An empirical gap was identified in the study indicating a necessity for more extensive research on implementing effective measures for recycling and composting to encourage greater active participation among residents of the barangay, (Camarillo & Bellotindos, 2021). The theoretical framework of the study was anchored from Republic Act 9003 also known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 enacted by the Congress of the Philippines last 2001. The act aims to promote proper waste segregation and management through guidelines for households and businesses. It establishes the National Ecology Center to aid in education, research, and training on solid waste issues.

Solid Waste

According to Manas, (2024) due to limited recycling capabilities for both high-value recyclables and low-value plastic in the country, only a small nine percent is recycled, despite 33% being collected. This situation has contributed to the Philippines' reputation as one of the leading contributors to global pollution. The unsustainable dumping or burning waste practices in open areas, often located near impoverished communities on the outskirts of cities, or disposing of garbage in bodies of water was commonly accepted as a method of waste disposal (Ferronato, 2019). In the same perspective, Abubakar, (2022) claimed that this kind of method creates numerous negative sustainability challenges, including resource depletion, environmental pollution, and public health issues such as the transmission of communicable diseases. This type of practice of waste disposal will have an effect in the long run for the community.

Types of Solid Waste

Jamal, (2020) explained the features of solid waste into origin and sources. Likewise, the types of solid waste are organic and inorganic. This study considered residential waste as the origin, and the sources are garbage, combustible, and non-combustible. Kumar, (2022) claimed that waste disposal is a perennial concern facing global communities even though resources and policies are available. Hence, the challenges facing waste disposal can be categorized into engineering, scientific, and organizational. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, (2024), explained that hazardous waste is disposed of resources that are detrimental to human well-being and the environment. The institute further mentioned that it can be in the form of liquids, solids, contained gases, or sludges.

Waste Disposal Practices

According to Rodrigues, (2023) solid waste management encompasses the collection, proper disposal, and resource recovery of waste in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Careful planning, organization, and implementation of programs are necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts of waste on human health and the environment (Rodrigues, 2024). Rendering to Perkumienė, (2023) successful programs for solid waste management require collaboration between various departments, including government agencies, private companies, NGOs, and the community. Monitoring and evaluating programs, and incorporating feedback from the community, are crucial for continuous improvement and optimization of the environment of the community.

Davies, (2023) claimed that an accurate understanding of waste generation can be hindered due to factors like underreporting, illegal dumping, and mixed waste streams. Fereja & Chemeda (2021), mentioned that the estimation rates of solid waste generation pertain to quantifying the volume of waste generated by households or commercial entities within a specific timeframe. This encompasses all materials that are disposed of, irrespective of whether they undergo recycling processes or are destined for landfill disposal. The residential and business sectors can be used to identify the possible impact of new developments on the local waste management system (Anuardo, 2022). The study of Awasthi, (2023) mentioned that solid waste composition was sorted into categories such as organic matter, plastics, paper, glass, rubber, and miscellaneous materials. Each category underwent further analysis to determine appropriate disposal or recycling methods, aiming to manage waste effectively and minimize environmental impact. The waste collection systems include all the activities and infrastructure needed to manage waste effectively and responsibly, from the waste generation to its final destination (Safety Culture, 2023). However, urban regions often struggle to benefit from these initiatives due to financial constraints and resource limitations (Gurevich, 2023). There are many different waste treatment technologies available that can improve the environment of a community. Le et al., (2023), stated that the selection of a waste treatment technology for a specific region should be based on a comprehensive assessment of each option's advantages and disadvantages, considering local variables such as site size, operational capabilities, financial considerations, and potential environmental effects. Conferring to Landfill Waste Disposal (2022), landfills are designated areas for dumping both regular and hazardous waste. While adhering to strict regulations is crucial, these facilities go a step further by being specifically designed for environmental protection against harmful pollutants. This means they're carefully built in locations where their existence won't pose a threat to the surrounding ecosystem. Landfills can help communities to have a proper designation of the wastes (Ozbay, 2021). Conversely, Smith, (2022), claimed that long-term environmental consequences of improper can include ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and damage to natural resources, further exacerbating the impact on both human health and the environment. According to Vinti, (2023), inadequate waste disposal methods can result in negative health effects, such as contamination of water, soil, and air. Improper handling of hazardous waste, including practices like open burning, poses direct risks to waste workers, individuals engaged in waste management activities and nearby communities. Each barangay-level community is responsible for separating its waste into three categories: biodegradable/compostable materials, non-biodegradable materials, and recyclable materials. According to Philippine Institute for Development Studies, (2021), the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act or RA 9003, these separated materials will be collected by the barangay. Everything else, including non-recyclable waste and hazardous items, will be collected by the city or municipality.

