Você está na página 1de 54

1 1.

0 PROJECT LOCATION, PROJECT LEADER, PROJECT STAFF, IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND FUNDING AGENCY Project Name: Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter an Input to the Waste Management Project Location: Project Leader: Project Staff: Implementing Agency: Funding Agency : in Eastern Visayas State

University, Tacloban City EVSU Tacloban City Engr. Zenaida L. Andrade, Ph.D Bachelor in Environmental Science S.Y. 2010-2011 Eastern Visayas State University Eastern Visayas State University

2.0 BRIEF HISTORY, LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT The Eastern Visayas State University is a public university in the Philippines. It is mandated to provide advanced education, higher technological, professional instruction and training in trade, fishery, agriculture, forestry, science, education, commerce, architecture, engineering, and related courses. It is also mandated to undertake research and extension services, and provide progressive leadership in its area of specialization. Its main campus is in Tacloban. The Eastern Visayas State University had its humble beginnings in 1907, as part of the provincial school. It became a separate entity in 1915, was renamed the Leyte Trade School, and was funded by the provincial government. In 1953, after 38 years, it was renamed the National Provincial Trade School by virtue of R.A. 406 and funded jointly by the National and Provincial Government to cover a wider curriculum. In 1961, the Congress of the Philippines passed Republic Act No. 1561, converting the school

2 into the Leyte Regional School of Arts and Trades, authorizing it to become a training institution for vocational and industrial education in Eastern Visayas. On June 19, 1965, Republic Act 4572 was enacted by Congress of the Philippines which converted the school further into a chartered college, renaming it the Leyte Institute of Technology an institute of higher learning committed to the service of a larger academic area of responsibility. It took effect beginning in the school year 1965. Starting in 1999, the institute has grown to establish a satellite campus in Ormoc City. Pursuant Board Resolutions No. 59, Series of 1999, two CHED supervised institutions (CSIs) in Leyte, namely the Leyte College of Arts and Trades and the Burauen Polytechnic College were integrated to the Leyte Institute of Technology. The LIT Dulag Campus started in SY 2000-2001. The Carigara School of Fisheries was added, the second phase of CSIs institution to SUCs. In 2002-2003, LIT had continued accomplishing its significant role and responsibility to the people in the region. The introduction of new programs, technological and business, the realignment of courses, and high-passing percentage of the engineering and other professional programs established a great challenge and gigantic responsibility to the institution. On August 7, 2004, Republic Act No. 9311 converted the Leyte Institute of Technology, into Eastern Visayas State University, a challenge to serve Eastern Visayas through academic excellence and technological development.

Figure 1. Map of Eastern Visayas State University 3.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND Solid waste management is one of the problem facing the University today, Garbage are not properly disposed in its respective waste bins and since the City Government of Tacloban no longer include institutions like EVSU in the

4 collection of garbage, the University maintenance personnel just dumped the wastes near the EVSU dorm which is located in a higher elevation or on a top hill. To eradicate or to lessen the garbage in the dumpsite, the janitors have no choice but to burn them, which is harmful to the environment and violates the R.A. 9003 (Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2004) and R.A. 9729 (Climate Change Act of 2009). To mitigate this problem and as mandated in the R.A. 9003 that all operated open dumpsites be converted into a controlled dumpsites or a sanitary landfill , it is appropriate to implement the solid waste management in the campus through putting up of Institutional Sanitary Landfill, Composter and Materials Recovery Facility, wherein the Solid Wastes generated by the university be segregated and disposed off accordingly as to recyclable (MRF), compostable (Composter), and residual (Sanitary Landfill) wastes.

4.0

PROJECT RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION 4.1 Rationale Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000,

specifically mandates all local government units to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program that shall ensure protection of public health and environment; utilize environmentally sound methods; set targets and guidelines for solid waste avoidance and reduction; ensure proper segregation, collection, transport and storage of solid waste; promote national research and development programs for improved SWM; encourage greater sector participation;

5 retain primary enforcement and responsibility of SWM with local government units; encourage cooperation and self-regulation among waste generators; institutionalize public participation; and strengthen the integration of ecological solid waste management, resource conservation and recovery topics into the academic curricula (RA 9003). Eastern Visayas State University is a member of Philippine Association of Tertiary Level Educational Institutions in Environmental Protection and Management

(PATLEPAM) at the same time offering Environmental Science Program, would like to showcase to all Universities in Region 08 and other parts of the Philippines an Institutional sanitary landfill as an input to the waste management strategies of the university and instructional place as well. The University is catering ten thousand students and personnel the major generators of solid waste of different classification. With the existing Solid Waste Management such as segregation of waste and recovering of recyclable materials, the processing of the compostable materials and keeping the residual materials in a sanitary landfill will soon be done to complete the Solid Waste Management of the University, as well as the chemical and hazardous waste from the laboratory. With these, the burning of biodegradable materials and toxic substances could already be avoided, at the same time a contribution to Climate Change mitigation measures.

4.1.1

Health Benefits

6 With the given health benefits such as reduce cost of water treatment, health avoided and sanitation expenses, and prevention of groundwater contamination, would result to bigger benefits and EVSU campus will be much healthier, cleaner and pollution-free university. 4.1.2 Environmental Benefits EVSU is a member of PATLEPAM, and as an institution offering a Bachelor in Environmental Science program we are encouraged to foster a eco-friendly university through information dissemination on

environmental awareness and to practice environmental management especially tertiary students and in this feasibility study, we found out many environmental benefits especially carbon credit gain that would much help our planet especially nowadays that we are experiencing the rampant effects of global climate change. 4.1.3 Increased Tourism Benefits As one of the top universities in Region VIII, this Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter will be a good and effective instructional facility, especially to environmental science students and even to other related courses who take related lessons about such, since the project will be the first of its kind throughout the country. It is noted that people would spend money regardless of the cost just to see or visit the place of his interest and since the project is educational by nature especially now that concerns on environmental movement is growing and reaching

