Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ăhnlich wie Garbology Plenary
Ăhnlich wie Garbology Plenary (20)
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen
KĂźrzlich hochgeladen (20)
Garbology Plenary
- 3. X 12M
- 10. Nationwide, we produce 4M tons of solid waste a year.
- 14. Studies on KAP on solid waste management are very relevant as SWM is being urgently addressed by many cities and municipalities in the country in compliance with RA 9003. -Tatlonghari and Jamias, 2010
- 15. Correlation of Knowledge and Attitudes with the Reported Practices on the Solid Waste Management of Selected Households in Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City Pacariem â Sandoval SLCM 2016 Adviser: Dr. Carolina Linda Tapia Preventive Medicine II AY 2011-2012
- 16. Definitions
- 18. Household
- 19. Household Waste
- 22. Burning
- 23. Knowledge
- 24. Attitudes
- 25. Practices
- 28. Practice AttitudesKnowledge Sociodemographics Age Sex Educational Attainment Household size Figure 1. Theoretical framework for the correlation of KA and P of Old Balara households, QC.
- 29. K A P The study objectives revolved around 3 variables.
- 30. H0 â No correlation H1 â A positive correlation
- 35. Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient of Determination Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression
- 36. n=( zÎą+zβ â1âr 2 r ) 2 +2 Îą = 0.05 β = 0.20 r = 0.214 (Tatlonghari et al., 2010) n = 159
- 38. Old Balara Households Target Population Accessible Population Old Balara
- 40. Inclusion CriteriaOld Balara Households HWM is present resident for > 6 months social desirability < 8
- 43. General (1) Segregation (1) Recycling (1) Dumping (1) Burning (1) K (26) With 1 point for each subdomain, there is a total K score of 5 or 19%.
- 44. BIAS CONTROLS Refusal Full information Respectful persuasion Recall Choices Defining time frames Interviewer Standardization Rehearsal Social Desirability 10 item SD pre-test Table 1. List of biases and their corresponding controls
- 45. Results
- 46. Table 2. Summary of sociodemographics.
- 47. 78% are women
- 48. 49% of them are middle aged (40-65)
- 51. 42% of families live in households of either 4 or 5
- 52. Only 42% earn at least P10,000 a month for the entire household.
- 53. Results Practice
- 54. Figure 2: Histogram of total practice scores.
- 55. 18.6 10.2 24 46.7 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 3: Distribution of segregation percentages Only 46.7% reportedly segregate 4-7 times a week.
- 56. 42.5 26.3 14.4 15.6 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 4: Distribution of reusing and recycling percentages 42.5% reported to have never reused or recycled.
- 57. 91.6 5.4 3 0.6 Never Sometimes Often Always Figure 5: Distribution of open burning percentages 91.6% reported to have never practiced open burning
- 58. 90.4 9.6 Designated Undesignated Figure 6: Distribution of dumping percentages at designated and undesignated sites 90.4% reported dumping in designated sites
- 59. 17 68 66 Sometimes Often Always Figure 7: Distribution of dumping percentages by frequency 68% reported dumping often, while 66% reported dumping always
- 61. Table 3: Descriptive statistics of scores in the knowledge subdomains Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42
- 62. The respondents were scored separately for each subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42
- 63. Respondents scored highest in the dumping subdomain, followed by recycling and burning. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 1 2 3
- 64. Respondents scored lowest in segregating. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42
- 65. As a whole, the respondents scored 74.42% in the knowledge domain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Score General SWM 7 4.64 66.28 Segregation 5 2.66 53.20 Recycling 9 7.54 83.78 Dumping 3 2.86 95.33 Burning 2 1.66 83.00 TOTAL KNOWLEDGE 26 19.35 74.42
- 67. Table 4: Descriptive statistics of scores in the attitude subdomains Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00
- 68. The respondents were scored separately for each subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00
- 69. The respondents scored highest in the recycling subdomain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00 1 2 3
- 70. The respondents scored lowest in general SWM attitudes. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00
