to be impacted by the implementation of the ordinance.
16
Figure 2: Areal Map of Antipolo Public Market (Google Earth)
Figure 3: Close up View of Antipolo Public Market (Google Earth).
17
5.2
Results of the survey
The survey yielded two (2) types of data, numerical and categorical (nominal). For such types of data, a Chi-square ( X 2) statistic was used here to compare the variables and to find out whether there exists any relationship or correlation between these variables. The chi-square is used to investigate whether distributions of categorical variables differ from one another3. After Chi-square, a post test statistical method, Cramer’s V was calculated to determine the strengths of association between the variables tested. Cramer’s V coefficient 4 is useful for comparing multiple X 2-test statistics and is generalizable across contingency tables of varying
sizes and is mainly used to calculate associations using nominal data. To describe the strength of association, Cramer’s V is described as having values from 0 to 1 where >0.5 signifies high association while 0 to 0.1 has little or no association. Calculations for these values were done through
PASW.
The
software
PASW
Statistics
(SPSS
version
18)
(Predictive Analysis Software) is a program that can be used to analyse data from surveys, tests, observations, and other data gathered. The software can perform a variety of data analyses and presentation functions. Features of the software include descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentage distribution, t-Test, X 2-test among others. This
3 4
http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ryan/ChiSquare.html http://www.acastat.com/Statbook/chisqassoc.htm
18
software can perform a variety of statistical computations, thus saving time for the researcher in analysing the data gathered. 5.2.1
Profile of Participants
The Profile of the participants is shown on Table 1 (shop-owners) and Table 2 (shoppers) with the corresponding frequency and percentage distribution of characteristics. The ages of the participants were grouped into two, since the data was not very significant for those younger than twenty (20) years old.
Table 1 : Profile of Shop-owners Participants in the Survey
Characteristics
Frequency
Percentage (%)
3 14 13
10.0 46.7 43.3
7 23
23.3 76.7
12 18
40.0 60.0
18 6 2 4
60.0 20.0 6.7 13.3
Age <=20-29 years old 30-39 40 and over Sex Male Female Educational Attainment High School College Weekly income P1,000-5999 P6,000-9,999 >P10,000 No answer N Cases = 30
Thirty (30) shop-owners were interviewed for this study (Table 1), all owning a stall or stalls inside the public market of Antipolo City. Of the 19
shop-owners who answered the survey forms, 10% were between the ages of less than twenty (20) years old to twenty-nine (29) years old. Most of the participants interviewed were within the age range of 30-39 years old (46.7%) while the rest were over 40 years old (about 43.3%). Most of the thirty (30) participants interviewed were females, about 76.7%; while a smaller percentage, about 23.3%, were males. More than half of the shop-owners who answered the survey questionnaires finished college degree (about 60%), while 40% finished high school/vocational school. When asked about their weekly income, most of the shop-owners (60%), stated they earn between P1,000-P5,999 pesos, while some of them (20%) earn between P6,000-P9,999.00 and only a few (6.7%) earn a weekly income of more than 10,000 pesos. About 13.3% did not state their income in the survey questionnaires. Table 2 below shows the profile of the shoppers interviewed for this study. From this Table, it can be seen that 21.7% of the shoppers interviewed were aged less than or equal to 29 years old, while 31.7% were between 30-39 years old. It can be seen that the majority of shoppers surveyed were 40 years old and over, comprising 46.7% of the sample. Although the participants were chosen at random, more female shoppers were interviewed (71.7%), while the male shoppers comprise only 28.3% of the sample. It cannot be concluded here that more females 20
do the shopping than males, however, it can be said that at the time of sampling, more females arrived than males and thus, they were the ones mostly interviewed for this purpose. Table 2 : Profile of Shoppers Participants in the Survey
Characteristics
Frequency
Percentage (%)
13 19 28
21.7 31.7 46.7
17 43
28.3 71.7
8 34 18
13.3 56.6 30.0
16 20 24
26.7 33.3 40.0
3 1 10 10 24 4 7 1
5.0 1.7 16.7 16.7 40.0 6.7 11.7 1.7
Age <=29 30-39 >=40 Sex Male Female Educational Attainment Elementary High School/Voc College Monthly Family Income <4,999 5,000-9,999 >=P10,000 Occupation Student Gov’t Employee Private Employee Self-employed Homemaker Labourer Others No answer N Cases = 60
When asked about their educational attainment, 56.6% of the sample said they finished high school and/or vocational courses while about 30% finished a college degree and only 13.3% of the respondents finished elementary school. 21
