REFERENCES

Agro Vision Holland BV. 1996. Republic of Yemen study on design and introduction of a cost recovery scheme for solid waste management services provided by Dhamar Region Municipal Services Project. August 1996.

Altaf, M.A. and J.A. Hughes. 1994. Measuring the demand for improved urban sanitation services: results of a contingent valuation study in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Urban Studies, Vol. 31, No. 10, 1994.

Altaf, M.A. and J.R. Deshazo. 1996. Household demand for improved solid waste management: a case study of Gujranwala, Pakistan. World Development, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1996.

Ancheta, C.C. 1998. Integrated sustainable waste management in Tingloy: a study on the technological options. PPS Batangas Bay - UWEP 20, Pilot Project No. 20.4, WASTE, Gouda, the Netherlands.

Anschütz, J. 1996. Community-based solid waste management and water supply projects: problems and solutions compared, a survey of the literature. Community participation in waste management UWEP Working Document 2, WASTE Advisers on Urban Environment and Development, the Netherlands, May 1996.

Baarda, D.B. and M.P.M. de Goede. 1995. Methoden en technieken: praktische handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van onderzoek. Tweede, herziende druk, Houten.

Bartone, C., J. Bernstein, J. Leitmann, J. Eigen. 1994. Toward environmental strategies for cities: policy considerations for urban environmental management in developing countries. Urban Management Programme Policy Paper 18, World Bank.

Bishop, R.C. and T.A. Heberlein. 1990. The contingent valuation method. Economic Valuation of Natural Resources: issues, theory and applications. edited by R.L. Johnson and G.V. Johnson, Westview Press, Oxford.

Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1995. Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 28, 1995.

Casley, D.J. and K. Kumar. 1988. The collection, analysis, and use of monitoring and evaluation data. The World Bank, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Cointreau-Levine, S. 1994. Private sector participation in municipal solid waste services in developing countries. Urban Management Programme Discussion Paper, no. 13, World Bank.

ENRO. 1996. Strategic environmental management plan for the Batangas Bay region. GEF/UNDP /IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas, Quezon City, Philippines.

EPA. 1994. Waste prevention, recycling, and composting options: lessons from 30 communities. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1994.

GEF/UNDP/IMO. 1996a. Integrated waste management action plan for the Batangas Bay Region. GEF/ UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas, MPP-EAS Technical Report no. 9, Quezon City, Philippines.

GEF/UNDP/IMO. 1996b. Coastal environment profile for the Batangas Bay Region. GEF/ UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas, MPP-EAS Technical Report no. 5, Quezon City, Philippines.

GEF/UNDP/IMO. 1997. Technical study on the establishment of a solid waste management system for the Batangas Bay Region. Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas, Manila, Philippines.

Islam, A.K.M. Nurul, H. Kitawaki, M.H. Rahman. 1994. Willingness to pay/use for water supply and sanitation. Proceedings of the 20^th WEDC Conference Affordable water supply and sanitation, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Lardinois, L., A. van de Klundert. 1993. Organic waste: options for small-scale resource recovery. Urban Solid Waste Series 1, Technology Transfer for Development, Amsterdam and WASTE Consultants, Gouda.

Mani, D., T. Onishi, T. Kidokoro. 1997. Estimating willingness to pay for WATSAN. Proceedings of the 23^rd WEDC Conference Water and Sanitation for all: partnerships and innovations, Durban South Africa.

McPhail, A.A. 1993. The five percent rule for improved water service: can households afford more? World Development, Vol. 21, No. 6, pp. 963-973.

Moors, J.J.A. 1991. Statistiek in de economie, twee: steekproeftheorie en analyserende statistiek. Academic Service, Economie en Bedrijfskunde, Schoonhoven.

Muñez, L.U., E. Adajar, D.G. Lapid. 1997. Inventory of local initiatives on waste management; UWEP 20 Draft Report. Pilot Project Setting, Batangas Bay, Philippines, Center for Advanced Philippine Studies, Manila, Philippines.

Nunan, F. 1996. Public opinion and solid waste in Bangkok. Local Environment, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 165-181.

OECD. 1994. Project and policy appraisal: integrating economics and environment. chapter 6 and 7.

Palmares, M., L. Hemelaar. Pilot project proposals: Bauan and Tingloy. Urban Waste Expertise Programme, PPS Batangas Bay - UWEP 20, WASTE Advisers on Urban Environment and Development, the Netherlands, June 1998.

Pfammatter, R., R. Schertenleib. 1996. Non-governmental refuse collection in low-income urban areas: lessons learned from selected schemes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Switzerland.

Tejam, C.S., S.A. Ross. 1997. Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) contingent valuation studey in Batangas Bay, Philippines. GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas, Quezon City, Philippines.

UNCHS. 1995. Guidelines for Assessling Effective Demand of Communities for Environmental Infrastructure (CEMIS). Module No. 4, Habitat, Nairobi 1995.

Vaus, D.A. de. 1996. Surveys in social research. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, fourth edition.

Whittington, D., J. Briscoe, X. Mu, W. Barron. 1990. Estimating the willingness to pay for water services in developing countries: a case study of the use of contingent valuation surveys in southern Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 293-312.

Whittington, D., D.T. Lauria, X. Mu. 1991. A study of water vending and willingness to pay for water in Onitsha, Nigeria. World Development, Vol. 19, No. 2/3, pp. 179-198.

Whittington, D., V. Kerry Smith, A. Okorafor, A. Okore, J. Long Liu, A. McPhail. 1992. Giving respondents time to think in contingent valuation studies: a developing country application. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, pp. 205-225.

Whittington, D., D.T. Lauria, K. Choe, J.A. Hughes, V. Swarna, A.M. Wright. 1993. Household sanitation in Kumasi, Ghana: a description of current practices, attitudes, and perceptions. World Development, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 733-748.

Whittington, D. 1998. Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries World Development, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 21-30.