Community Discipline

Abbas, (2020) mentioned that without proper information and participation of citizens, even the best-designed programs for solid waste management can struggle. Public awareness acts as a powerful catalyst for encouraging community involvement, making it an important ingredient alongside strong legislation, skilled professionals, and sufficient funding. In short, successful waste management depends on a population that understands the importance and participates actively in sustainable practices. While Khatibi, (2021) state that public awareness can be the key to a sustainable future with a proper release of information dissemination and participation from the community.

Pairman, (2023) mentioned that positive relationships between communities and governmental institutions make community involvement not just desirable, but essential and feasible, as it is likely to result in fairer, more sustainable public decisions and enhance the quality of life in local communities. This is the reason why the significance of community engagement for individuals, public entities, and governments alike. This continuous issue of attitude poses a serious threat to public health and environmental sustainability in developing communities (Santhakumari & Sagar, 2020). According to Ignatius, (2022) despite the efforts from various groups, people in developing communities continue to dispose of waste improperly. This issue comes from a lack of understanding and negative attitudes towards proper solid waste management. While programs to encourage better practices have been implemented, they haven't led to significant improvements in individual and community-wide waste management processes.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 1 below begins with an in-depth interview with the Barangay Captain of Barangay Adlas Silang Cavite, to generate ideas and concerns that can support the development of the contents for the research instrument. The independent variables are the demographic profile of the community which are age, educational level, and household size. Age may influence individuals' attitudes and behaviors towards waste management, while educational level could influence awareness and knowledge of proper waste disposal methods, and household size might impact the volume and composition of waste generated.

The dependent variable is the awareness level of the community, in terms of waste disposal challenges, policies and regulations, waste handling, community programs/projects, awareness/education, discipline, and opportunities. The output of the study is continuous improvement of the community practices in solid waste management.

METHODOLOGY

A mixed-method design was utilized in this study. A one-on-one interview with the Barangay Chairperson of Barangay Adlas, Silang Cavite was conducted to generate ideas and concerns that can support the development of the questions for the research instrument. Consequently, the results of the descriptive and inferential will magnify the quantitative study of the research.

Research Population and Locale

The research population for this study consists of 457 families and the locale was Riverside One Barangay. Adlas, Silang Cavite. The demographic profile of the community such as age, education, and household size were evaluated.

Sample and Sampling Techniques

The sample size of 213 families was determined using Slovin formula. A cluster sampling technique was used to select clusters based on the size of the families and then randomly select the samples from the clusters. Currently, Riverside One of Barangay Adlas has a population of 457 families, which includes 130 young adults (18-24 years old), 395 adults (25-64 years old), and 31 senior citizens (65+ years old).

Data Gathering Procedures

• Identify and obtain necessary permissions and clearance from relevant authorities to conduct the study in Barangay Adlas, Riverside One, Silang, Cavite.
• Conduct a one-on-one interview with the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Adlas, Silang Cavite to identify topics to be included in the questionnaire survey.
• Develop a self-made questionnaire about the common issues developed from the one-on-one interview with the community chairperson of Barangay Adlas, Silang Cavite which will include awareness, practices, opportunities, and challenges in solid waste management.
• The demographic profiles were age, educational level, and household size.
• Pilot testing was done on 30 respondents located at Riverside Two of Barangay Adlas for reliability testing. This area has the same characteristics as the respondents where the actual survey was conducted.
• Execute the actual survey within Barangay Adlas Riverside One, Silang, Cavite, targeting a sample size of 215 families.
• Analyze the survey data, with a focus on understanding the connection between age, education, household size, and awareness and practices in solid waste management for inferential and descriptive statistics.