Forty per cent (40%) of the sample belong to families earning an income of more than Php10,000; 33.3% have a monthly family income of PhP 5,000-PhP 9,999.00. About 26.7% said they earn a monthly income of less than Php 4,999.00. The cases belong to a diverse group of occupation wherein 40% are mostly homemakers; 16.7% for both private employees and selfemployed/business
owners;
5%
are
students,
1.7%
works
in
a
government institution; 6.7% are labourers, while 11.7% are either retired or work someplace else. Around 1.7% of the sample did not specify their employment status. 5.2.2
Knowledge and Awareness
The respondents were primarily asked whether they were aware of the ordinance banning/regulating the use of plastic carryout bags, whether they fully understood the reason for such and if they were satisfied with the implementation of such a policy. Although all (100%) respondents interviewed were aware of the ordinance, only 58 or 96.7% of the shoppers and 93.3% of the shopowners said that they understood the reason for regulating/banning the use of plastic carryout bags and some 3.3% among both the shoppers and the shop-owners said that they did not understand the reason for such a regulation. Also, 86.7% of the shoppers and 89.7% of the shopowners were satisfied with the ordinance, while 13.3% were not satisfied with the said ordinance. When asked whether they understood the 22
advantages of not using plastic bags, a majority (96.7%) of both the shoppers and the shop-owners replied positively, while 3.3% were negative about it. The Table below shows the frequency and percentage of the responses to the questions given. Table 3 : Awareness, Understanding and Satisfaction with the Ordinance Frequency Shoppers
Shopowners
Shoppers
Shopowners
Yes
60
30
100%
100%
No
0
0
0
0
Yes
58
28
96.7%
93.3%
No
2
1
3.3%
3.3%
Yes
52
26
86.7%
89.7%
No
8
3
13.3%
10.3%
Yes
58
29
96.7%
96.7%
No
2
-
3.3%
3.3%
Variables
1. Awareness ordinance
of
the
2. Understand the reason for regulating/banning the use of plastic bags 3. Satisfied with ordinance? 4. Understand advantage of reusable bags
the
the using
Percentage
Public information campaign regarding the plastic bags ordinance has been going on in the city, as shown by posters hanging in public places such as the one shown below, explaining the high level of awareness of the people regarding the policy. Also, letters notifying the
23
business owners regarding the ordinance have been distributed all over the city5.
Figure 4: Campaign Posters Displayed in Public Places in Antipolo City
5.2.3
Attitudes/Behaviour towards the Ban
In trying to determine the people’s attitudes or behavioural responses towards the ban, the shoppers were asked whether they bring their own reusable bag nowadays, their opinions on buying reusable bag for shopping, choices of carryout bags, their opinions on what type of bag should be used for shopping in the marketplace, as well as whether they
5
Per interview with some business owners who are far from the city center
24
wish to change the ordinance and add a P5.00 levy for using plastic bags or whether they prefer the current ordinance which bans the use of plastic bags for all dry goods purchases and limits such use for wet goods purchases. The responses are shown on the following figures below:
Figure 5: Responses on Bringing Reusable Bags to Shopping
The figure above shows that 96.7% of the respondents bring their own reusable bag nowadays when shopping, while only a few (3.3%) never bring their own reusable bags. When asked “why” , the only reason they gave was that they always forget to bring reusable bags with them when they go shopping. 25
Figure 6: Preferrence for Current Ordinance and Willingness of Shoppers to Buy Ecobags or Reusable Bags This chart above shows that a majority of the respondents (98.3%) were willing to buy reusable bags and chose the current ordinance over an amended ordinance which would allow the use of plastic bags but with a levy of five pesos (Php5.00) for every plastic bag that will be used. When ask for the choice of carryout container they prefer to use, most of the respondents said that they prefer using reusable bag as carryout container (as shown in the figure below) because for them, reusable bags are sturdy, convenient and comfortable to use, can be washed and used again many times over, and can contain more goods compared to other carryout bags/containers, which are disposable. They also said that they preferred using reusable bags now than plastic bags in order to help in 26
the protection of the environment as well as help in the prevention of clogging the waterways and lessen the littering of waste on the streets. The responses above only showed that a majority of the shoppers interviewed were willing to compromise against using the free plastic carryout bags for the sake of helping the campaign for cleanliness and environmental protection. This awareness and willingness to cooperate with this new environmental policy is a positive indication that most people nowadays are environmentally aware and socially conscious of what is happening to the environment and can understand that such policies are part of the measures aimed at protecting the environment.
