Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the different readings that support the variables

used in this study.

Related Literatures

These serve as links between the readers and the studies already done,

tells about aspects that have been already established or concluded by other

authors and also give chances to appreciate the evidences that have already

been collected by previous researches, and projects the current research work

in the proper perspective.

The following are the select related literatures:

Solid Waste Management: The battle on Waste Management

Cities are at the nexus of a further threat to the environment, namely the

production of an increasing quantity and complexity of wastes. The estimated

quantity of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated worldwide is 1.7 – 1.9

billion metric tons. In many cases, municipal wastes are not well managed in

developing countries, as cities and municipalities cannot cope with the

accelerated pace of waste production. Waste collection rates are often lower
 28

than 70 per cent in low-income countries. More than 50 per cent of the collected

waste is often disposed of through uncontrolled landfilling and about 15 per

cent is processed through unsafe and informal recycling.

Moreover, according to UN-HABITAT (2009), establishing and

improving facilities for collection, recycling, treatment and disposal for MSW

management can be very costly. For instance, the building and operating

sanitary landfills and incineration plants requires huge investments and incur

substantial operation and maintenance costs. Furthermore, it is becoming

increasingly difficult to find suitable locations for waste treatment facilities due

to the prevalence of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) attitude amongst

communities. Meanwhile, if waste is growing at 3-5 per cent a year and rural-

urban migration increases a city’s population at a similar rate, then a city’s

waste generation will double every 10 years.

Urban managers are therefore encouraged to pursue the paths of

Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) and Reduce, Reuse and Recycle

(3Rs) that place highest priority on waste prevention, waste reduction, and

waste recycling instead of just trying to cope with ever-increasing amounts of

waste through treatment and disposal. Such efforts will help cities to reduce

the financial burden on city authorities for waste management, as well as

reduce the pressure on landfill requirements. Raw materials from natural

 29

resources are limited, financial resources are often insufficient, and securing

land for final disposal is getting more difficult. Clearly, city authorities should

set policy directions aiming for resource efficient, recycle-based society if they

are to provide a clean, healthy and pleasant living environment to its citizens

for current and future generations.

Although waste management responsibilities primarily lie with cities and

municipalities, many of the successful cases in waste management involve a

wide range of stakeholders in their implementation. This gives a clear message

to cities and municipalities that they should not try to do everything by

themselves. Rather, the key to success is to do what they are good at, and

collaborate with other sectors in the society, such as private sector,

communities and in some cases with the informal sector, in the interest of

expanding waste management services and improving efficiency and

effectiveness.

Solid Waste Management: An Overview

Globally, solid waste management is one of the greatest environmental

health challenges and continues to overwhelm local authorities and national

governments as urban populations continue to rise and consumption patterns

change. Cities generate about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year, a volume

expected to rise to 2.2 billion tons by 2025, a more than double increase for
 30

developing countries. The Philippines, like many of such countries, is facing

rapid urbanization. This has led to overcrowding and the development of slums

that are inadequately provided with basic infrastructure and services

characterized by poor solid waste management. This leads to numerous

environmental and health risks including contamination of surface and

groundwater, ecosystem degradation, and soil pollution as well as greenhouse

gas emissions by anaerobic decomposition of waste.

Furthermore, many of these communities, poor management of solid

waste contributes to flooding, air pollution, and spreading of diseases and

health conditions such as respiratory ailments and diarrhea, giving rise to

severe economic and social losses. The problems are particularly severe in

slums in developing countries where the solid waste management systems are

inadequate.

In the Philippines, developing and implementing SWM is an obligation

vested under LGUs such as provinces, cities, municipalities and barangay.

Philippines as a developing country has a growing number of advancing cities

which constitutes to its global competitiveness. Different establishments,

amount of inhabitants and source of income generate solid wastes. According

to the DOST (2012), the annual waste generation of the Philippines in 2012

was 106 million tones which is expected to double in 2025. Local government
 31

units (LGUs) are responsible for managing solid wastes. The Philippines has

71 provinces, 116 cities, 1,502 municipalities, and 41,392 barangays.

According to Dr. Johannes Paul (2015) many LGUs, aside from the truck

collection service, small vehicles, e.g. “tricycles“ are used by eco-aides to

collect recyclable materials in city areas and settlements which cannot be

reached by truck. Segregation is mostly practiced in urban areas and highly

urbanized cities, whereas only “sellable” materials such as paper, cartoons,

hard plastics, metals are recovered. Facilities which perform value adding

treatment on a larger scale are hardly established in the country.