- 71. As a whole, the respondents scored 74% in the attitude domain. Domain Highest Possible Score Mean Score Percentage Scores General SWM 9 5.50 61.11 Segregation 5 4.40 88.00 Recycling 4 3.65 91.25 Dumping 3 2.19 73.00 Burning 4 2.77 69.25 TOTAL ATTITUDE 25 18.5 74.00
- 73. K A P
- 74. K P
- 75. Total Domain Scores K A P Total Knowledge Scores 1 0.106 0.272* (r2 = 0.074) Table 5: Spearman rank correlation matrix of mean total SWM scores
- 76. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of various mean knowledge subdomain scores. Subdomain K with A K with P Segregation 0.179* (r2 = 0.0340) 0.103 Recycling -0.014 0.106 Dumping 0.074 -0.055 Burning -0.159* (r2 = 0.0253) -0.38
- 77. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of various mean knowledge subdomain scores. Subdomain K with A K with P Segregation 0.179* (r2 = 0.0340) 0.103 Recycling -0.014 0.106 Dumping 0.074 -0.055 Burning -0.159* (r2 = 0.0253) -0.38
- 80. Discussion
- 81. Multiple independent garbage collectors Collection days are segregated No segregation, no collection
- 83. Table 7: Comparison of sociodemographic data with other studies Parameter Group 6, 2012 Tatlonghari et al., 2010 Sumayao et al., [n.d] Gender F > M â Age 40-65 â Family Income (Peso) > 10,000 Occupation Unemployed â Educational Attainment High School â Household Size 4-5 â
- 84. Table 8: Comparison of correlation coefficients with another study Parameter Group 6, 2012 Tatlonghari et al., 2010 Correlation of K with P r= 0.272 (r2 =0.074) r=0.214 (r2 =0.046) Correct K â Correct P Favorable A â Correct P Segregation and Recycling = â
- 85. Correct attitudes towards open burning prevent its practice.
- 86. Possessing correct knowledge does not necessarily translate into practice. Information is insufficient.
- 87. In segregation, K â A In burning, K inversely with A
- 88. Income Education None with K, A Age â none with segregation practice
- 89. What we are: Pioneering study Baseline data What we can do: Plan Strategize Invest in knowledge How we can do: Information drives Incentives
- 90. Knowledge is still power. Mobilize the community. K and A are not the only ones. SWM is multifactorial
- 91. Questionnaire Standardize KAPs Reported vs. Actual Limited to KAPs
- 92. Knowledge is still power. Mobilize the community. K and A are not the only ones. SWM is multifactorialQuestions?
- 104. References
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Transition: think how we can help fix the problem.
- Analogy in popular culture: Pacific Rim Jaeger = 2.5kilotons. Trash produced is equivalent to 1,600 Jaegers. 1 hummer = 6.4tons. 62,500 hummers
- Improper management and disposal practices â unfavorable to health and environment
- Improper management and disposal practices â unfavorable to health and environment
- This paper is a rare study that investigated KAP correlations in the local setting (Los Banos). The current study substantially borrows from them.
- Practices which include segregation, reusing, recycling, burning, and dumping.
- A social unit in a house or shelter that owns and operates its own stove or cooking unit. Derived from the NSO definition.
- Any solid, non-sewage waste generated by the household
- Person primarily responsible for the processing, storage and disposal of household waste. Not necessarily the mother. The definition is neutral to sex, age or any other sociodemographic.
- SEG: Separation of household waste into biodegradable and non-biodegradable REC: Recovery of materials intended to be used again DUM: Open â Disposal at undesignated sites Controlled dumping â Disposal at designated sites
- Combustion of household waste. Different from incineration which is controlled, legal and serves another purpose in the waste processing chain.
- Awareness and understanding: (1) laws, programs, (2) impact to health and environment, (3) consequences, (4) different household level practices.
- Position towards: roles, importance, practicalities, participation (with reasons for and against)
- REPORTED execution of: favorable (seg, rec, proper dumping), unfavorable (burning, improper dumping)
- Is there a significant correlation between the knowledge and attitudes on SWM and the reported practices of the households?
- Theoretical framework shows that KA and sociodemogs affect P
- GENERAL: determine if there is a significant (+) correl, between knowledge and attitudes towards reported practices. SPECIFIC: mean K and A scores with reported practices in seg, rec, burning, dumping
- H0 â no significant correlation H1 â significant positive. One-tailed.