Figure 7: Response on Preference to Reusable Bag Over Disposable Containers/Bags
The shoppers were also asked for their opinions regarding buying reusable bags for their groceries. Most of them (65%) said that buying 27
reusable bags is all right with them because they can contribute to environmental protection (See Table 4 below). About 25% said that it was fine with them as long as they could carry the things they bought, while a few of them (10%) said they were annoyed because of the extra expenses. Table 4 : Shoppers’ Comments on Buying their Own Reusable Bags Comment
Frequency
Percent (%)
Annoying, because of additional expenses
6
10.0
Okay, as long as I can carry my groceries
15
25.0
Okay, because I can contribute to environmental protection
39
65.0
Total
60
100.0
The shop-owners were also asked about their opinions regarding the ordinance. Approximately 43.4% said they should be banned in order to reduce waste and because paper bags are better since they are biodegradable. On the other hand, 43.4% said they should not be banned because the use of plastic bags could help save the trees and that plastic bags are better for packaging wet merchandise. Most of those who did not favour the ban were from the wet goods section of the market. They also complained that they were the ones who receive the ire of customers who were not used to bringing reusable bags. Around 13.3% of those interviewed did not answer the question. The Table below shows the frequencies and percentages of answers given. The percentages of those who favoured the banning for various reasons as well as those who did 28
not favour the ban are listed separately to show the precise reason given by the respondents. Table 5 : Shop-owners’ Opinions Regarding the Banning of Plastic Bags Opinions on why plastic bags should or should not be banned
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Plastic bags should not be banned because they are good for wet merchandise such as fish or meat
11
36.7
Plastic bags should not be banned in order to save the trees
2
6.7
Plastic bags should be banned and paper bags used instead because they are biodegradable
11
36.7
Plastic bags should be banned to reduce waste
2
6.7
No answer
4
13.3
30
100.0
Total
5.2.4
Practices
In order to determine the shoppers’ and shop-owners’ practices in the use of plastic bags in the light of the ordinance, the following responses (Table 6) were gathered from the respondents. It should be noted that the ordinance regulates the use of plastic bags in the wet goods section and not banned so that those who responded yes to the question were those who were selling wet goods such as fish, chicken, or meat. However, those selling wet goods use only a certain type of plastic bag, called “labo” a thin, single use cellophane, which is quite disposable. Double bagging is no longer allowed though, and even if their consumers 29
grumble and demand for plastic bags, they were afraid to pay the penalty (which is PhP500.00 for the first offense, PhP800.00 for the second time and revoking of license to sell on the third time of violation). Table 6 : Frequency and Percentage of Shoppers and Shop-owners Still Using Plastic Bags Still use plastic bags
Shop-owners
Shoppers
Yes
Frequency 17
Percentage 56.7
Frequency 15
Percentage 25.0
No
11
36.7
24
40
2
6.7 21
35
60
100.0
No answer Sometimes Total
30
100.0
It was also found that other sellers in the dry goods area use plastic bags as courtesy to the customers who do not have shopping bags with them for the convenience of carrying the goods bought. When asked why they still use such despite the ban, the reason given was that it is only “banned when caught” and that the customer needs to have the goods packaged in a sturdy carryout container. From Table 8 above, it can be seen that more shoppers no longer use plastic bags as carryout container when shopping because they want to cooperate with the government policy and that they did not want to get caught and pay the penalty. The same reasons were given by the vendors who are no longer using plastic carryout bags. 30
When
the
vendors/shop-owners
were
asked
whether
their
clients/shoppers were reduced after the implementation of the ordinance, some of them responded in the positive as shown in Table 7 below. Table 7 : Responses of Shop-owners to Whether Customers were Reduced after the Implementation of the Ordinance Shoppers reduced after implementation of the ordinance
Frequency
Percent (%)
Yes
6
20.0
No
24
80.0
Total
30
100.0
Table
7
above
shows
that
some
20%
of
the
shop-owners
interviewed said that their customers were reduced after implementation of the ban because they no longer use plastic bags and since their customers have no carryout containers, they just leave upon learning that the vendors cannot provide them with a decent packaging 6. According to the vendors interviewed, this caused so much frustration to them plus additional activity of making paper bags. They further explained that before the implementation of the ordinance, they used to just buy plastic carryout bags. But after the ban was implemented, what they buy nowadays are scotch tapes or tubes of paste to make the paper bags because they do not want to buy the brown paper bags since those are more expensive and there are not enough supply available.
