1. University of the Philippines, Open University, Laguna, Philippines; jessontrivera@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: jessontrivera@gmail.com

Keywords: household hazardous waste, waste management, Quezon City

1. INTRODUCTION

Toxic substances are widespread in contemporary society, existing not only in the commercial and industrial domains but also in residential areas. On a global scale, both naturally occurring and artificially produced chemicals have a role in our daily existence. Chemicals are used to make cleaning products, furniture, clothing, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, and electronics like computers, TVs, and cellphones. Chemicals are in almost everything. These goods usually benefit humans when used properly. These hazardous products become household hazardous waste when no longer needed. Household hazardous waste (HHW) is no longer needed or used hazardous materials. These substances can be toxic, flammable, corrosive, reactive, explosive, or radioactive.  Multiple dangers exist in some hazardous goods. Corrosive compounds destroy metal surfaces and living tissues by chemically altering them. Corrosive substances can be acidic or caustic, with a pH below 2 or above 12.5. High instability makes reactive compounds easily interact with their surroundings. These explosives can emit foul odours. Sparks or flames at certain temperatures ignite combustible materials. Harmful compounds cause immediate and long-term health problems. Exposure to hazardous substances can lead to harm, sickness, or fatality. (Edokpay J., et al, 2017). Household hazardous wastes that are thrown in the garbage have the potential to burn or explode within the collection truck. Garbage collectors are at risk of being harmed by noxious fumes and hazardous substances that may splash on them. Leachate originating from garbage in landfills contaminates the soil, surface water, and underground water aquifers. Disposing of household hazardous waste in sewers could potentially contaminate drinking water. This could result in the majority of untreated garbage being discharged into the land and then infiltrating the groundwater. Sewage treatment systems, including septic systems, can become contaminated due to incorrect disposal of household hazardous waste (HHW). (Odiyo, J. et al., 2016). On the other hand, enforcement and regulation of hazardous waste management in the household level is under the functional jurisdiction of the Local Government Unit (LGU) as defined in Republic Act No. 7160 “ Local Government Code of the Philippines” thru function devolution. The existing law that supports the management of household hazardous waste is Republic Act No. 9003 “Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000”. HHW, as stipulated by legislation, refers to specific types of waste including paints, solvents, home batteries, lead acid batteries, spray canisters, and similar items. Typically, these wastes are segregated from other types of household and commercial garbage for proper management. However, it seems that these type of wastes are being disregarded in spite of its environmental and human health risks . Furthermore, there is no concrete management method and system in the Philippines to adopt proper HHW disposal practices. In Quezon City, HHW’s are usually stored in bins, plastics or cartons along with other waste in individual’s homes and later deposited into the public area on the street-side for collection of City LGU garbage collector. There are no separate facilities for collecting HHW because the established Material Recovery Facility for proper storage is not functioning as intended.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

HHW is residential hazardous waste that enters the municipal trash system. Hazardous waste is grouped together under the term (Slack, Gronow and Voulvoulis, 2008a). It contains small amounts of potentially hazardous materials a household or small business wants to dispose of. Most households are overloaded with hazardous chemicals that release volatile gases and other odors into indoor air. Several household chemicals contain harmful waste components found at trash dumps. The production of household goods uses over 70,000 chemicals (Connell, Lam Richardson, and Wu, 1999). Global trash disposal and management issues are widespread. In most countries, inadequate, outdated, and illegal urban and hazardous waste disposal harms local communities.  Illicit cross-border trade, mostly from industrialized nations, is included. Trash-related diseases in middle-low income countries are rising and underreported. It may not be obvious, but certain types of household hazardous waste can harm sanitation workers, contaminate wastewater treatment systems when dumped into drains or toilets, and endanger children and pets if left unattended. Home chemicals pose the greatest risk of accidental poisoning to children. Over 11,000 calls to the Washington Poison Center in 2004 were about unintentionally poisoned children under 6. They worked mostly with household cleaners, antimicrobials, deodorizers, cosmetics, paints, pesticides, fertilizers, and automotive products. Over 30% of Poison Center calls involve adults. This age group has more fatalities and severe injuries. DAO 2013-22 classifies special or household hazardous waste as M507. The Environmental Management Bureau (EMB)-National Capital Region’s 2018 Self-Monitoring Report (SMR) found that 1,427 establishments (average) in Metro Manila generated 7,939,772 Metric Tons of hazardous waste, 0.4% of which was special waste (M507) of 1,513.24 Metric Tons. However, Metro Manila lacks baseline data on household hazardous waste. Generation varies by city and town. However, the researcher calculated Metro Manila’s special waste percentage using EMB-NCR data from 2018 Solid Waste Management Implementation Updates and 10-year SWMPs of each City and Municipality. Metro Manila generated 3,388,609.265 Metric Tons of solid waste from 16 cities and municipalities, 9.5% of which was special waste (321,917.9 Metric Tons). The data shows that residential areas generate more special waste than businesses. The National Government monitors business waste to ensure it is managed according to the IRR of RA 6969, even if it is small. Despite high volume generation in residential areas, the City Government has no concrete management plan to address this issue. Due to the lack of Household Hazardous Waste programs and management systems, these special wastes from residential areas are not properly managed, which is alarming.  All environmental awareness studies agree that solid and hazardous waste management is inadequate. Population growth increases waste and decreases dumping land, causing disposal crises in many cities (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1993). A person concerned about his life and children must manage the environment. Sajisie (1971) added that these values must be integrated into school programmes because education is a pervasive medium that can develop knowledge and instill good values, attitudes, and behaviour towards environmental use and conservation. The Philippines’ environmental education must consider human and environmental degradation’s history and educational system flaws (Desoloc, 2003). In 1995, Perez examined the environmental knowledge, values, attitudes, and behaviour of University of the Philippines senior college students and faculty. The respondents’ “agreement” with the whole issue showed that they knew the causes of ecological/environmental issues, but their “slight agreement” with the questionnaire indicator issues showed that they didn’t know the effects. The respondents’ awareness was only at the “information level”—they knew the problems existed but had done little to fix them. In poor countries, hazardous waste management programs are unstructured. Mmereki highlights the government’s inefficiency in collecting and managing garbage and mitigating its effects. He says hazardous waste treatment and disposal laws are inadequate. Hazardous waste management rules are poorly implemented due to government department and local authority divisions (Mmereki, 2016). The Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers (ALRM) targeted commercial, industrial, and government building owners and managers to divert lamps from municipal solid waste landfills. Improve spent lamp mercury management was the goal. The goal was to inform the right people to increase compulsory and voluntary recycling. The ALRM Lamp Recycling Outreach Program has created educational materials and a nationwide outreach and implementation strategy. Contacting groups that can affect lamp disposal is part of this. Posted a lamp recycling PSA and contributed to the EPA’s website. Released a CD-ROM on November 4th to educate users, contractors, waste handlers, and others on lamp disposal rules, issues, and responsibilities. After providing community assistance, several towns, nations, and local groups have sought our help with infrastructure development, recycler access, collecting system setup, and lamp recycling information. We held nationwide meetings and seminars in response. US Environmental Protection Agency (2003). This project is the first step in managing hazardous waste like mercury-containing fluorescent bulbs. This initiative aimed to increase national recycling by raising environmental awareness. An education and communication program is being implemented to reduce mercury exposure and ensure environmentally responsible handling and disposal of mercury-containing products. Thus, understanding people’s environmental awareness and attitudes is crucial to assessing their environmental management. These factors must be considered, so this study will measure Quezon City respondents’ awareness.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was used descriptive- correlational method of research to gather relevant information about the awareness (consciousness or knowledge), attitude (way of thinking, believing, and feeling), and practices (application or use of knowledge or belief). It is both qualitative and quantitative research design. A quantitative research method was used in gathering data for the profile of the respondents and their generated type of hazardous wastes. On the other hand, to determine the existing practices/ management of household hazardous waste in the study area and to identify the problems associated with it, the qualitative research method was used. The study has been consisted on the survey that done in Quezon City, the biggest city in Metropolitan Manila, Philippines .The city has a land area of 161.126 square kilometers or 16,112.8 hectares. It is situated in the central part of Metro Manila, namely in the northeastern section. However, due to the large area of the city, this study is designed to focus on the three (3) barangays: Bagong Pag-asa, Sto. Cristo and Ramon Magsaysay. These barangays were selected for comparative analysis of HHW management practices on the three urban barangays. Furthermore, the differences in population size from large, medium and  small based on the 2015 Philippine Statistic Authority (PSA) data is considered as significant to the study. Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa which recorded a large population of 32, 267 and Ramon Magsaysay with 16, 281 and Brgy. Sto. Cristo with 10, 392 have been chosen as study sites.