7 everyones consciousness, so this would be a good model for them to get more acquainted of. Economic Benefits With this project, tourist will be more encouraged to visit EVSU Main Campus which would translate to improved business dynamics in terms of more food businesses such as canteens and the collection of entrance fees as well as the utilization of function halls for seminars to be conducted by the outsiders. 4.1.4 Increased in Productivity and Income With more people visiting the campus, demands for its catering services and function hall usage will increase. This will lead to increase in production and income to the university. 4.1.5 Increase Values and Commercial Attractiveness A campus with strictly implemented regulations of R.A. 9003 and treating its waste will improve its business, either through tourism or increase in enrolling students, and will increase the commercial value of the place. 4.2 Environmental Baseline Conditions A series of survey were undertaken from 2nd to last week of January, 2011 from different group of individuals in EVSU namely the Administrators, Ground workers, Faculty, and Students to gather both primary and secondary data to establish baseline condition as well as the

8 perception of the EVSU populace on the institutional sanitary landfill and composter project. During the survey, random sampling was done in the four groups of individuals. Ten (10) respondents were taken from the Administration, sixteen (16) respondents from the Ground workers, ten (10) respondents from the Faculty, and Fifty six (56) respondents coming from the Students. A total of ninety (92) respondents were interviewed.

4.2.1

The Campus The university is settling within the Highly Urbanized City of

Tacloban City (Figure 2). With a sloping hill and hilltop covered trees. EVSU Tacloban City Campus has a population of approximately 10,500.

Figure 2. Location Map of Eastern Visayas State University

10 4.2.1.1. Socio-economic Profile 4.2.1.1.1. Administrators Table 1. Socio-economic Profile of Administrator Respondents (January 2011) PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE n= 10 % SEX 10 100% Male 0 Female AGE 3 30% 20 35 3 30% 36 50 1 10% 51 and above CIVIL STATUS 3 30% Single 7 70% Married 0 0 Widow 0 0 Widower 0 0 Separated NUMBER OF CHILDREN 6 60% 03 2 20% 46 0 0 7 and above HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 6 60% College Graduate 1 10% Ed. D 1 10% DMT 1 10% MM 1 10% MAIS - PE SEX. It can be gleaned from the above table that

100% 0r 10 of the respondents are male. AGE. From the above table, it can be seen that 30%

or 3 of the respondents ages ranges from 20 -25, 30% or 3 ranges from 36 50 and 10% or 1 respondents ranged from 51 and above.

11 CIVIL STATUS. The table above shows that 30% or

3 of the respondents are single and 70% or 7 of the respondents are married. NUMBER OF CHILDREN. It is shown in the table that

60% or 6 of the respondents have 0 3 number of children and 20% or 2 of the respondents have 4 6 number of children. HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT. The table

shows that 60 % or 6 of the faculty respondents earned their Bachelors Degree as their highest educational

attainment, while 20% or 2 of the respondents took up Doctors Education, and same result of 20% or 2 of them earned a Masters Degree 4.2.1.2 Ground workers

The study investigated the profile of the respondents in Eastern Visayas State University, Tacloban City along the following; age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, occupation and building in charge.

12

Table 2. Socio-economic Profile of Ground workers Respondents (January 2011) Profile Age 20 40 years old 41 60 years old 61 years old and above Sex Male Female Educational Attainment Elementary Level Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate College Level College Graduate Occupation Janitor Building in charge Marine Building IT Building COBE Building Womens Tech. Auditorium SB Building Library GS Building AC Building ACB Cafeteria Gabaldon Engineering Building 16 0 0 1 5 2 5 3 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 AGE. Table 1 shows that the higher number of 11 or 68.75 percent belonged to the age bracket 20 40 years old and 5 or 31.75 percent belonged to age bracket 41 61 years old. This only reveals that most 100.0 0 0 6.25 31.25 12.5 31.25 18.75 100.0 11 5 0 68.75 31.25 0.00 Frequency ( n = 16 ) Percent ( %)

13 of the respondents belonged to age bracket of 20 40 years old. SEX. The profile of the respondents in terms of their gender, 16 or 100 percent was male. This only reveals that all of the respondents were male due to the fact that this kind of work is more applicable to male than to female. CIVIL STATUS. There were 10 or 62.5 percent married respondents and 6 or 37.5 percent were single. This data indicates that married ground personnel comprise a large percentage of the

respondents. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT. The profile of the respondents in terms of the level of education, high school level and college level got the highest mean of 5 or 31.25 percent. This was closely followed by college graduate with the mean of 3 or 18.75 percent, 2 or 12.5 were high school level and elementary graduate got the least mean of 1 or 6.25 percent. OCCUPATION. All of our respondents were

janitor due to the fact that our area of the study focused on ground worker personnel.

14 BUILDING IN CHARGE. Table 1 also contains

the distribution of the ground workers to their respective areas. Engineering building got the highest worker in charge of 4 and was closely followed by Gabaldon building with 2 workers. Marine Building, IT building, COBE building,

Womens Tech., building, Auditorium, Science building, Library building, GS building, AC building and ACB cafeteria got the least ground worker of 1 respectively. This reveals that the engineering building got the highest ground worker personnel for a reason that t is the area for all administrators, thus, cleanliness should be properly observed.

15 4.2.1.3 Faculties Table 3. Socio-economic Profile of Faculty Respondents (January 2011) PROFILE SEX AGE CIVIL Male Female 20-29 30-39 40-49 50& above STATUS 4 6 40% 60% FREQUENCY N=10 PERCENTAGE

3 1 2 2

30% 10% 20% 20%

Single Married Widower Separated EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Doctors Degree COLLEGE College Of Architecture And Allied Disciplines College Of Arts And Sciences College Of Business And Entrepreneurship College Of Education College Of Engineering College Of Technology Graduate School

3 7 0 0

30% 70%

4 4 2

40% 40% 20%

1 2 1 2 2 1 1

10% 20% 10% 20% 20% 10% 10%

16 Sex - it can be gleaned from the above table that the

majority of 6 or a 60% of the total respondents were female and 4 0r 40% were male. Age result revealed that 3 out of 10 respondents

