1

Analyzing the Perception of Grade 12 Marist Students on Plastics

Alejandro S. Valencia, Justin Angelo T. Evaristo, Justin Ian M. Magallanes, and Kenneth

Alexander S. Castor

Marist School Marikina

STEM-12

Ms. Shellah Marie C. Tabayoyong

February 17, 2020

 2

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our utmost gratitude to Mr. Eric de Guzman and Ms. Shellah

Marie C. Tabayoyong, our research advisers, for incessantly guiding us throughout the whole

study.

We would also like to give thanks to Ms. Maal Gorospe and Mr. Roldann Tabayoyong

for their pointers and advices. This study would have been invalid without your counsel.

To all of our respondents, we would like to acknowledge your support. Thank you for

trusting us and taking the time to answer our survey. Your participation was very critical in our

study.

Lastly, we would like to give special thanks to Mrs. Charissa G. Guevarra for allowing us

to survey students under her supervision. The entire research would not have been possible

without your approval.

To those whose names are not mentioned, we humbly offer our most sincere thanks for

your help and support.

 3

Dedication

Our team would like to dedicate this study to the following:

To our parents and family members for their unshakeable support. Thank you for giving

us motivation and pushing us whenever we feel like giving up. Thank you for never leaving our

side.

To the people who made this study possible: to our research advisers, to faculty members,

and to Marist students.

And lastly, to God who gave us wisdom, guidance, support, and everything that we ever

needed, who moved us to conduct this timely study, who lend His hand whenever we feel like

succumbing to stress and pressure

 4

Abstract

Several hundred million tons of plastics are produced every year. Previous studies suggest that

people have contrasting behavior and perception on plastics. This study analyzes the perception

of Grade 12 Marist students on plastics. One hundred thirty-two Grade 12 Marist students were

asked to participate in a survey. An analysis of the results shows that plastic use is common

amongst Grade 12 Marist students. Results also show that Grade 12 Marist students are highly

aware and concerned about plastic use. Moreover, our findings suggest that the students have

divided opinions on school policies and programs concerning plastics use while half of them

think that the government is not giving enough attention to plastic pollution in the country.

Likewise, responses show that there a high level of awareness and a positive view on bioplastics

is widespread amongst students. The results suggest that Grade 12 Marist students have an

opposing view and behavior with regards to plastics. This trend may be caused by several factors

such as social desirability bias, lack of accessible plastic alternatives, or failed school programs

or policies. Further studies, however, are required to genuinely identify the factors that affect the

trend.
 5

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ..........................................................................................................................2

Dedication .......................................................................................................................................3

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................4

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................7

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................8

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................9

Background of the Study ..............................................................................................................9

Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................................11

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................................................12

Scope and Delimitations of the Study ........................................................................................12

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework ...........................................................................................13

Review of Related Literature and Studies ..................................................................................13

Conceptual Framework of the Study ..........................................................................................15

Research Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................15

Definition of Terms Used in the Study ......................................................................................16

Chapter 3: Research Design ........................................................................................................18

Method of Research Used ..........................................................................................................18

Sources of Data ..........................................................................................................................18

Data Gathering Instruments .......................................................................................................19

 6

Data Gathering Procedure ..........................................................................................................19

Preparatory Phase ...................................................................................................................19

Actual Data Gathering ............................................................................................................20

Statistical Treatment of Data ......................................................................................................20

Chapter 4: Results........................................................................................................................21

Chapter 5: Conclusion .................................................................................................................25

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................25

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................33

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................34

References .....................................................................................................................................36

Appendix .......................................................................................................................................40
 7

List of Tables

Table 1: Mean, Mode, and Standard Deviation of the Data Gathered .......................................... 21

Table 2: Responses for Indicators 6 and 9 .................................................................................... 25

Table 3: Responses for Indicators 7, 10, 13, and 15 ..................................................................... 26

Table 4: Responses for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ....................................................................... 28

Table 5: Responses for Indicators 12, 14, 16, and 17 ................................................................... 30

Table 6: Responses for Indicators 5, 8, 11, and 18 ....................................................................... 31

 8

List of Figures

Figure 1: Frequency of Responses for Indicators 1 to 6 ............................................................... 22

Figure 2: Frequency of Responses for Indicators 7 to 12 ............................................................. 23

Figure 3: Frequency of Responses for Indicators 13 to 18 ........................................................... 24

 9

Chapter 1

Introduction

This section contains the Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem,

Significance of the Study, and the Scope and Delimitations of the Study.