Wierstra, E. 1996. On the domain of contingent valuation. Ph.D. thesis for the faculty of Science of Public Administration, Twente University, Novermber 1996.

World Bank. 1989. Guidelines for conducting demand assessment and willingness to pay surveys for solid waste collection and disposal services. UNDP/World Bank Regional Water Supply and Sanitation Group, Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

World Bank. 1992. Development and the Environment. World Development Report, Oxford University Press.

domestic customers, and to test the feasibility of the method in South countries.

Contact person: Lex Hemelaar, Maria Muller

2801 CW Gouda, The Netherlands

Tel. 31-182-522625, Fax. 31-182-550313, e-mail: Lhemelaar@waste.nl

In this research, waste management services refer to a) the collection and transportation of domestic solid waste and human excreta, and b) the disposal and treatment of domestic solid waste and human excreta. The management system of domestic solid waste and human excreta can be divided into two subsystems, viz. a primary and a secondary system. The primary system comprises the collection of waste from households at the neighbourhood level. The secondary system is the transportation to, and the disposal and treatment at the final disposal site. Often the interface between the two systems is a neighbourhood based temporary storage site/facility.

In many South countries the responsibility of waste management lies with the Local Authorities. However, the entities that render services include, next to the municipal service, also private entities and community-based organisations.

Waste is also a valuable resource. Many, often informal, activities take place to capture the economic value, like waste picking, separation and sorting, pre-treatment, reuse and recycling. In a sound waste management system, these waste recovery activities should be integrated with the collection, transportation and disposal of waste.

The cost of rendering the primary and secondary waste management services include a) the cost of depreciation and interest of investments in land, buildings and equipment, and b) the cost of operation and maintenance, mainly the cost of labour, energy and materials. Both in North as in South countries the mainstream policy is that the cost should be recouped through specific user charges, rather than from public means.

In many cities in South countries waste management services are not effectively and not efficiently rendered. Service levels vary from 50 to 90%, and as a consequence, uncollected waste is burnt or disposed of randomly in water bodies. The impacts on public health and the environment are obvious. One of the reasons for the deficiencies is that the responsible agencies receive insufficient means to cover their cost. Many customers of waste services do not or only partially pay the user charges.

In general there are two reasons why customers do not pay:

This means that there is a mismatch between what the customer is able to pay for a waste service and the cost of the service rendered. It is therefore an income related subject. However, affordability-to-pay is a function of the customer=s living conditions and of his consumption preferences. Therefore it is also a highly personal matter and thus a social subject. For example, a given user charge may be regarded as affordable by customer X, but not by customer Y with a similar income level. Subsequently, it will be difficult to judge objectively whether a customer can afford a given user charge or not. Solutions to this problem are the establishment of a lower cost system, the mobilization of community participation as a contribution in kind, or the introduction of a cross subsidy mechanism.

In this case the customer can afford the service, but is reluctant to pay. Among others, reasons could be a dissatisfaction with the service, a disagreement with the level of the charge, the absence of law enforcement towards defaulters, a distrust in the management of financial means.

It may not always be possible to distinguish whether default of payments are due to reasons of affordability-to-pay or to reasons of willingness-to-pay. What makes the subject complicated is that the demand for waste management services is low or sometimes absent. In many cases people do not recognize the impact on public health, and do not have a problem with charging the environment with the negative impact of indiscriminate disposal. Therefore, it is not unthinkable that, because of the low level of demand, customers may use the >not-affordable= label as an excuse rather than as a serious reason. Only through interviewing people this could become clear. Through awareness and educational campaigns the demand for waste management services could be created.

Another important aspect from a marketing point of view is that, to some extent, waste management services can be regarded as a public good. This implies that also those who do not pay for the service, will enjoy the benefits of the service. For instance, in those urban areas where a collection service is rendered, all the waste is collected for environmental, public health and aesthetic reasons. So those who do not pay have a free ride, especially because law enforcement towards defaulters is weak.

From a financial point of view, a sustainable waste management system requires that the cost of the service matches the financial capabilities and attitudes of the users. Therefore it is essential that customers can afford the service and are willing to pay for the service. This is a subject which pertains to the domain of the marketing of public services, on which in North countries many theoretical and empirical work has been done.

However, in South countries sound methodologies for the assessment of the demand for waste management services, the affordability-to-pay and the willingness-to-pay are seldom applied. Some experiences and methodologies are available, which have mainly been applied in the drinking water sector.

The objective of the research is to identify/develop a method for the marketing of waste management services in South countries. The emphasis should be on the assessment of demand, and on the assessment of the potential financial contributions of the users. Elements of the method should include, but not be limited to:

The target group for using the method are those who develop and design waste management services, amongst others governmental planning agencies and development projects.

A second objective is to test the feasibility of the method in case studies in cities in South countries. WASTE will provide case study locations and facilities through their running projects.

The research can be divided into three phases.

This comprises a review of the existing literature on the marketing of public services in general and waste management services in particular, in North and South countries. It also includes experiences in this field from South countries.

From the results of Phase 1 a method has to be identified/developed which, after modification, has a potential for application in the field of waste management services in South countries. This phase also includes the development of a plan for testing the method. Peer reviewers from the case study locations will evaluate the proposed method on its feasibility.

The last phase comprise the implementation of the method in two case study locations in South countries, in order to evaluate the feasibility. This part of the research will be carried out in collaboration with local researchers.

To determine the sample size, Paragraph 2.9 already identified the necessary parameters. In order to facilitate the quest for the correct number of questionnaires, the following mathematical analysis can be applied inmediately.

For a percentage rate of r the variance v² can be formulated as r(100-r) indicating the heterogeneity of the population. If no guess can be made about the composition of the survey population, r can be equalled to 50, the maximum value reached serving as a safe upper limit. Translated into plain words, when one has no idea about the corresponding population characteristics influencing the dependent variable, it is safe to take the population as completely heterogeneous. As a consequence the required sample size will be larger than when the population is considered homogeneous.