(30%) belonged to the age group of 20 29, followed by 2 (20%) from the age group of 40 49 and the same result with the range of 50 years old and above, and only 1 (10%) respondent belong to the range 30-39. Civil Status in the table shown 70% or 7 of

respondents were married and 30% or 3 of the total respondents are single. This implies that their willingness to pay would also be affected by their civil status because if they are married or having dependents, they would maybe contribute lesser than those of single status. Educational Attainment the table shows that 40%

or 4 of the respondents took up Bachelors degree 40% or 4 of the respondents obtained Masters Degree and 20% or 2 of the respondents are of Doctors Degree. College- out of the 10 respondents 2 respondents

were taken from the college of arts and sciences, college of education, and college of engineering, while only 1 respondent was taken from the college of architecture and

17 allied disciplines, college of business and entrepreneurship, college of technology, and graduate school since these colleges have smaller faculty members than those of 2 respondents. 4.2.1.4. Students This study investigated the socio-demographic

characteristics of the Eastern Visayas State University students along the following variables: gender, age, civil status, college level and college. Table I below presents the socio-

demographic characteristics of these student respondents. Gender - Eighteen (18) or thirty two percent (32%)

were male and thirty eight (38) or sixty eight percent (68%) were female. The data reveals that the respondents are femaledominated. This implies that the respondents mostly are females due to the fact that females are more approachable than males. Age - The data reveals that there were five (5) or nine percent (9%) who were child. Fifty (50) or eighty nine percent (89%) who were considered to be young and one (1) or two percent (2%) who were considered to be adolescence.

18 It only shows that there were more respondents whose age ranges from fifteen (15) to twenty nine (29) years old and considered to be young due to the fact that the respondents are university students. Civil Status - Based from the data above, fifty (50)

or ninety three percent (93%) were single, four (4) or seven percent (7%) were married. And zero on widow, widower, and separated. The data only implies that almost all of the university students are single. College - From the data gathered, ten (10) or percent (18%) came from the College of

eighteen

Engineering, eight (8) or fourteen percent (14%) came from the College of Business & Entrepreneurship and College of Education, seven (7) or twelve point five percent (12.5%) came from the College of Arts & Sciences and Secondary Laboratory School, six (6) or eleven percent (11%) came from the college of College of Technology and Graduate School and four (4) or seven percent (7%) came from the College of Architecture & Applied Discipline. Distribution of respondents is based from the number of students attending in each college; therefore, this only

19 implies that there are more students attending in a college which has higher percentage. Table 4. Socio-economic Profile of Student Respondents (January 2011) Socio-Demographic Characteristics Gender Male Female Age 01 - 14 yrs. old = Child 15 29 yrs. old = Young 30 49 yrs. old = Adolescence Civil Status Single Married Widow Widower Separated College Level First Year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year College College of Architecture & Applied Discipline College of Arts & Sciences College of Business & Entrepreneurship College of Engineering College of Education College of Technology Graduate School Secondary Laboratory School Frequency n=56 18 38 5 50 1 52 4 0 0 0 21 15 13 6 1 4 7 8 10 8 6 6 7 Percent (%) 32 68 9 89 2 93 7 0 0 0 37 27 23 11 2 7 12.5 14 18 14 11 11 12.5

20 4.2.1.2. Value of the Intuitional Sanitary Landfill and Composter 4.2.1.1.1. Administrators Table 5. Value of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter for Administrators (January 2011) Statements 1. Uses of Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Disposal area for residual waste Composting area Recycling area Others 2. Awareness in the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Yes No Importance of the project Very important Moderately important Slightly important Not important at all Do not know 3. Effect of the project on the outlook on trash Much Not much No effect 4. How the project will complement our university Managing our trash Increase in the number of visitors Increase in income FREQUENCY n= 10 5 3 0 0 PERCENTAGE % 50% 30% 0 0

4 3 2 1 1 0 0

40% 30% 20% 10% 10% 0 0

4 2 1 7 0 0

40% 20% 10% 70% 0 0

21 Uses of Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. The table above shows that 50% or 5 of the respondents consider the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter as Disposal Area for residual waste and 30% or 3 of the respondents consider the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter as Composing Area. Awareness on the Proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. The table above shows that 40% or 4 of the respondents are aware of the proposed Sanitary Landfill and Composter and 30% or 3 of the respondents are not aware of the proposed Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Importance of the Project. The table above shows that 20% or 2 of the respondents consider the proposed Sanitary Landfill and Composter as Very Important, 10% or 1 of the respondents consider the proposed Sanitary Landfill and Composter as moderately important and 10% or 1 of the respondents consider the proposed Sanitary Landfill and Composter as Slightly Important. Effect of the Project on the Outlook on Trash. The table above shows that 40% or 4 of the respondents think that there will be Much effect of the project on the outlook on trash, 20% or 2 of the respondents says Not Much and 10% or 1 says it has No Effect . How the Project Will Compliment Our University. The table shows that 70% or 7 the respondents consider Managing our trash as the compliment of the project to our university.

22 4.2.1.2 Faculties Table 6. Value of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter for Faculties (January 2011)
STATEMENTS 1. Uses of institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter a) Disposal area for residuals b) Recycling area c) Composting area d) Others 2. Awareness of the proposed institutional sanitary landfill Yes No 3. Importance of the project to the respondents a) Very important b) Moderately important c) Not important d) Slightly important e) undecided 4. Effect of the project on the outlook of trash Much Not much No effect FREQUENCY 7 2 1 0 4 6 PERCENTAGE 70% 20% 10%

40% 60%

5 0 0 0 0

50%

10 0 0 7 1 2

100%

5. Complement of the project to the university Trash management Increase of numbers of visitors Increase in income 6. Willingness to contribute in the construction of the project Yes No (If yes) a) Php 50-100 b) 100-150 c) 0thers 7. Willingness to help in the realization of the project through information and education campaign to the students Yes No

70% 10% 20%

10 0 6 2

100% 60% 20%

10 0

100%

23

1.)