Figure 01: Map of the selected three (3) Barangays of Quezon City

 

An interview together with personal observation of household waste management practice was conducted to support the findings and results of the administered questionnaires. Furthermore, ocular inspection in the community and its surroundings was also conducted including the Material Recovery Facilities (MRF’s), to get first-hand information on how the whole household hazardous waste (HHW) management is practiced, from the household collection to disposal. The study used stratified random sampling to determine the respondents of the study. A total of 90 households/ respondents were selected from three (3) barangays of Quezon City. In determining the sample size of the respondents, quota sampling was used. The household heads or any adult members of each household served as the respondents of this study. Quota sampling was applied to improve the representation of particular groups within the population to ensure that groups are not over represented. Furthermore, considering that three barangays were identified in this research, the researcher set a quota of N=30 respondents per barangay to ensure the equal representation. The samples size are specified in Table 3.1:

Table 01: No of samples per barangay

Barangay	Sample
Pag-asa	30
Sto. Cristo	30
Ramon Magsaysay	30
Total	90

3.1 Statistical Treatment

Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages, weighted mean and chi-square test were used to analyze, tally and tabulate the data obtained from the respondents.

For percentage formula is:

P= F/ NX100

Where:

P =  percentage

F = frequency

N = number of respondents 100 = constant

For weighted mean, the formula is: X =

Where,

X= weighted mean

Ʃ = summation

N= number of respondents

To test the relationship between the dependent and independent variables, the Chi-square Test was used, using the following formula:

Where,

X2 = chi-square

Ʃ = summation

O = observed frequency

E = expected frequency

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 01 presents the profile of the respondents. These are tabulated and computed according to their age, sex, civil status, monthly income, educational attainment, type of building, house ownership, household members and seminar attendance.

Table 01: Profile of the Respondents

PROFILE	Frequency	Percentage
Age 30 yrs. old and below 31 yrs. old and above	22 68	24.44 75.56
Sex Male Female	48 42	53.33 46.67
Civil Status Single Married Separated Widow/er Live-in	20 40 4 6 20	22.22 44.44 4.44 6.66 22.22
Monthly Income Php.10,000 and below Php. 10,001 to Php. 20,000 Php. 20,001 to Php. 30,000 Php. 30,000 above	27 35 19 9	30 38.89 21.11 10
Educational Attainment Elementary Level Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational College Level College Graduate Post Graduate	3 4 6 12 10 26 25 4	3.33 4.44 6.67 13.33 11.11 28.89 27.78 4.44
Type of Building Multiple Room Multiple Storey 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms Bungalow Apartment	3 4 14 7 14 48	3.33 4.44 15.56 7.78 15.56 53.33
House Ownership Owned Rental	25 65	27.78 72.22
Household Size One Two Three-Four Five or more	6 13 32 39	6.67 14.45 35.56 43.33
Seminar Attendance Attended Did not attend	14 76	15.56 84.44