Now the required sample size can be obtained from the following formula:

(1) n = k²r(100-r)/e²

where

n = the required sample size

k = the value of the Aconverted@ confidence limits of a normal distribution function

v² = the variance of the variable of interest among the population

e = the margin of error (or sampling error)

In Table 7 the sample sizes required to determine samples of varying degrees of accuracy are listed. The figures in this table are calculated such that we can be 95 percent confident that the results from the whole population will be the same as in the sample plus or minus the margin of error. Thus, for instance, if in a sample of 2401 cases a percentage of 53 percent was found of respondents voting for, say, the Labour Party, we can be 95 percent certain that 53 percent plus or minus 2 percent of the population intends to vote Labour.

Table 7 Required sample sizes for various sampling errors at 95% confidence level^a)

Sampling error (%) Sample size Sampling error (%) Sample size

1.0 9604 6.0 267

2.0 2401 7.0 196

n = the required sample size

N = the survey population

k = the value of the Aconverted@ confidence limits of a normal distribution function

v² = the variance of the variable of interest among the population

e = the margin of error (or sampling error)

Sampling error (%) Sample size Sampling error (%) Sample size

1.0 384 6.0 160

2.0 343 7.0 132

Š (k) for K - N (0,1)

Respondents= answers to direct, open-ended valuation questions yield a data set of WTP point estimates because there is a specific WTP value for each respondent. Answers to a reiterative yes/no question format, place each respondent=s willingness to pay in an interval defined by the last value accepted, i.e. the actual WTP bid, and the last value rejected. The WTP bids can be estimated by taking the mid-points of these intervals, providing a set of point estimates of individuals= willingness to pay. Subsequently, descriptive statistics such as the mean, median, and frequency distributions can be prepared for these data sets of point estimates (Moors, 1991) and are of particular value for policy purposes. This information can now easily be understood and interpreted by noneconomists. Moreover, mean estimates of WTP bids or frequency distributions can be applied to develop preliminary estimates of the total value of the service provided for instance.

The answers to a single yes/no question technique can be summarized in a manner that provides similar information to the frequency distribution of point estimated described above. It comes down to a straightforward calculation to determine the percentage of respondents in each sub-sample of the total sample that agreed to pay for the stated price of the improved service (OECD, 1994; De Vaus, 1996).

A next step in the analysis of contingent valuation data is to determine whether different groups of people in the sample gave different responses to the valuation questions. These analyses begin to address the questions of who is willing to pay the most for the good or service, and why. This is relevant to determine the accuracy and reliability of the WTP responses. When point estimates of willingness to pay are available the analyst can calculate the mean WTP bid for different groups. But what to do with these figures?

For data collected through open-ended and multiple yes/no questions clear presentational tables can now be depicted with which relationships between an independent variable and the dependent variable can be measured. Such cross-tabulations are powerful ways of communicating information and visualising relationships between different socioeconomic characteristics and WTP responses. Computing models do exist and facilitate the presentation of the collected data; for example SPSS is a comprehensive computing programme that enables this type of analysis.

It is also possible to prepare cross-tabulations for data based on answers to single yes/no questions, i.e. dichotomous choice format, and the corresponding explanatory socioeconomic variables. However, the analysis requires very large sample sizes to be representative for the whole population because dichotomous valuing crystallized less information (OECD, 1994; De Vaus, 1996). It is therefore more efficient to use multivariate analysis, like logit models instead of cross-tabulations, to report the data.

The use of multivariate analysis can provide better information and greater insight into the factors that affect the WTP responses than simple cross-tabulations. The general approach is to estimate a valuation function that relates the hypothetical determinants with the WTP responses. The decision on what determinants of WTP should be included in the valuation function is typically based on consumer demand theory. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the household, and prices and availability of substitutes goods and services are commonly used to explain the variations in the dependent variable. Since answers respondents give to open-ended questions provide a continuous measure of willingness to pay for the service, in this case ordinary least square models eventuated with computing models like SAS or SPSS.

In the case of a single yes/no question technique the response to the valuation question is not a continuous variable, but rather a discrete response. Thus ordinary least square techniques are not appropriate for the estimation of the valuation function. Instead, analysts utilize a variety of discrete choice models to attempt to explain the probability that a respondent will give a Ayes@ response to that valuation question. In this case the valuation model tries to explain the respondent=s answer to the single question format as a function of the same kind of independent variables used in the ordinary least square models. Typically logit or probit models can be applied to estimate this relationship (OECD, 1994) but are very time consuming and more complicated to handle than regression or correlation models based on the findings of ordinary least square data analysis.

How data is being analysed depends on what we want to know. Above a short summary has been given about what kind of quantitative methods are suitable for what kind of question format. Here attention is paid to the qualitative ways of providing information, how to group data related to the questionnaire, and how to reshape the results in a clear and unambiguous manner. In other words, the presentation of data is basically used for a more comprehensive way of analysing the survey data, as we have seen in the previous section, and not merely as an explanatory analysis in itself. The collected data could simply take the form of a table in which vital data are being processed (UNCHS, 1995). For the collected supplemental data one can depict the following, exemplary table.

Table 10 Research methods for different valuation question formats

Likewise, for the reporting of the willingness-to-pay data a similar tabulation can be created. However, the exact contents of the table depends on the formulation of the willingness-to-pay question asked to the respondent. If a dichotomous choice technique is used the tabulation looks different than when an open-ended question format is used. Roughly, the possible data tabulation can be depicted as is shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Data recording for willingness to pay for a specific service option^a)

The municipality of Tingloy has no formal collection system for all the types of produced waste on the island. A pilot project aimed to introduce the possibility of installing a collection system for all types of waste in the three barangays in the poblacion, is little by little being steered and built on the island through the collaborated assistance of Batangas Social Development Foundation, Inc., Provincial Government-Environment and Natural Resources Office and WASTE, the Netherlands.