6
Dry goods vendors make paper bags out of old newspapers or telephone directories and discarded magazines.
31
With regards to cleanliness, more shop-owners think that solid waste in the city were reduced after the implementation of the ordinance (70%), as opposed to just 40% of shoppers who think that garbage has been reduced. Most of the respondents (48.3%) believed that garbage was somewhat or just a bit reduced as shown in the following Table: Table
8
:
Responses on the Reduction of Littering Implementation of the Ban on Plastic Bags
Trash reduced
Shoppers
after
the
Shop-owners
Frequency
Percent (%)
Frequency
Percent (%)
Yes
24
40.0
21
70.0
No
7
11.7
9
30.00
Somewhat/a bit
29
48.3
-
Total
60
100.0
30
100.0
Inspection of the vicinity of the public market showed that the streets have indeed been maintained and free from littering, which indicates an intensive campaign against the use of plastic bags as well as tougher implementation, imposing penalties to those who violate the ordinance as shown in the figure below:
32
Figure 8: Clean Street in Antipolo City
5.2.5
Waste Segregation Practices
Waste segregation practices, although has little to do with the banning of plastic bags, is also a way of finding out the solid waste practices of people to see how well they are aware of other environmental policies and can therefore determine levels of environmental awareness among the citizenry. RA 9003 mandates that waste must be segregated at source. People who practice waste segregation at home are more environmentally aware or more aware of existing environmental policies than those who do not and are willing to cooperate in urban waste management interventions of the government, such as the banning of plastic bags. With the current implementation of the policy banning the use of plastic bags, it is possible that such a policy has awakened some level of 33
awareness among the people in terms of other environmental policies. This can be seen by the way they manage their solid waste. The Figure below shows the percentage of respondents who are segregating their garbage.
Figure 9: Response on the Segregation of Garbage Indicating a Good Level of Awareness in Urban Environment Management
Figure 10: Shop-owners’ Practice of Waste Segregation at Home
34
The figures above show that close to over 70% of respondents segregate their garbage at home. Various reasons were given, such as, segregation has become a habit; to separate biodegradable (which emit bad odour) from non-biodegradable; to keep from littering waste into the waterways; to help in environmental protection; and to obey the law to avoid penalties. They also reported that segregated waste were placed in various types of containers such as plastic bags, jute sacks, broken pails, garbage drums or barrels, etc. 5.2.6
Statistical Analysis
The results of the survey on the shoppers were subjected to Chisquare analysis, since this group had a bigger sample size than the shopowners. For the survey on shop-owners, only the frequencies and percentage were considered since the sample size was too small for statistical treatment using a chi-square analysis. To further test the Chisquare values, Cramer’s V was also used for nominal values to determine the generalizability of the samples. The demographical data were compared with the data on the choice of carryout containers and with regards to the satisfaction with ordinance. Table 9 below shows the percentage of respondents who use reusable containers when shopping as against those who use disposable containers when shopping. It was found that 92.3% of the respondents within the age range 29 years and below favoured using reusable bag while only 7.7% favoured the use of disposable containers. About 78.9% 35