Age is important for understanding respondents’ views on specific issues. It indicates maturity, so it is considered an environmental variable in this study. Age distribution was divided into two main categories: youth (30 years old and younger) and adult (31 years old and older). It is noted in Table 01 that out of 90 respondents in the three barangays, sixty eight (68) or majority of the respondents are 31 years old and above. This means most respondents are household heads and wage earners. Thus, household hazardous waste management falls to them. Beltz (2005) states that social, environmental, and economic factors affect sex in Indian society. This study found that 53% of Filipinos are male and 47% are female. Figures are nearly equal here. This means both sexes are almost equally responsible for household hazardous waste management.  Marital (civil) status can also affect respondents’ opinions. People think married people are more responsible and mature about life. Data shows that forty four percent (44%) are married while the respondents under separated or widow/er are extremely minimal (6.66%). This implies that most respondents are civilly mature and ready to responsibly handle household hazardous waste. Income affects an individual’s economic situation, which can help them pay for household waste removal. Many respondents (39%) earn between Php. 10,001 and Php. 20,000 per month, while 21% earn between Php. 20,001 and Php. 30,000. Thirty percent earn less than Php. 10,000 per month, while ten percent earn more than Php. 30,000. If lumped according to affordability, only thirty-one percent (31%) seems capable of handling expenses r e l a t e d to h o u s e h o l d hazardous expenses related to household hazardous waste. They may not prioritize waste management spending, making 69% problematic. Education also affects a person’s knowledge and perspective on social and environmental issues. The data shows that 28.89% of respondents have attended college, followed by 28% who have graduated. This indicates that many respondents are highly educated. This knowledge can help households manage waste properly. This should be combined with a positive attitude and legal compliance to promote good practice. The Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera theory applies here. Building type indicates household management. This may affect waste management. Table 01 shows that 53.33% of respondents live in apartments and 3.33% in multi-room homes. Note that these two housing types require different management systems. Philippine Statistic Industry Classification classifies rented apartments as “Real Estate Type” businesses. Commercial waste management is usually handled by landlords or building owners. While the other type of building, utilized purely as residence and not for business purposes are under the Local Government Unit management. There is need to review whether the apartment-type of building is complying with the IRR of RA 6969 and since many residents of the three barangays belong to this category, the areas should be monitored under the jurisdiction of EMB. However, home ownership is a status symbol in our culture. A home owner’s confidence in understanding and solving problems may increase. Ownership of a home can affect how someone handles waste, so it’s important to study. Table 01 shows that 72.22% of respondents rent apartments and very few own homes. This supports previous findings that most respondents are contract renters. In apartment units, household hazardous waste is collected by the building owner’s housekeeping staff, while respondents who own their own homes dispose of it through the City garbage collector. This study found that 88% of respondents had 3 to 5 family, relative, or friend members in their household. These households can generate a lot of waste, especially hazardous waste. This study also considers seminar attendance. Seminar attendees are expected to be better, more motivated, and ready to apply their knowledge. The majority (84.44%) of respondents have not attended a hazardous waste management seminar in their barangays. They may not understand hazardous waste management issues because they were not exposed to them.

4.2      Household Hazardous Waste Generation

The problem of HHW has reached an alarming proportion and requires management attention now because of its potential threat to public health and environment. There are several issues that need to be considered, but it is very important to assess first the type of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) generated in the household level to provide baseline data in a planning process and in establishing a HHW management system. Thus, the researcher looked into the type of HHW generated per household. The results were ranked according to the frequency generated in the three barangays based on the respondents’ response to the questionnaire presented in Table 02

Table 02: Type of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Generated by the Respondents

Type of HHW	Frequency	Percentage	Ranked
Busted Fluorescent Bulb	74	82.22	1st
Spray Canister	57	63.33	2nd
Electronic Waste	57	63.33
Used Cooking Oil	46	51.11	3rd
HH Batteries	42	46.67	4th
Paints	28	31.11	5th
Grease Trap Waste	25	27.78	6th
Expired Medicine	17	18.87	7th

Age is important for understanding respondents’ views on specific issues. It indicates maturity, so it is considered an environmental variable in this study. Age distribution was divided into two main categories: youth (30 years old and younger) and adult (31 years old and older). It is noted in Table 01 that out of 90 respondents in the three barangays, sixty eight (68) or majority of the respondents are 31 years old and above. This means most respondents are household heads and wage earners. Thus, household hazardous waste management falls to them. Beltz (2005) states that social, environmental, and economic factors affect sex in Indian society. This study found that 53% of Filipinos are male and 47% are female. Figures are nearly equal here. This means both sexes are almost equally responsible for household hazardous waste management.  Marital (civil) status can also affect respondents’ opinions. People think married people are more responsible and mature about life. Data shows that forty four percent (44%) are married while the respondents under separated or widow/er are extremely minimal (6.66%). This implies that most respondents are civilly mature and ready to responsibly handle household hazardous waste. Income affects an individual’s economic situation, which can help them pay for household waste removal. Many respondents (39%) earn between Php. 10,001 and Php. 20,000 per month, while 21% earn between Php. 20,001 and Php. 30,000. Thirty percent earn less than Php. 10,000 per month, while ten percent earn more than Php. 30,000. If lumped according to affordability, only thirty-one percent (31%) seems capable of handling expenses r e l a t e d to h o u s e h o l d hazardous expenses related to household hazardous waste. They may not prioritize waste management spending, making 69% problematic. Education also affects a person’s knowledge and perspective on social and environmental issues. The data shows that 28.89% of respondents have attended college, followed by 28% who have graduated. This indicates that many respondents are highly educated. This knowledge can help households manage waste properly. This should be combined with a positive attitude and legal compliance to promote good practice. The Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera theory applies here. Building type indicates household management. This may affect waste management. Table 01 shows that 53.33% of respondents live in apartments and 3.33% in multi-room homes. Note that these two housing types require different management systems. Philippine Statistic Industry Classification classifies rented apartments as “Real Estate Type” businesses. Commercial waste management is usually handled by landlords or building owners. While the other type of building, utilized purely as residence and not for business purposes are under the Local Government Unit management. There is need to review whether the apartment-type of building is complying with the IRR of RA 6969 and since many residents of the three barangays belong to this category, the areas should be monitored under the jurisdiction of EMB. However, home ownership is a status symbol in our culture. A home owner’s confidence in understanding and solving problems may increase. Ownership of a home can affect how someone handles waste, so it’s important to study. Table 01 shows that 72.22% of respondents rent apartments and very few own homes. This supports previous findings that most respondents are contract renters. In apartment units, household hazardous waste is collected by the building owner’s housekeeping staff, while respondents who own their own homes dispose of it through the City garbage collector. This study found that 88% of respondents had 3 to 5 family, relative, or friend members in their household. These households can generate a lot of waste, especially hazardous waste. This study also considers seminar attendance. Seminar attendees are expected to be better, more motivated, and ready to apply their knowledge. The majority (84.44%) of respondents have not attended a hazardous waste management seminar in their barangays. They may not understand hazardous waste management issues because they were not exposed to them.