Background of the Study

For the past decades, people have been utilizing plastics in an unimaginable scale. In fact,

plastics can be found in almost everything nowadays, from cell phones and computers to food

packaging and clothing (“Plastics”, n.d.). Erik Solheim, former head of the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), even called plastic a miracle material (Giacovelli, 2018). And

indeed, plastics have become an important part of our lives. However, the very convenience of

plastic use also brought upon a huge environmental problem – one that concerns not only

humans, but almost every other living organism on the planet. In a report published by UNEP in

2018, it was mentioned that single-use plastics poses “significant ingestion, choking and

entanglement hazards to wildlife”. Likewise, it was stated that plastic bags can choke waterways

and aggravate natural disasters, as was the case when two-thirds of Bangladesh submerged in

1998 due to a catastrophic flood. Furthermore, plastics also contribute greatly to global warming.

In an article published by Yale Climate Connections in 2019, Claire Atkin of the Global Alliance

for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) was quoted saying that plastic pollution is not a mere oceans

issue, but also a climate and human health issue. The article also mentions that 12.5 to 13.5

million metric tons of carbon dioxide are emitted per year in the United Stated while extracting

and transporting natural gas that will be used in plastic production. Moreover, a 2019 report
 10

authored by numerous environmental organizations such as the Center for International

Environmental Law (CIEL) and Earthworks among others indicated that the presence of

microplastics in the human body can lead to a multitude of diseases, most notably cancer,

inflammation, and necrosis.

According to Plastic Oceans International (n.d.), a non-profit environmental organization,

over 300 million tons of plastic are produced every year, half of which are meant for single-use

purposes. They also mentioned that more than 8 million tons of plastic are thrown into the

oceans every year. In the Philippines alone, around 164 million pieces of sachets, 48 million

shopping bags, and 45.2 million transparent plastic bags or “plastic labo” are used every day

(GAIA, 2019).

Some schools in the Philippines have been making steps to help address some of the

environmental problems that plagues the country. Bulata National High School (BNHS) in

Cauayan, Negros Occidental started using mugs made of bamboo, bowls from coconut shells,

and plates from banana leaves to promote a plastic-free culture (Nicavera, 2019). Likewise,

Marist School Marikina in Marikina City implements cleanliness programs such as 7S and

CLAYGO (CLean As You Go) to “encourage its students to develop a sense of responsibility

when it comes to keeping the campus clean” (Bibe, 2019). An interview with Mr. Jose Aventino,

the Prefect of Discipline of the Junior High School department of Marist School, suggests that

cleanliness campaigns being implemented in the school has been successful so far (Gancia &

Alfonso, 2018). However, according to the same interview, students do not keep the same

environmentally friendly attitude when they are not being observed. To quote Mr. Aventino,

“…it is very evident that in cases where students are not observed and they know that they are

not being watched, definitely they will continue to litter and leave their garbage behind” (Gancia
 11

& Alfonso, 2018). Nonetheless, there are no published studies, research papers, or surveys that

properly evaluates or quantifies the perception of Marist students when it comes to plastic use. A

study, therefore, is necessary to address the issue.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to determine the perception of Grade 12 students of Marist

School Marikina. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. How often do Grade 12 students of Marist School Marikina use single use plastics?

2. How often do Grade 12 students of Marist School Marikina use biodegradable plastics?

3. How aware are Grade 12 students of Marist School Marikina about:

a. Plastic pollution

b. Effects of single-use plastics

c. Biodegradable plastics

4. How do Grade 12 students of Marist School Marikina perceive:

a. Single-use plastics

b. Biodegradable plastics

c. Government programs about plastics

d. School programs about plastics

 12

Significance of the study

This study will redound to the benefit of the institution where it will be conducted, the

researchers who intend to explore related topics, and policy makers who wish to address similar

issues discussed in this paper. Consequently, the findings in this paper can serve as a baseline for

future studies concerning topics of the same nature. Likewise, it can be used to improve current

policies, programs, or campaigns regarding garbage management, plastic use, pollution, and the

likes. Recent findings on plastic consumption and perception of Filipinos (GAIA 2019, 2010)

greatly influenced the hypotheses. Miller’s (2011) findings that most students in the University

of Alabama have contradictory behavior and perception concerning single-use plastics also

guided the researchers in forming the hypotheses of this study.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study focuses on quantifying the general perception of the respondents with regards

to single-use plastics. Moreover, this study explores the respondents’ impression of

biodegradable plastics and, likewise, government and school programs concerning plastic use.