Moreover, in highly urbanized cities and municipalities like Metro Manila,

Cebu City, or Davao City, the use of waste bins and containers is becoming

the trend while the rural towns continue to use improvised containers, plastic

bags, bamboo baskets, sacks, and drums prior to collection. The full

implementation of waste segregation favors the use of hard plastic containers

in public places and commercial establishments

Business Establishments on SWM

Commercial establishments typically provide an array of products or

services. In the manufacturing sector, these establishments generally utilize

various raw materials and convert them into finished goods. The manufacturing
 32

or production processes will invariably result in producing some by-products

that are not useful at all. These by-products will invariably end up in different

kinds of industrial bins such as front lift bins. In much the same way, when a

business establishment provides some services, it will generate some waste

as well. For instance, commercial restaurants will produce large volumes of

wastewater in addition to other solid waste. Similarly, a car washing service

will produce different kinds of waste including liquid waste.

According to Signal Waste and Recycling (2018), some decades ago,

each of the businesses could follow any practices that were convenient for

them. This was especially so when it came to disposing of the waste they

produced. However, this is not the case in contemporary times. Awareness

levels have risen among people about the need to protect and preserve the

environment. Producing mammoth amounts of solid and liquid waste will only

end up impacting the people themselves. This is why the regulatory authorities

have formulated a strict framework for commercial establishments pertaining

to their waste management activities.

Furthermore, formulating and implementing effective waste

management techniques can be quite beneficial to the business owners. This

is regardless of how small or large the business venture might be. Increasingly,

people are aware of the harmful effects of the accumulating mountains of

 33

waste on the environment. Inevitably, these adverse effects will come back to

haunt the residents of the area sooner or later. By formulating and following

effective waste management techniques in the area, business owners can

reuse or recycle some waste they generate, thereby minimizing the volume of

waste and the expenses on purchasing raw materials or fresh products. They

can also lower their power and energy bills as reusing waste items does not

consume as much power as converting raw materials into finished goods

typically does. Moreover, lower their carbon footprint – in particular, their

contribution towards the generation of various greenhouse gases. They can

also tie up with various organizations that collect old and use items thereby

capitalizing on the opportunity to earn something from the items they classify

as waste and, contribute their mite towards keeping the environment clean

especially by following the best hazardous waste removal practices

Constraints in SWM Program

Plaza (2017) stated that, there have been attempts to hold back the tide

of rubbish. The 2000 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act itself is

considered a landmark legislation on environmental management. It aimed to

systematically organize and sustainably manage the collection and disposal of

municipal solid waste (MSW) in the country. The law mandated the

establishment of MSW collection systems anchored on the 3R formula—

 34

Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. This involves segregation at source and the

establishment of intermediate facilities such as materials recovery facilities,

which ideally should be established at the barangay (neighborhood) level. It

also provided specific deadlines for closing unsanitary open dumpsites, and

supported properly engineered sanitary landfills as the only sustainable means

of final garbage disposal. However, many of the law’s goals have yet to be

achieved. Cities are still dumping waste on open dumpsites. In 2010, when all

open dumpsites should already have been closed as mandated by the law, 790

were still operating. According to Plaza, cities are still dumping waste on open

dumpsites. In 2010, when all the open dumpsites should have been closed as

mandated by the law, 790 were still operating.

Furthermore, Plaza identified three major obstacles that have

contributed to this failure: the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) attitude;

financing and governance; and the ban on incineration, which has eliminated

a viable alternative to landfilling. The biggest constraint to the establishment

of proper MSW disposal facilities is the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) attitude.

It’s like saying “yes, we need dumpsites, but please put them somewhere else.”

Social perception and assessment exercises have attempted to educate

communities about the difference between materials recovery facilities,

sanitary landfills and open dumpsites. But the common notion of what a
 35

dumpsite looks like is embedded in people’s minds. Making matters worse is

that cities that have welcomed dumping have not been able to present a good

model. Take for instance the (controlled) dumpsite in Payatas, Metro Manila,

where leachate has found to leak through to the Marikina River tributaries. In

2000, an enormous pile of garbage collapsed, killing over 200 people and

injuring hundreds more. A second obstacle is financing and governance. The

investment costs and management burden of a comprehensive MSW

management system are too burdensome for many cities. Local government

units (LGUs) are tasked with enforcement. This includes preparing MSW

management plans and setting up proper facilities. But the law does not cite

specific enforcement actions, and many LGU officials lack management and

technical competency.

