Anti Plastic Ordinance

Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance in a Local Government
Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master in Public Administration
By:
Maria Adelaida G. Atienza
February, 2020.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ii
APPROVAL SHEET
In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Public

Administration, this Thesis entitled “Implementation of Anti-Plastic
Ordinance in the City of Tanauan” has been prepared by Maria Adelaida
G. Atienza for approval and acceptance.
DR. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Thesis Adviser
PANEL OF REACTORS
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree Master in Public Administration with a grade of ____________.
_________
Chairman
________________ __________________
Member Member
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Degree Master in Public Administration.
Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________
DR. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Dean, Graduate School.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iii
Abstract
Title: Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance in a Local
Government Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement
Author: Maria Adelaida G. Atienza
Degree: Master in Public Administration
School: Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas
School Year: 2019-2020
Adviser: Dr. Francis Kayode Ashipaoloye
Plastic pollution has become one of the most serious environmental
issues in Asian and African nations since plastic wastes take a long time to
degrade posing significant threat to ocean and freshwater ecosystems.
Having difficulty in the proper collection of discarded plastics, various plastic
regulations have proliferated so fast. However, despite the spread of bag
bans around the globe, their effectiveness remains an unanswered question
(Parker, 2019). This study entitled “Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance
in a Local Government Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement” aimed to assess
the level of awareness and compliance of stall owners in the wet and dry
market to City Ordinance No. 2012-05.
It specifically aimed to determine the profile of the respondents: age,
sex, civil status, educational attainment, type of stalls and type of non-plastic
use; the level of awareness and compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance of
stall owners in the wet market and dry market and verify if there is significant
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page iv
difference in level of awareness and compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance
between stall owners of the wet and dry market when grouped according to
the profile of the respondents. The study also proposed program for policy
enhancement based on the result of the study.
Descriptive type of research was utilized to describe the level of
awareness and compliance of stall owners to anti-plastic ordinance. One
hundred forty eight respondents were chosen randomly using Gpower 3.1.9
with an effect size of 0.20, power size of 90% and significant level of 95%.
Majority of the respondents were female, married, aged 31-40 years
old, high school graduate and came mostly in the accessories section of dry
market and fish section of the wet market.
Stall owners from the dry and wet market are very highly aware and
are highly compliant with the anti-plastic ordinance. Results also showed
that dry market is more compliant than the wet market. The level of
awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners both in the wet and
dry market is affected by the type of non-plastic use and their level of
compliance differs by the type of non-plastic use.
To increase the level of awareness and compliance, the LGU may
revisit the ordinance to introduce stiffer penalties and expound the use of
plastic “labo” and other types of plastic packaging. Further, the proper
disposal of plastic wastes may be specified or detailed. The involvement of

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page v
the barangay officials and functionaries may also be obliged to apprehend
violators and the creation of a technical working group may also be
considered. Moreover, the LGU may re-educate and reinforce the citizenry on
the ordinance for them to have a clearer understanding of its provisions.
Keywords: Anti-Plastic ordinance, City of Tanauan, implementation, policy
enhancement.
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page vii
DEDICATION
Maria Adelaida G. Atienza

Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page viii
Table of Contents
Title Page
Title Page………………………………………………………...……….. i
Approval Sheet…………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………… iii
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………… vi
Dedication………………………………………………………………… vii
Table of Contents………………………………………………………… viii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………… ix
List of Appendices……………………………………………………… x
Chapter 1
Introduction ……………………………………………………… 1
Objectives of the Study ……………………………………… 4
Literature Review……………………………………………… 4
Chapter 2
Method ………………………………………………………… 17
Research Design……………………………………………… 17
Participants of Study………………………………………… 18
Data Gathering Instrument…………………………………… 24
Data Gathering Procedure…………………………………… 25
Data Analysis………………………………………………… 25
Ethical Consideration 26
Chapter 3
Results and Discussion……………………………………… 26
Conclusion……………………………………………………… 35
Recommendation……………………………………………… 38
References……………………………………………………… 39
Appendices
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page ix
List of Tables
Table Title Page
1 Sample Size 18
2 Reliability Analysis 24
3 Level of Awareness in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance 28

of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry Market
4 Level of Compliance in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance 31

of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry Market
5 Differences in Assessment in Level of Awareness 32

in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance in the Wet and Dry
Market When Grouped to Profile Variables
6 Differences in Assessment in Level of Compliance 33

in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance in the Wet and Dry
Market When Grouped to Profile Variables
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page x
List of Appendices
Appendix
A Questionnaire
B Letter Request
C Statistical Output
D Curriculum Vitae
Lyceum of the Philippines University Graduate School Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The battles against plastic pollution have concluded into a global
movement in order to protect our beaches and ocean from ubiquitous plastic
trash. One of the key tactics has been state pre-emption while other states
are battling with statewide reduction laws (Howe, 2019).
The Philippines is considered as the world’s third largest ocean
polluter despite a waste management act coming into effect 18 years ago.
According to government data, the Philippines generates an estimated 43,
684 tons of garbage daily, including 4, 609 tons of plastic waste, andz much
of it leaks into the ocean (Vila, 2018).
Section 16 under the Article II of the 1987 Constitution states that “the
State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and
healthy ecology in accord and with the rhythm and harmony of nature”.
Pursuant to Section 33 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), all
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays through appropriate
ordinances, are hereby mandated to consolidate, or coordinate their efforts,
services and resources for purposes of jointly addressing common solid
waste management problems and/or establishing common waste disposal
facilities.
Cities and municipalities, businesses and the general public have
acknowledged the negative effects of too much reliance on plastic bags and
are now accepting efforts to regulate their usage. There are at least 20 cities
and provinces in the Philippines that have some form of policy to regulate the
use of plastic bags (GAIA).
In the province of Batangas there are already three cities and one
municipality implementing the ban on plastic materials, among them are
Batangas City, Lipa City, Tanauan City and the Municipality of Rosario.
The public market in the City of Tanauan was redeveloped in 2016
through Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) law. The Wet and Dry Market building
is a two-storey structure with a total of 1,129 stalls. The Dry Section which is
887 stalls is categorized into Services/Salons/RTWs/Bags/Shoes/
Accessories/Tailoring/Grocery Items/ Rice Dealers while the Wet Section
which is 242 stalls is for fish, meat, fruits, and vegetable products.
Considering the numerous stalls in the public market, you can already
imagine the bulk of wastes being collected in the area more particularly the
amount of plastics being collected.
The local government of Tanauan, in its continuous effort to address
the serious ecological effect of plastic in the city’s canal, creeks, rivers, lake
and other waterways, was prompted to approve City Ordinance No. 2012-05
or the Ordinance on Plastic Bags Usage which took effect on November
2012. The Ordinance prohibits the use of plastic bags as packaging
materials for dry goods, regulates the use of the same for wet goods,
prohibits the use of styrofoams and styrophors as containers and primary
packaging materials, and prohibits the offering or selling of plastic bags as