4.3      Level of Awareness of the Respondents on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)

To generate information on the level of awareness of household hazardous waste, a Likert-type scale type of questionnaire was used with the following values and interpretation.

Verbal Description	Points	Weighted Mean
Extremely Aware	5	4.5-5.0
Aware	4	3.5-4.4
Moderately Aware	3	2.5-3.4
Slightly Aware	2	1.5-2.4
Not Aware	1	1.0-1.4

Furthermore, levels of awareness were interpreted and measured into three categories: High, Average and Low with a weighted mean of 3.4- 5, 1.7- 3.3 and 1.0- 1.6, respectively. Percentage distribution of the respondents’ awareness on household hazardous waste is presented in Table 03.

 Table 03: Respondents’ Level of Awareness on Household Hazardous Waste

Indicator	WM	VI	Level of Awareness
1. I am aware of Republic Act 6969 “Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste Nuclear Control Act of 1990”	3.28	A	Average
2. I am aware that “special wastes” described in RA 9003 “Ecological Solid Waste Management of 2003” is considered as hazardous waste.	3.01	MA	Average
3. I am aware that any waste materials that have characterized as corrosive reactive, flammable, and toxic or one of these are considered as hazardous waste.	2.42	SLA	Average
4. I am aware that hazardous wastes shall be handled separately from other non-hazardous wastes.	3.83	A	High
5. I am aware that hazardous waste has substantial or potential threats to public health.	3.67	A	High
6. I am aware that hazardous waste has substantial or potential threats to public environment.	3.68	A	High
7. I am aware that the Barangay has an existing Material Recovery Facility (MRF).	3.68	A	High
8. I am aware that one of the functions of Barangay Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is to temporarily store the household hazardous waste until it collected by the City contracted hazardous waste collector/ transporter.	3.04	MA	Average
9. I am aware that hazardous wastes shall undergo treatment process prior to disposal.	2.28	SLA	Average
10. I am aware that penalty will be imposed to those who improperly dispose of hazardous wastes	3.99	A	High
11. I am aware the rule of thumb in RA 6969 that “we, the generators have the responsibility until waste has been disposed of properly in an environmentally sound way or liable in case of spill or illegal disposal.	2.64	MA	Average
Weighted Mean	3.22	MA	Average

Legend:

• WM: Weighted Mean
• VI: Verbal Interpretation
• MA: Moderately Aware
• SLA: Slightly Aware

Overall, respondents’ awareness of household hazardous waste is average, with a weighted mean of 3.2. This implies that respondents of Barangays Ramon Magsaysay, Sto. Cristo and Bagong Pag-asa are not fully aware on the concepts of household hazardous waste cited in Table 03. Researchers interviewed the selected respondents and found hazardous waste issues unfamiliar. In the study of Phil-Eze et.al in Enugu Metropolis, finding revealed that the level of awareness of the respondents on HHW is low, a little advantage of this study in Quezon City that they got an average level of awareness. This shows that household hazardous waste awareness is a problem in the Philippines and elsewhere. Thus, public education about hazardous waste is necessary. It can be noted in Table 03 that the respondents have high level of awareness on the concept of “I am aware that penalty will be imposed on those who improperly dispose of hazardous wastes” with a weighted mean of 3.99 which is within the value interpretation of 3.4 to 5.0 weighted mean . Of the 90 respondents from the three barangays, 35.56% signified that they are “extremely aware”; also 35.56% answered “aware”, 22.22% indicated “moderately aware”; 6.67% signified that they are “slightly aware”; and nobody answered “not aware”. It is generally observed that when people are made to pay fines or penalties, they usually follow the regulations. So this practice can be positively harnessed to discipline the public about the importance of the law. On the other hand, respondents are slightly aware on the concept of “I am aware that hazardous wastes should undergo treatment process prior to disposal” with a weighted mean of 2.28 which is within the value interpretation of 1.7 to 3.3 weighted mean. Of the 90 respondents from the three barangays, 8.89% signified that they are “extremely aware”; 7.78% answered “aware”, 24.44% indicated “moderately aware”; 20% signified that they are “slightly aware”; and 38.89% answered “not aware”. Because this process sounds new to everybody, unless they undergone training about hazardous waste management. The need to treat hazardous waste properly is not a familiar concept to the Filipino people. That is why IEC on this issue is important.

4.4      Attitude on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) of the Respondents

To generate information on the level of respondents’ attitudes on household hazardous waste, a Likert-type scale type of questionnaire was used with the following values and interpretation.

Verbal Description	Points	Weighted Mean
Strongly Agree	3	2.1- 3.0
Agree	2	1.1- 2.0
Disagree	1	1.0

 Table 04: Attitude of the Respondents

Indicator	WM	VI
1. Do you think strict implementation of RA 6969 and RA 9003 are important to address the household hazardous waste problem?	2.71	Strongly Agree
2. Do you think self-discipline towards environment is important factor to address the household hazardous waste problem?	2.89	Strongly Agree
3. Do you think household hazardous waste disposal management is a responsibility of the Local Government Unit?	2.46	Strongly Agree
4. Do you think that you have a role to minimize the household hazardous waste generation?	2.21	Strongly Agree
5. Do you think schools should provide environmental education including HHW Management in the Primary and Secondary Level?	2.89	Strongly Agree
6. Do you think strict implementation of RA 6969 and RA 9003 is important to address the household hazardous waste problem?	2.79	Strongly Agree
7. Are you willing to be a member of any Environmental Organization?	2.92	Strongly Agree
8. Are you willing to participate/ cooperate with any of the barangay activities that will support household hazardous waste management?	2.67	Strongly Agree
9. Are you willing to bring/store your hazardous waste into the Material Recovery Facility?	2.56	Strongly Agree
10. Are you willing to pay household hazardous waste collection fees, if any?	2.21	Strongly Agree
Weighted Average	2.63	Strongly Agree

Table 04 shows that out of 10 questions cited in the survey questionnaire describing the respondents’ attitudes towards household hazardous waste, 73.33% answered strongly agreed, 15.56% answered agreed, whereas only 11.11% answered disagreed with all the statements cited in the questionnaire, with a weighted mean of 2.63. This explains that almost seventy-five percent (75%) of the respondents have a positive way of thinking, feeling and believing in household hazardous waste management. Therefore, it would not be difficult to encourage them to think that they have an important role in the success of the implementation of household hazardous waste, so that they will use and apply this thought and belief into good action.