Uses of institutional sanitary landfill and composter The table shows that 80% of the respondents consider the

Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter as disposal area of residuals and 40% of the respondents consider Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter as recycling area and 30% of the respondents consider this as composting area. Their awareness on the uses of the facility depends on how they perceive on it and some are still not aware since the project is not fully introduced especially to those who never got acquainted of this facility yet. 2.) Awareness of the proposed Institutional Sanitary

Landfill and Composter. The table above shows that 40% of the respondents are aware of the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and 60% of the respondents are not aware of the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. This project has not yet been fully introduced in the university that is why some are still not aware of the proposed project. 3.) Importance of the project to the respondents. The table above shows that 50% or 5 of the respondents consider the proposed sanitary landfill and composter as very important and the rest does not mind whether it is important or not. Some calls on the importance of the proposed project

24 because they know that in this way the university would solve its problem on solid waste management and the rest do not call it important because according to them there are many problems the university must look on first like classroom buildings and other infrastructures than this waste disposal facility since these teachers are affected in such problems this is why it is not their first priority in mind. 4.) Effect of the project on the outlook on trash. The table above shows that 100% of the respondents responded that the project will affect much on their outlook on trash and that in this way they would be more responsible in managing their own wastes. 5.) Willingness to contribute in the constitution of the

project. The table above shows that 100% or 10 of the respondents are willing to contribute in the construction of the project, 60% or 6 of the respondents are willing to pay for the amount of 50 100 pesos and 20% of the respondents are willing to pay the amount of 101 150 pesos. This implies that in their little means they will spend in the realization of the project since it is for the benefit of the university and its constituents.

25 6.) Willingness to help in the realization of the project

Information and Educational Campaign to the students. The table above shows that 100 % of the respondents are willing to help in the realization of the project through Information and Educational Campaign to the student, because teachers cannot help in the construction phase since they are in the classrooms and have the direct contact with the students who constitutes the majority of this university then it is their little way in helping through information drive and teaching the students the benefits of the project as well as the importance of proper waste segregation.

26 4.2.1.3. Students
Table 7. Value of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter for Students (January 2011)

Statement 1. What do you think are the uses of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter? Disposal Area for Residual Waste Composting Area Recycling Area Others 2. Are you aware of the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter? Yes No If Yes, how important is the Project to you? very important moderately important slightly important not important at all do not know 3. 3. How will the Project affect your outlook on our trash? Much Not Much No Effect 4. 4. How do you think the project will complement our 5. University? Managing our own trash Increase in the number of visitors Increase in income 5. If the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter will materialize, are you willing to contribute for its construction? Yes No If Yes, by how much? a. P 10 P 25 b. P 26 P 40 c. P 41 P 55 d. P 56 P 70 More than P 71 Less than P 9

Frequency n=56

Percent (%)

39 7 10 0

70 12 18 0

40 16 35 2 3 0 0 38 15 3

71 29 87 5 8 0 0 68 27 5

50 5 1

89 9 2

52 4 39 5 3 0 2 3

93 7 75 10 6 0 3 6

27

Table VII that follows present the value of institutional sanitary landfill and composter an input to the waste management in Eastern Visayas State University. Statement 1. Based from the data gathered, it revealed that the highest percentage of thirty nine (39) or seventy percent (70%) was obtained from the use of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter of Disposal Area for Residual Waste, ten (10) or eighteen percent (18%) from the use of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter of Recycling Area and seven (7) or twelve percent (12%) from the use of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter of Composting Area. This only implies that the respondents are aware of the use of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter. Statement 2. As shown in Table II, most of the respondents are aware of the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter. Forty (40) or seventy one percent (71%) said that they are aware and only sixteen (16) or twenty nine percent (29%) said they do not know. On the other hand, of the forty (40) or seventy one percent (71%) said that they are aware, thirty five (35) or eighty seven percent (87%) percent said that the project is very important to them. Two (2) or five percent (5%) said that the project is moderately important, three (3) or eight percent (8%) said that it is slightly important and zero (0) on not important at all and do not know.

28 This only implies that most of the responds are aware of the proposed project and if the project will materialized, the project would be very important. Statement 3. On How will the Project affect your outlook on our trash?, thirty eight (38) or sixty eight percent (68%) was obtained from the choice Much, fifth teen (15) or twenty seven percent (27%) from the choice Not Much and three (3) or five percent (5%) from the choice No Effect. With the thirty eight (38) or sixty eight percent (68%) obtained from the choice Much, this only implies that this project will affect the university students on how they look on our trash. Statement 4. The table shows that fifty (50) or eighty nine percent (89%) was obtained from the choice Managing our own trash, five (5) or nine percent (9%) from the choice Increase in the number of visitors and one (1) or two percent (2%) from the choice Increase in income. This only implies that most of the respondents think that managing our own trash will complement more our university and in which, it is the main objective of the project. Statement 5. The data reveals that fifty two (52) or ninety three percent (93%) said that they are willing to contribute if the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter will materialize and four (4) or seven percent (7%) are not willing.

29 Furthermore, of the fifty two (52) or ninety three percent (93%) said that they are willing to contribute if the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter will materialize, thirty nine (39) or seventy five percent (75%) are willing to pay ten pesos (P 10) to twenty five pesos (P 25), five (5) or ten percent (10%) are willing to pay twenty six pesos (P 26) to forty pesos (P 40) and three (3) and six percent (6%) are willing to pay forty one pesos (P 41) to fifty five pesos (P 55). Also two (2) or three percent (3%) are willing to pay more than seventy one pesos (P 71) and three (3) or six percent (6%) are willing to pay below nine pesos (P 9). This only implies that most of the respondents are willing to contribute if the project will materialize and maybe because they find the objective of the project reasonable enough and realize that their contribution will be worth every cent.