secondary packaging materials or as primary packaging materials for dry
goods. The ordinance applies to vendors only and not to the consumer.
Under Section 15 of the City Ordinance 2012-05, business
establishments and/or individuals are prohibited from: a) selling and providing
plastic bags to consumers as secondary packaging materials on wet goods;
b) selling and providing plastic bags to consumers as packaging materials on
dry goods; c) selling and providing Styrofoam/styrophor as containers; and d)
disposing plastic wastes.
Penalties for business establishments violating the ordinance shall
pay: a fine of P500.00 for first offense; 1,000.00 for second offense; and
P2,500.00 and/or imprisonment of not more than six months, upon the
discretion of the court, and in the case of business establishments,
cancellation of their license to operate for a period of not more than one year.
Seven years have passed since the implementation of the ordinance.
The City Environment and Natural Resources (City ENRO) has been strictly
monitoring and implementing the ordinance. However, despite its strict
implementation data from the City ENRO showed that there are still some
who violate the ordinance.
This paper would like to investigate the level of awareness and
compliance of stall owners in the public market therefore be beneficial to
various stakeholders particularly to the City Government of Tanauan for them
to revisit the ordinance and to come up with more efficient and effective
policies that would enhance the level of awareness and compliance of all
business establishments and/or individuals.
Objectives of the Research
The study aimed to determine the level of implementation of ordinance
in terms of compliance and awareness to City Ordinance No. 2012-05.
Specifically, it determined the profile of the respondents in terms of: age, sex,
educational attainment, civil status, type of stalls, and type of non-plastic use.
It determined the level of awareness and compliance in the anti-plastic
ordinance of stall owners in the wet market and dry market. It also
determined the significant difference in level of awareness and compliance in
the anti-plastic ordinance between stall owners of the wet and dry market.
Lastly, the study proposed a program for policy enhancement.
Review of Literature
Plastic Bags Ban
The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 or the RA 9003
served as landmark legislation for managing wastes in the Philippines. It
tasked the local government units to have solid waste management plans for
government to oversee. It was passed on December 2000 containing seven
chapters subdivided into 66 programs setting out policy direction for an
effective solid waste management program in the Philippines. Apart from RA
9003, there are no other laws that specifically regulate plastic use (Rey,
2019).
Aquino, Deriquito & Festejo (2013) explained that the law was crafted
in response to the looming garbage problems in the country. RA 9003
declares the policy of the state in adopting a systematic, comprehensive and
ecological solid waste management program that ensures the protection of
public health and the environment and the proper segregation, collection,
transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste through the
formulation and adoption of best environmental practices. Moreover, it
illustrates the potentials and benefits of recycling not only in addressing
waste management problems but also in alleviating poverty.
RA 9003 describes solid waste management as a discipline
associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer and
transport, processing, and disposal of solid wastes. The manner by which
these activities are conducted shall be in accord with the best principles of
public health, economics, engineering, conservation, aesthetics, other
environmental considerations, and public attitudes. The Act provides for a
comprehensive ecological solid waste management program by creating the
necessary institutional mechanisms and incentives, appropriating funds,
declaring certain acts prohibited, and providing penalties.
Aquino, et al.(2013) summarized the comprehensive solid waste
management which are the waste characterization and segregation, source
reduction, collection and transport of solid waste, recycling program,
composting.
Waste Characterization and Segregation. The solid waste generated
within the area of jurisdiction shall be characterized for initial source
reduction and recycling element of the local waste management plan. A
separate container is required for each type of waste for on-site collection
properly marked as “compostable”, “non-recyclable”, “recyclable” or “special
waste”. Waste segregation shall primarily be conducted at the source
including household, commercial, industrial and agricultural sources.
Source Reduction. This refers to the methods by which the LGUs can
reduce a sufficient amount of solid waste disposed within five years. LGUs
are expected to divert at least 25% of all solid waste from waste disposal
facilities through re-use, recycling and composting activities. The rate of
waste diversion is set to increase every three years.
Collection and Transport of Solid Waste. The geographic subdivisions
are taken into account in the coverage of the solid waste collection area in
every barangay ensuring 100% collection efficiency within 24 hours from all
sources. The plan shall define and identify specific strategies and activities
taking into account the availability and provision of properly designed
containers in selected collection points while awaiting collection and transfer,
segregation of different types of waste, hauling and transfer of solid waste
from collection points to final disposal sites, issuance and enforcement of
ordinances for effective implementation, and provision of properly trained

officers and workers. All personnel directly dealing with collection of solid
waste must be equipped with personal protective gears for their protection.
Recycling Program. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), in
coordination with other concerned agencies, is directed to publish an
inventory of existing markets for recyclable materials, product standards for
recyclable and recycled materials, and a proposal to stimulate demand for
the production of recycled materials and products. Moreover, a coding
system for eco-labeling is expected from DTI. Non-environmentally
acceptable products shall be allowed within one year after public notice as
alternatives available to consumers but at cost not exceeding ten percent of
the disposable product. The use of non-environmentally acceptable
packaging is strictly prohibited by the Act.
Moreover, LGUs are mandated to establish Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) in each barangay or cluster of barangays designed to receive,
sort, process and store compostable and recyclable materials efficiently. The
residual wastes shall then be transferred to a long-term storage or disposal
facility or sanitary landfill. All solid waste disposal facilities or sites in the
country shall be published by the Department of Natural Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR). No open dumps nor any practice or disposal of
solid waste that constitutes open dumps for solid waste shall be allowed. The
Act further provides for conversion of existing open dumps to controlled
dumps within three years (Aquino, et al.,2013).

Composting. The Department of Agriculture (DA) shall publish an
inventory of existing markets and demands for composts that is updated
annually. These composts intended for commercial distribution should
conform to the standards set by the DA for organic fertilizers (Aquino, et. al,
2013)
In Mawis (2019)“More than 15 years after the passage of the
Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA No. 9003)], enforcement and
compliance with the law remains a daunting task due to technical, political,
and financial limitations of concerned agencies and [local government units
(LGU)],” said the SEPO. “Majority of LGUs have yet to comply with the
provisions of RA 9003, particularly on the establishment of local [solid waste
management (SWM)] Boards, submission of SWM Plans, establishment of
[materials-recovery facilities], and closure of all open and controlled
dumpsites.”
Individuals comprising each LGU are likewise responsible for solid
waste management. In fact, Presidential Decree No. 825 (PD No. 825)
enjoins all citizens and residents of the Philippines, educational institutions
and commercial and industrial establishments to clean their own
surroundings, as well as the canals, roads or streets in their immediate
premises.
These laws may have never seen the light of day, however, with
garbage ending up on streets, sewages, canals and other waterways. This

phenomenon may be attributed to, among others, the absence of
implementing ordinances in some LGUs, residents’ lack of participation in
promoting solid waste management, and the general public’s limited
awareness on waste disposal and segregation.
In Palaubsanon (2019), RA 9003 aims to ensure the protection of the
public health and environment. It further seeks to ensure the proper
segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid
waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental
practice in ecological solid waste management excluding incineration.
Pena (2018) Since the law was passed in 2001, it follows that open
dumpsites were no longer allowed as early as 2006.Only sanitary landfills
(SLF), or other approved means of final disposal facility, are allowed to
operate. Many LGU’s however find it difficult to comply because of the huge
cost of putting up SLF’s.
To help LGU’s comply with Section 37 of RA 9003, the National Solid
Waste Management Commission and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources came up with a simplified and cheaper design of sanitary
landfills depending on the volume of waste generated per day.
Under DENR Administrative Order No. 2006-10, SLF’s were
categorized into four types. Category 1, for LGUs or cluster of LGU’s with net
residual waste of less than or equal to 15 tons per day (TPD). Category 2 for
those with greater than 15 TPD but less than or equal to 75 TPD, category 3
for those with greater than 75 TPD but less than or equal to 200 TPD and
category 4 for waste greater that 200TPD.
Palaubsanon (2019) also emphasis that all categories are required to
have daily and intermediate soil cover, embankment /cell separation ,
drainage facility and methane gas venting. Leachate collection and treatment
for categories 1, 2 and 3 can be provided at a later stage while a physical
and biological treatment of leachate is required for category 4.
To prevent seepage of leachate to the ground, category 1 and 2 SLF
requires clay lining only and not a synthetic HDPE plastic liner which is
expensive. This is intended for 5th and 6th class LGU’s. Category 3 can
either be a clay liner or an equivalent plastic liner. A category 4 SLF requires
both clay and plastic lining.
Other LGU’s can simply send their garbage to an SLF near them and
just pay the tipping fee instead of constructing their own.
Sarmiento (2018) But 14 years after that deadline, government figures
are gloomy. There are only 139 operational sanitary landfills servicing just
308 of the country’s 1,634 LGUs, and at least 425 illegal dumpsites still
operate across the country.
RA 9003 also mandates that every village or cluster of villages must
set up a materials recovery facility (MRF) where biodegradable waste is
converted into fertilizer, recyclable material is recycled or sold to junk shops,
and residual waste is collected for transport to sanitary landfills. But as of last
year, government data show that only 24 percent of the country’s 42,036
villages had operational MRFs.
The failure to meet those targets and comply with RA 9003 arises from
a lack of political will on the part of local leaders as well as a lack of discipline
regarding proper garbage disposal on the part of the public, according to
Eligio Ildefonso, executive director of the National Solid Waste Management
Commission Secretariat, the government agency tasked with implementing
RA 9003.
In Sarmiento (2018), the national government claims to be doing all it
can to curb the garbage menace facing the country. Serafin said that in
addition to the usual push to recycle, reuse and reduce, especially when it
comes to plastic products, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has trained and deployed over 300 individuals to capacitate local
environment officers across the country to enforce RA 9003. The
government, through its environment department, is also providing financial
assistance to LGUs to build sanitary landfills to replace their open dumpsites.
But environmental groups say the government could do much more to
curb the country’s garbage problem, especially by pressuring Western
multinational companies to reduce their production of single-serve plastic
packaging that finds its way into Philippine seas and coastlines.
Advocates particularly blame the companies for pushing the so-called
“sachet economy” in the Philippines. Shampoo, bath soap, toothpaste,