Part of the pilot project is to conduct an on-site study on how to market the concept of integrated sustainable waste management to the local residents. The study is aimed to find out what is(are) the acceptable alternative(s) with regard to the would-be introduced waste management system on the island and how much each household is willing to voluntarily set aside as a payment for this would-be waste management system. In line with all this, a workshop that will involve the participation of different representatives from various sectors present on the island was scheduled first to validate some gathered data and second to solicit the stakeholders opinion on possible alternatives acceptable to the local residents.

The objectives of the activity are :

1. to be able to determine the needs and preferences of the different stakeholders regarding waste management;

2. to be able to provide and guide Local Government Unit and other stakeholders on integrated

sustainable waste management system, that is:

a. improving waste management practices by a step-by-step process

b. highlight the needs for such system in the island

c. what will be the roles each stakeholders play

d. how the system can be initiated and sustained;

3. to be able to form an ad hoc body which will chair the management and sustainability of

the waste management system to be introduced.

Some of the participatory methodologies used were :

1. Meta-card technique

2. Lectures

3. Sharing

4. Open forum

1. Invocation

2. Presentation of the participants

3. Leveling of expectations

4. Objective setting

5. Workshop proper

In total eighteen (18) people attended the workshop including the facilitators. These were barangay officials, municipal employees, chairperson of the municipal environmental committee, school principal and guidance advisory board, a representative from the private sector and a representative from the police.

The facilitators solicited the expectations of the participants by using the metacard technique. The attendees were grouped into four and they were asked to write their expectations regarding the activity to pieces of paper distributed to them. The answered papers were then posted on the board according to the content. Some of the expectations shared by the attendees were:

expectation frequency

1. after the activity, they expect to have a solution to the waste problem 3

2. to have a clean environment 2

3. to identify a person who can buy recyclables 1

4. to have a body that will solve waste problems 1

5. to understand the topics to be discussed 3

To verify the collected data on the existing waste management activities practiced on the island, the facilitators posed the question AWhat are households, barangay officials and municipal authorities doing about solid waste?@ to the four groups. Again using the metacard technique; but this time it will be the representative of the group who will post the answered papers to the board. The results of the inquiry were as follows:

for households frequency

waste is left in their backyard 1

waste is gathered in one place and burnt 7

waste is gathered and buried in the backyard or in seashores 2

waste is thrown at the seashore 1

waste is placed in designated barangay disposal site 1

waste is gathered in one place and burnt 3

all the attendees replied that the municipal government was doing nothing on this waste

management problem.

One of the facilitators made a review on the topics discussed during a seminar on ISWM by Recycling Movement of the Philippines in their barangay last 29^th of July. A brief sharing transpired on the topics imparted during the seminar. To know the level of awareness of the participants on the effects of improper waste management as described during the seminar conducted by the Recycling Movement of the Philippines. The facilitators requested the latter to give their comments on the question, AKnowing all this, what do you think will be the effects of your current waste management practices on a) yourself and on b) the environment?@

The responses of the stakeholders were as follows:

Almost everyone answered that improper waste management will lead to more cases of

human diseases and more chances of having a diseases.

it can cause deaths to plants and animals 3

it causes pollution 3

it enhances the population growth of diseases-carrying insects and rodents 2

carrying insects and rodents 2

it is unsightly and dangerous for playing kids 2

To be able to come up with a more acceptable solution or lists of options to deal with the solid waste on the island, the participants were told to cite as many actions or activities as they can, on how a household, a barangay or a municipal government can effectively manage all the types of waste produced on the island.

The listed recommendations were:

on household level frequency

segregate at source 11

keep the waste out of children=s reach/playground 1

learn the basics of reuse, reduce and recycling 1

the household to Aset as an example@ 1

cooperate with barangay/municipal ordinances and waste management activities 3

initiate the practice of proper waste management 1

organize a cooperative/body that will lead 1

establish a redemption centre for recyclables 1

conduct information-education campaigns on waste management 2

formulate and enforce ordinance pertaining to waste management 2

segregate at source 1

extend financial and non-financial assistance for the activities 3

conduct different consultations and meetings on waste management 1

review, formulate and enforce laws on waste management 4

work with other NGOs on the issues of financing and strategies 1

provide a site for final safe disposal of waste 8

work in partnership with barangay officials on waste management 2

take the lead in implementing the ISWM in Tingloy 2

conduct information-education activities on the island 1

The facilitator cited that the would-be waste management system for the island would entail costs. It only means that households and private businesses in the poblacion will have to separate an amount that will be solicited to help maintain and sustain the would-be solid waste management system. Suggestions and comments also indicated that parts of the strategies to be implemented should include the concept on merit and demerit. This to ensure the active participation of the residents. Contests on cleanest and greenest barangay were also cited as a good activity to start with in the poblacion. Moreover, schools were recommended to initiate information-education activities on proper waste management. This will nourish students clear understanding regarding their personal responsibility on waste each one of them is producing.

Moreso, seasonal waste was cited to be one of the major causes and source of pollution in the island=s soil and waters. A suggestion on how to deal with this seasonal waste was shared by the attending school principal. This was through a semi-landfill technology as explained and depicted in a drawing on the blackboard. One of the staff members present during the workshop replied that although the idea and the intention was good, having it done near or on the seashore will only lead to more problems in the near future. The expert suggested that further research regarding the principal=s suggestion should be done to help eliminate major risks.

The problem on seasonal waste was then identified to be the next agenda issue after a waste management system for the three barangays was installed.

A multi-sectoral waste management body was planned as the last activity of the workshop. The composition of the created body will be represented by the following sectors:

two representatives from the municipal council

three representatives from the health unit of Tingloy

the three barangay chairpersons (13, 14 and 15)

the three SK chairpersons (13, 14 and 15)

two representatives from the school

a representative from the cooperative sector

a representative from the waste buying sector

a representative from the church/religious sector

An initial site to do the final safekeeping of non-marketable and re-usable waste was identified and scheduled for study if it can serve the purpose. The marketing study on waste management that will be conducted in the area was also announced. The meeting to finalize the created body was tentatively set on the 24^th of the month.