The respondents were surveyed and their answers were analyzed by determining the weighted

mean and standard deviation; thus, putting this research paper under the ‘quantitative’ category.

The respondents are composed of Grade 12 students from Marist School Marikina, Marikina

City, Philippines during the school year 2019-2020. This paper, however, does not take into

consideration the demographics of the respondents.

 13

Chapter 2

Conceptual Framework

This section contains the Review of Related Literature and Studies, Conceptual

Framework of the Study, Research Hypotheses, and the Definition of Terms Used in the Study.

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Most research papers that sought to address plastic pollution tend to revolve around

recycling, finding alternatives for plastics, and other similar topics that focus on finding an end

to the said environmental issue. Nonetheless, there are some studies that dealt with consumer

perception on plastics. One such study was published in the journal Science of the Total

Environment. The study, which was authored by Heidbreder, Bablok, Drews, and Menzel

(2019), reviewed 187 literature on plastic and found out that people routinely use plastics despite

expressing awareness on the problems accompanying plastic use. Moreover, survey conducted

by Agri-food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in Canada found out that 93.7% of

Canadians surveyed are “personally motivated to reduce single-use plastic food packaging

because of its environmental impacts” (Charlebois, Walker, McGuinty, & Music, 2019). Another

2019 survey conducted by Accenture found out that 77% of their 6000 respondents from 11

countries find plastics as the least environmental-friendly packaging material. Other studies also

suggest a widespread negative view on plastics. Pereira (2019) surveyed 200 residents from

Rhode Island, U.S.A. and found out that 77% of the respondents support a statewide plastic bag

ban. Around 86% of the participants were also found to be aware of the issues surrounding

plastic use. Furthermore, Martin (2015) found out that residents of Bali Island in Indonesia
 14

perceive single-use plastics negatively. The willingness of Balinese people to lessen plastic

consumption was also found to be high. However, there are communities that seems to care less

about plastic pollution. In 2017, Negussie and Mustefa surveyed residents of Harar City, Eastern

Ethiopia; the results indicate that around half (51%) of the respondents dump their plastic bag

wastes in open areas. This is despite 88.7% of the respondents perceiving plastics as having

environmental impacts.

Far fewer studies that deal with student perception on plastics exist. In 2011, 162 students

of the University of Alabama were surveyed and it was found out that the dominant attitude of

the students with regards to single-use plastics are inconsistent with their behavior; it was

mentioned that students generally use plastic bags regardless of their pronounced opinions and

attitude against plastics (Miller, 2011). On the other hand, a study conducted among 6 secondary

schools in Sharjah City, U.A.E. found out that 85.5% of the respondents understands how

detrimental plastic wastes are to the environment (Hammami et al., 2017). Likewise, a survey

conducted among 69 students from 2 junior high schools in Bandung, Indonesia claims that most

of the students think that plastic waste lead to environmental problem (Tapilouw, Firman,

Redjeki, & Chandra, 2017). Findings of another study conducted in a school in India indicates

that higher secondary students are more aware about plastic pollution (Das & Sarkar, 2015).

In the Philippines, findings indicate that Filipinos also have a contradicting perception

and behavior towards plastics. A survey conducted by the Social Weather Stations (SWS) in

2019 found out that 71% of Filipinos want to permanently ban the use of plastics while 10%

thinks that those who use plastic should pay higher (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives

[GAIA], 2020). It was also found out that 4 out of 10 Filipinos think that companies should find

alternatives for plastic while 6 out of 10 said that they are willing to buy food condiments such as
 15

vinegar, soy sauce, oil, etc. in recyclable or refillable containers. However, a report published by

GAIA in 2019 said that 164 million pieces of sachets are used in the country every day. GAIA

Philippines’ Executive Director, Froilan Grate, claims that people buy in sachets because

multinational companies do not use alternative distribution or packaging system (GAIA, 2020).

However, there are no definite study to back up Grate’s claim. Likewise, there are no studies that

specifically focus on the perception of students with regards to plastic use in the Philippines.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Research Hypotheses

The researchers aim to support the following hypotheses:

1. Grade 12 Marist students often use single-use plastics.

2. Most Grade 12 Marist students have never used biodegradable plastics.

 16

3. Grade 12 Marist students are moderately aware about the effects of single-use plastics.

4. Grade 12 Marist students are slightly concerned about plastic pollution.

5. Most Grade 12 Marist students never heard of biodegradable plastics.

6. Grade 12 Marist students, in general, think single-use plastics have numerous uses.

7. Grade 12 Marist students, in general, think that single-use plastics contribute greatly to

pollution.