cooking oil, soy sauce, vinegar and many other low-cost consumer products
come in small, single-use plastic packages that are affordable for the
country’s bulk of poor and middle-income families.
Parker (2019), described plastic as the world’s number one consumer
product, as well as the most ubiquitous and now is the world’s most banned.
As of July 2019, the United Nations counted 127 nations that have quickly
banned or taxed bags- and bag regulations have proliferated so quickly. As
bag bans spread around the globe, their effectiveness remains an
unanswered question. Bag bans have spawned bans of other plastic
products, including plates, cups, cutlery, straws and bottles, as part of an
expanding effort to reduce single-use plastics, which make up about 40% of
the plastics manufactured worldwide. But whether bans can significantly
reduce plastic waste, which leaks into the oceans at an average rate of 8
million tons a year, remains to be seen- especially when considering that
plastic production is forecast to double by 2040, and may account for 20% of
the world’s oil production by 2050.
Housewives and market vendors are the most reluctant of species to
say goodbye to the utility bags. They wrap seafood, meat products and
vegetables with plastic. Plastic bags contribute a great deal to the garbage
crisis worldwide. Pictures of garbage dumps show the bags along with piles
and piles of plastic bottles, cups, glasses and eating utensils (Torrevillas,
2019).
Bangladesh is the first country in the world to implement a ban on thin
plastic bags in 2002. They found out that plastics played a key role in
clogging drainage systems during disastrous flooding. Other countries begin
to follow. Kenya is the most recent of the more than two dozen countries that
reduce plastic bags through fees and bans (UN Environment Programme,
2018).
Other countries banning plastic bags are 1 Rwanda- has a complete
ban on plastic, 2 Zimbabwe- ban on styrofoams containers, 3 France-
banned plastic cups, plates and utensils, and 4) Taiwan and South Korea-
banned plastic bags in major supermarket (Torrevillas, 2019).
In Romero (2019), legislation to minimize plastic use was proposed in
the Senate in 2018. Senator Loren Legarda filed bill that would have charged
consumers for single-use plastics and sought to ban the import and use of
such packaging in traditional markets and restaurants. However, the bill
remains pending in both houses of Congress. In the absence of the national
law, its been left up to local officials to impose levies or ban the use of single-
use plastics.
According to GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives), in the
Philippines, cities and municipalities, businesses and the general public have
also acknowledged the negative effects of too much reliance on plastic bags
and are now accepting of efforts to regulate their usage. At present, there are
at least 20 cities and provinces in the Philippines that have some form of
policy to regulate the use of plastic bags.
A few notable cases of plastic bag regulation as summarized in GAIA
are: Province of Siquijor which passed provincial ordinance which regulates
the use of plastic bags for secondary packaging and prohibits the free
distribution of plastic bags as primary packaging. The ordinance also requires
customers to bring their own bags when shopping, prohibits the sale of new
plastic bags during Sunday and prohibits the use of cellophane for cooked
food and water. The ordinance was supported by a Provincial Executive
Order mandating the creation of environmental task force; San Carlos,
Negros Occidental which regulates the use of plastic cellophane, t-shirt bags
and expanded polystyrene or styrofoam as packaging materials for food and
beverages. The ordinance transforms the city’s wet market as a plastic-free
zone- vendors use traditional leaves to wrap wet goods such as fish and
meat; and City of San Fernando which is consistently hailed as a Zero Waste
model in the Philippines and around the world. Passed an ordinance to
regulate the use of plastic bags and polysterene while promoting reusable
bags. City of San Fernando implemented the ordinance in stages and
gradually working towards full implementation in about a year.
Policy Implementation
Implementation is an important stage in the policy making process.
This refers to the execution of law, in which various stakeholders and

organizations work together with the use of procedures and techniques to put
policies into effect to help attain goals (Khan & Khandaker 2016).
According to Norris (2020), implementation may be carried out by
formal as well as by informal actors, including legislators, courts,
bureaucracies, pressure groups, community organizations, and even
individuals. There are two main, competing theories about implementation.
One is that implementation is a continuation of the rational planning and
decision-making process that is used to determine such policies to adopt.
This view sees policy implementation as a continuation of rational
organizational design, with a knowable and certain outcome. The other
theory is the interactive model, that policy implementation is a continuation of
the politics that results in the adoption of public policies, and that outcomes
are uncertain.
Policy implementation according to Norris (2020) can be seen as a
process of bargaining. Often one unit of government cannot force another
unit to do or refrain from doing something. When participants in a policy
process share a common interest in coming to a decision but have divergent
values and objective, the bargaining model is often used to make decisions
about implementation. Implementation becomes a process of complex
proposals and counter proposals among different government actors, in
which the initial aims of each party are slowly modified to permit an
agreement to be reached. The parties may include interest groups, citizens,
other units of government, and other actors.
Norris (2020) explained that there are conditions for effective
implementation. First, there must be a sound theory underlying the program
and the target group. Second, there must be unambiguous objectives that
structure the implementation so as to maximize the compliance of the target
group. Third, there must be leaders who have the requisite skills, are
supportive of the objectives, and have the necessary resources. Fourth, there
must be active support from potentially affected parties, including legislators,
courts, interest groups, other units of government, etc. Lastly, there must be
no conflict with other public policies and the program must not be
undermined by changing socio-economic conditions or competition from
other issues and demands; but priorities will change over time.
Getting policy implementation right is critically important. Failure can
cause financial waste, political frustration and disruption for ordinary citizens,
as demonstrated in a series of policy failures under government of all parties.
Through four in-depth case studies of policies in areas of social justice, the
Institute for Government has identified eleven lessons for how ministers and
officials can give their policies the best chance of getting delivered. Five of
the lessons: 1 be clear about the problem, 2 work with the wider system, 3
stay close to implementers, 4 stay focused, and 5 use ministers to drive
progress (Norris, 2020).

Policies formulated at national level may face the challenge of
ensuring some degree of consistency in delivery at subnational level, a
process that is especially fraught where the subnational level has some
separate degree of political authority (Norris et al. 2014). Sausman et al.
(2016) draw on the concept of “local universality” to describe the process
whereby general rules, products, or guidelines are shaped and tailored to fit
into local contexts and enacted within practices. What is less clear is how
central authorities can respond to this reality, especially where it occurs
hidden from the view of the policy-making authorities.
Even where governance is concentrated rather than dispersed,
implementation will still be highly dependent on local context – it is known
from the literature on complex systems that an intervention that is successful
in one location does not necessarily (or evenly routinely) deliver the same
results elsewhere (Braithwaite et al. 2018; Allcock et al. 2015). All of this ties
in with the long-standing literature on “receptive” and “nonreceptive” contexts
for change pioneered by Pettigrew et al. (1992) and emphasizes the need for
policy-makers to confront the “messy engagement of multiple players with
diverse sources of knowledge” (Davies et al. 2008).
There is then the further complication that those operating at higher
levels cannot succeed without having some grasp of what actually happens
on, or close to, the frontline. This is the premise of the “bottom–up” school of
thought on policy implementation and echoes Lipsky’s notion of the “street-

level bureaucrat” whose discretionary power can prove instrumental in
determining the success or failure of a policy (Lipsky 1980). One of the
salient features of many policies – especially those requiring face-to-face
contact with the public – is that “lower level” staff have considerable contact
with outside bodies and often enjoy discretionary powers which accord
them de facto autonomy from their managers. Although many of the
decisions of these actors may seem small individually, in aggregate they may
radically reshape strategic policy intention (Hudson, 1993).
Bullock & Lavis (2019) explained that governments are continually
looking for better ways to achieve their policy goals. While policy
implementation has been acknowledged as critical in filling the gap between
policy promises and policy outcomes, the process itself is complex and multi-
faceted and has yet to be well-understood. Policy implementation is generally
defined as a series of activities undertaken by government and others to
achieve the goals and objectives articulated in policy statements.
While governments and public administrators have clearly been
interested in, and committed investments toward, implementation supports as
part of the usual policy-making processes, most scholarly works have
focused on designing policy to be ‘implementable’ or describing the factors
that are important in the implementation process. The literature is scant,
however, when it comes to understanding how to build and harness the
system resources required to support the policy implementation process. Yet,