Number of enumerators Sex Age Barangay addressed

1. J. Adalia Male 22 13

2. J. Manalo Male 21 14

3. J. B. Garcia Female 21 13

4. R. Manalo Male 32 15

5. J. H. Manalo Female 22 14

6. M. Valinton Female 25 14, 15

7. O. Manalo Male 21 15

8. R. B. de Chavez Female 34 14

Number of Item Amount

respondents

Food products daily expenditures P 115.67

Electricity connection yes 22 electricity bill last month P 297.59

no 6

Water connection yes 15 water bill monthly average P 168.33

no 13

Not answered 2

----

Total 30

Food products daily expenditures P 139.85

Electricity connection yes 38 electricity bill last month P 221.39

no 6

Water connection yes 24 water bill monthly average P 136.33

no 20

Not answered 6

----

Total 50

Food products daily expenditures P 119.39

Electricity connection yes 30 electricity bill last month P 197.23

no 7

Water connection yes 18 water bill monthly average P 119.44

no 19

Not answered 3

----

Total 40

Questionnaires are usually designed with an opening statement to be read by the interviewer to the respondent. This statement usually explains (UNCHS, 1995):

- what the survey is all about;

- why it is being conducted;

- how the respondent was chosen to be interviewed;

- how long the interview will take;

- assurance that the responses will be confidential;

- a request for permission to begin asking the questions.

Survey description and target could be stated as: AThe principal component of the research study is the development and implementation of a household survey intended to elicit three types of information, namely the perceived level of existing solid waste services and based hereon the possible improved service options, households preferences and attitudes regarding these services, and their affordability and willingness to pay for improved services.@

If the survey statement is defined, for instance as is in the case of Tingloy, then the survey statement might look like: AGood morning/afternoon. Can I have a moment of your time? My name is (name of interviewer) and I am conducting a survey for the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Project in Tingloy. I would like to ask you some questions that would assist the project team in determining how to improve solid waste services to your neighbourhood. Your opinion is therefore very important to be heard. The questionnaire will only take about (estimated time) minutes and all answers are treated confidentially. Moreover, there are no wrong answers because everyone has a different opinion.@

In order to have a clear insight in the geographical location of each household or entrepreneur and the total number of responses of each poblacion, the next step is to localise the target area. This will come down to a very simple question, being

ALet me first ask you a two questions to identify the location of your house/enterprise (ask the questions).@

- Household is identified as being a resident of poblacion number. (13, 14, or 15)

-The respondent is a citizen of the described poblacion of Tingloy. (yes/no)

- How long have you been a resident of Tingloy? (number of years)

The next group of questions is related to the existing situation of solid waste services and disposal found in the survey area. To be able to formulate these questions, the questionnaire designer must have an understanding of the actual situation. The questions are thus formulated to discover (the frequency of usage of) these services.

The questions and possible answers differ from every other situation but may come down to:

AI would like to ask you some questions regarding the usage of solid waste services as being provided in your neighbourhood (ask the questions).@

Household or private entrepreneurial participation in current solid waste service system could be described by means of:

- the way and frequency in which households or small scale enterprises discard their waste;

- the frequency of the solid waste service are provided to the respondents.

Before turning to the demand assessment of the stakeholders, the survey needs to indicate to what extent the respondents are aware of the environmental problems they are exposed to when no improvement of the actual waste system occurs. It is quite significant for the researcher to understand the potential level of participation and support for all kind of waste related activities. The reason is that a higher degree of familiarity increases the readiness to physically and financially contribute to environmentally supporting activities.

To promote the awareness of the local population an extensive promotion programme could be planned which focuses on the basic hygiene behaviour and the according public health dangers. The actual promotion material, however, varies from programme to programme and from location to location. Nevertheless, all Amobilization@ programmes should emphasize long-term environmental and health impact on the one hand, and the behavioural changes necessary to alleviate these hazards on the other. From a social marketing point of view, it asks for a method to increase the awareness of the beneficiaries, i.e. all persons benefiting from the improved quality of living, and a mobilization of these people to actually take affordable action, i.e. a way of creating real demand for improved services.

The statement could look like: AAs you know in your neighbourhood there are problems of discarding solid wastes. If nothing is undertaken to lift these problems, you might be faced not only with a decrease in quality of your living area but also with a threat to public health. I would therefore like to ask you some questions related to these environmental problems (ask the questions).@

The questions determining the degree of awareness could take as indicator:

- the specific problems as indicated by the respondents themselves;

- support and participation of existing activities in the field of combatting environmental problems.

Then, after having visualised the situation and the environmental problem indication in the survey area, the questionnaire is aimed at identifying the preferences of the stakeholders. Only in accordance with their needs an improved waste system will be successful. Thus questions must be developed to monitor their demand and attitudes towards the existing waste service system. Here also, it is impossible to specify each question ex ante although several criteria can be distinguished that measure the preferences of the stakeholders.

AI would also like to know your opinion about the present provision of solid waste services. This is of vital importance because otherwise we would not be in the position of understanding your true preferences and problems (ask the questions).@

The demand assessing questions could be based on the following aspects:

- the preferences on the present provision of solid waste services;

- the formulation of the most serious problem encountered by the respondents;

- the identification of the least provided service;

- the desired results from the improvement of these services within the technically viable framework;

Without any information on the affordability to pay of stakeholders, there is a serious drawback in the determination of the willingness to pay for the improved services provided. Not knowing the affordability to pay implies the danger of a failure of recovering the full costs of the service system. It is therefore vital to measure it. To be able to estimate the affordability to pay to financially contribute for waste services, one can ask a number of questions that relate to the expenditures on existing services, living expenditures or just income. The choice merely depends on the easiness to gather this information, the budgetary limitations, and the available time to conduct the survey.