8. Grade 12 Marist students agree that the use of biodegradable plastics can help lessen

pollution in the country.

9. Grade 12 Marist students think that the government is not giving enough attention about

plastic pollution in the country.

10. Grade 12 Marist students think that the school is giving enough attention to plastic use in the

campus.

11. Grade 12 Marist students think that single-use plastics should be banned in the campus.

12. Grade 12 Marist students think that single-use plastics should be banned in the whole

country.

13. Most Grade 12 Marist students think that the programs being implemented (7S and No

Plastic Wednesday) in the school are not effective.

Definition of Terms Used in the Study

• Plastic – “a lightweight, hygienic, and resistant material” than can be molded and used in

numerous ways (Giacovelli, 2018)

 17

• Single-use plastics – also known as disposable plastics, are commonly used for plastic

packaging and are used only once before being thrown away or recycled (Giacovelli, 2018).

They are also defined as being nonbiodegradable in this paper.

• Biodegradable plastics – plastics that can be completely or partially converted to water,

carbon dioxide or methane, energy, and biomass through biological action (Kershaw, 2015).

They can be single-use or reusable. Single-use biodegradable plastics are different from

single-use nonbiodegradable plastics which are referred to as simply ‘single-use plastics’ in

this paper

• Grade 12 Marist students – grade 12 senior high school students enrolled in Marist School

Marikina, Marikina City, Philippines for the school year 2019-2020. They are the main

subjects of this study

• Marist School – a Catholic school situated in Marikina City, Philippines

• Indicators – questions and statements used in questionnaire

 18

Chapter 3

Research Design

This section contains the Method of Research Used, Sources of Data, Data Gathering

Instruments, Data Gathering Procedure, and the Statistical Treatment of Data.

Method of Research Used

The researchers of this study intend to quantify the perception of plastics among Grade

12 Marist students with utmost objectivity; that is, with minimal involvement. Therefore, a

quantitative type of study was utilized by the researchers. Quantitative studies deal with

numerical data that can be used to make general observations or to explain a phenomenon

(McLeod, 2019). More specifically, this research is a survey research. According to Baraceros

(2016), a survey research is a type of non-experimental quantitative research that uses data-

gathering techniques such as questionnaires to acquire essential data. The researchers of this

study used a 5-point Likert scale and eighteen indicators in the questionnaire.

Sources of Data

As previously stated, this study is a survey research. The data, therefore, that will be

analyzed and discussed in this paper are obtained through surveys, particularly through

questionnaires.
 19

Data Gathering Instruments

In conducting this study, the researchers made use of the following materials and

instruments:

• Pen – for answering the questionnaires

• Paper – material for the questionnaires

• Printer – for printing the questionnaires

• Laptop – for word processing

The researchers made use of a questionnaire composed of the following indicators and scales

in gathering data from the respondents:

Data Gathering Procedure

Data gathering for this study is composed of two parts: preparatory and actual data

gathering. The preparatory phase revolved on determining who the respondents will be while the

actual data gathering involved the distribution of the questionnaires.

Preparatory Phase

1. Determine the total population of Grade 12 Marist students

2. Using Slovin’s formula, determine the sample size with respect to the desired margin of

error (7%)

3. Divide the sample size by 6 to get the number of respondents per section
 20

4. Through a random number generator, pick random class numbers to determine who will

answer the survey

Actual Data Gathering

Every day, during Homeroom period, the researchers went to the different sections or

homerooms to administer the surveys. A short introduction was given before the surveys were

administered. The respondents were given around five minutes to answer the survey. Those who

were absent during the day of administering the survey were not given the questionnaires

anymore.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data gathered through the survey was consolidated in Microsoft Excel. Responses

were translated to their numerical values according to the scale provided in the questionnaire and

were segregated per section. Unanswered questions or statements and invalid responses, such as

those questions or statements with two responses, were taken into account and were left blank in

the Excel worksheet. After the data was summarized, the mode, mean, standard deviation, and

frequencies of responses were obtained by using formulas in Microsoft Excel.