there is growing recognition that the capacity of existing system actors (such
as those who deliver health or social services to citizens) requires additional
expertise and support to implement changes, especially those that are large-
scale or complex in nature (Bullock & Lavis, 2019).
In order to better ensure that their policies come to fruition, many
governments are arming their public services with tools that capture current
theories on, and practical experiences with, policy implementation. The
Australian National Audit Office developed a best practice guide
entitled, Successful Implementation of Policy Initiatives with
an accompanying Checklists of Key Implementation Considerations
(Egonmwan, 2009).
First released in 2006, the guide and checklists were updated in 2014 to
incorporate new developments since that time. The authors identify some
clear messages resulting from the guide’s development: 1 strong and
ongoing leadership is critical, regardless of whether the policy and
its implementation sits with one entity or involves several, 2 there are
essential capabilities and preconditions for implementation to succeed that
involve an inclusive approach, sound processes, the effective use of
resources and the consideration of implementation at every stage of policy
development, 3 the identification and management of risk is not a ‘one-off ’
exercise, but a key element that is required at all stages of policy
development and implementation, and 4 policies and programs, when

implemented, require active management to be successful, and this
involves: measurement, analysis, consideration of feedback and complaints,
evaluation and review, calibration and adjustment.
The focus on effective policy implementation has also assumed
paramount importance in Canada, where a Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet
(Results and Delivery) position has been created with the task of ensuring
that the government’s priorities are monitored, tracked and delivered.
Modelled on an approach espoused by Michael Barber and initiated in the
United Kingdom, key points of the concept are covered in McKinsey &
Company’s 2011 article, Deliverology: From idea to implementation.
In Egonmwan (2009), public policy implementation has been
described as the major problem confronting Nigeria in its effort to achieve
national development. Implementation often turns out to be the graveyard of
many policies. From experience, little attention is paid to the subject of policy
implementation by policy makers. It is often taken for granted that once a
policy is adopted by government, it must be implemented and the desired
goals achieved. And in most cases little or no attention is paid to the
problems and complexities associated with execution of policies. Large
amount of energy and resources are spent on designing and preparing plans
for all kinds with little or no thought given to the complex chains of reciprocal
interactions and variables required and this can be seen usually in the
widening gap between intentions and results.

The situation of public policy implementation in Nigeria is best
described by George Honadle and Rudi Klauss, (cited from Egonmwan,
2009) “Implementation is the nemesis of designers, it conjures up images of
plans gone awry and of social carpenters and masons who fail to build to
specifications and thereby distort the beautiful blue prints for progress which
were handled to them. It provokes memories of good ideas that did not work
and places the blame on the second (and Second Class) member of the
administration team".
This is a typical situation in Nigeria, where the intention of designers of
Policies is often underline by constellation of powerful forces of politics and
administration coupled with prevalence of high level corruption. The resulting
short-comings, difficulties and failures that have attended major policies in
developing countries have help to direct attention to the need for planning
explicitly, management of policy implementation in which adequate attention
is paid to such factors as political variable and institutional capacity to
execute and operate development projects (Egonmwan, 2009).
It also led to the emergence of theories and models particularly during
the period of the United Nations second development plan decade in 1970,
when emphasis shifted from plan formulation to plan feasibility. These
theoretical constructs have been designed to help policy makers, especially
toward better understanding of the problems of policy implementation.
(Egonmwan, 2009)
METHODS
Research Design
This study utilized a descriptive research design to describe the level
of awareness and compliance of stall owners to anti-plastic ordinance.
Descriptive research describes the characteristics of the population or
phenomenon that is being studied. It does not control or manipulate any of
the variables, but only observes and measures them.
Participants of Study
The participants of the study are the stall owners in the wet and dry
market at the Victory Mall and Market. The respondents were chosen
randomly. Using Gpower 3.1.9 with an effect size of 0.20, power size of 90%
and significant level of 95%, the computed sample size is 207 from a
population of 1,129 .
Table 1.
Sample Size
TOTAL NO. DESIRED ACTUAL
MARKET
OF STALLS SAMPLE SIZE SAMPLE SIZE
Wet Market 242 44 48
Dry Market 887 163 100
TOTAL 1127 207 148

Figure 1 shows the percentage distribution of respondents according
to sex. Majority or 58.8% are of respondents are female. This implies that
selling or trading produce in markets is still the gender-specific, as dictated
by social norms. On the other hand, the results support the views of Ukenna
& Monanu 2012) that females are shifting their roles as active economic
players from plain housewife to entrepreneurs.

Figure 2 above shows that majority or 51.4% of the respondents are
married. This is not surprising since 28.4% of the respondents belong to the
31 to 40 age group, which is within the marrying age for most Filipinos as
provided in the Civil Code of the Philippines.
In terms of age, Figure 3 above shows 31 to 40 years old got the
highest percentage of 28.4 while both ages 51 to 60 and 60 and above got
the lowest percentage of 8.8. The result agreed with the findings of
Chittihaworn et al (2011) and Narumol’s (2006) that “age drives a person to
engage in a more demanding endeavors like business.” Perhaps because of
the maturity that comes with age, he or she becomes more interested into
trading activities.
In terms of educational attainment, majority of the respondents are
high school graduate, as shown in Figure 4 above, with a percentage of 55.4.
This explained that since they cannot obtain jobs from formal economy for
having not finished studies, they tend to enter into small enterprises offering
income same as the wage or salary earners.
As shown in Figure 5 most of the respondents or 42%from the dry
market are those engaged in selling of accessories

As presented in Figure 6, 41.67 percent of the respondents were from
the wet market are engaged in selling of fish.
Figures 5 and 6 do not imply that largest part of the public market are
from accessories and fish section rather, it only manifested that majority of
the respondents who accommodated the researcher during the survey were
from these stalls.

Figure 7 above shows the distribution of respondents according to
type on non-plastic use. It is clearly seen that majority of the respondents
used ““supot”” with 45.9 percent. Stall owners preferred the use of ““supot””
as it is available locally and is cheaper than cloth or reusable bags.
Figure 8 presented the distribution of respondents according to type of
market. The dry market got 67.7 percent and the wet market got 32.4
percent. Based on the data from the management of the Victory Mall and
Market, 242 stalls are from the wet market while 887 stalls in the dry market.
It is evident that a large portion of the public market is occupied by the dry
market.
In terms of means of awareness, Figure 9 above showed 59.5 percent
of the respondents said that they learned the ordinance from the employees
of the City Government of Tanauan particularly the City ENRO employees.
The stall owners affirmed that the employees are regularly monitoring and
informing them on the ordinance.
Data Gathering Instrument
The researcher used three main data gathering instruments:
Part 1 was self-made questionnaire made by the researcher on the
demographic profile of respondents in terms of age, sex, civil status,
educational attainment, type of stall and type of non-plastic use.
Part 2 was a validated self-made questionnaire on the level of
awareness in anti-plastic ordinance.
Part 3 was a validated self-made questionnaire on the level of
compliance in anti-plastic ordinance.

Informal interview was also conducted to gather additional information.
A reliability test was conducted to determine is validity for use. The
following table shows the reliability analysis of the questionnaire.
Table 2
Reliability Analysis
Cronbach Number of
Criteria Interpretation
Alpha items
Awareness on Anti-Plastic Highly
0.86 4
Ordinance Acceptable
Compliance on Anti-Plastic Highly
0.89 4
Ordinance Acceptable
It can be seen from the reliability analysis that the questionnaire for
awareness and compliance on anti-plastic ordinance is both highly
acceptable with Cronbach Alpha value of 0.86 and 0.89, respectively.
Data Gathering Procedures
Prior to data gathering, the researcher forwarded a letter to the
management of Victory Mall and Market, Tanauan City to identify the total
number of stalls in the wet and dry market, also, sought their permission to
conduct a survey questionnaire.
The researcher sought the assistance of the Civil Security Unit (CSU)
for the distribution and retrieval of questionnaires. Respondents were
informed on the objectives of the study. The data gathering was done in three
days during the month of January 2020.