ANow I would like you to think carefully, for the following questions are not easy to answer. The questions I am about to ask relate to your daily/weekly expenditures on existing services, if any, on cost-of-living, or income (ask the questions).@

The questions that intend to measure the affordability-to-pay will depart from the following indicators:

- the current level of expenditure on existing solid waste services;

- the level of primary cost-of-living expenditures;

- the level of income or saving.

Note that the order of indicators is taken such that the first is considered to be the easiest to measure.

To ascertain the voluntarily financial contributions for the new or improved services, several steps have to be taken into account. The first step involves the explanation of the service options for solid waste to the respondent. These appropriate based options imply alternatives that are practical, environmentally and economically viable, that they satisfy the needs of the users, and that they are socially acceptable.

After the description of the options, the next step is to emphasize that the provision of these services involves costs, generally involving costs of procurement, costs of operation and maintenance, and costs of depreciation and financing. And as with all products and services, they have to be funded in one way or the other. Thus, as this service is no exception, the surveyor must clearly state to the respondent that if he or she desires the improved service, he or she must pay the price attached to its consumption. Moreover, the interviewer continues to stress that this obligation involves a tradeoff between waste services on the one hand and other goods or products on the other. This reminder is important because it forces the respondent to think hard about his income constraints, eliciting the true preference for the improved service provided.

The third step is to clarify the payment Avehicle@ to the respondent or put differently, the way in which the payment will occur. Again this reminder is to emphasize the seriousness of the payment for the service offered.

Finally, the respondent is asked his or her opinion about the maximum amount he or she is willing to pay voluntarily. When applying the contingent valuation method several ways to elicit the true willingness to pay can be distinguished, such as the bidding game, dichotomous format, payment card format or just open-ended questions as has been portrayed in chapter 2. One has to make a choice between the most effective and efficient method based on each pros and cons.

After describing the viable options and reminding the respondent to the expenditure constraints involved, the interviewer can start asking the willingness to pay preferences. Then the willingness-to-pay statement might look like:

AAs you know the new or improved waste services are being provided to your neighbourhood. For the new system to be operational all costs must be recovered. In order to estimate the total recovery I would like to know your preferences about the amount you are voluntarily willing to contribute (ask the questions).@

1. AAre you willing to pay __(x)__ amount each day/week/month in order to receive the service

option ?@

a. yes, I will pay __(x)__ amount each day/week/month (go to 2)

b. yes, I would like to receive the service but I want to pay less than (x) amount (go to 5)

c. no, I do not want to pay for the provided service (go to 4)

2. AAre you willing to pay __(x+1)__ amount each day/week/month in order to receive the service

option?@

a. yes, I will pay __(x+1)__ amount each day/week/month (go to 3)

b. no, I do not want to pay __(x+1)__ amount for the provided service (go to 6)

3. AAre you willing to pay __(x+2)__ amount each day/week/month in order to receive the service

option?@

a. yes, I will pay __(x+2)__ amount each day/week/month (go to 6)

b. no, I do not want to pay __(x+2)__ amount for the provided service (go to 6)

4. AWhat is the reason that you do not want to pay for the service option?@

a. can=t afford to pay the full cost (go to 6)

b. don=t consider the service important enough to pay for (go to 6)

c. believe that the municipality should cover the cost of the service option (go to 6)

d. don=t trust the new service option (go to 6)

e. prefer another service option

5. AWhat is the reason that you prefer to pay less than __(x)__ amount?@

a. can=t afford to pay the full cost (go to 6)

b. believe that the municipality should cover a part of the cost of the service option (go to 6)

6. AWhat is the maximum amount that your household would be willing to pay each day/week/month

for the service option?@

maximum of __(y)__ pesos each day/week/month

To be sure of the validity of the survey results additional information is needed. Namely, the willingness to pay varies from household to household, and from small scale entrepreneur to small scale entrepreneur so that information on variables that influences the willingness to pay is a necessity in order to infer the true commitment to pay for the improved services provided. It is this final part of the survey that addresses to this information.

AI will soon be ending this interview. Before I do, however, I would like to ask you some questions about you and your family (ask the questions).@

The additional data recorded is generally based on:

- gender; because it makes a difference who is responsible for the daily expenditures, or who is

involved in the promotion activities as indicated in Part 4.

- age; because younger people might be more eager to participate while elderly might tend to leave

things as they are.

- education; because the level of education elicits the environmental and health risks caused by low

quality of services.

- household size; because the size of the household determines the expenditure pattern and therefore

perhaps the amount one is willing to pay.

- tenure/owner house; because the status quo of house property is an indicator of the awareness of

environmentally sound surroundings, and perhaps an indicator of income.

- profession/employment; because the level of income determines the willingness to pay.

- expenditures on a) existing services, b) cost-of-living, or c) income; idem.

- commercial activity (when being entrepreneur); because the type of activity involved influences

the type of waste produced.

Finally,

AThank you very much for your contribution to this survey. Do you have any questions or comments that you would like to ask me?@ (record the question(s) and/or comment(s)).

AThank you very much for your cooperation. We hope to use these results to determine how best to provide affordable and desirable services to the people of your neighbourhood. Good bye.@

AGood morning/afternoon. Can I have a moment of your time? My name is (name of interviewer) and I am conducting a survey for the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Project assisted by the Batangas Social Development Foundation in Tingloy. I would like to ask you some questions that would assist the project team in determining how to improve solid waste services to your neighbourhood. Your opinion is therefore very important to be heard. The questionnaire will only take about 40 minutes and all answers are treated confidentially. Moreover, there are no wrong answers because everyone has a different opinion.@

Let me first ask you some questions to identify the location of your house (ask the questions).