Statistical Analysis of the Data

• Frequency/Percentage: This statistic was used to analyze the age, education, and size of the families of the respondents.
• Measures of Central Tendency: The mean score was used to identify strengths and weaknesses of the awareness level of the respondents based on the major concern.
• Measures of Variability: The standard deviation was used to identify how far or near the variation score is from the mean.
• One-way Analysis of Variance: This inferential statistic was used to identify if there were significant differences between the awareness levels of the community and the demographic profile of the respondents in terms of education, age, and household size.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The demographic profile of the respondents showed that 59.5% were above 33 years old and probably considered mature audiences. The majority were high school level representing 71% and came from medium-sized households consisting of four to five members (45%) (Tables 1-3).

The interview with the Barangay Captain of the community was recorded with his permission and was transcribed and analyzed, clustering similar and different ideas. The common issues generated about the solid waste management of the community were the following: Awareness of the Community regarding solid waste disposal, Actual practices of the community on the policies and regulations of the local barangay unit, and the challenges and opportunities facing the community.

Table 4 below shows the different assessment levels of these common issues of the community in their solid waste management.

Assessment Levels between Awareness and Actual Practice

The community was strongly aware of the impact of improper solid waste management (mean of 3.73) and strongly agreed with the actual practice of the local barangay unit regarding the programs and policies (mean score of 3.71) being implemented. While the result showed favorable interpretations, it seemed contradicting from the interview with the Barangay Chairman mentioning the inconsistency of the community in their compliance. He also mentioned that in Riverside Two, where some households were dumping their garbage continuously in unauthorized areas until it piled up. Furthermore, some communities were disposing of garbage on the river bank, especially in those communities located near the area despite the policy, and regulation of the local barangay unit and further provided equipment (wheelbarrow) to be used by the community to transport the garbage on authorized dumping area while waiting for the garbage truck collection schedule.

Fadhullah, (2022) claimed that when households practice improper disposal of solid waste it can pollute the rivers. In urban settings, littering causes clogging of drainages during heavy downpours of rain because of plastic bags, packaging, and bottles. Furthermore, if there is poor access to waste collection and disposal services, individuals tend to illegally dump or improperly dispose of waste, contributing to the accumulation of waste in rivers. According to Ferronato, (2019) the mismanagement of solid waste is a global problem and is observed in low-income countries.

Sultana, (2021) mentioned that there is an existing and substantial disparity within the community regarding awareness and the actual practice of household solid waste management. While numerous individuals in the Philippines are knowledgeable about household solid waste management, their lack of implementation of these practices was often inadequate. Additionally, Molina, (2021) stated that the community members' participation in solid waste management programs depends on the actions of their leaders or officials, the complex nature of solid waste management, which requires technical, political, legal, socio-cultural, environmental, and economic factors, as well as available resources, the absence of any of which can lead to program failure for the community (Table 5).

Assessment level of Challenges

Although the composite mean score of 3.66 with a standard deviation of 0.221 showed that respondents were strongly aware of the challenges facing the community just the icing on the cake because there were other attributes found in this assessment level such as their understanding of the concept and principle of R.A. 9003 or otherwise known as Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. It seemed that the community was very unfamiliar with this Act, to the point that segregating their waste into biodegradable and non-biogradable posed a serious problem in their practice.

In addition to the challenges found in the study were about strategies and programs of the local barangay unit related to its sustainability program including the material recovery facility, the enforcement and regulations as to the frequency of garbage collection schedule and impenetrable narrow streets forcing the community to dispose on unauthorized area. These challenges might be an outcome of why the community has difficulty complying with the basic regulations and policies of the local barangay unit.