Data Analysis
The researcher tallied, tabulate, encoded and analyzed the result
using the following statistical tools: Frequency Distribution and
Percentage, Weighted Mean and Ranking and Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA). Frequency distribution and percentage were mainly used in the
profile of the respondents. Weighted mean and ranking were used for
compliance and awareness and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used
to determine if there existed difference on the level of awareness and
compliance when grouped according to profile variable.
The given scale was used to interpret the result of the data:
Scale Verbal Interpretation

3.5 – 4.00 Very Highly Aware/ Very Highly Compliant;
2.50 – 3.49 Highly Aware/ Highly Compliant;
1.50 – 2.49 Slightly Aware/ Slightly Compliant;
1.00 – 1.49 Unaware/ Not Compliant.
Ethical Consideration
Due protocol is observed in view of Data Privacy Act 2012, seeking
permission to collect data from relevant authorities before conducting the
research. None of the respondents were forced to give information whenever
he/she is not writing for personal and security reasons. Respondents were
also guaranteed of confidentiality in handling any information provided and
that all the information got from the respondents will be used for the sole
purpose of this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 3
Level of Awareness in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry
Market
Dry Market Wet Market Over-all
Awareness
(Prohibited Acts)
WM VI Rank WM VI Rank WM VI Rank
Selling and providing

plastic bags to
Very Very
consumers as Highly
1 secondary
3.52 Highly 4 3.33
Aware
3 3.57 Highly 4
Aware Aware
packaging materials
on wet goods.
Selling and providing
plastic bags to Very Very
Highly
2 consumers as 3.58 Highly 1.5 3.34
Aware
2 3.61 Highly 1
packaging materials Aware Aware
on dry goods.
Selling and providing Very Very Very
3 styrofoam/ styrophor 3.53 Highly 3 3.67 Highly 1 3.59 Highly 3
as containers. Aware Aware Aware
Very Very Very
Disposing plastic
4 waste.
3.58 Highly 1.5 3.27 Highly 4 3.61 Highly 1
Aware Aware Aware
Very Very
Highly
Composite Mean 3.55 Highly 3.40 3.60 Highly
Aware
Aware Aware
Legend: 3.50 – 4.00 –Very Highly Aware; 2.50 – 3.49 – Highly Aware;; 1.50 – 2.49 –Slightly
Aware; 1.00 – 1.49 – Not Aware
Table 9 presented the level of awareness of stall owners to City
Ordinance No. 2012-05 or the Ordinance on Plastic Bags Usage. Results
showed that it was rated Very Highly Aware both in the Dry and Wet market
as indicated by the composite mean of 3.60.
This indicated that the City Environment and Natural Resources (City
ENRO) had done extremely well in the dissemination of ordinance. According
to the office, they are monitoring the implementation on a daily basis more
particularly every afternoon as many are buying during that time.

Further, before the approval of the ordinance several public hearings
were conducted inviting various stakeholders. The approved ordinance was
published to local newspapers and business establishments were given four
months moratorium to comply with the ordinance.
According to Earth Policy Institute (2014), campaign on plastic bag
ban is worldwide given the huge number of problems associated with its use.
For this reason, the very high level of awareness was very much expected
from the respondents.
The level on awareness on the prohibitions “selling and providing
plastic bags to consumers as packaging materials on dry goods” and
“disposing of plastic waste” both rank number 1 with a (WM=3.61). The result
indicated that the stall owners are very highly aware that plastic bags are
absolutely prohibited on dry goods and are very highly aware that, littering,
throwing or dumping of plastic waste are prohibited.
Third in the rank is “selling and providing styrofoam/ styrophor as
containers” with a (WM=3.59). It is apparent and visible that no more stalls in
the City of Tanauan are selling container products made of polystyrene or
known as styrofoam.
Fourth, “selling and providing plastic bags to consumers as secondary
packaging materials on wet goods” with a (WM=3.57). In the wet market, the
researcher could say that all of the stall owners are very aware of the
prohibition on plastics as secondary packaging since they are the most

affected of the provision, while in the dry market there are some who
admitted that they are not fully aware on the provision.
Table 4
Level of Compliance in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry
Market
Dry Market Wet Market Over-all
Compliance
(Prohibited Acts)
WM VI Rank WM VI Rank WM VI Rank
Selling and
providing plastic
bags to
consumers as Very
Highly Highly
1 3.69 Highly 3 3.29 Compliant 3 3.32 Compliant 3
secondary Compliant
packaging
materials on wet
goods
Selling and
providing plastic
bags to Very Very
Highly
2 consumers as 3.69 Highly 3 3.65 Highly 2 3.44 Compliant 2
packaging Compliant Compliant
materials on dry
goods.
Selling and
providing Very Very Very
3 3.73 Highly 1 3.79 Highly 1 3.71 Highly 1
styrofoam/styroph Compliant Compliant Compliant
or as containers.
Very
Disposing plastic Highly Highly
4 3.69 Highly 3 3.13 Compliant 4 3.22 Compliant 4
waste. Compliant
Very
Highly Highly
Composite Mean 3.70 Highly 3.46 Compliant
3.42 Compliant
Compliant
Legend: 3.50-4.00 (Very Highly Compliant); 2.50-3.49 (Highly Compliant); 1.50-2.49 (Slightly
Compliant); 1.00-1.49 (Not Compliant)
In terms of the level of compliance of stall owners in the Wet and Dry
market, Table 4 below showed that the result was Highly Compliant as
indicated by its composite mean of 3.42.
Based on the informal interview conducted, stall owners still prefer
plastics particularly plastic “labo” as packaging materials even on dry goods
as they are more convenient, cheaper and more practical to use while
““supot”” can be torn easily and are not waterproof. Plastic “labo” were very
much appreciated for their easy-to-use quality in wrapping food, holding
water and other wet goods (Bandala)
Respondents from the wet market also revealed that failure to
comply in the use of plastic bags was due to some consumers who insisted
for additional plastic or complained about giving only one plastic.
Ranked 1 in the prohibitions of the ordinance being complied with the
stall owners is the “selling and providing styrofoam/styrophor as containers”
with a (WM=3.71). Recognizing the claim of environmental advocates that
polystyrene foam is more harmful to marine life and study showed that it is
injurious to human health than other types of plastic said packaging
containers are no more displayed nor sold in the market that’s why there is
no more reason to violate this provision.
“Selling and providing plastic bags as packaging materials of dry
goods” is rank number 2 with a (WM=3.44). Majority of the respondents used
“supot” in packaging their goods. However, it was revealed that stall owners
particularly in the dry market were still tempted to use plastic “labo” even if
they are highly aware of the ordinance.
Rank number 3 is the “selling and providing plastic bags to consumers
as secondary packaging materials on wet goods” with a (WM=3.32).
Respondents particularly in the wet market explained that they were facing
difficulty in complying with this provision. Due to delicateness of wet products
consumers often demand for more plastic as secondary packaging.
Fourth in the rank is “disposal of plastic wastes” with a (WM=3.22).
According to them, they cannot avoid to dispose plastic trash since they do
not know what to do there except to throw it. Plastics (used plastics) were
thrown in their garbage can and staffs from the Victory Mall and Market
collects and disposes their garbage.
GAIA (2019) revealed using Waste Assessment and Brand Audit
(WABA) data that the average Filipino used 163 plastic “labo” yearly. Plastic
“labo” bag usage in the Philippines is at 45.2 million pieces per day or 16.5
billion pieces a year. These figures show that the sheer volume of residual
waste generated daily is beyond the capacity of barangay, cities and
municipalities to manage.
Meanwhile, it is revealed that stall owners from the dry market with a
Composite Mean of 3.70 are more compliant than the stall owners from the
wet market with a Composite Mean= 3.46.
Obviously wet market is associated with fresh foods like fish, meat,
vegetables and fruits. Chances of using plastic are high considering the fact
that the ordinance allowed its use as primary packaging for wet goods.
However, due to the nature of products they offered stall owners affirmed that
they cannot avoid doubling the plastics as it is very common for consumers
to ask for more than a piece of plastic bag.