4.5      Household Hazardous Waste Management Practices of the Respondents

Both primary and secondary data was used to gather information on household hazardous waste management practices of the respondents. Ten (10) questions were cited in the survey questionnaire that would described the management practices of the respondents. Answers to the questions were either “Yes” or “No” and measured/ interpreted between “Good” practices and “Poor” practices, respectively. Likewise, site inspection and interviews were employed to assess the actual household hazardous waste management system of the three barangays in terms of handling, storage, treatment and disposal of HHW. Percentage distribution of the respondents’ practices and management on HHW is presented in Table 05

Table: 05: Respondents’ Practices and Management on Household Hazardous Waste.

Statement/ Practices	Overall
	Yes	No
1. Do you segregate your waste from hazardous to non-hazardous prior to its collection?	29	61
2. Do you have separate storage area for your household hazardous wastes (i.e. battery, BFL, canister, electronic wastes, and etc.)?	13	77
3. Do you store your household hazardous wastes in the provided Material Recovery Facility (MRF) of the Barangay?	20	70
4. Do you dispose your household hazardous waste separately from non-hazardous wastes?	22	68
5. Is there a separate collection schedule for household hazardous wastes?	20	70
6. Does LGU conduct public enlightenment campaigns re: household hazardous waste management?	41	49
7. Does LGU collect your wastes segregated?	31	59
8. Do you sell your household hazardous waste directly to the junk shop dealer or informal collectors?	30	60
9. Do you recycle your household hazardous wastes?	9	81
10. Is there a time that your household hazardous waste is collected/treated by an accredited DENR Transporter?	9	81
Average Mean	22.4	67.6
Percentage	24.89%	75.11%
Verbal Interpretation	Poor

Table 05 shows that out of 10 questions cited in the survey questionnaire that would described the respondents’ management practices towards household hazardous waste, 75.11% answered no while only 24.89% answered yes. It means that majority of the respondents are not actually practicing proper household hazardous waste management in terms of handling/ storage, collection/ transport, treatment and disposal. Therefore, the existing household hazardous waste management in Quezon City is generally poor. This is explained further in the following sections.

4.5.2   Actual Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Practices of the Respondents

Site observation and interviews were done to come up with this diagram. Presented in figure 4.5.2 are the actual practices of the respondents according to type of household hazardous waste in terms of handling, storage, transport, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste.

Figure 4.5.2: Diagram Showing Respondents’ Actual Household Hazardous Waste Practices Based on Site Observation and Interview

4.6 Handling/ Storage

According to respondents and observations, most Quezon City residents lack proper storage in their homes. Hazardous and non-hazardous waste are not properly separated. Though Barangays have Material Recovery Facilities/Systems for temporary household storage, Hazardous waste, but few respondents bring it into such facilities. It also found that only Sto. Cristo and Ramon Magsaysay have Material Recovery Facilities. However, Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa has MRS. Mr. Leopoldo Lagradante, SW Clean & Green Department Head of Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa, said an MRF was established in 2016 but dismantled due to renovations to meet construction design standards. Unfortunately, the barangay lacks lot space for such construction. Thus, its Material Recovery System is temporarily active. Despite having an MRF/MRS for temporary storage, none of the three barangays store hazardous waste. Thus, the MRF/MRS are not working. Similarly, these three barangays lack proper household hazardous waste handling, management, and storage.

4.7 Collection/ Transport

Local governments usually collect household hazardous waste and special waste. There is no City-established household hazardous waste collection system to continuously collect HHW by an accredited DENR Transporter. The study found poor HHW collection and management in three barangays. Since the collection/transport process varies by household hazardous waste type, respondents’ practices are listed below: According to interview responses, hazardous waste is handled and transported by putting used cooking oil back into its plastic container or bottle until a private peddler or informal collector collects it. During the interview, all three barangay officials said they do not follow the DENR-accredited transporter rule for used oil. It shows that The collection process violates RA 6969 through DAO 2013-22. Most households in the three barangays sell their electronics to junk shops or informal collectors like waste pickers and rubbish collectors. Electronic waste is sold to junk stores, which sell to manufacturers or informal recyclers. There are two junk shops in the area: Kapatid in Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa and A.L.L. in Ramon Magsaysay and Sto. Cristo. TSD facilities, category D for storage and E for recycling, should be regulated under Republic Act 6969. According to their interview responses, both have no Department of Environment and Natural Resources permit or registration certificate. DENR-Environmental Management Bureau, National Capital Region, verified this. Thus, RA 6969 and Presidential Decree 1586 (Philippine Environmental Impact Statement) do not permit this junk shop. The respondents usually store busted fluorescent lamps, household batteries, spray canisters, and expired medicine in bins, plastics, or cartons with other municipal non-hazardous waste in their homes and then deposit them on the street side for Quezon City LGU garbage collector collection. It shows that hazardous wastes are not collected separately. According to the consistent responses of barangay officials from the three barangays, Dolomatrix Philippines, Inc., a DENR-accredited treater/transporter, collected household busted fluorescent lamps and batteries in 2015. The Quezon City LGU Environmental Protection and Waste Management Department verified this statement. Mr. Romano C. Rios, Chief of Special Cleaning Section, said this was done in accordance with Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1483, S-2005, “An ordinance requiring all residents and business establishments in Quezon City to segregate spent household batteries and fluorescent light bulbs from common garbage to eliminate mercury exposure.” hazardous waste”. According to the 2015 Accomplishment Report of EPWMD’s Special Cleaning Section, Dolomatrix collected 1,236 busted fluorescent bulbs in Bagong Pag-asa, 1,224 in Sto. Cristo, and 744 in Ramon Magsaysay, but no household batteries. Thus, the event occurred once and ended. Additionally, Mr. Rios admitted that addressing household hazardous waste requires a lot of money, effort, and community and barangay official cooperation. However, the Local Government Unit has been working with Barangay LGUs to continue this project. Quezon City LGU is obtaining DENR and other permits. No collection system exists for these wastes. These are dumped directly into the drainage system. Since most houses lack grease traps below the sink.