According to the Barangay Chairman, another major challenge facing the community for effective solid waste management practices was the discipline of the community because some households were dumping their garbage in unauthorized areas while others mirror-imaged the practice until the garbage was stacked consistently.

Conferring to Zebua, (2023) community engagement must be present in addressing environmental challenges mostly for long-term sustainability while educational programs have been used to enhance participation within the community in waste management, it has not been very successful in changing the behavior of individual community members in a way that would lead to sustainable engagement with waste management practices. Lambe, (2019) claimed that the success of a community project relies on certain factors that can vary among individuals, such as how they perceive the project, their willingness to participate, their level of understanding of the project's goals, and their sense of ownership or responsibility towards the project, these variables can influence how actively community members engage with and contribute to the project, ultimately affecting its outcomes and overall success.

Assessment Level of Opportunities

It is believed, that opportunities can be a driver to overcome the challenges facing the community. The overall mean score of 3.58 and standard deviation of 0.098 means that they strongly agree with the different attributes found in this assessment level such as:

Free Printing Service: This is intended for public students in the community, to avail of this free printing service, students should exchange three empty plastic bottles,

Free Registration to Join the Sportsfest Activity: The youth are encouraged to join the basketball league during the summer. The teams should collect and endorse empty plastic bottles as their registration fee and provide three empty bottles for every game. Similarly, other opportunities were noted in the study such as the importance of participating in community clean-up drives and waste segregation activities which the community strongly agreed were both environmentally safe and acceptable to the community. Herewith are the other programs that will suffice these aforementioned opportunities.

Promoting a feedback system from the community

They have quarterly scheduled town hall meetings where they share information about the ongoing programs of the local barangay and encourage them to give feedback and suggestions in the meeting.

Promoting awareness through Seminar

The local barangay unit has a twice-a-year seminar about sustainable waste to increase the awareness of the community regarding solid waste management disposal.

Barangay Feeding Program

According to Barangay Chairman Generoso, whenever they have a scheduled feeding program, they encourage the community to bring their disposal utensils such as paper cups, plates, spoons, and forks to lessen the waste.

Partner with Organizations in the Community regarding Solid Waste Management.

According to Barangay Chairman Generoso, they have active partners in the community supporting their solid waste management, such as the Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity, Guardians, Bureau of Fire Protection, and Sangguniang Kabataan.

According to Mariano, (2020) involving the community in solid waste management shows the importance of fostering a sense of ownership among its members. This ownership from the community contributes to the sustainability programs and expands the barangay's outreach, as community members become advocates or volunteers for proper solid waste management practices themselves (Tables 6 & 7).

Differences Between Actual Practice and Ages of Respondents

There was a significant difference found between the actual practice of the local barangay unit and ages of the respondents. The F value of 3.83 with a probability value of 0.011 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample evidence that the ages of respondents differ from one another in terms of the actual practice of the local barangay when they are grouped based on age. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (18 years old to 22 years old), group 3 (28 to 27 years old), and Group 1 and Group 4 (above 33 years old), and the groupings were in favor of those in group 1 (18 years to 22 years old) respectively. This means that there was enough evidence to prove that those from 18 to 22 years old were the ones who strongly agreed that programs and policies of the local barangay unit about solid waste management were being practiced by the community as compared with those ages ranging from 23 to 27 years old and 33 years old above.

Group 1 aged between 18 years to 22 years are considered Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012 and might be considered as college students. According to the study of Debra, (2021) there were strong indication that secondary and tertiary level students have constructive environmental attitudes and high consciousness of environmental issues but should be directed by their educators on the practical education side and solid waste practices.