It is obvious that wet market consumes more plastics therefore are
prone to collect more plastic wastes (Bandala).
Table 5
Differences in Assessment in Level of Awareness in the Anti-Plastic
Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry Market when grouped to
Profile Variables
F- p-
Interpretation Decision
Profile value value
Gender 1.83 0.16 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Civil Status 0.87 0.46 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Age 1.84 0.11 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Educational Attainment 0.31 0.82 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Stall 0.23 0.88 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Market 1.90 0.17 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Nonplastic Use 8.46 <0.01 Significant Reject
Means of Awareness 1.635 0.184 Not Significant Failed to Reject
As indicated from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment in level of awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners
in the wet and dry market when grouped to gender, civil status, age,
educational attainment, type of stall, type of market and means of awareness
since the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This
implied that assessment in level of awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of
stall owners in the wet and dry market does not vary when grouped to
gender, civil status, age, educational attainment, type of stall, types of market
and means of awareness.
On the other, there is significant difference in assessment in level of
awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners in the wet and dry
market when grouped to type of non-plastic use since the computed p value
is less than 0.05 level of significance. Thus, assessment in the level of
awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners in the wet and dry
market is affected by the type of non-plastic use.
Based on the statistical result in Table 3, stall owners were very highly
aware of the provision of the ordinance. However, despite the overwhelming
awareness of the respondents, the fact that they are still using plastic still
affects their level of awareness. This was proven during the interview
conducted confirming that they are still using plastic bags for dry good.
Considering the profile of the respondents in terms of education where
majority are high school graduates, it is presumed that the level of
understanding toward the ordinance is vague. This is in contrary with Hasan
(2015), stating that with high level of education, respondents tend to have
high perception and awareness of the subject than those at the lower levels.
Table 6
Differences in Assessment in Level of Compliance in the Anti-Plastic
Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry Market when grouped to
Profile Variables
F- p-
Interpretation Decision
Profile value value
Gender 1.69 0.19 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Civil Status 0.26 0.86 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Age 1.47 0.20 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Educational Attainment 1.46 0.23 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Stall 1.81 0.15 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Market 0.33 0.57 Not Significant Failed to Reject
Type of Nonplastic Use 4.54 0.01 Significant Reject
Means of Awareness 0.257 0.856 Not Significant Failed to Reject
As indicated from the table above, there is no significant difference in
assessment in level of compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall
owners in the wet and dry market when grouped to gender, civil status, age,
educational attainment, type of stall, type of market and means of awareness
since the computed p values are greater than 0.05 level of significance. This
suggests that assessment in level of compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance
of stall owners in the wet and dry market does not vary when grouped to
gender, civil status, age, educational attainment, type of stall, types of market
and means of awareness.
On the other, there is significant difference in assessment in level of
compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners in the wet and dry
market when grouped to type of non-plastic use since the computed p value
is less than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, assessment in level of
compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners in the wet and dry
market differs by type of non-plastic use.
As stated by Torrevillas (2019) market vendors are the most reluctant
of species to say goodbye to the utility bags. During the interview, while the
store owners are very highly aware of the other types of non-plastic
packaging, some of them still chose to use the plastic “labo” because it is
really a lot cheaper and more convenient than the other types of non-plastic
packaging.
The significant difference in the level of compliance of stall owners to
the type of non-plastic use may be affected by consumer attitude and
demographic profile as presented by Bautista, et. Al. (2013) citing that
individuals exhibit a level of preference while choosing alternative carriers.
Their preference for carrier is highly motivated by the types of goods
that they have bought. These individuals would receive a level of satisfaction
that is dependent on the quality of their carrying experience. In other words,
people choose alternative carriers on the basis of the ability of the carrier to
preserve the quality of purchased goods.
Various studies established that individuals who are aware of
the impact of plastic bags on the environment and who have a sense of
social pressure intend to reduce their plastic bag use (Ari & Yilmaz, 2017).
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000) also
explained that the target group has to be aware of the rules, should
understand it and they are willing and able to comply. Since majority of the
respondents is high school graduate, the purpose of the ordinance may not
be very clear or understandable to them.
Further, it is clearly manifested that the City ENRO is regularly
monitoring the implementation of the ordinance; however, this act does not
compel the stall owners to follow the ordinance maybe due to its lack of strict
implementation and lack of self discipline among the stall owners.

According to Eligio Ildefonso, executive director of the National Solid
Waste Management Commission Secretariat, the failure to meet those targets
and comply with the law arises from a lack of political will on the part of local
leaders as well as a lack of discipline on the part of the public (Sarmiento,
2018).
Conclusion
1. Majority of the respondents were female, married, aged 31-40 years
old and are high school graduate. Respondents came mostly from
the accessories section of dry market and fish section of the wet
market indicating that a large number of stalls came from this
category.
2. It was established that the stall owners from the dry and wet market
are very highly aware and are highly compliant with the anti-plastic
ordinance. Moreover, the dry market showed a high level of
compliance compared to the wet market.
3. The level of awareness in the anti-plastic ordinance of stall owners
both in the wet and dry market is affected by the type of non-plastic
use and the level of compliance differs by the type of non-plastic use.
4. Proposed improvement plan for policy enhancement.

Rationale: The proposed action plan is based on the significant
findings of this paper.
Key Programs Proposed Strategies/ Persons

Results Activities Involved
Area
Increased Policy Comprehensive education on LGU,

level of Management the content/ provisions of the business
awareness (Awareness ordinance through the establishment
Enforcement, conduct of seminars in , academe
and schools, barangays and and other
Sustainability) various government and stakeholders
private offices
Conduct of massive City

information, education, and Information
communication campaigns Office, City
using quad media (print, ENRO,
radio, television and internet) Technical
including the harmful effects Working
of plastics and promotion of Groups
alternative biodegradable
packaging materials
Bring Your Giving incentives for using Business

Own Bag reusable bags like providing establishment
Program special counters or express
Campaign lanes for consumers who
bring their own bags.
Display to conspicuous
places an environment
friendly notice “SAVE THE
ENVIRONMENT BRING
YOUR OWN REUSABLE
BAGS”
Increased Policy Revisit the Ordinance; Sangguniang

level of Enhancement Panlungsod
compliance Amendment of the ordinance: Members
Increase fines from P500 (first
offense) to P1,000.
Expound the use of plastic ““labo””
Increase the number of authorized
personnel to regularly monitor the
business establishments
Creation of Technical Working
Group
Conduct public hearings

inviting all concerned
business establishments
and/or individuals;
Adoption and approval of the

amendment.
Recommendations
1. The researcher recommended that the personnel from the Local
Government Unit (LGU) may re-educate and reinforce stall owners
under the age 31-40 years old considering that majority of the
population comes in the said age bracket and are high school
graduates.
2. To increase the level of compliance of stall owners to the ordinance,
the LGU may revisit City Ordinance No. 2012-05 to introduce stiffer
penalties to give more teeth to the ordinance. The involvement of the
barangay officials and functionaries in apprehending violators may also
be obliged to strictly monitor the implementation. Further, the creation
of a technical working group composed of employees from various
offices/ agencies may also be considered.
3. The implementing authority may observe stricter measures in the use
of plastic “labo” and other types of plastic packaging.
4. The LGU may amend the ordinance to include new prohibitions and/or
regulations, new penalties and detailed information on the proper
disposal of plastic wastes.

References
Ahmed, I. K. Dantata, B. S. (2016). Problems and challenges of policy

implementation for national development. Retrieved January 18, 2020,
from
https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/viewFile/32141/33029
Ari, E., Yilmaz, V. (2017, April). Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and
cloth bags. Retrieved from January 18, 2020, from
file:///C:/Users/SP_SEC/Downloads/10.1007_s10668-016-9791-x.pdf
Aquino,, A.P., Deriquito, A.P. & Festejo M. A. et al (2013, December 09).

Ecological solid waste management act: environmental protection
through proper solid waste practices. Retrieved January 18, 2020,
from http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=153&print=1
Bandala, D. C. Fish, meat and vegetable vendors’ plastic bag usage.

Retrieved January 18, 2020, from
https://lsu.edu.ph/application/files/7514/7193/8570/Vol._18_No._1_-
_Fish_Meat_and_Vegetable_Vendors_Plastic_Bag_Usage.pdf
Bullock, H. L. Lavis, J.N. (2019, August 22). Understanding the supports

needed for policy implementation: a comparative analysis of the
placement of intermediaries across three mental health systems.
Retrieved on January 18, 2020, from https://health-policy-
systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-019-0479-1
Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives (GAIA), Plastic Bag Bans in the
Philippines. Retrieved on October 18, 2019, from https://www.no-
burn.org/bagbanph/
Global Alliance for Incinerators Alternatives (GAIA). Plastics exposed.

Retrieved on October 18, 2019, from https://www.no-burn.org/wp-
content/uploads/PlasticsExposed-3.pdf
Hasan, S. (2015). Perception and awareness of young Internet Users

towards cybercrime: evidence from Malaysia. Retrieved January 18,
2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Relationship-between-
awareness-and-level-of-education_fig7_284510743
Herperger, D. CAPAM. Wavelength: policy implementation lessons and

resources. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from
https://www.capam.org/offerings/articles/2016/policy_implementation_l
essons_and_resources.html
Howe, A. (2019, May 28). What’s the score on plastic pollution laws and
preemption of local ordinances.. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from
https://www.surfrider.org/coastal-blog/entry/whats-the-score-on-plastic-
pollution-laws-and-preemption-of-local-ordinance
Khan, A.R. Khandaker, S. (2016). A critical insight into policy implementation

performance. Retrieved on January 18, 2020, from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aa81/89950e4c696a035d1ad7b4e84a
78360603af.pdf
Mawis, S.D. (2019, May 18). Solid waste management in the Philippines.
Retrieved on January 20, 2020, from
https://business.inquirer.net/270819/solid-waste-mismanagement-in-
the-philippines
Norris, E.(2020). Institute for Government. Improving policy implementation.