 21

Chapter 4

Results

Altogether, 22 students per section or a total of 132 Grade 12 Marist students were

surveyed for this study. However, there were several questionnaires that contained invalid or

blank responses. In summary, 132 responses were collected for each indicator except for

indicators 11, 12 and 13 which received a total of 131, 129, and 131 responses, respectively. The

mean, mode, and standard deviation (SD) of the responses are shown in Table 1 while the

frequencies of the different responses for each question are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1
Mean, Mode, and Standard Deviation of the Data Gathered

VARIABLE INDICATOR
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Mean 3.45 3.42 2.98 3.51 3.27 4.48 4.25 3.74 4.17
Mode 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 3 4
SD 1.07 1.01 1.11 1.25 1.01 0.69 0.90 0.99 0.78
VARIABLE INDICATOR
Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
Mean 4.55 4.18 2.43 4.24 3.09 4.11 3.11 3.21 4.38
Mode 5 5 2 5 3 5 3 3 5
SD 0.70 0.85 1.16 0.90 1.14 1.05 1.31 1.28 0.80
Note. The values of the mean and standard deviation in this table were rounded off to three

significant figures.
 22

Figure 1
Frequency of Responses for Indicators 1 to 6

1 2 3 4 5

90
80 77

70
58
No. of Responses

60
52
50
41 42 42
38 37 3735
40
32 34 31
34
30 25 25
22
17 18 17 16
20 13 11 11 12
10 7
3 4
0 1
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
Indicator

Note. The legend depicts the numerical value of the responses according to the Likert scale used

in the questionnaire.
 23

Figure 2
Frequency of Responses for Indicators 7 to 12

1 2 3 4 5

100
90 86

80
67
70
No. of Responses

60
57
60
49
50 44 44
36 3837
40 35 35
32
26 28
30
19
20 12 14
10 10 8
10 2 1 4
1 0 1 0 1 1
0
Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12
Indicator

Note. The legend depicts the numerical value of the responses according to the Likert scale used

in the questionnaire.
 24

Figure 3
Frequency of Responses for Indicators 13 to 18

1 2 3 4 5

80
69
70
62 60
60
No. of Responses

49
50 46
41 43
40 38
40 35
31
26 2827
30 24
21 23
19 2020
20 15 15
11 11
10 5 5
3 1 2 1
0
Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18
Indicator

Note. The legend depicts the numerical value of the responses according to the Likert scale used

in the questionnaire.
 25

Chapter 5

Conclusion

This section contains the Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations of this study.

Discussion

In a bid to evaluate the perception of Grade 12 Marist students on single-use plastics, we

formulated a survey questionnaire that contains 18 indicators (see Appendix). All of these

indicators revolve around the questions or problems that this study seeks to address. Indicators 6

and 9 were specifically designed to determine the perception of Grade 12 Marist students on

plastics, in general. Table 2 shows that most members of the population show high level of

concern about plastic pollution. Moreover, Table 2 indicates that most Grade 12 Marist students

agree that plastic bags, in general, have many uses.

Table 2
Responses for Indicators 6 and 9

Q6. How concerned are you about plastic pollution?

Response Frequency Percentage

High level of concern

(“extremely concerned” and 119 90.15%
“very concerned” responses)

Moderate level of concern 12 9.090%

 26

Low level of concern (“slightly

concerned” and “not at all 1 0.7576%
concerned” responses)

Q9. Plastic bags, in general, have many uses.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

109 82.58%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 19 14.39%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

4 3.030%
and “disagree” responses)
Note. The percentage values in this table were rounded off to four significant figures.

On the other hand, Table 3 shows responses for indicators that concern single-use

plastics. Responses for indicator 7 show that most Grade 12 Marist students believe that they

have high level of awareness about the effects of single-use plastics. Meanwhile, responses for

indicators 10, 13, and 15 suggest that there is a prevalent negative view on single-use plastics

amongst Grade 12 Marist students. Furthermore, four out of five Grade 12 Marist students

believe that the government should ban single-use plastics in the country while three out of four

believe that single-use plastics should be banned in the campus.

Table 3
Responses for Indicators 7, 10, 13, and 15

Q7. How aware are you of the effects of using single-use plastics?

Response Frequency Percentage

 27

High level of awareness

(“extremely aware” and “very 103 78.03%
aware” responses)
Moderate level of awareness 26 19.70%
Low level of awareness
(“slightly aware” and “not at all 3 2.273%
aware” responses)
Q10. Single-use plastics contribute greatly to pollution.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

121 91.67%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 10 7.576%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

1 0.7576%
and “disagree” responses)

Q13. The government should ban single-use plastics in the country.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

108 82.44%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 19 14.50%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

4 3.053%
and “disagree” responses)

Q15. Marist should ban single-use plastics in the campus.