4.2.1.3 WILLINGNESS TO PAY 4.2.1.3.1. Administrators

30 Table 8. Willingness To Pay for Administrators (January 2011)


Statement 1. Willingness to contribute certain amount to help put up an Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Yes No 2. Willingness to encourage co administrators to pay for the realization and success of the proposed project Yes No 3. Do you think the cost of the proposed project can be shouldered by the university? Yes No 4. Willingness to set funds for maintenance of the cleanliness and function of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Yes No 5. Willingness to spend money from own pocket for sustaining and maintaining of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Yes No 6. Willingness to promote the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter to other Administrators, Faculty and students of other Institution and encourage them to visit it Yes No 7. Willingness to spend money for the fare in the promotion and visitation of the said Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter Yes No 8. Willingness to assign person as Environmental Security Officer to monitor if the Institutions policies regarding proper waste management is followed though it means another person to be given salary Yes No 9. Is the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter be of help to our university o be recognized by other universities/institutions and help encourage them to put up their own Sanitary Landfill and Composter? Yes No FREQUENCY n= 10 2 5 PERCENTAGE % 20% 50%

3 5

30% 50%

4 3

40% 30%

4 1

40% 10%

3 4

30% 40%

4 3

40% 30%

2 5

20% 50%

4 1

40% 10%

2 0

20% 0

Willingness to contribute certain amount to help put up

an Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. The table

31 shows that 20% or 2 of the respondents are willing to contribute certain amount to help put up an Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter and 50% or 5 of the respondents are not willing to contribute certain amount to help put up an Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Willingness to encourage co administrators to pay for

the realization and success of the proposed project. The table shows that 30% or 3 of the respondents are willing to encourage co administrators to pay for the realization and success of the proposed project and 50% or 5 of the respondents are not willing to encourage co administrators to pay for the realization and success of the proposed project. Do you think the cost of the proposed project can be

shouldered by the university? 40% or 4 of the respondents thinks that the cost of the proposed project can be shouldered by the university and 30% or 3 of the respondents do not think that the cost of the proposed project can be shouldered by the university. Willingness to set funds for maintenance of the

cleanliness and function of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. 40% or 4 of the respondents are willing to set funds for maintenance of the cleanliness and function of the

32 Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter and 10% or 1 of the respondents is not willing to set funds for maintenance of the cleanliness and function of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Willingness to spend money from own pocket for

sustaining and maintaining of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. 30% or 3 of the respondents are willing to spend money from own pocket for sustaining and maintaining of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter and 40% or 4 of the respondents are not willing to spend money from own pocket for sustaining and maintaining of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Willingness to promote the Institutional Sanitary

Landfill and Composter to other Administrators, Faculty and students of other Institution and encourage them to visit it. 40% or 4 of the respondents are willing to promote the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter to other

Administrators, Faculty and students of other Institution and encourage them to visit it and 30% or 3 of the respondents are not willing to promote the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter to other Administrators, Faculty and students of other Institution and encourage them to visit it.

33 Willingness to spend money for the fare in the

promotion and visitation of the said Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. 20% or 2 of the respondents are willing to spend money for the fare in the promotion and visitation of the said Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter and 50% or 5 of the respondents are not willing to spend money for the fare in the promotion and visitation of the said Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Willingness to assign person as Environmental Security

Officer to monitor if the Institutions policies regarding proper waste management is followed though it means another person to be given salary. 40% or 4 of the respondents are willing to assign person as Environmental Security Officer to monitor if the Institutions policies regarding proper waste management is followed though it means another person to be given salary and 10% or 1 of the respondents is not willing to assign person as Environmental Security Officer to monitor if the Institutions policies regarding proper waste management is followed though it means another person to be given salary. of Is the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter be help to our university o be recognized by other

universities/institutions and help encourage them to put up

34 their own Sanitary Landfill and Composter? 20% or 2 of the respondents thinks that the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter be of help to our university o be recognized by other universities/institutions and help encourage them to put up their own Sanitary Landfill and Composter and none answered no.

4.2.1.3.2. Ground workers

STATEMENT 1. It can be seen in table 2 that out of 16 ground workers respondents, 13 of them are willing to contribute money for improvements of waste management in EVSU and 3 of them are not willing to contribute any amount. Nine ( 9) out of 16 ground workers are willing to contribute an amount of P10-50. Two ( 2 ) out of 16 respondents are willing to give an amount of P101-150 and only 1 respondent are willing to give an amount of P51-100 and P151 and above. This implies that most of the respondents are willing to contribute and amount of P10-50 due to financial constraints but somehow this amount will a big help for the improvements of the waste management in EVSU

Table 9. Willingness To Pay for Ground workers (January 2011) STATEMENTS 1. Are you willing to contribute money for the improvement of the waste management in ESVU? YES 13 NO 3

35 If yes how much 10-50 51-100 101-150 151 and above 2. Are you willing to extend your working hours in order to sustain and maintain the cleanliness of the sanitary landfill? 3. If ever you live in a far place, are you willing to come in EVSU just to see and observe the sanitary landfill? 4. Are to willing to give your full support in monitoring and maintaining the cleanliness of the sanitary landfill? 5. Do you think a sanitary landfill is a costly project? 6. Who will be the direct benefactors of this project? student faculty administrators All of the above 7.If this project will prosper would the other institutions and agencies visit the said project? 8. Are you willing to give little amount of money if ever we used an additional financial support for the implementation of this project. 10-50 51-100 101-150 150 and above 9. Is it ok for you to be personnel that focus on proper waste disposal? 10. Do you think a sanitary landfill can lessen of your works if ever this will be implemented? 11. Do you think the cost of this project will be worthy for the future generations? STATEMENT 2. 9

1 2 1 16 14 16 14 3 3 2 12 16 14 10 2 2 15 12 15 2 2 2

1 4 1

Table 2 shows that majority of the respondents are

willing to extend their working hours to maintain the cleanliness of the sanitary landfill. However one respondent gave his suggestions additional payment should be given to them for the extended working hours.

36 STATEMENT 3. Table 2 revealed the 14 out 16 respondents are willing to come in EVSU to visit/ observe the sanitary landfill. This implies that people are much eager to visit the site to gain additional knowledge and see how the project does is being implemented and functioned. STATEMENT 4. The results revealed that majority of the group are willing to give their full support in monitoring the cleanliness of the sanitary landfill. STATEMENT 5. It can be seen in table 2 that 14 out of 16 respondents agreed that a sanitary landfill is a costly project.
STATEMENT 6. The result shows all of the respondents agreed that all of the above (administrators, faculty and students) are the direct benefactors of this project. STATEMENT 7. All of the respondents agreed that other institutions and agencies will come to visit the site if the said project will prosper. STATEMENT 8. It can be gleaned from table 2 that 14 out of 16 respondents are willing to give little amount if ever they need an additional financial support for the implementation of this project. STATEMENT 9. Almost all of the respondents are willing to be a personnel that focuses on proper waste disposal. STATEMENT 10. It can also be seen in table 2 that 12 out of 16 respondents think that a sanitary landfill can lessen their work if it is implemented. STATEMENT 11. Almost all of the respondents think that the cost of the project will be worthy for the future generations.