1. Gender of the respondent?

a. male

b. female

2. Are you a permanent resident of the attended neighbourhood of Tingloy?

a. yes (go to 5)

b. no (go to 3)

3. Can I interview someone else of this household who is a permanent resident and is present today?

a. yes (go to 1)

b. no (go to 4)

4. Can I come back tomorrow to continue this survey questionnaire?

a. yes (go to end)

b. no (go to end)

Record the address and/or family name: __________________________________

5. How long have you been a resident of the attended neighbourhood (13, 14 or 15) in Tingloy?

a. less than a year

b. more than a year but less than three years

c. more than three years but less than ten years

d. more than ten years

6. What is your age?

_________ years

7. Is the person being interviewed the head of the household?

a. yes

b. no

8. Is this a single-headed household?

a. yes

b. no

AI would like to ask you some questions regarding the situation of solid waste in your neighbourhood (ask the questions).@

9. How do you discard the waste that is no value to your household?

a. burn it

b. leave it on the street

c. throw it in the river

d. throw it in the sea

e. discard it in the communal containers

f. burry it in the backyard

g. burry it on the seashore

h. burry it near the riverbank

i. bring it to the dump site

j. leave it to be collected from the house

k. don't know

10. Is the solid waste collected from your house?

a. yes

b. no (go to 12)

11. How many times per week is your solid waste collected from your house?

a. daily

b. twice a week

c. once a week

d. now and then

e. there is no collection

f. don't know

12. Who is handling your solid waste?

a. father

b. mother

c. children

d. other relatives

13. What do you do with your recyclable products?

a. discard them with other solid waste

b. separate them for selling to junk shop collector

c. separate them for own reuse

d. separate it and give it away to others who will use it again

e. don=t know

14. What do you do with your organic waste?

a. use as compost

b. feed the animals

c. leave it to be collected from the house

d. discard it in the communal containers

e. discard it in the street

f. throw it in the sea

g. don't know

AI would also like to know your opinion about the present situation of solid waste services. This is of vital importance because otherwise we would not be in the position of understanding the true preferences and problems of you and your neighbourhood (ask the questions).@

15. What is your opinion about the current situation of the disposal of solid waste in your neighbour-

hood?

a. I'm doing it because everyone else is doing it

b. there will be problems in the end

c. nothing is wrong with what I'm doing now

d. no opinion/don't know

16. What do you consider the most urgent problem related to the disposal of solid waste in your neigh

bourhood?

a. personal health

b. pollution of living area and playgrounds for children

c. littering of solid waste in the neighbourhood

d. it will endanger the fishcatch

e. nothing is wrong

f. no opinion

17. What is your opinion about the current green communal containers in your neighbourhood?

a. they are too far away from the house

b. they are too small to contain all solid waste

c. they produce unpleasant odours

d. the size is sufficient (go to 19)

e. nothing is wrong with the communal containers (go to 19)

f. no opinion (go to 19)

18. What would you prefer as a solution?

________________________________________

19. What is your opinion about the present site where you dispose your waste?

a. anyone can throw his waste there

b. anything can be thrown there

c. the site produces foul odours

d. nothing is wrong with the site

e. no opinion/don't know

20. What do you consider the most urgent problem related to the present site in your neighbourhood where you dump your waste?

a. public health risk

b. groundwater contamination

c. it becomes an eyesore with unpleasant odours

d. uncontrolled dumping at the area

e. nothing is wrong with the dump site (go to 22)

21. What would you prefer as a solution?

___________________________________

___________________________________

22. Are you currently separating recyclable goods?

a. yes (go to 24)

b. no

23. Would you be willing to separate recyclable goods?

a. yes

b. no

24. Are you currently separating compostable goods?

a. yes (go to 26)

b. no

25. Would you be willing to separate compostable goods?

a. yes

b. no

26. Would you be willing to contribute to the safe disposal of the solid waste in your neighbourhood?

a. yes

b. no (go to 28)

27. How would you be willing to contribute?

a. bringing my own garbage to the communal container as whatever the neighbourhood

identifies as container

b. bringing my own and my neighbour=s garbage to the communal container as whatever the

neighbourhood identifies as container

c. separate recyclables

d. separate organic waste

e. cleaning litter around the communal containers as whatever the neighbourhood identifies as

container

f. cleaning litter around the site where the containers are emptied

g. paying for an amount agreed upon by the community for a solid waste collection system

28. Why not?

______________________________________

______________________________________

ANow I would like you to think carefully, for the following questions are not easy to answer. The questions I am about to ask relate to your daily/weekly expenditures and to an integrated solid waste service to be implemented in your neighbourhood (ask the questions).@

29. Can you indicate what your daily and monthly expenditures are?

a. yes, I can

b. no, I can't (go to 31)

30. Give a subscription of your expenditures on:

31. What is the reason you can=t indicate your expenditures?

a. don't want to

b. have no idea what the expenditures are

c. afraid someone will come to know the information

d. private information

e. don=t know

32. What is your monthly household income in pesos?

a. 1000-1499 e. 3000-3999 h. 7000-7999

b. 1500-1999 f. 4000-4999 i. 8000-8999

c. 2000-2499 g. 5000-5999 j. 9000-9999

d. 2500-2999 h. 6000-6999 k. 10000 and above

ANow I would like to present to you the identified solid waste service which might be implemented in your neighbourhood. The Mayor, the council members, and the barangay captains are aware of this solid waste alternative and support the idea of this integrated solid waste system. In order to receive the service you are also asked to pay a small fee per month.@

AThe solid waste service that can be identified regarding waste management in your neighbourhood has the following aspects (show the drawings):

1. You need to segregate all your solid waste at source into recyclables, which are items that can be used again to generate other goods, and into biodegradable waste, which is mainly your kitchen waste, plants, leaves etc. that can be used for composting, and into waste that remains.

2. You have to bring your biodegradable waste to a communal compost pit in your own barangay, and subsequently bring your recyclables together with your remaining waste to the closest garbage bin in the main street of your barangay where it is stored for further collection by a collector the same day.

3. Each barangay will collect its recyclables and remaining waste from the main street daily to an identified site outside the poblacion where recyclables are stored separately from the remaining waste.

4. The site will be called a redemption centre and is managed by a trained individual who will also see to it that no littering takes place. This site is already been located and agreed upon by the Mayor and council members.