Differences between Challenges and Ages of the Respondents

There was a significant difference found between the challenges facing the community and the ages of the respondents. The F value of 3.65 with a probability value of 0.013 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample evidence that the ages of respondents differ from one another in terms of the challenges observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on age. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (18 years old to 22 years old), and Group 4 (above 33 years old), in favor of Group 1. This means that there was enough evidence to prove that those from 18 to 22 years old were the ones who were strongly aware of the challenges of solid waste management as compared with those ages ranging from 23 to 27 years old and 33 years old above.

The Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, (2021) through a press release of the Philippine Information Agency about the message of Honorable Benny D. Antiporda, Undersecretary for Solid Waste Management and Local Government Units (LGUs) mentioned that the youth should be engaged in solid waste management activities because they will be the future champions of this endeavor and advocacy (Tables 8 & 9).

Differences between Educational Attainment and Awareness

There was a significant difference found between the awareness of the community in the policies and programs of the local barangay unit and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 4.324 with a probability value of 0.014 was significant at an alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of awareness observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant difference was between Group 1 (elementary level), and Group 3 (college level), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who were strongly aware of the policies and programs of the local barangay unit related to solid waste management as compared with those other educational levels.

In the study conducted by Bautista, (2019) she claimed that college students were fully conscious of the policies and regulations about solid waste management particularly in recycling, reusing, and proper disposal but were not fully cognizant of their roles as students in the implementation of solid waste management.

Differences between Educational Attainment and Actual Practice

There was a significant difference found between the actual practice of the local barangay unit and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 3.464 with a probability value of 0.033 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indication that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of actual practice observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant difference was between Group 2 (high school level), and Group 3 (college level), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who strongly agreed about solid waste management of the local barangay unit as compared with those other levels.

The findings of Diestro, (2022) wherein college students in the Philippines were aware of the protocols in solid waste management but moderately practiced the implementation.

Differences between Educational Attainment and Challenges

There was a significant difference found between the challenges of the community and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 10.940 with a probability value of 0.000 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there were enough sample indicators that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of challenges observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (elementary level) and Group 3 (college level), as well as between Group 2 (high school level), and both were in favor of Group 3 respectively. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who were strongly aware of solid waste management as compared with those other levels.

Differences between Educational Attainment and Opportunities

There was a significant difference found between the opportunities of the community and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 3.793 with a probability value of 0.0240 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of opportunities observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (elementary) and Group 3 (college level), as well as between Group 2 (high school) and Group 3, both were in favor of Group 3 respectively. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who strongly agreed about the opportunities related to solid waste management as compared with those other levels (Tables 10 & 11).

Differences between Household Members and Challenges

There was a significant difference found between the challenges of the community and household members of the respondents. The F value of 6.804 with a probability value of 0.001 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that household members of respondents contrast with one another in terms of challenges observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on several household members. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 2 (2-3 members) and Group 4 (more than 6 members), in favor of Group 2, as well as between Group 3 (4 to 5 members) and Group 4 (more than 6 members) in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from Group 2 (2 to 3 members) and Group 3 (4 to 5 members) were strongly aware of the challenges related to solid waste management as compared with those other levels.

Differences between Household members and Opportunities

There was a significant difference found between the opportunities of the community and household members of the respondents. The F value of 5.058 with a probability value of 0.007 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that household members of respondents contrast with one another in terms of opportunities observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on the number of household members. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 3 (4 to 5 members) and Group 4 (more than 6 members), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from Group 3 (4 to 5 members) strongly agreed about the opportunities related to solid waste management as compared with those other household family members.

FINDINGS

The demographic profile of the respondents showed that 59.5% were above 33 years old and were mature individuals. The majority were high school level representing 71% and came from medium-sized households consisting of four to five members (45%).

Based on the one-on-one interview with the Barangay Chairman of Adlas, Silang Cavite. The following common issues facing the community regarding their solid waste management were developed: Awareness of the community regarding solid waste disposal, actual practices of the local barangay unit, and the challenges and opportunities facing the community.