4.2.1.3.3. Faculty
1. Residence.

37
The table above shows that 60% or 6 of the respondents lived in other barangay in Tacloban City, 20 % or 2 of the respondents lived in other Municipality of Leyte, and 10 % or 1 of respondents live within the Quarry District and same result to those living at other places outside of the region. This shows that teachers as part of their calling spends a lot depending on the distance of the place to school. 2. Expenses from the point of departure. The table shows that the respondents spends the sum of Php. 1,849.00 daily from their transportation, food, accommodation, and other expenses in the discharge of their duties.

3. Amount to spend just to visit an ISL & Composter.


The result shows that 6 (60%) of the total respondents are willing to spend 20-50 pesos just to visit a sanitary landfill and composter, while 3 (30%) are willing to spend 81-100 pesos, and only 1 (10%) are going to spend 51-80 pesos. This implies that the teachers are interested in visiting a solid waste disposal facility even at a minimal cost to allocate from their salaries.

4.

Willingness to pay for the improvement of the Institutional

Sanitary Landfill and Composter. The table shows that 5 of the respondents are willing to pay for the improvement of the Sanitary landfill for the amount of 20-50, and 2 of the respondents are willing to pay 51-80 pesos for the improvement of the landfill and 3 of the respondents are willing to pay 81-100 pesos for the improvement of the landfill. This implies that the faculty is willing to contribute any amount in case necessary improvements of the proposed project would undertake despite the high cost they spend for their daily necessities.

Table 10. Willingness To Pay for Faculties (January 2011)

38 Statements 1. Residence Within Quarry Dist. Other barangay in Tacloban City Other Municipality in Leyte Other Provinces in Region 8 Others Respondents 1 6 2 1 2. Expenses from the point of departure Transportation Food Accommodation Others Total 3. Amount to spend just to visit a ISL & Composter 20-50 51-80 81-100 Total 4. Willingness to pay for the improvements of the institutional sanitary landfill and composter 20-50 51-80 81-100 Total Percentage 10% 60% 20% 10%

294 525 1000 30 1,849 6 1 3 680 60% 10% 30%

5 2 3 510

50% 20% 30%

4.2.1.3.4

Students

39 Table XI that follows present the willingness to pay of institutional sanitary landfill and composter an input to the waste management in Eastern Visayas State University. Statement 1. Table XII reveals that twenty four (24) or forty three percent (43%) came from other barangay within Tacloban City, eighteen (18) or thirty two percent (32%) came from other municipality within Leyte and eleven (11) or twenty percent (20%) came from other province within Region VIII. This only implies that most of the respondents came from other barangay within Tacloban City.

Statement 2. Based from the table above, on their point of departure, they spend on the following items such as transport, food, accommodation and others, thirty two (32) or fifty seven percent (57) was obtained from the total of one pesos (P 1) to eighty pesos (P 80), sixteen (16) or twenty nine percent (29%) was obtained from the total of eighty one pesos (P 81) to one hundred sixty pesos (P 160), four (4) or seven percent (7%) was obtained from the total of one hundred sixty one pesos (P 161) to two hundred forty pesos (P240) and two hundred forty one pesos (P 241) and above. This only implies that most of the respondents spend from their point of departure ranging from one pesos (P 1) to eighty pesos (P 80).

40 Table 11. Willingness To Pay for Students (January 2011) Statement 1. Where are you from? Within Quarry District Other Barangay within Tacloban City Other Municipality within Leyte Other Province within Region VIII Others 2. From your point of departure, how much did you spend on the following items? (Individual Expenses) Transport __________ Food __________ Accommodation __________ Others, Please specify. __________ TOTAL _________ 1 = P 1 P 80 2 = P 81 P160 3 = P 161 P240 4 = P 241 and above 3. In the future, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to pay to visit Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter? P 10 P 40 P 41 P 70 P 81 - P 100 4. If in the future there will be improvements as to the facilities of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter, what is the maximum amount are you willing to pay? P 10 P 40 P 41 P 70 P 81 - P 100 Frequency n=56 3 24 18 11 0 Percent (%) 5 43 32 20 0

32 16 4 4

57 29 7 7

36 12 8

64 22 14

32 13 11

57 23 20

Statement 3. Based from the data gathered, thirty six (36) or sixty four percent (64%) said that the maximum amount they are willing to pay to visit Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter is ten pesos (P 10) to forty pesos (P 40), twelve (12) or twenty two percent (22%) said that

41 they are willing to pay forty one pesos (P 41) to seventy pesos (P 70), and eight (8) or fourteen percent (14%) said that they are willing to pay eighty one pesos (P 81) to one hundred pesos (P 100). This only implies that the respondents are willing to visit Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter and still even willing to pay for visiting the structure. Statement 4. Thirty two (32) or fifty seven percent (57%) said that if there will be improvements as to the facilities of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter, the maximum amount they are willing to pay ranges from ten pesos (P 10) to forty pesos (P 40), thirteen (13) or twenty three percent (23%) are willing to pay forty one pesos (P 41) to seventy pesos (P 70), and eleven (11) or twenty percent (20%) are willing to pay eighty one pesos (P 81) to one hundred pesos (P 100). This only implies that most of the respondents are willing to pay for the improvements as to the facilities of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill & Composter and thirty two (32) or fifty seven percent (57%) are willing to pay ranges from ten pesos (P 10) to forty pesos (P 40).