Response Response Response

Agree (“strongly agree” and

101 76.52%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 21 15.91%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

10 7.576%
and “disagree” responses)
Note. The percentage values in this table were rounded off to four significant figures.
 28

Despite the apparently high level of awareness and concern about plastic use as suggested

in Table 2 and Table 3, use of plastics is still common amongst the members of the population.

An analysis of the responses for indicators 1 and 2 reveals that around 50% or one-half of the

population of Grade 12 Marist students frequently consumes foods and beverages that are

packaged in plastic. At the same time, responses from indicator 3, as shown in Table 4, indicate

that approximately one-third of the population regularly use plastic bags to carry shopping items

or contents.

Table 4
Responses for Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Q1. How often do you use plastic bags to carry your shopping contents?

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and
45 34.09%
“often” responses)
Sometimes 42 31.82%
Seldom (“rarely” and “never”
45 34.09%
responses)
Q2. How often do you use plastic bags to carry your shopping contents?

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and
45 34.09%
“often” responses)
Sometimes 42 31.82%
Seldom (“rarely” and “never”
45 34.09%
responses)
Q3. How often do you use plastic bags to carry your shopping contents?
 29

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and “often”

45 34.09%
responses)

Sometimes 42 31.82%

Seldom (“rarely” and “never”

45 34.09%
responses)

Q4. How often do you bring your own shopping bags when shopping?

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and “often”

29 21.97%
responses)

Sometimes 31 23.48%

Seldom (“rarely” and “never”

72 54.55%
responses)

Q5. How often do you use biodegradable plastics?

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and “often”

24 18.18%
responses)

Sometimes 58 43.94%

Seldom (“rarely” and “never”

50 37.88%
responses)
Note. The percentage values in this table were rounded off to four significant figures.

Likewise, data shown in Table 2 indicate that around half of the population brings their

own bags when shopping while approximately 37% regularly use biodegradable plastics.

Additionally, we also intended to obtain a vague overview on the perception of Grade 12

Marist Students on the policies and programs being implemented by the government and the

school. Indicators 12, 14, 16, and 17 were designed with that goal in mind. From the data
 30

presented in Table 5, it can be said that the opinions of Grade 12 Marist students on school

programs and policies are quite divided. Nonetheless, half of the population being studied does

not think that the government is giving enough attention to plastic pollution in the country.

Table 5
Responses for Indicators 12, 14, 16, and 17

Q12. The government is giving enough attention to plastic pollution in the country.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

22 17.05%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 35 27.13%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

72 55.81%
and “disagree” responses)

Q14. Marist School is giving enough attention to plastic use in the country.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

50 37.88%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 40 30.30%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

41 31.82%
and “disagree” responses)
Q16. “No Plastic Wednesday” campaign/program is effective in reducing the consumption of
single-use plastics in Marist.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

49 37.12%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 43 32.58%
 31

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

40 30.30%
and “disagree” responses)
Q17. “7S” campaign/program is effective in reducing the consumption of single-use plastics in
Marist.

Response Response Response

Agree (“strongly agree” and

55 41.67%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 38 28.79%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

39 29.55%
and “disagree” responses)
Note. The percentage values in this table were rounded off to four significant figures.

Lastly, we also intended to determine how Grade 12 Marist students perceive

biodegradable plastics. Table 6 shows data related to this topic.

Table 6
Responses to Indicators 5,8, 11, and 18

Q5. How often do you use biodegradable plastics?

Response Frequency Percentage

Regularly (“always” and “often”

24 18.18%
responses)

Sometimes 58 43.94%

Seldom (“rarely” and “never”

50 37.88%
responses)

Q8. How familiar are you with biodegradable plastics?

 32

Response Frequency Percentage

High level of familiarity

(“extremely familiar” and “very 75 56.82%
familiar” responses)

Moderate level of familiarity 44 33.33%

Low level of familiarity

(“slightly familiar” and “not at 13 9.848%
all familiar” responses)

Q11. The use of biodegradable plastics can help lessen the pollution in the country.

Response Frequency Percentage

Agree (“strongly agree” and

101 77.10%
“agree” responses)

Neutral 28 21.37%

Disagree (“strongly disagree”

2 1.527%
and “disagree” responses)
Q18. How likely would you recommend the use of biodegradable plastics as an alternative for
single-use plastics?

Response Response Response

Probable (“very likely” and

118 89.39%
“likely” responses)

Neutral 11 8.333%

Improbable (“strongly disagree”

3 2.273%
and “disagree” responses)
Note. The percentage values in this table were rounded off to four significant figures.