Based on the assessment level between awareness of the community and actual practices of the local barangay unit regarding policies about solid waste management.  The community was strongly aware of the impact of improper solid waste management (mean of 3.73) and strongly agreed with the actual practice of the local barangay unit about the programs and policies (mean score of 3.71) being implemented. While the result showed favorable interpretations, it seemed contradicting from the interview with the Barangay Chairman mentioning the inconsistency of the community in their compliance.

Based on the assessment level on the challenges facing the community, the composite mean score of 3.66 with a standard deviation of 0.221 showed that the respondents were strongly aware of the challenges facing the community but just an icing on the cake because there were other attributes found in this assessment level such as their understanding in the concept and principle of Republic Act 9003 or otherwise known as Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.

It seemed that the community was very unfamiliar with this Act, even segregating their waste into biodegradable and non-biogradable posed a serious problem in their practice. In addition to the challenges found in the study were about strategies and programs of the local barangay unit related to its sustainability program including the material recovery facility, the enforcement and regulations as to the frequency of garbage collection schedule and impenetrable narrow streets forcing the community to dispose on unauthorized area. These challenges might be an outcome on why the community has difficulty complying with the basic regulations and policies of the local barangay unit.

Based on the assessment level on the opportunities facing the community, the overall mean score of 3.58 and standard deviation of 0.098 means that they strongly agree to the different attributes found in this assessment level such as:

• Free Printing Service: This was intended for public students in the community, to avail of this free printing service, students should exchange three empty plastic bottles
• Free Registration to Join the Sportsfest Activity: The youth were encouraged to join the basketball league during the summer. The teams should collect and endorse empty
• Promoting feedback system from the community: They have quarterly scheduled townhall meetings where they share information about the ongoing programs of the local barangay and encourage them to give feedback and suggestions in the meeting
• Promoting awareness through Seminar: The local barangay unit has a twice-a-year seminar about sustainable waste to increase the awareness of the community regarding solid waste management disposal.
• Partner Organizations in the Community regarding Solid Waste Management: They have active partners in the community supporting their solid waste management, such as the Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity, Guardians, Bureau of Fire Protection, and Sangguniang Kabataan.

Significant differences between Actual Practice and Ages of Respondents

There was a significant difference found between the actual practice of the local barangay unit and the ages of the respondents. The F value of 3.83 with a probability value of 0.011 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample evidence that the ages of respondents differ from one another in terms of the actual practice of the local barangay when they are grouped based on age. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (18 years old to 22 years old), Group 3 (28 to 27 years old), and Group 1 and Group 4 (above 33 years old), and the groupings were in favor of those in group 1 (18 years to 22 years old) respectively. This means that there was enough evidence to prove that those from 18 to 22 years old were the ones who strongly agreed that programs and policies of the local barangay unit about solid waste management were being practiced by the community as compared with those ages ranging from 23 to 27 years old and 33 years old above.

Significant Differences between Challenges and Ages of the Respondents

 here was a significant difference found between the challenges facing the community and the ages of the respondents. The F value of 3.65 with a probability value of 0.013 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample evidence that the ages of respondents differ from one another in terms of the challenges observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on age. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (18 years old to 22 years old), and Group 4 (above 33 years old), in favor of Group 1. This means that there was enough evidence to prove that those from 18 to 22 years old were the ones who were strongly aware of the challenges of solid waste management as compared with those ages ranging from 23 to 27 years old and 33 years old and above.

Significant Differences between Educational Attainment and Awareness

There was a significant difference found between the awareness of the community in the policies and programs of the local barangay unit and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 4.324 with a probability value of 0.014 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of awareness observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant difference was between Group 1 (elementary level), and Group 3 (college level), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who were strongly aware of the policies and programs of the local barangay unit related to solid waste management as compared with those other educational levels.

Significant Differences between Educational Attainment and Actual Practice

There was a significant difference found between the actual practice of the local barangay unit and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 3.464 with a probability value of 0.033 was significant at an alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indication that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of actual practice observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant difference was between Group 2 (high school level), and Group 3 (college level), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who strongly agreed about solid waste management of the local barangay unit as compared with those other levels.