5.0

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The study aims to design and construct an Institutional Sanitary Landfill and composter as an input to the waste management in the University, Specifically the study aims to:

42 1. Thorough information dissemination of the Republic Act 9003 through seminars and workshops emphasizing the chapter VI of the act; 2. Conduct Characterization of the solid waste in the University; 3. Design and construct the sanitary landfill and composter. 4. Conduct EIA for the issuance of ECC.

6.0

ECONOMIC BENEFITS Cost-Benefit Analysis A Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) by definition is a systematic evaluation of the economic benefits and costs of a set of investment alternatives, (http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/EASS/#section2.). It

estimates and totals up the equivalent money value of the benefits and costs to the community of projects to establish whether they are worthwhile. As such, it is an economic tool to aid social decision-making, and is typically used by governments to evaluate the desirability of a given intervention. The costs and benefits of the impacts of an intervention are evaluated in terms of the public's willingness to pay for them (benefits) or willingness to pay to avoid them (costs). Cost Benefit Analysis is measured in the three ways:

Net Present Value. NPV involves the determination of the streams of benefits and cost for a certain period using appropriate social discount rate. The decision criterion would be

43 that NPV should be positive to make the project acceptable or viable.

Benefit-Cost ratio. BCR, on the other hand involves taking the ratio of the total stream of discounted benefits and discounted costs. The decision criterion is that BCR should be greater than 1 for the project to become acceptable.

Internal Rate of Return. IRR is the discount rate that equates the discounted benefits to the discounted costs. In other words, it is the rate that makes the NPV = 0 and BCR = 1. Also, it is the maximum interest rate that the project should have in order for it to pay for borrowed and to recover its investment and operating costs and still break-even. The decision criterion would be that IRR should be greater than the opportunity cost of capital. Environmental projects like the sanitary landfill require a long period of time before project benefits are realized and requires huge amount of capital investment, hence, it is important to determine its benefits and costs and its present values. This can be done through BCA using an appropriate social discount rate. According to Gittinger (1982), the best

discount rate is the opportunity cost of capital, and the common rates range from 8 to 15 percent. In this study, 10 percent

44 discount factor was used in the computation of the discounted costs and benefits for the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. The BCA for this project is projected for 6 months. Valuation methods The main methods using to evaluate the costs and benefits are benefit transfer (value transfer). Most of costs and benefits components are reviewed for monetizing the value through their impacts. This is the most appropriate method in monetizing the impacts of project. The willingness to pay to improve their living condition or to avoid sickness was used to derive the benefits and perception of the respondents. However, these figures were only used for reference. Cost avoided and replacement cost was also methods for estimating the benefits of the project. For example, with the project, the EVSU can save money or earn profit from those people that will pay. The satisfaction of the stakeholders will be increased due to the waste treatment and was estimated through the payment value of waste treating. Table 12. Summary of Social Costs Pre-Construction Construction Phase Phase Ground 11500 21800 Workers Faculty 112,000 382,000 Operational Phase 281000 676,600 Total 314300 117060 % 5.6 21

45 0 345200 0 633300 557020 0

Students Admin subtotal

18,000 61,500 203000

2,434,000 291,000 3128800

1,000,000 280,800 2238400

62 11.4 100 %

In this study, a total social cost of Php. 5,570,200.00 was obtained from the different categories: pre-construction, construction, and operational phases of the project. This cost include all the materials or equipments purchased or rented, the creation of the feasibility study and obtaining of necessary permits, labor costs, contingency fund and the cost for post closure of the sanitary landfill.

Table 12. Summary of Social Benefits Total Social benefits % Ground Workers 448400 1.1 Faculty 28.2 11,735,600 Students 26592000 64.1 Admin 2,731,600 6.6 subtotal 41507600 100% The analysis arrive a total social benefit of Php. 41, 507,600. The benefits were computed according to the group of respondents, they vary since they differ in population size per group, their needs, and occupational status. These benefits include the cost avoided for health security, saved travelling cost, penalties cost avoided, tax exemptions, and profits gained such as tourism and compost and recycled products income and the rewards the institution will be claiming for its carbon offsetting and climate change mitigation or control.

46

Table 14. Result of the Benefit Cost Analysis


SOCIAL COST 1. FACULTY 2. STUDENTS 3. GROUND PERSONNEL 4. ADMINISTRAT ION SUBTOTAL DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% DISCOUNTED MONTH 0 842,000 2924000 43000 399300 4,208,30 0 1 4,208,30 1 53100 78000 77200 46800 25510 0 0.91 232,14 2 53100 78000 70000 46800 247900 0.83 205,757 3 53100 78000 59000 46800 23690 0 0.75 177,67 4 53100 78000 58000 46800 23590 0 0.68 160,41 5 53100 78000 58000 46800 23590 0 0.56 132,10 6 63,100 120000 58000 46800 287,900 0.51 146,829 TOTAL 1,170,600 3434000 423200 680100 5,707,900 0.51 2911029

47
COST SOCIAL BENEFITS 1. FACULTY 2. STUDENTS 3. GROUND PERSONNEL 4. ADMINISTRAT ION SUBTOTAL DISCOUNT FACTOR 10% DISCOUNTED BENEFITS NET BENEFITS DISCOUNTED NET BENEFITS NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT/COS T RATIO INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN 0 1.00 .00 5.00 2 4

0 0 0 1000 1000 1 1000

112260 258600 0 49500 1600 27493 60 0.91 25019 17.6

112260 2606000 54500 2000 277476 0 0.83 2,303,0 51 2,526,8 60 2,097,2 95

112260 260600 0 61100 3000 27823 60 0.75 2,086, 770 2,545, 460 1,909, 095

112260 260600 0 61100 529000 33083 60 0.68 2,249, 684.80 3,072, 460 2,089, 272.80

112260 260600 0 61100 860000 36393 60 0.56 2,038, 041.60 3,403, 460 1,905, 937.60

612260 13582000 161100 1335000 15690360 0.51 8,002,08 3.60 15,402,4 60 7,855,25 4.60

1173560 26592000 448400 2731600 30945560 0.51 15,782,23 5.60 25,237,66 0 12,871,20 6.60

2,494, 4,207,30 260 0 2,269, 4,207,30 776.60 0 24,058,779.79 5.421

100000000000000000 % (% That Makes NPV = 0)

NPV =

B-C__ (1+r) t

BCR= B/C IRR=


t

_B-C__ (1+r) =0 The proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and composter obtained a net social

cost of Php. 5,570,200.00 and net social benefit of Php. 41, 507,600. It earned a

48 discounted net benefit of 15,782,235.60 and discounted net cost of 2,911,029. The projects NPV is 24,058,779.79 and it becomes .80 (the value approximate 0) at an IRR of 100,000,000,000,000,000%, and a BCR of 5.421 (Table 18). The project is economically viable in the since that it obtained a BCR of 5.42, positive NPV of 24,058,779.79 and an Internal rate of return of

100,000,000,000,000,000% that is significantly higher than the social opportunity cost of capital which is 10%.