of those respondents aged 30-39 years old favoured the use of reusable containers, and only 21.1% among the respondents aged 30-39 years old favoured using disposable containers for shopping. Among those aged 40 years old and over, 85.7% favoured the use of reusable containers for shopping, while only 14.3% favoured the use of disposable carryout containers. From this Table, it can be seen that there is a high percentage of those who favoured using reusable carryout containers/bags across age groups, signifying that age had nothing to do with choosing the type of container. To further test this, Cramer’s V, which is used to test for the generalizability of the sample within a population, was run in order to check whether there was any relationship. As it turned out, a Cramer’s V equal to 0.136 indicates a weak relationship between the variables within the samples. Similarly, a value of p = 0.576 means that there was no sufficient data/evidence to generalize this result within the population. Table 9 : Age Group vs. Choice of Carryout Container
Age group <=29 30-39 >=40 Approx. Sig. (p<.05) Cramer’s V N cases = 60
Choice of Carryout Containers Disposable Reusable 7.7% 92.3% 21.1% 78.9% 14.3% 85.7% 0.576 0.136
Total 13 19 28
To check whether age is a determining factor for satisfaction with the ban on plastic bags, a cross tabulation was done for age against the 36
responses on the satisfaction with the ordinances. Shown in Table below are the percentages of positive responses against negative responses across age groups. Table 10 : Age Group vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance Age group
Satisfied with ordinance Yes
No
Total
<=29
84.6%
15.4%
100%
30-39
94.7%
5.3%
100%
>=40
82.1%
17.9%
100%
Approx. Sig. (p<.05)
.446
Cramer’s V
.164
N cases = 60
From the table above, it can be said that there was a very high percentage of those who were satisfied with the ordinance banning the use of plastic bags compared to those who were not satisfied. Checking for correlation using age groups to determine the variability of yes answers among the age groups, the results generated for the age vs. satisfaction with ordinance indicated that there was no correlation between these two variables within the sample and that it could not be generalized for the entire population. Similarly, in trying to establish the relationship between the educational attainment and choice of carryout containers, it was found that there was a high percentage of respondents who would rather use reusable containers than disposable ones, across all categories of educational attainment as can be seen in Table 11 below: 37
Table 11 : Educational Attainment vs. Choice of Carryout container
Educational Attainment Elementary High School/Voc College Approx. Sig. (p<.05) Cramer’s V N cases = 60
Choice of Carryout Container Disposable Reusable 12.5% 87.5% 8.8% 91.2% 27.8% 72.2% 0.070
Total 100.00% 100.0% 100.0%
0.234
Based on the results above, a value of p = 0.070 indicated that there was a an very low correlation between the variables within the sample but because of its closeness to p<0.05 there might be some correlation if there were enough samples for the generated data although within the study, there was not enough evidence to say that it could be generalized within the entire population as shown by the Cramer’s V value. Table 12 : Educational Attainment vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance
Educational attainment Elementary
Satisfied with Ordinance Yes No 75% 25.0%
Total 100%
High School/Voc
85.3%
14.7%
100%
College Approx. Sig. (p<.05)
94.4%
5.6% 0.379
100%
Cramer’s V
0.180
N cases = 60
38
It can be said from the data gathered that education has nothing to do with the satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the respondents regarding the policy implemented. At any educational category, they can be satisfied when they perceive that the policy is doing good for the environment as well as to the behaviour of the people. Naturally, as can be seen from Table 12, not everyone will be pleased with such a policy and will always resist change, such that some of the shoppers interviewed said that they were not satisfied with the ordinance banning the use of plastic disposable bags, because for them, plastic bags offer the most convenient way to carry the goods they purchased. Table 13 : Income Category vs. Choice of Carryout Container
Choice of Carryout Container Monthly Family Income
= PhP10,000.00
Total Disposable
Reusable
18.8%
81.3%
100%
5.0%
95.0%
100%
20.8%
79.2%
100%
Approx. Sig. (p<.05)
0.303
Cramer’s V
0.199
N cases = 60
Table 13 above shows that income has nothing to do with the choice
of
carry
out
container.