Significant Differences between Educational Attainment and Challenges

There was a significant difference found between the challenges of the community and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 10.940 with a probability value of 0.000 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there were enough sample indicators that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of challenges observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (elementary level) and Group 3 (college level), as well as between Group 2 (high school level), and Group 3 level, both are in favor of Group 3 respectively. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who were strongly aware of solid waste management as compared with those other levels.

Significant Differences between Educational Attainment and Opportunities

There was a significant difference found between the opportunities of the community and the educational attainment of the respondents. The F value of 3.793 with a probability value of 0.0240 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that the educational attainment of respondents contrasts with one another in terms of opportunities observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on educational attainment. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 1 (elementary) and Group 3 (college level), as well as between Group 2 (high school) and Group 3, both were in favor of Group 3 respectively. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from the college level were the ones who strongly agreed about the opportunities related to solid waste management as compared with those other levels.

Significant Differences between Household Members and Challenges

There was a significant difference found between the challenges of the community and household members of the respondents. The F value of 6.804 with a probability value of 0.001 was significant at alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that household members of respondents contrast with one another in terms of challenges observed by the community regarding solid waste management when they are grouped based on several household members. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 2 (2-3 members) and Group 4 (more than 6 members), in favor of Group 2, as well as between Group 3 (4 to 5 members), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from Group 2 (2 to 3 members) and Group 3 (4 to 5 members) were strongly aware of the challenges related to solid waste management as compared with those other levels.

Significant Differences between Household Members and Opportunities

There were significant differences found between the opportunities of the community and household members of the respondents. The F value of 5.058 with a probability value of 0.007 was significant at an alpha of 0.05. This means that there was enough sample indicator that household members of respondents contrast with one another in terms of opportunities observed by the community about solid waste management when they are grouped based on the number of household members. The post-hoc analysis revealed that the significant differences were between Group 3 (4 to 5 members) and Group 4 (more than 6 members), in favor of Group 3. This means that there was enough basis to prove that those from Group 3 (4 to 5 members) strongly agreed about the opportunities related to solid waste management as compared with those other household family members.

CONCLUSION

The assessment level of the community between awareness and actual practice showed that the community was strongly aware of the impact of improper solid waste management and strongly agreed with the actual practice of the local barangay unit about the programs and policies being implemented. Based on the assessment level of the challenges facing the community the respondents have a weak understanding of the concept and principle of Republic Act 9003 otherwise known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 because of non-compliance in implementing waste segregation in the community. Based on the assessment level of the opportunities facing the community, the following were observed in the community being implemented: free printing service, free registration to join the sports fest, and promoting feedback system from the community and the existing partner organizations in the Community.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

L.P. Masanga, the lead author conceptualized the study, orchestrated the allocation of the different tasks to the co-authors, and ultimately wrote the manuscript. E.B. Gutierrez has contributed to conducting the inferential statistics, data interpretation, and analysis of the variables. M.V. Cajayon contributed by providing literature reviews on the demographics of the respondents. R.C. De Vera participated in the data gathering and reproduction of the instrument.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND FUNDING INFORMATION

The research study was conducted in the community of Silang Cavite, Barangay Adlas Riverside Two. Acknowledgment to the community members who participated in the actual survey. Likewise, to the Barangay Chairman for allowing us to have the one-on-one interview with him. To the Barangay leaders and Staff of Barangay Adlas, Riverside One, Silang Cavite for their support and assistance during the actual survey of the community. There was no funding or grant given to the conduct of the research.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this manuscript. In addition, the ethical issues, including plagiarism, informed consent, misconduct, data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication and/or submission, and redundancy have been completely observed by the authors.

• 
  Table 1
• 
  Table 2
• 
  Table 3
• 
  Table 4
• 
  Table 5
• 
  Table 6
• 
  Table 7
• 
  Table 8
• 
  Table 9
• 
  Table 10
• 
  Table 11