Moreover, the 3-year term limits for elected local officials also constrains

them to adequately plan long-term solutions. Finally, investing in such systems

is also very costly, often too much for a single LGU. Attempts at “city-clustered”

initiatives to co-develop and co-finance MSW management projects foundered

when it was time to decide the location of the landfill – again NIMBY prevailed.

Third, the ban on incineration eliminated a viable alternative to landfilling. The

2000 law solely prescribed engineered sanitary landfills as the acceptable

 36

method of final waste disposal, and the 1999 Clean Air Act prohibited

incineration for MSW disposal.

Moreover, the Clean Air Act’s stated goal of curbing greenhouse gas

emissions is actually hindered by banning incineration. Studies have shown

that sanitary landfills with methane recovery systems produce 2-to-3 times

more carbon dioxide equivalent, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide than

incineration-based electricity systems per kWh of power generated. Landfills

without methane capture are much worse, because the escaping methane is

34 times more harmful to the environment than carbon dioxide.

Insights Learned from the Related Literatures

From the literatures stated above, the researchers learned that

managing solid waste well and affordably is one of the key challenges of the

21st century, and one of the key responsibilities of a city government. However,

present times have evolved and people have already moved on from the days

when governments were responsible for all waste management. Now it’s

become something that all should have an interest in as this is something that

can affect our well-being, health and the environment. Most members of the

public are not aware of how serious the matter of waste is. They put their

rubbish in a bin bag and put it outside of their home, not concerned or
 37

interested in what happens next. As long as the dustmen come to pick it up,

it’s out of their hands out of sight out of mind.

Although this was societal norm of days gone by, it’s now come to the

point where the permanent disposal of waste, and the following year is

something that no many are aware of. There is a risk of potential long term

negative consequences to well-being, health and ecology resulting from the

improper waste disposal. Even rubbish that comes out of residential areas is

made up of a multitude of different materials – such as metal can, packaging,

food waste, paper, plastic and other items contain dangerous toxins. It is

important that any toxic chemicals are disposed of properly by specialists so

as to not allow them to interfere with water, air or lands.

Related Studies

Waste Management on Fast Food Chains

Food chains are among the fastest growing businesses today. However,

the large amount of wastes generated by these establishments threatened the

environment and the health condition of the society they serve.

A study by Elmedulan Jr. et., al. on the waste management of fast food

chains in Ozamiz City which determined the waste management practices

adopted by selected fast food chains found that, more than 50% of fast food

chains complied the waste management practices with wastes segregation

 38

(98.3%) as the most practiced. However, inaccurate segregation still persists.

Collection, and inaccurate segregation of wastes were identified as a second

existing problem by 41.7% and 35.0% of the respondents, respectively. Hence,

problems with adherence towards efficient waste management activities still

exist. The results of the study implied that the city waste collectors and the staff

responsible for waste segregation need a thorough knowledge of the

significance of efficient waste disposal practices.

Further studies by Torres (2013) found a tremendous increase in

garbage generation from fast food chains. Garbage crisis in Metro Manila

continues as the volume of solid waste is increasing not only among

households but from commercial establishments such as fast food restaurants.

According to Pio (2014) the recent monitoring of Solid Waste Management

Board (SWMB) in Cebu City found that, some fast food chains were violating

provisions of Republic Act 9003. In the report, non-segregation of garbage,

improper disposal of solid waste and septage, improper handling and disposal

of used cooking oil, gray water treatment and disposal, and non-compliance to

Environmental Sustainability Action Plan (ESAP) ordinance were the violations

committed. The situation prompted the SWMB to conduct an orientation for

some managers on the requirements of food establishments. In Cagayan de

Oro City, Holmer et., al. (2001) suggested that one possible reason for the
 39

increase of solid garbage collected per capita was the higher waste generation

rate from fast food chains.

In addition to studies cited above, Jekanowski et., al. (2001) and Rydel

et., al (2008) suggested that with fast food chains thereby grow rapidly,

expanding their availability and consumption, most individuals would prefer to

eat or buy food at fast food chains because of the speed, accessibility, and

good taste. However, fast food chains generate a large amount of waste that

threatens the environment and the health condition of the society they serve.

Furthermore, Smith (2012) found that, fast food wastes are mostly disposable

materials or according to Aarnio & Hamalainen (2007) packaging materials.