4.7 Treatment and Disposal

The Local Government Unit usually treats and disposes of household hazardous waste or special waste. Third-party Treaters or TSD Facilities accredited by DENR-EMB can do this. The City has not established a proper disposal method/system for household hazardous waste. As explained below, Quezon City’s HHW practices and management are poor: Residents pour used oil into the sink and it goes to the municipal drainage system. Over time, it may accumulate in waterways and pollute them. However, some respondents illegally traded used oil to peddlers for food consumption. This practice violates RA 6969’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. Electronic waste from barangays is not properly treated in a registered TSD Facility before disposal. Sometimes junk shops recycle this. Electronic scraps are cut, destroyed, sorted, segregated, and compacted. Mr. Benjie Nebrida of A.L.L. Junkshop says City Garbage collector will dispose of remaining e-waste from dismantling at Sanitary Landfill. However, the researcher suggests that this junk shop comply with the IRR of RA 6969 as a TSD Facility However, some respondents disposed of their electronic waste and municipal waste in the sanitary landfill through the city garbage collector. Despite municipal authorities prohibiting electronic trash disposal at landfill sites, EGIS (2016) found that scavengers find a lot of inedible remnants. This confirms that sanitary landfills contain electronic waste Busted fluorescent lamps, household batteries, spray canisters, and expired medicine are disposed of in sanitary landfills with other municipal waste. The 2015 EPWMD Special Cleaning Section Accomplishment Report listed 2,504 busted fluorescent lamps from Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa (1,236). Sto. Cristo (1,224) and Ramon Magsaysay (744). Dolomatrix Facility in Pampanga treated these, but no household batteries were collected. The beneficial practice followed RA6969’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. Sadly, this project has ended. LGU household hazardous waste management is no longer proper. Spent paint is usually disposed of or washed into the drainage system. Some respondents said they clean/wash paint containers to save them. However, wastewater flows directly to municipal sewer lines and is diluted by creeks and rivers. This is also true for grease trap waste disposed of directly from the sink to the drainage system, especially since most of the hoses have no grate. These are disposed of with municipal waste in the sanitary landfill by the city garbage collector. This shows that the three (30-bedroom) houses have no centralized waste management system.Most homes lack a grease trap under the sink. Other times, these are dumped with municipal waste. Sanitary landfill via city garbage collector. The three (30) barangays lack a household hazardous waste disposal system.

4.8 Test of Relationship between the Respondents’ Profile and their Level of Awareness on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)

A Chi-square test with 0.05 level of significance was used to test the relationship between the respondents’ profile and their level of awareness on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW). Summary of Chi- Square Value on the relationship between dependent and independent variables is presented in Table 4.6 and table computation is presented in the Appendices.

Table 06: Summary of Chi-Square Value on the relationship of the Dependent and Independent Variables

	X2 C	X2 t	Degree of Freedom	Level of Significance	Remarks
Age	0.123	5.99	2	0.05	Not Significant
Sex	0.118	5.99	2	0.05	Not Significant
Civil Status	1.341	15.51	8	0.05	Not Significant
Monthly Income	1.579	12.59	6	0.05	Not Significant
Educational Attainment	6.095	23.68	14	0.05	Not Significant
Type of Building	2.894	18.31	10	0.05	Not Significant
House Ownership	0.019	5.99	2	0.05	Not Significant
Household Size	1676	12.59	6	0.05	Not Significant
Seminar Attendance	0.853	5.99	2	0.05	Not Significant

The Local Government Unit usually treats and disposes of household hazardous waste or special waste. Third-party Treaters or TSD Facilities accredited by DENR-EMB can do this. The City has not established a proper disposal method/system for household hazardous waste. As explained below, Quezon City’s HHW practices and management are poor: Residents pour used oil into the sink and it goes to the municipal drainage system. Over time, it may accumulate in waterways and pollute them. However, some respondents illegally traded used oil to peddlers for food consumption. This practice violates RA 6969’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. Electronic waste from barangays is not properly treated in a registered TSD Facility before disposal. Sometimes junk shops recycle this. Electronic scraps are cut, destroyed, sorted, segregated, and compacted. Mr. Benjie Nebrida of A.L.L. Junkshop says City Garbage collector will dispose of remaining e-waste from dismantling at Sanitary Landfill. However, the researcher suggests that this junk shop comply with the IRR of RA 6969 as a TSD Facility. However, some respondents disposed of their electronic waste and municipal waste in the sanitary landfill through the city garbage collector. Despite municipal authorities prohibiting electronic trash disposal at landfill sites, EGIS (2016) found that scavengers find a lot of inedible remnants. This confirms that sanitary landfills contain electronic waste. Busted fluorescent lamps, household batteries, spray canisters, and expired medicine are disposed of in sanitary landfills with other municipal waste. The 2015 EPWMD Special Cleaning Section Accomplishment Report listed 2,504 busted fluorescent lamps from Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa (1,236). Sto. Cristo (1,224) and Ramon Magsaysay (744). Dolomatrix Facility in Pampanga treated these, but no household batteries were collected. The beneficial practice followed RA6969’s Implementing Rules and Regulations. Sadly, this project has ended. LGU household hazardous waste management is no longer proper. Spent paint is usually disposed of or washed into the drainage system. Some respondents said they clean/wash paint containers to save them. However, wastewater flows directly to municipal sewer lines and is diluted by creeks and rivers. This is also true for grease trap waste disposed of directly from the sink to the drainage system, especially since most of the hoses have no grate. These are disposed of with municipal waste in the sanitary landfill by the city garbage collector. This shows that the three (30-bedroom) houses have no centralized waste management system.Most homes lack a grease trap under the sink. Other times, these are dumped with municipal waste. Sanitary landfill via city garbage collector. The three (30) barangays lack a household hazardous waste disposal system.