Retrieved on January 18, 2020, from
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/our-work/policy-
making/improving-policy-implementation
Palaubsanon, M. L. (2019, July 2). Ecowaste coalition pushes for

enforcement of RA 9003. Retrieved on January 20, from
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-
news/2019/07/02/1931257/ecowaste-coalition-pushes-enforcement-ra-
9003
Parker, L. (2019, June 07). The world’s plastic pollution crisis explained.
National Geographic. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/plastic-
pollution/
Peña, R. (2018). Complying with RA 9003. Retrieved on January 20, 2020,

from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1767627
Sarmiento, B. (2018, October 12). Philippines central government on solving
plastic trash problem: we’ve done all we can. Retrieved on January 20,
2020, from https://www.eco-business.com/news/philippines-central-
government-on-solving-plastic-trash-problem-weve-done-all-we-can/
Taylor & Francis Online (2018). Policy failure and the policy-implementation
gap: can policy support programs help?. Retrieved January 18, 2020,
from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378
Torrevillas, D. M. (2019, December 12). Banning one-use plastic bags. The

Philstar Global. Retrieved on January 18, 2020, from
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2019/12/12/1976348/banning-one-
use-plastic-bags
Vila, A. (2018, October 18). South China Morning Post. Philippines plastic
pollution: why so much waste ends up in oceans. Retrieved October
18, 2019, from
https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/2168819/philippines-
plastic-pollution-why-so-much-waste-ends-oceans
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire aims to gather data to determine the implementation of

City Ordinance No. 2012-05 or the Ordinance on Plastic Bags Usage in the City of
Tanauan. Kindly answer the items below and do not leave any item unanswered.
(Ang questionnaire na ito ay naglalayong kumuha ng impormasyon upang malaman ang
implementasyon ng Ordinansa Blg. 2012-05 o Ordinansa sa Paggamit ng Plastic Bags sa
Lungsod ng Tanauan. Maaring pakisagutan ang mga nasa babang aytem)
DIRECTION. Kindly put a check mark () on the information needed.

(Panuto: Pakilagyan ng tsek () ang mga impormasyon na kailangan)
PART 1. Profile of the Respondents
SEX: 1. _____Male CIVIL STATUS: 1. _____ Single

2. _____Female 2. _____ Married
3. _____Others 3. _____Widow/er
4. _____ Separated
AGE: 1. ____Age 20 and below 2. ____Age 21 to 30 3. ____Age 31 to 40

4. ____ Age 41 to 50 5. ____Age 51 to 60 6.____Age 60 & above
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
1. _____Elementary Graduate 2. _____Senior High School
3. _____High School Graduate 4. _____Graduate Studies
5. _____College Graduate
TYPE OF STALL:
DRY MARKET
1. ____RTWs 2. ____Bags/Shoes 3. ____ Accessories 4. ____ Grocery Items
WET MARKET
1. _____Fish 2. _____Meat 3. _____Vegetable Products 4. _____ Fruit
TYPE OF NON-PLASTIC
1. _____Supot 2. _____Eco-bag 3. _____Fishnet
4. _____Bayong 5. _____Katsa 6._____Others (please
specify)___________
MEANS OF AWARENESS
1. _____Through a public hearing
2. _____Through a friend
3. _____Through the CGT employees
4. _____Others
Part 2. Level of Awareness and Compliance of the Respondent

(Antas ng KAALAMAN at PAGSUNOD)
OPTIONS VERBAL INTERPRETATION

4 Very Highly Aware/Very Highly Compliant
(Sobrang Taas ng Kaalaman at Pagsunod)
3 Highly Aware/ Higly Compliant
(Mataas ang Kaalaman at Pagsunod)
2 Slightly Aware/ Slightly Compliant
(Konti ang Kaalaman at Pagsunod)
1 Unaware/ Not Compliant
(Hindi alam at hindi nasunod)
a. Respondents Level of Awareness to City Ordinance Number 2012-05
Prohibited Acts 4 3 2 1
a. I AM AWARE THAT selling and providing

plastic bags to consumers as secondary
packaging materials on wet goods is
prohibited. (ALAM KONG BAWAL ang
pagtitinda o pagbibigay ng plastik bag sa
mamimili bilang pangalawang pambalot
sa mga basang produkto)
b. I AM AWARE THAT selling and providing

plastic bags to consumers as packaging
materials on dry goods is prohibited.
( ALAM KONG BAWAL ang pagtitinda o
pagbibigay ng plastik bag sa mga
mamimili bilang pambalot sa mga tuyong
produkto)
c. I AM AWARE THAT selling and providing

styrofoam/styrophor as containers is
prohibited. ( ALAM KONG BAWAL ang
pagtitinda o paggamit ng
styrofoam/styrophor bilang lalagyan)
d. I AM AWARE THAT disposing plastic waste

is prohibited. ( ALAM KONG BAWAL ang
pagtatapon ng mga plastik na basura)
b. Respondents Level of Compliance to City Ordinance Number 2012-05
Prohibited Acts 4 3 2 1
a. I AM NOT selling and providing plastic bags

to consumers as secondary packaging
materials on wet goods. (AKO AY HINDI
nagtitinda o nagbibigay ng plastik bag sa
mamimili bilang pangalawang pambalot
sa mga basang produkto)
a. I AM NOT selling and providing plastic bags

to consumers as packaging materials on dry
goods. ( AKO AY HINDI nagtitinda o
nagbibigay ng plastik bag sa mga
mamimili bilang pambalot sa mga tuyong
produkto)
b. I AM NOT selling and providing

styrofoam/styrophor as containers. ( AKO
AY HINDI nagtitinda o nagamit ng
styrofoam/styrophor bilang lalagyan)
a. I AM NOT disposing plastic waste. ( AKO

AY HINDI nagtatapon ng mga plastik na
basura)
January 10, 2020
The Management
Victory Mall and Market
Tanauan City
Dear Sir/ Madam:
I am Maria Adelaida G. Atienza, Local Legislative Staff Officer III in the Office of
the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, this city. I am currently taking up
Master in Public Administration (MPA) at the Lyceum of the Philippines
University– Batangas.
I am currently working on my thesis entitled “Implementation of Anti-Plastic

Ordinance in the City of Tanauan: Basis for Policy Enhancement”. The main
focus of the said study will be the stalls in the wet and dry section of the public
market.
In this regard, I am humbly asking permission to allow the undersigned to

administer a questionnaire to the retailers in the public market from January 15
to 21, 2020. Rest assured that any information will be treated with utmost
confidentiality.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
MARIA ADELAIDA G. ATIENZA
Noted:
DR. FRANCIS K. ASHIPAOLOYE JACQUELINE LANDICHO

Dean, Graduate School/Thesis Adviser OIC- HRMDO
Lyceum of the Philippines University –Laguna City Government of Tanauan
January 10, 2020
MR. ALLAN P. CREDO

Victory Mall and Market
Tanauan City
Dear Mr. Credo,
I am Maria Adelaida G. Atienza, Local Legislative Staff Officer III in the Office of
the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod, this city. I am currently taking up
Masters in Public Administration (MPA) at the Lyceum of the Philippines
University– Batangas and
currently working on my thesis entitled “Implementation of Anti-Plastic
Ordinance in the City of Tanauan: Basis for Policy Enhancement”. The main
focus of the said study will be the stalls in the wet and dry section of the public
market.
In this regard, I would like to respectfully inform you that the undersigned will
be conducting a study on the above thesis subject, with the retailers and
consumers of Victory Mall and Market from January 15-21, 2020.
Rest assured that the answers of the respondents will be used solely for
purposes of this thesis and shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Noted:
DR. FRANCIS K. ASHIPAOLOYE JACQUELINE LANDICHO

Dean, Graduate School/ Thesis Adviser OIC- HRMDO
Lyceum of the Philippines University –Laguna City Government of Tanauan
Statistical Output
Respondents Profile
sex civil age educ stall type nonplastic means
N Valid 148 148 148 148 148 148 148 148
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
sex
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 59 39.9 39.9 39.9
2 87 58.8 58.8 98.6
3 2 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
civil
Cumulative
Valid 1 58 39.2 39.2 39.2
2 76 51.4 51.4 90.5
3 8 5.4 5.4 95.9
4 6 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
age
Cumulative
Valid 1 14 9.5 9.5 9.5
2 35 23.6 23.6 33.1
3 42 28.4 28.4 61.5
4 31 20.9 20.9 82.4
5 13 8.8 8.8 91.2
6 13 8.8 8.8 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
educ
Cumulative
Valid 1 13 8.8 8.8 8.8