Kuczeruk (2011) identified and estimated components of fast food waste

stream as follows: organic (food waste) (52.5%), paper (33.0%), plastic

(11.6%), metal (1.6%), and glass (0.6%). The combination of disposable or

packaging materials and food wastes contributed primarily to the waste

generated by fast food chains. Cheeseman (2014) also identified that

disposable or packaging materials contributed about 50% of the litter that

increased pollution in the waterways. Poor handling and disposal of waste

cause significant environmental problems by creating breeding grounds for

pathogenic organisms and the spread of infectious disease. Moreover, the

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2012) detailed that food wastes that
 40

decompose in landfills may produce methane, a greenhouse gas, or

breakdown of nutrients that may leach and pollute the ground water and

waterways

Impact of Solid Waste on Health and the Environment

Improper MSW disposal and management causes all types of pollution:

air, soil, and water. Indiscriminate dumping of wastes contaminates surface

and ground water supplies. In urban areas, MSW clogs drains, creating

stagnant water for insect breeding and floods during rainy seasons.

Uncontrolled burning of MSW and improper incineration contributes

significantly to urban air pollution. Greenhouse gases are generated from the

decomposition of organic wastes in landfills, and untreated leachate pollutes

surrounding soil and water bodies. Health and safety issues also arise from

improper MSWM. Insect and rodent vectors are attracted to the waste and can

spread diseases such as cholera and dengue fever. Using water polluted by

MSW for bathing, food irrigation and drinking water an also expose individuals

to disease organisms and other contaminants.

The study of Alam and Ahmade (2013) on the impact of solid waste on

health and the environment found that, there are potential risks to environment

and health from improper handling of solid wastes. Direct health risks concern

mainly the workers in this field, who need to be protected, as far as possible,
 41

from contact with wastes. There are also specific risks in handling wastes from

hospitals and clinics. For the public, the main risks to health are indirect and

arise from the breeding of disease vectors, primarily flies and rats.

Furthermore, uncontrolled hazardous wastes from industries mixing up with

municipal wastes create potential risks to human health. There is specific

danger of concentration of heavy metals in the food chain, a problem that

illustrates the relationship between municipal solid wastes and liquid

industrial effluents containing heavy metals discharged to a

drainage/sewerage system and /or open dumping sites of municipal solid

wastes and the wastes discharged thereby maintains a vicious cycle.

Moreover, decomposition of waste into constituent chemicals is a

common source of local environmental pollution. This problem is especially

acute in developing nations. Very few existing landfills in the world’s poorest

countries would meet environmental standards accepted in industrialized

nations, and with limited budgets there are likely to be few sites rigorously

evaluated prior to use in the future. The problem is again compounded by the

issues associated with rapid urbanization. A major environmental concern is

gas release by decomposing garbage. Methane is a by-product of the

anaerobic respiration of bacteria, and these bacteria thrive in landfills with

high amounts of moisture. A second problem with these gasses is their

 42

contribution to the enhanced greenhouse gas effect and climate change. Liquid

leachate management varies throughout the landfills of the developing world.

Leachate poses a threat to local surface and ground water systems. The use

of dense clay deposits at the bottom of waste pits, coupled with plastic

sheeting-type liners to prevent infiltration into the surrounding soil, is

generally regarded as the optimum strategy to contain excess liquid. In this

way, waste is encouraged to evaporate rather than infiltrate.

The Garbage Book: Dangers of Dumpsites

A study by the Asian Development Bank on Metro Manila reported that,

of the estimated 6,700 tons generated per day, approximately 720 tons per day

is recycled or composted. The balance—some 6,000 tons daily—is either

hauled to the city’s dump sites, dumped illegally on private land, in rivers,

creeks, Manila Bay, or openly burned, adding to the heavily polluted air shed.

Thousands of scavengers and waste pickers live and survive on this waste,

eking out a harsh existence on mountains of smoldering waste. Some are

children as young as 5 years old. Taking into account their families, the

hundreds of junk shops and their workers, the thousands of eco-aides, the

thousands of garbage trucks and their crews, and the tens of thousands of

slum dwellers living on, around, and near the dump sites, an estimated 150,000
 43

residents of Metro Manila know the sight and smell of garbage as an integral

part of their daily lives.

The severity of Metro Manila’s garbage crisis is illustrated by the Payatas

dump site tragedy. In July 2000, after a weekend of heavy rain, a mountain of

garbage collapsed, burying hundreds of homes. Later, due to a dangerous mix

of methane gas and downed electrical utility poles, fires spread across the

dump site. In December 2000, the site was “permanently closed,” with plans to

fast-track a new sanitary landfill project. A crisis in collection ensued, with

mountains of garbage left uncollected throughout the metropolis. Over time,

without any alternatives in place, dumping at Payatas has resumed. Dump

sites are dangerous, exposed, and generate potentially toxic liquids called

“leachate.” As these toxins flow along the surface and seep into the earth, they

risk poisoning the surface and groundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic

life, and the environment. Waste fires at these sites are common, which send

plumes of toxic emissions into the air. Other sites are critically unstable,

presenting the possibility of another deadly garbage slide.