The results shown in Table 6 reveal that around half of the population is highly familiar

with biodegradable plastics. The results also indicate that majority of Grade 12 Marist students
 33

think that using biodegradable plastics can help lessen the pollution in the country. Moreover,

data suggest that they would probably recommend biodegradable plastics as an alternative for

single-use plastics.

Conclusions

The findings of this study reveal that Grade 12 Marist students have opposing behavior

and perception on plastics; survey suggest an ubiquitous plastic use amongst the population

despite a high level of concern on plastic pollution and a predominant negative view on plastics.

These results are consistent with the findings described in papers authored by Heidbreder et al.

(2019) and Miller (2011). Such findings can be explained by different factors. One such factor is

social desirability bias. The respondents may have answered in a manner that would be viewed

desirably by others. If this is the case, then Grade 12 Marist students may not really care about

plastic and the consequences of plastic use. Another explanation could be the lack of possible

alternative for plastics. Even if the subjects desire a plastic free environment, they would still be

forced to utilize plastics because no other alternatives are offered in their immediate locale. The

trend may also be caused by unsuccessful school policies or programs. Nonetheless, further

studies are required in order to fully explain the reason behind such contrasting trends in plastic

use and perception.

Moreover, the findings of this study reveal divided opinions amongst Grade 12 Marist

students on school policies and programs with regards to plastic use. However, half of the

population does believe that the government is not giving enough attention to plastic pollution in
 34

the country. Furthermore, it was also found out that a positive view on biodegradable plastics is

prevalent amongst the students.

Recommendations

This study has only evaluated the perception of Grade 12 Marist students on plastics.

Based on the findings and delimitations of the study, there are several recommendations for

papers and studies that would deal with similar topics.

This population that was studied in this paper is only composed of grade 12 Marist

students enrolled in Marist School Marikina, Marikina City, Philippines for school year 2019-

2020. It is highly suggested that future studies expand the population and determine if there

would be any similarities or differences with the findings of this study. Comparative studies

could also be performed on different grade levels.

This study did not take into consideration the demographics of the population being

studied; it is, therefore, recommended to likewise study the demographics of the population as

there could be hidden relationships with different variables associated with the population’s

demographics.

The conclusions of this study were based on the analysis of the survey responses of the

population. As such, it is possible that some or most of the respondents answered in a manner

that they think is more socially favorable, rather giving responses that is truly reflective of their

thoughts. In order to avoid this bias, further studies may opt to analyze variable that are not

based on survey responses.

 35

Lastly, it is also highly recommended that further studies be undertaken in order to verify

the findings in this paper. Factors behind the identified trend among Grade 12 Marist students

should further be explored. Likewise, future studies could also tackle students’ perception and

knowledge about bioplastics.

 36

References

7 out of 10 Filipinos favor a national single-use plastics ban, survey reveals. (2020, January 21).

Retrieved January 24, 2020, from https://www.no-burn.org/7-out-of-10-filipinos-favor-a-

national-single-use-plastics-ban-survey-reveals/

Azoulay, D., Villa, P., Arellano, Y., Gordon, M., Moon, D., Miller, K., & Thompson, K.

(2019). Plastic & Health: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. Center for International

Environmental Law, Earthworks, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, Healthy

Babies Bright Future, IPEN, Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services,

UPSTREAM, #breakfreefromplastic. Retrieved from https://www.ciel.org/wp-

content/uploads/2019/02/Plastic-and-Health-The-Hidden-Costs-of-a-Plastic-Planet-

February-2019.pdf

Baraceros, E. L. (2016). Practical Research 2 (1st ed.). Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc. (RSBI).

Bauman, B. (2019, August 20). How plastics contribute to climate change. Retrieved December

23, 2019, from https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-

to-climate-change/

Bibe, G. (2019). Because the Earth is outside the screen. Blue & Gold, 2.

Charlebois, S., & Walker, T. (2019). The single-use plastics dilemma: Perceptions and possible

solutions [PowerPoint slides]. ResearchGate. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333646421_The_single-

use_plastics_dilemma_Perceptions_and_possible_solutions
 37

Das, D., & Sarkar, B. (2015). Awareness of Plastic Pollution among School Students and its

relation to Academic Achievement. International Research Journal of Management

Sociology & Humanity, 6(5), 110–116. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/19685509/Awareness_of_Plastic_Pollution_among_School_S

tudents_and_its_relation_to_Academic_Achievement

Gancia, J. A. I., & Alfonso, L. A. (2019). Paving the Path to a Cleaner and Greener Marist

School. Blue & Gold, 4.