7.0

PROPOSED TIMING AND PHASING OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS The construction and operation of the Eastern Viosayas State University Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter will be divided into four phases in order to identify the possible impacts and develop possible solutions to the impacts and to have a picture of the life cycle of the project. The four phases are: Pre-construction, Construction, Operational, and Abandonment phases. I. Pre-construction phase. The pre-construction phase of the project

will involve the following: Site visit Fencing Information and Education Campaign on R.A. 9003. Waste Analysis and Characterization in every building. Feasibility Study

49 Conduct of EIA or IEE License/permits Land acquisition Engineering design

During the pre-construction phase, a Information and Education Campaign on R.A. 9003 through seminars and fora to give the campus populace further knowledge on Solid Waste Management, and then followed by waste analysis and characterization so that the average volume of waste be determined according to waste classification since it will be the baseline data in the construction of the disposal facility and followed by a feasibility study. This is to determine whether the project will be feasible or not, and if the result will be accepted then a Environmental Impact Assessment will be conducted since it is a requirement in getting license or permits. II. Construction Phase. The construction phase involved the following: Clearing Excavation Leacheate collection and treatment system Road construction Drainage construction Electrical works Water supply

50 Construction of Administration building Materials Recovery Facility and Composting facility Monitoring wells construction Gas collection and management Installation of pipes for leacheate collection and treatment system will be channeled to monitoring wells for regular water quality monitoring as well as the treatment before it will be released into the ground. Separate pipes will be installed for gas collection system since it will be converted into a source of energy through methane gas collected.

III. Operation Phase. The following activities will be done during the operation phase: Garbage Collection and Segregation Composting Storage and Selling of Recyclable Materials garbage collection and segregation Provision Of Cover Soil maintenance of the whole disposal facility Gas Collection & Management Environmental Monitoring Closure

51 Solid waste segregation will be conducted first through putting up of trash bins in the whole university and then compostable waste will be thrown to the composters, MRF for the recyclable materials and to the sanitary landfill for the residual wastes. The recyclable materials will be sold to junkshops or entrepreneurs or be recycled in the university by the students, the gas collected will be utilized as energy source and the residual wastes will be covered daily by soil. IV. Abandonment Phase. After 6 months of operation, the sanitary

landfill will be closed with final soil cover since it will be designed intended only for 6 months but the composter and MRF as well as the collection of gas will continue to operate. To utilize closed sanitary landfill, tree planting or gardening or landscaping will be initiated to further improve the physical condition of the place. Table 15. Work Schedule
Work Item
I II III IV

Project Time (Months)


V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII

1. Pre- Construction a. Site Visit b. Fencing c. EIC on R.A 9003 d. WACS e. Feasibility Study f. Conduct of EIA g. License/Permits h. Land Acquisition i. Engineering Design 2. Construction Phase a. Clearing b. Excavation c. Leacheate Collection and treatment System d. Road Construction

x x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x

x x X x x x

52
e. Drainage construction f. Electrical Works g. Water Supply h. Construction of Administration Building i. MRF & Composting Facility j. Monitoring Wells k. Gas Collection & Management 3. Operation Phase a. Garbage Collection and Segregation b. Composting c. Storage and Selling of Recyclable Materials d. Provision Of Cover Soil e. Maintenance f. Gas Collection & Management g. Environmental Monitoring h. Closure 4. Abandonment Phase a. Post closure b. Tree planting or landscaping x x x x x X X x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x X x X X

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMMENDATIONS Cost and Benefit Analysis (CBA) is a powerful, widely used tool for deciding whether to make a change. It aids in the social decision-making, and is typically used by governments to evaluate the desirability of a given intervention. It helps policy makers in the decision-making process and provides them an information on the acceptability of the project based on the perspective of the society CBA was used to evaluate the feasibility of the Institutional Sanitary Landfill and Composter. Moreover, the economic decision criteria described by

53 Mishan (1976) as crude investment criteria soundly embedded in the economic theory of resource allocation, was also considered in the analysis. Based on the result of the BCA using a 10% discount rate on a 6 months project operating span it showed a positive result since the discounted benefit is greater than the discounted cost resulting to a positive Net Present Value and BCR of 5.421, thus this project should be accepted because as stated in the decision rule that if the NPV is greater than zero or positive then accept the project and same decision to the BCR because according to the rule, accept the project if the result is greater than one. Therefore, the proposed Institutional Sanitary Landfill and composter are viable and acceptable. Since the project is viable, it is then recommended that when this will fully materialize, cooperation from all sectors across the university in the strict observation of proper waste disposal since it becomes the grassroots of attaining the goals of this project. If they will throw their garbage out of the designated trash bins then it would be difficult to segregate and dispose the wastes in their respective area of disposal, the sanitary landfill will not be filled at the expected time and amount thus paralyzing the expected benefit it can offer as well as the MRF and Composter because all the wastes put in there have its worth. In order to arrive at an accurate cost and benefit analysis, costing should be undertaken at once in order to avoid redundancy on specific cost or benefit. One problem encountered in this CBA was the inaccurate costs in determining the specific cost and benefit, it is highly recommended that costs

54 should be accurately determined and stipulated to come up with a realistic result, and since feasibility study is teamwork of experts, CBA should be performed by an expert with the supplement of the other fields expert.

Você também pode gostar