5. The to-be formed municipal waste body will be responsible for the management of this solid waste service and the whole neighbourhood will contribute to the service system.@

33. Are you willing to pay P10 (P20) each month in order to receive the service option?

a. yes, I will pay P10 (P20) each month

b. yes, I would like to receive the service but I want to pay less than P10 (P20) (go to 37)

c. no, I do not want to pay for the provided service (go to 36)

34. Are you willing to pay P15 (P25) each month in order to receive the service option?

a. yes, I will pay P15 (P25) each month

b. no, I do not want to pay P15 (P25) for the provided service (go to 38)

35. Are you willing to pay P20 (P30) each month in order to receive the service option?

a. yes, I will pay P20 (P30) each month (go to 38)

b. no, I do not want to pay P20 (P30) for the provided service (go to 38)

36. What is the reason that you do not want to pay for service option?

a. can't afford to pay the full cost (go to 38)

b. don't consider the service important enough to pay for (go to 43)

c. believe that the municipality should cover the cost of the service option (go to 43)

d. don't trust the new service (go to 43)

e. prefer other solid waste alternative (go to 43)

37. What is the reason that you prefer to pay less than P10 (P20)?

a. can't afford to pay the full cost

b. believe that the municipality should cover a part of the cost of the service option

c. no comment

38. What is the maximum amount that your household would be willing to pay each month for the

service option?

maximum of ______ pesos each month

39. Do you think it is realistic that you could reduce your expenditures on these items by this amount every month in order to pay for a solid waster service system in your barangay?

a. yes (go to 41)

b. no

40. What do you think is a more realistic amount that you could actually afford every month for an improved solid waste service ?

a. revised amount _____________________________ pesos per month

41. If you wish to receive the service option, what other goods would you give up?

a. don't want to give up other goods

b. want to substitute food products (go to 43)

c. want to substitute other products, like ... (go to 43)

d. want to substitute savings (go to 43)

42. How would you pay for the provision of the service option if you don't want to give up other

expenditures?

a. use of savings

b. generate extra income

c. don't know

AI will soon be ending this interview. Before I do, however, I would like to ask you some questions about you and your family (ask the questions).@

43. How many persons live in your household, i.e. how many persons eat, drink and sleep in your

house on a regular basis?

a. _______ adults (15 years and older)

b. _______ children (under 15 years)

44. What is your level of education in number of years in school?

a. ______ years in primary school

b. ______ years in high school

c. ______ years in university

d. ______ years in professional courses

45. What is the level of education of the most educated member of your household in number of

years?

a. ______ years in primary school

b. ______ years in high school

c. ______ years in university

d. ______ years in professional courses

46. What does the principal income earner do?

a. fisherman

b. craftsman

c. teacher

d. employee

e. owner of business

f. tricycle rider

g. driver

h. cook

i. worker on passenger boat

j. unemployed

47. Where does the principal income earner work?

a. Tingloy

b. mainland

c. abroad

48. How many other people in your household contribute regularly to the household income?

________________ number of people

49. Who makes decisions for the daily expenditures?

a. father

b. mother

c. other relatives

50. Do you own your house?

a. yes (go to 53)

b. no, I am a tenant

c. no, I am taking care of the house

51. What is your monthly rent?

_______________ pesos per month

52. How do you pay your rent?

a. in cash and directly to the house owner

b. in cash and directly to the caretaker of the house

53. Does this house have electricity?

a. yes

b. no (go to 55)

54. What was your household's electricity bill last month?

_________________ pesos

55. How much are you more or less paying for your water consumption per month?

_________________ pesos

56. Does your household have a business here in the house?

a. yes

b. no (go to end)

57. What type of business is it?

a. grocery shop

b. candy shop

c. butchery

d. barber shop

e. selling cooked food

f. bakery

g. video shop

AThank you very much for your contribution to this survey. Do you have any questions or comments that you would like to ask me? (record the question(s) and/or comment(s)).

Thank you very much for your co-operation. We hope to use these results to determine how best to provide affordable and desirable services to the people of your neighbourhood. Good bye.@

58. Was the person who answered the questions irritated or nervous during the interview?

a. yes

b. no

59. Do you think the respondent made an effort to tell the truth about his/her willingness to pay

questions?

a. yes

b. no specify this:___________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

60. How would you rate the overall quality of the interview?

a. good

b. fair

c. poor specify this:__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

61. How many people were listening while you conducted this interview with the respondent?

a. other family members

b. non-family members

Name of Enumerator :

Barangay :

Date :

Time start :

Time finish :

1. A B

2. A B

3. A B

4. A B

Record the address and family name: ___________________________________________

___________________________________________

5. A B C D

6. _________________ years

7. A B

8. A B

9. A B C D E F G H I J K

10. A B

11. A B C D E F

12. A B C D

13. A B C D E

14. A B C D E F G

15. A B C D

16. A B C D E F

17. A B C D E F

18. __________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

19. A B C D E

20. A B C D E

21. __________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

22. A B

23. A B

24. A B

25. A B

26. A B

27. A B C D E F G

28. __________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

29. A B

30. Give a subscription of your expenditures on:

31. A B C D E

32. A B C D E F G H I J K

33. amount P _____________ B C

34. amount P _____________ B

35. amount P _____________ B

36. A B C D E

37. A B C

38. maximum amount P________________

39. A B

40. revised amount P ________________

41. A B C D

42. A B C

43. A _______ adults (15 years and older)

B _______ children (under 15 years)

44. A ______ years in primary school

B ______ years in secondary school

C ______ years in high school

D ______ years in university

45. A ______ years in primary school

B ______ years in secondary school

C ______ years in high school

D ______ years in university

46. A B C D E F G H I J

47. A B C

48. ________________ number of people

49. A B C

50. A B C

51. ________________ pesos per month

52. A B

53. A B

54. ________________ pesos

55. ________________ pesos

56. A B

57. A B C D E F G

58. A B

59. A B specify ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

60. A B C specify ________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

61. A B