4.7      Test of Relationship between the Respondents’ Management Practices and their Level of Awareness on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)

To test the relationship between the respondents’ management practices and their level of awareness on Household Hazardous Waste, a Chi-square Test was used with 0.05 level of significance. This is to assess whether the two variables have significant relationship towards a better mechanism of Quezon City Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Management System. The summary Chi-Square Value on the relationship between dependent and independent variables is presented in Table 07 and table computation is presented in the Appendices.

Table 07: Relationship Between Respondents’ Practices and Their Level of Awareness on HHW

X2 C	X2 t	Degree of Freedom	Level of Significance	Remarks
9.091	5.99	df = 2	P= 0.05	Significant

Table computed value of 9.091 that is greater than the tabular value of 5.99 with 2 degrees of freedom and at 0.05 level of significance, shows that the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between level of awareness and management practices of the respondents was rejected. This means that level of awareness is significantly influences the action and practice of the respondents. However, in this study results show that the level of awareness of the respondents is only average (slightly aware) hence, level of practice is still poor. It could be surmised that when awareness becomes high, with a combination of other factors such as good attitude and proper regulations, then the level of practices of the respondents will also improve.

4.8 Test of Relationship between the Respondents’ Management Practices and their Attitudes on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)

A Chi-square test with 0.05 level of significance was used to test the relationship between the respondents’ management practices and their attitudes towards Household Hazardous Waste (HHW). Respondents’ practices are categorized into Poor or Good practice while attitudes are categorized into Strongly Agree, Agree & Disagree. The summary Chi-Square Value on the relationship between dependent and independent variables is presented in Table 08 and table computation is presented in the Appendices.

Table 08: Relationship between the Respondents’ Management Practices and their Attitudes on HHW

X2C	X2t	Degree of Freedom	Level of Significance	Remarks
0.425	5.99	df = 2	P= 0.05	Not Significant

Table computed value 0.425 that is lower than the tabular value of 5.99 with 2 degrees of freedom and at 0.05 level of significance, shows that the null hypothesis of no significant relationship between management practice and attitude of the respondents is accepted. This means that attitude alone does not influence the action and practice of the respondents. This explains the findings which showed that attitude of the respondents is interpreted as strongly agreed but their management practices are poor. This conform with the theory of Hines, Hungerford and Tomera (2017) that attitude alone is not enough for creating intention to act. Rather, individuals’ knowledge on the environment and its regulations could prompt them to have a good attitude which could translate to good intentions to act. Therefore, it can be concluded that integration of knowledge, attitude and proper regulation should be taken together to create a sound and sustainable household hazardous waste management systems and methods.

4.9      Problems on HHW Encountered by the Residents

To gather information on the problems encountered by the residents on Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Management, a survey questionnaire was used. This factor is important in planning process to come up a better mechanism on household hazardous waste management. Thus, this was investigated by the researcher. Problems were ranked according to the frequency of responses, it is presented in Table 4.9

Table 09: Problems Encountered by the Respondents

Problems Encountered	F	%	Rank
Lack of awareness on household hazardous waste in terms of proper handling, storage, transport, treatment and disposal.	72	80	1st
No household hazardous waste collection system has been set up by the LGU	71	78.89	2nd
There is no program and system/ method supporting the management of household hazardous waste.	67	74.44	3rd
Lack of knowledge regarding the danger caused by improper hazardous waste management	57	63.33	4th
Low public enlightenment campaigns (Information, Education and Communication) relative to household hazardous waste management.
There are no specific laws, acts nor legislation supporting the management of household hazardous waste.	51	56.67	5th
Lack of monitoring and supervision by the Local Government Unit (LGU).	40	44.44	6th
Lack of monitoring and supervision by the National Government.	39	43.33	7th
Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is not being utilized for household hazardous waste. It is not effectively and efficiently operational.	32	35.56	8th

A low environmental consciousness and low awareness on Household Hazardous Waste is the problem in the three (3) barangays of Quezon City. This is based on the frequency responses of the respondents, although the result of statistical test reveals that respondents’ level of awareness is average. Therefore, it shows that awareness level is not yet enough to address the problem on household hazardous waste. In fact, eighty percent (80%) of the respondents identified “lack of awareness on household hazardous waste in terms of proper handling, storage, transport, treatment and disposal” as number one among the problems in household hazardous waste management. There seems to be a need to increase awareness of residents of the three (3) Barangays are responsible for managing, storing, treating, and disposing of home hazardous garbage. The presence of hazardous waste concerns may be attributed to factors such as inadequate education, restricted dissemination of information, and ineffective promotion and educational initiatives aimed at increasing environmental consciousness. It reveals that the issue of Material Recovery Facility ranks least (36%) among problems identified by the respondents. This shows lack of appreciation of the issue. In fact, it has been observed by the researcher during site inspection that among the three barangays, only Barangay Santo Cristo has an organized MRF but this is utilized only for recyclable waste; no household hazardous waste has been noticed to be stored therein. While, other MRFs are not properly maintained nor functional. It is not deemed effective nor efficiently operational. Thus, there is need for them to understand the importance and function of a Material Recovery Facility.