Across
the
income
groups,
more
respondents preferred the reusable type of carryout container than the disposable ones. Further relating these variables, it can be said that there 39
is no significant relationship between the income and the choice of carryout bags. Table 14 below also shows that the satisfaction of the respondents is not related to their income since across all income groups, a high percentage of the sample is satisfied with the ordinance than being dissatisfied further proving that basic understanding of such an ordinance and being satisfied at its implementation has nothing to do with their social or financial status in life. Table 14 : Monthly Family Income vs. Satisfaction with Ordinance Monthly Family Income
Satisfaction with the Ordinance Total Yes
No
81.3%
18.8%
100.0%
PhP 5,000-9,999
90.0%
10.0%
100.0%
>=PhP 10,000
87.5%
12.5%
100.0%
Approx. Sig p<.05
0.736
Cramer’s V
0.101
N cases = 60
40
CHAPTER VI : CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study was able to provide a bird’s eye view of the preliminary effects of the ordinance as well as gain some knowledge on how those who were interviewed felt about it. The data from the survey was able to prove the hypothesis of the study, which found a positive impact of the ban on the solid waste situation of the city as well as the attitude and behaviour of the constituency as proven by the high percentage of those who favour the ordinance and the bringing of their own reusable bags when shopping. In this study, it was found that, nowadays, vendors/shop-owners in the dry goods section no longer use plastic bags (except for a few which try to sneak-in plastic bags at the behest of some consumers, just to please them), and use paper packaging instead. These paper packaging are in the form of recycled materials such as old newspapers, magazines and phone directories and made into “paper bags” because the shopowners/vendors find the brown paper bags more expensive. This clearly shows how people can be creative in order to comply with the policy. Although there is no baseline data to determine the volume of reduction in plastic bags waste, the reduction of plastic bags littering the streets has definitely been achieved. Also, since the people have become aware that the plastic bags ordinance was implemented to curb the waste littering, 41
they have also become aware of the ill-effects of improperly disposed plastic bags on the environment as a whole and perceive that the ordinance is good at preventing the littering of plastic waste. This reveals the changing attitudes of the people towards their environment in that their awareness has been heightened regarding the use of materials that end up as waste that affect the waterways. It should be remembered that the primary reason for the move to ban plastic bags is that oftentimes they end up on the streets which are carried into drainage canals when it rains. However, in Antipolo, it was found out that only the use of plastic “sando” bags was banned but not the single use thin film plastic they called "labo", which are easily discarded, unlike the plastic carry-on bags that are oftentimes reused. This would lead to the question of where these plastic bags go afterwards. Although the littering of plastic bags seemed to have decreased, some shop-owners/vendors have reported that it was only replaced by paper waste since paper bags are being used instead of plastic bags. The banning of plastic bags seemed to be a solution to this waste littering problem since the government seems to have been ineffective in implementing the provisions of RA 9003, or management of solid waste. In order to prevent the littering of plastic bags waste, these should, therefore be taken out of the market. Although this ordinance offers a practical solution to the plastic bags waste problem, this would perhaps be effective only in the short term. What would be more effective is the 42
implementation of the solid waste management policy and discipline of the populace in order to create a long term solution to the problem, which does not only constitute plastic bags but other waste as well. If behavioural changes will occur, such that people will learn to manage their solid waste, and that infrastructure would be available, we will be closer to solving the garbage woes. As seen from the study, the strict implementation of the ordinance to ban/regulate plastic bags use was able to reduce the plastic bags waste. However, proper waste management is still the best way to contain all waste so they do not end up where they are not supposed to be. According to the result of this study, any law that is strictly implemented is effective. Although many consumers still long for that lightweight convenient carry-on plastic bag, they now realize that the rampant use of such has been among the culprits in the clogging of waterways and causing so much litter on the streets. Although they still grumble as to the use of recycled newspapers for packaging and buying/bringing their own reusable carry-on bags/containers, the seeds of awareness have already been planted and are starting to grow. In order to properly resolve the problem on plastic bags waste, there has to be a thorough deliberation as to which plastic bags must be banned since reusable plastic bags can provide a solution too.