Giacovelli, C. (2018). Single-Use Plastics: A Roadmap for Sustainability. United Nations

Environment Programme, 2018. Retrieved from

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustaina

bility.pdf

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. (2019). Plastics Exposed: How Waste Assessments

and Brand Audits are Helping Philippine Cities Fight Plastic Pollution. Retrieved from

https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/PlasticsExposed-3.pdf

Hammami, M. B. A., Mohammed, E. Q., Hashem, A. M., Al-Khafaji, M. A., Alqahtani, F.,

Alzaabi, S., & Dash, N. (2017). Survey on awareness and attitudes of secondary school

students regarding plastic pollution: implications for environmental education and public

health in Sharjah city, UAE. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 20626–

20633. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Survey-on-awareness-

and-attitudes-of-secondary-for-Hammami-

Mohammed/e3c959049ff010f7a7a80f15c90e3e2b3d1e561e
 38

Heidbreder, L. M., Bablok, I., Drews, S., & Menzel, C. (2019). Tackling the plastic problem: A

review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Science of The Total

Environment, 668, 1077–1093. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31018449

Kershaw, P. J. (2015). Biodegradable Plastics and Marine Litter: Misconceptions, concerns and

impacts on marine environments. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Retrieved from https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/biodegradable-plastics-

and-marine-litter-misconceptions-concerns-and-impacts

Martin, J. L.-M. (2015). Social perceptions of single-use plastic consumption of the Balinese

population [Bachelor’s thesis, Novia University of Applies Sciences]. Theseus. Retrieved

from

https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/93403/Lopez_Javier.pdf?sequence=1

McLeod, S. (2019). What’s the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Retrieved December 23, 2019, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-

quantitative.html

Miller, K. E. (2011). Student attitude and action regarding the single-use plastic shopping bag on

the University of Alabama Campus [Master’s thesis, Graduate School of the University

of Alabama]. The University of Alabama Libraries. Retrieved from

http://libcontent1.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000543/u0015_0000001_0000543.

pdf

More than half of consumers would pay more for sustainable products designed to be reused or

recycled, Accenture survey finds. (2019, June 4). Retrieved December 23, 2019, from
 39

https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/more-than-half-of-consumers-would-pay-more-

for-sustainable-products-designed-to-be-reused-or-recycled-accenture-survey-finds.htm

Negussie, B., & Mustefa, J. (2017). Community’s perception of utilization and disposal of plastic

bags in Eastern Ethiopia. Pollution, 3(1), 147–156. Retrieved from

https://jpoll.ut.ac.ir/article_59582.html

Nicavera, E. (2019, June 6). School canteen in southern Negros goes ‘plastic-free.’ Retrieved

December 29, 2019, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1071666

Plastics. (n.d.). Retrieved December 29, 2019, from

https://www.chemicalsafetyfacts.org/plastics/

Tapilouw, M. C., Firman, H., Redjeki, S., & Chandra, D. T. (2017). Junior High School Students'

Perception about Simple Environmental Problem as an Impact of Problem based

Learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895. Retrieved from

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012130

The Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved December 23, 2019, from https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/

 40

Appendix

Survey Questionnaire

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

INDICATORS
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
1. How often do you drink bottled water or other
beverages packaged in plastic bottles?

2. How often do you eat food in plastic packaging?

3. How often do you use plastic bags to carry your

shopping content?
4. How often do you bring your own shopping
bags when shopping?

5. How often do you use biodegradable plastics?

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at All

Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

6. How concerned are you about plastic pollution?

Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Not at All

Aware Aware Aware Aware Aware
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
7. How aware are you of the effects of using
single-use plastics?
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Never
Familiar Familiar Familiar Familiar Heard of It
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
8. How familiar are you with biodegradable
plastics?
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

9. Plastic bags, in general, have many uses.

10. Single-use plastics contribute greatly to

pollution.
11. The use of biodegradable plastics can help
lessen the pollution in the country.
12. The government is giving enough attention to
plastic pollution in the country.
13. The government should ban single-use plastics
in the country.
14. Marist School is giving enough attention to
plastic use in the campus.
15. Marist School should ban single-use plastics in
the campus.
16. “No Plastic Wednesday” campaign/program is
effective in reducing the consumption of single-
use plastics in Marist.
 41

17. “7S” campaign/program is effective in reducing

the consumption of single-use plastics in Marist.
Highly
Very Likely Likely Neutral Unlikely Unlikely
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
18. How likely would you recommend the use of
biodegradable plastics as an alternative for
single-use plastics?