5. CONCLUSION

The conclusions drawn from the findings indicates that most of the respondents are staying in rented apartment buildings. This means that each house is being occupied by multiple dwellers under a lease agreement with corresponding fees, which can be considered as a business type operation. Based on the Philippine Statistics Industry Classification (PSIC), this operation falls under “real estate” business sector. Hence, it should be covered by the permitting requirements of the National Government. Residential areas are considered as hazardous waste “generator” for its potential to generate household hazardous waste such as busted fluorescent bulb, batteries etc. The research showed that the management system of these hazardous waste is still under the monitoring and supervision of the Local Government Unit as defined in RA 7160 “Local Government Code of the Philippines” through function devolution. This kind of practice needs to be reviewed. The traditional way of disposing household hazardous waste is being practiced. These are collected and disposed of along with the municipal solid waste due to the absence of appropriate collection system and a specific method for household hazardous waste. There was an initial attempt of LGU to manage household hazardous waste or special waste management but due to budget constraints it is no longer implemented as of today. The existing Material Recovery Facility (MRF) was established only in order to comply with the law under Section 32 of RA 9003, but it is not being utilized and operated according to its required function. The Local Government Unit is exerting efforts to conduct Information, Education and Communication Campaign. However, its focus is more toward other aspects like solid waste and disaster risk reduction management rather than on household hazardous waste management.

6. RECOMMENDATION

On the basis of findings from this study, the following recommendations are respectfully offered. Since residential apartment building with multiple dwelling is considered as real estate business sector as indicated in PSIC code of Philippine Statistic Authority (PSA), and junk shop facilities that are considered as HW storage facility are required to comply with the permitting requirement of the National Government, the DENR-EMB should directly oversee and regulate the compliance status of the said business establishment with the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 6969. The City LGU should comply with the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 6969 and other environmental laws on behalf of the residential areas. This is based on RA 7160 (Local Government Code of the Philippines) and Section 10 of RA 9003 which states that the Local Government Unit shall take on the responsibility of the management of household hazardous waste. Therefore, Local Government Units are expected to:

• Ensure that household hazardous waste be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. It shall undergo proper transport and treatment prior to disposal through DENR accredited Treater and Transporter.
• Secure an Environmental Compliance Certificates (ECC’s) from the Office of EMB for the operation of Barangay Material Recover Facilities (MRFs), considering that storage of hazardous waste in the MRF is automatically within the purview of PD 1586 (Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System).
• Register as hazardous waste generator to EMB Office.
• Designate an accredited Pollution Control Officer who is responsible for environmental monitoring activities of household hazardous waste.
• Establish/ provide or improve existing Material Recovery Facility (MRF) that could cater all household hazardous waste as temporary storage. The design of the facility layout and equipment should be tailored to support the processing, transfer, and storage of the gathered materials (Please refer to standard design specification proposed by DENR-EMB – if there is a space constraint of putting-up Brgy. MRF, a cluster MRF along with other barangay is also recommended).
• Motivate residential houses to voluntarily bring their household hazardous waste in the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) through attractive incentives such as that being done in QC for recyclable plastic bottles; i.e 10 pieces of plastic bottles can be traded into a reusable tumbler.
• Provide separate schedule for household hazardous waste to be done by the barangay housekeeping personnel to ensure that HHW is brought to Material Recovery Facility.
• Initiate a strengthened education and information campaign specific for household hazardous waste management.
• Strictly enforce laws/ ordinances pertaining to HHW management.
• The LGU may form a Task Force to implement local legislation or strengthen the existing function of Barangay Enforcer/s to include regulation of proper disposal of household hazardous waste.

REFERENCES

1. Akintunde, E., 2017. Theories and Concepts for Human Behaviour in Environmental Preservation. Journal on environmental science and public health. Department of Environmental Management, Institute of Life and Earth Sciences, Pan Africa University. University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
2. Chaib, H. et.al. (2014). Household Hazardous Waste Management in Malaysia. IJARREEIE:ISSN 2320-3765
3. Cebu LGU, 2016. Cebu City Ordinance No. 2450. An ordinance providing for the management of special wastes in Cebu City. Tanggapan ng Sangguniang Panlungsod, Lungsod ng Cebu.
4. Fazzo, L. (2017). Hazardous waste and health impact: a systematic review of the scientific literature. Retrieved from http://di=oi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0311-8
5. Filta News Article (2015). Waste Oil Disposal Issues. Retrieved from https://www.gofilta.com/waste-oil-disposal-issues
6. DENR (July 2014). Memorandum Circular 005, Revised Guidelines for Coverage Screening and Standardized Requirements under the Philippine EIS System.
7. DENR (2003). Revised Procedures and Standards for the Management of Hazardous Wastes (Revising DAO 2004-36) of Republic Act No. 6969 commonly known as Toxic Substances and Hazardous & Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990. Retrieved from https://server2.denr.gov.ph/uploads/rmdd/dao-2013-22.pdf
8. Edokpayi et. al, (2016). Household hazardous waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reviewed October 12, 2016. Published: February 1, 2017 @ DOI:10.5772/66292.
9. Ehrlich, P and Anne Ehrlich, (1973). Population Resources Environmental Issues in Human Ecology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
10. Md Abdullah Jantan and Abdullah Al Mamun (2023). Impact of green human resource management on the sustainable performance of the organization. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(06):327-339.
11. Salah Mahdi & Muhammad Ibrahim Juber (2023). The Connection among Audit Quality and Modifications in Iraq. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):556-563.
12. IGES (2016). Development of E-waste Management Policy at the Local Level: A Case Study of Cebu City, Philippines. Copyright @ 2016 by Institute of Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
13. Mmereki D. et. al, (2016). The Management of Hazardous Waste in Developing Countries. Reviewed on March 14, 2016. Published: October 19, 2016 @ DOI:10.5772/63055.
14. PENNSTATE (2015). Household Hazardous Products and Hazardous Waste: A Summary for Consumers
15. Phil-Eze, P. et. al. (2014). Analysis of Household Hazardous Wastes Awareness Level in Enugu Metropolis. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Volume 3 No. 1. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267270293_Analysis
16. of Household_Hazardous _Wastes_Awareness_Level_in_Enugu
17. Sajise, P., (1971). Ecology in the Philippine Setting Issues and Challenges. Philippine Geographic Journal. Volume 19.
18. Maher Ali Rusho & Markus Patrick Chan (2023). Analysis of Artificial Intelligence and its Impactful Implementation on Job Performance. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(10):571-576.