43
While it is true that plastic bags waste can clog waterways because they are non-biodegradable, other solid waste can do the same. And using paper put a huge demand on our trees and water supply. It is clearly
not
the
best
solution.
To
put
it
simply,
with
the
strict
implementation of the ordinance, the people are catching on. Perhaps, if RA 9003 is strictly implemented and violators are penalized, then the problems on solid waste will finally be contained. The study was under severe limitations due to time and budgetary constraints such that it was not possible to include the entire area of Antipolo City. For this reason, only a small sample was included in the survey, which covered only those in the market such that the study cannot be conclusive of the situation of the entire city especially those in the barangays that are far from the city center. In order to be able to have a clear picture of the real impacts of the ordinance and the effects this has on the solid waste situation in the city, it is recommended that this study be continued one year later. Also, at this stage, the volume of solid waste, especially of plastic waste must be properly recorded to form as baseline data for reference. A plastic waste recovery centre must be set up at strategic areas of the city and that the garbage collectors must be instructed to separate plastic bags waste upon collection.
44
Although “economic impacts” is not part of this study, the ordinance clearly has a big impact on the polyethylene industry, from the manufacturer to the retailers. The ordinance did not seem to have considered the economic impacts it would have on other vendors since the suppliers of plastic bags have been hard hit by this ordinance. For example, the supplier of plastic bags in the market complained of a 50% reduction in sales and recently penalized (Php500 pesos) for using a plastic “sando
”
bag to package the thin plastic bags bought by a wet
goods vendor who demanded plastic packaging. A study on the economic impacts of the ban should be conducted in the future. This study also needs a better statistical design so that responses to the survey will not be biased in order to reflect the real situation. Although larger sample can be better, it may be better if the profile of the community can be adequately represented. This survey can then be used as fore-runner of succeeding surveys which can be done in the future. It can be said that although the LGU’s leadership has been trying hard to make the campaign against the widespread use of plastic bags, there are some products that require plastic bags for packaging to protect the products. An Executive Order (E.O.) was therefore released by the Office of the Mayor to provide some exceptions to the ban. Unfortunately, this has not been communicated properly to the shop-owners/vendors. As a result, they have not realized that they can apply for such an exemption if their reasons are justified. 45
In order to effectively implement the policy, a massive and continuous Information and Education Campaign (IEC) is necessary for the people to better understand the importance of the ordinance. The policy, if carried out effectively, would have a potential impact on raising further
the
level
of
awareness
of
the
citizens
in
protecting
the
environment. This is important in changing people’s behaviour for the better and promises long term effects in environmental management.
46
REFERENCES Adane, Legese and Diriba Muleta. (2011). Survey on the usage of plastic bags, their disposal and adverse impacts on environment: A case study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences Vol. 3(8) pp. 234-248, August 2011. ISSN 2006-9820 ©2011 Academic Journals. Available online at http://www. academicjournals.org/JTEHS Accessed Dec. 3, 2011. Begum I, Zareena. (Undated). Plastics and the Environment. Dissemination Paper 12. Center of Excellence in Environmental Economics (Sponsored by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India), Madras School of Economics. Available online at http://coe. mse.ac.in/dp/Paper%2012.pdf Accessed on Dec. 4, 2011. Chan-Halbrendt, C, Di Fang, and Fang Yang. (2009). Trade-offs between shopping bags made of non-degradable plastics and other materials, using latent class analysis: the case of Tianjin, China. International Food and Agribusiness management Review, Vol. 12 Issue 4, 2009. Available at http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/nrem/staff/downloads /20091006_Formatted.pdf . Accessed on Dec. 4, 2011. Dikgang, J and M. Visser. (2010). Behavioral Response to Plastic Bag Legislation in Botswana. Environment for Development discussion paper series May 2010 EfD DP 10-13. Available online at http://www.rff.org/rff/documents/EfD-DP-10-13.pdf Accessed Dec. 7, 2011. Xiufeng Xing. (2009). Study on the ban on free plastic bags in China. Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol. 2. No. 1 pp. 156-158. Available online at www.ccsenet.org/journal.html Accessed last Dec. 3, 2011.
47