Despite the promotion of waste segregation and collection at source,

adoption has been at a very slow pace. Efforts must be dramatically scaled up

to have any effect on the unceasing wave of garbage generated by Metro

Manila. The not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) phenomenon is hard at work in Metro

 44

Manila. Despite numerous efforts, no community has been willing to take Metro

Manila’s garbage. Medical waste management presents another challenge.

Nearly 3,700 health care facilities in Metro Manila generate an estimated 47

tons of medical waste per day, with 56% of this waste, or 26 tons, considered

potentially infectious. A significant proportion of this dangerous waste finds its

way into the municipal waste stream, and is handled by people who are poorly

equipped and trained, exposing them to infections and other health hazards.

The problem of medical waste disposal is further exacerbated by the mandated

closure of medical waste incinerators in hospitals in Metro Manila, as required

by the Clean Air Act. No alternative is in place.

Knowledge, Attitude and Practices in SWM in Schools

Developments arising from and together with the advent of change have

led to rapid consequences often at high social and environmental costs. One

of these major consequences that have led to a serious problem that affected

both the general public and the environment, as a result of concentrated

activities by the population, industries, businesses, and institutions, is solid

waste, particularly on the aspect of its proper management.

The Philippines faces the same problem in terms of increasing solid

waste generation as a result of urbanization. Every day, a staggering 10, 000

tons of solid wastes are generated countrywide with about 50% accounted to
 45

the Metro Manila area. Unfortunately, according to Calica (2009) the

Philippines has one of the highest amount of solid waste generated in the world

yet, still has no sustainable and effective waste disposal facility. The need for

dumping sites for these wastes is becoming more and more of a problem than

a challenge in the country for it does not only pose a serious resource

exploitation but there is opportunity cost at stake whether to choose sacrificing

lands for dump site conversion or to risk the populations health and living at

stake with the increasing danger of undisposed garbage.

Apparently, according to Imagine Echo Projects Waste (2008) most

landfills and garbage dumpsites filled up very fast. As such, there is a great

danger that the country may run out of proper dumpsites and waste facilities

that will ultimately lead to further environmental and human hazards.

Nationally, these serious issues behind solid waste management have led to

the call for various legislations to counter the increasing problem. In response,

the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (ESWM) also known as Republic

Act 9003 (R.A. 9003) was enacted in 2000 in order to address the need for a

law to cover the deleterious upshot of solid waste.

The study by Pecajas and Ramos (2016) aimed to assess the

knowledge, attitudes and practices of solid waste management of secondary

schools in the division of Leyte. Majority of the respondents were in the age
 46

range 21 years old and below, more than half were females and single and

greater bulk of the respondents were secondary level. In terms of knowledge

in solid waste management, majority of the respondents stored their waste in

the containers with covers, in waste processing point out that waste

minimization got the highest rank. Open burning is the most common method

in use for disposing waste in terms of waste paper/cartoon materials. The

respondents’ attitude in solid waste management mostly “Agree” which means

that they have positive attitudes and they are willing to follow the rules and

policy in school. Meanwhile, the solid waste management practices are

moderately and fairly practiced by the respondents which need more

supervision by the school administrators. The educational attainment was

significantly related to the waste storage and disposal of the knowledge in solid

waste management.

Insights Learned from Related Studies

The researchers have learned that solid waste management is not just

the responsibility of the government or our top local leaders. We are all in a

position to make a difference in our communities. By taking interest in change,

we could be making the first step in saving, not just the environment, but a lot

of people’s lives in our community as well. Managing our solid waste is no

longer a matter of choice; RA 9003 mandates it.

 47

At the start, the process may take some learning. But once people begin

making proper garbage segregation a habit, over time, it becomes a way of

life. Furthermore, the best way to roll out a solid waste management program

in our community is to start small and simple. Some communities have

successfully run a solid waste management program at minimal cost and

maximum benefit. All it took really was the willingness to do it and the patience

and discipline to get it done. In the end, we will end up with a clean community,

with substantial cost savings from hauling waste. By doing so, we will also be

doing the environment a big favor.