- Questionnarie: self-constructed, pilot-tested, no validated by expert. No true garbologist in the Philippines. Processing: for completeness, consistency, Microsoft Excel Analysis: SPSS 16
- SPEARMAN: Inspection of the data showed they were not normally distributed. Non-parametric. COEFF of DETER: percent of variance attributed to that variable STEPWISE: for confounding and effect modification
- Formula from a textbook by Norman and Streiner (2008) for linear regression studies. Emphasize that z-scores are used, hence 1.96 and 1.64, not 0.05 and 0.20.
- Target population: Old Balara Accessible: Households
- Random points along main road (Laura St.).
- 1. Must be present. 2. Resided for at least 6 mos 3. SD < 8. Test is used by psychologists. There are many versions, but 10 item chosen to limit length. If >1 households in a house, include all. Differentiate house vs household
- K total = 26. IDK = 0. A total â 25 Either 1 or 0. P total = 10. Depends on frequency. P scoring: 3 for parati (>/=4/wk), 2 for madalas (2-3x), 1 for minsan (only when convenient, and 1 time a week), and 0 for hindi (not practicing at all). For burning, reversed.
- Dr. Tapia, each highlighted finding is again given a human face to make a connection with the audience. Merely reading âwomen, middle-aged, highschoolâ etc, does not make a lasting impact on the audience. The slide is shown for summary purposes.
- Dr. Tapia, the following tables are animated in order to highlight only what is important and to minimize the visual load on the audience. Only for summary purposes.
- There is a weak positive correlation between total knowledge and practice scores.
- There is a weak positive correlation between the knowledge and attitude scores in segregating and burning. There are no correlations between knowledge and practice scores.
- There were no significant findings except for burning.
- There is neither confounding nor effect modification by the sociodemogs. Standized scatterplots and regression analysis tables would be shown in the appendix
- 1. There are private collectors + city collectors; 2. Bio: Mon, Fri; NonBio: Wed. 3. Supposedly, no segregation, no collection.
- 1. Unknown if these children still follow proper disposal. Confirmed by residents and local officials 2. NGOs (such as Tzu Chi) are active in SWM
- THJ2010: F (77 vs 52); 41-60; <10K (53% vs >10K 42%), College grad (64%) SUMAYAO: 36-46, <10K (50%), college grad, 5 members
- All are consistent with THJ2010 2. But pressure, incentives, rewards, punishment may help. 2a. Participation is key. Attitudinal state is not enough. 3. Knowledge of laws and programs. Recall: segregating and recycling scored highest.
- Finding comparable to Tatlonghari. âIf you perceive that burning is harmful, you will not do itâ.
- Knowledge on proper SWM may be reflected in their practices Only a little over half knew that there were existing laws Some were not aware of specific days of collection K is insufficient, but it should not be neglected altogether.
- All correlations weak. No findings in other studies. C orrect knowledge on concepts of segregation â favorable attitude towards segregation. Knowledge of effects â unfavorable attitude towards burning. âThe more you know about burning, your attitude becomes less conducive to burning.â Warn about counterintuitive scoring for burning attitudes. For mathematical purposes, it is scored relative to the practice itself (burning), not to what is right (do not burn).
- Contrary to Tatlonghari and Bennegen.
- Strengths, applicability and strategies. Emphasize on having correct knowledge because they lead to better attitudes (segregation, burning) and practice (in general).
- 1. Total knowledge is correlated with practice: it may be more feasible to invest in vs. attitudes. 2. Community: Lectures, use of incentives and rewards. 3. There are external factors that may affect practice other than KAs. 4. SWM is multifactorial. Each practice may need a different approach. It was found that the correlations across the different practices were inconsistent.
- Questionnaire: not validated, no Chronbach's alpha Standardization: formal investigation of constructs of KAPs Social desirability: Observe vs reported. Limited to KAPs: Other effects should be investigated, such as effects of sociodemogs, external variables. More indepth investigation of role of attitudes. Even other studies confirm attitude is not correlation. What is the role?
- Total knowledge is correlated with practice: it may be more feasible to invest in (vs. attitudes). Community: Lectures, use of incentives and rewards. There are external factors that may affect practice other than KAs. SWM is multifactorial. Each practice may need a different approach.