2 4 2.7 2.7 11.5
3 82 55.4 55.4 66.9
5 49 33.1 33.1 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
stall
Cumulative
Valid 1 41 27.7 27.7 27.7
2 23 15.5 15.5 43.2
3 52 35.1 35.1 78.4
4 32 21.6 21.6 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
type
Cumulative
Valid 1 100 67.6 67.6 67.6
2 48 32.4 32.4 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
nonplastic
Cumulative
Valid 1 68 45.9 45.9 45.9
2 22 14.9 14.9 60.8
3 4 2.7 2.7 63.5
6 54 36.5 36.5 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
means
Cumulative
Valid 1 26 17.6 17.6 17.6
2 15 10.1 10.1 27.7

3 88 59.5 59.5 87.2
4 19 12.8 12.8 100.0
Total 148 100.0 100.0
stall * type Crosstabulation

Count
type
Dry Wet Total
stall 1 21 20 41
2 12 11 23
3 42 10 52
4 25 7 32
Total 100 48 148
Level of Awareness in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet

and Dry Market
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
a1 147 1.00 4.00 3.5714 .72149
a2 147 1.00 4.00 3.6122 .70661
a3 147 1.00 4.00 3.5918 .75630
a4 147 1.00 4.00 3.6122 .64584
Valid N (listwise) 147

Level of Compliance in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet

and Dry Market
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
c1 147 1.00 4.00 3.3197 .74011
c2 147 1.00 4.00 3.4422 .73213
c3 147 1.00 4.00 3.7075 .66426
c4 147 1.00 4.00 3.2245 .75667
Valid N (listwise) 147
Differences in Level of Awareness and Compliance in the Anti-Plastic

Ordinance of Stall Owners in the Wet and Dry Market when grouped to profile
aware comp * sex
sex aware comp
1 Mean 3.6949 3.5169
N 59 59
Std. Deviation .60541 .49320
2 Mean 3.5203 3.3517
N 86 86
3 Mean 4.0000 3.7500
N 2 2
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F Sig.
aware * Between (Combined)

1.396 2 .698 1.834 .163
sex Groups
Within Groups 54.785 144 .380
Total 56.181 146
comp * Between (Combined)

1.171 2 .586 1.694 .187
sex Groups
Total 50.952 146
Measures of Association
Eta Eta Squared
aware * sex .158 .025
comp * sex .152 .023

aware comp * civil
civil ANOVA Table aware comp
1 Mean Sum of 3.5086 Mean

3.4224
N 58 58
aware * Between (Combined
1.005 3 .335 .869 .459
civil Groups ) Std. Deviation .67533 .65260
2
Within Groups Mean 55.176 3.6767
143 3.4467
.386
Total N 56.181 146 75 75
comp * Between Std. Deviation

(Combined .51625 .52359
.272 3 .091 .256 .857
civil Groups )
3 Mean 3.5000 3.3438
N 8 8
Total 50.952 146
4 Mean 3.5833 3.2500
N 6 6
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147
Eta Eta Squared
aware * civil .134 .018

Eta Eta Squared
aware * civil .134 .018
comp * civil .073 .005
aware comp * age
age aware comp
1 Mean 3.2679 3.3036
N 14 14
2 Mean 3.4857 3.4071
N 35 35
3 Mean 3.6964 3.3869
N 42 42
4 Mean 3.7750 3.6583
N 30 30
5 Mean 3.6154 3.2115

N 13 13
6 Mean 3.5000 3.3846
N 13 13
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

3.443 5 .689 1.841 .109
age Groups )
Total 56.181 146
comp * Between (Combined

2.525 5 .505 1.470 .203
age Groups )
Total 50.952 146
Eta Eta Squared

aware * age .248 .061
comp * age .223 .050
aware comp * educ
educ aware comp
1 Mean 3.5577 3.1923
N 13 13
2 Mean 3.3125 3.1875
N 4 4
Std. Deviation .94373 1.06800
3 Mean 3.6128 3.5000
N 82 82
5 Mean 3.6042 3.3750
N 48 48
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

.367 3 .122 .313 .816
educ Groups )
Total 56.181 146

1.510 3 .503 1.456 .229
educ Groups )
Total 50.952 146
Eta Eta Squared
aware * educ .081 .007
comp * educ .172 .030

aware comp * stall
stall aware comp
1 Mean 3.6625 3.4563
N 40 40
2 Mean 3.5435 3.4348
N 23 23
3 Mean 3.5721 3.5192
N 52 52
4 Mean 3.5938 3.2188
N 32 32
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

.270 3 .090 .230 .875
stall Groups )
Total 56.181 146

1.864 3 .621 1.810 .148
stall Groups )
Total 50.952 146
Eta Eta Squared
aware * stall .069 .005
comp * stall .191 .037
aware comp * type
Type aware comp
Dry Mean 3.5480 3.4040
N 99 99
Wet Mean 3.6979 3.4635
N 48 48
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

.727 1 .727 1.900 .170
type Groups )
Total 56.181 146

.114 1 .114 .326 .569
type Groups )
Total 50.952 146

Eta Eta Squared
aware * type .114 .013
comp * type .047 .002
aware comp * nonplastic
Nonplastic aware comp
1 Mean 3.5634 3.4403
N 67 67
2 Mean 3.1932 3.0455
N 22 22
3 Mean 3.0000 3.2500
N 4 4
Std. Deviation 1.06066 .35355
6 Mean 3.8472 3.5694
N 54 54
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235

N 147 147
ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean
aware * Between (Combine

8.470 3 2.823 8.462 .000
nonplastic Groups d)
Total 56.181 146
comp * Between (Combine

4.434 3 1.478 4.543 .005
nonplastic Groups d)
Total 50.952 146
Eta Eta Squared
aware * nonplastic .388 .151
comp * nonplastic .295 .087

aware comp * means
Means aware comp
1 Mean 3.5200 3.3500
N 25 25
2 Mean 3.3833 3.4500
N 15 15
3 Mean 3.6847 3.4517
N 88 88
4 Mean 3.4605 3.3684
N 19 19
Total Mean 3.5969 3.4235
N 147 147

ANOVA Table
Sum of Mean

means Groups ) 1.863 3 .621 1.635 .184
Total 56.181 146

means Groups ) .273 3 .091 .257 .856
Total 50.952 146
Eta Eta Squared
aware * means .182 .033
comp * means .073 .005

CURRICULUM VITAE

Barangay Santor, Tanauan City, Batangas
Phone Number: +639338131463
E-Mail:madel_028@yahoo.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Local Legislative Staff Officer III

Office of the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod
City Government of Tanauan
May 4, 2015 to present
Local Legislative Staff Office II

Office of the Secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod
November 2, 2011 to April 30, 2015
Local Legislative Staff Employee I

Office of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
July 1, 2007 to October 30, 2011
ELIGIBILITY
Civil Service Eligibility

Professional – rating of 83%
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) Exam

Data Encoder
ADDITIONAL SKILLS:
Computer Literate: Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop

Driving Skills
EDUCATIONAL BACKGOUND
MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Candidate

Lyceum of the Philippines University- Batangas
Thesis Title: Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance in a Local Government
Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement
TERTIARY EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Commerce Major in Business Management
De La Salle, Lipa
2002 to 2006
SECONDARY EDUCATION
Our Lady of Fatima (La Consolacion College)
1998 to 2002
PRIMARY EDUCATION
Santor Elementary School
1992 to 1998
TRAININGS AND SEMINARS:
Good Governance in the Light of Sustainable Development Goals

June 29, 2019
Orientation on How to Conduct Privacy Assessment

June 21, 2019
Engendering the LGU Policies towards Gender Responsive Governance

Seminar
March 22, 2019
Orientation on Women's Rights and Privileges Under RA 9262 and RA 9710

March 7, 2019
Ethics and Public Accountability Seminar

March 15, 2019
Decentralization and Federalism: An Overview

October 27, 2018
Enhancing the Workplace Learning Thru Coaching and Mentoring

September 29, 2018
Financial Literacy and Positive Mind Setting Symposium for CGT Employees
September 12, 2018
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals through Advancing GAD

Mainstreaming Initiatives in CALABARZON
National Economic Development Authority
September 4, 2018
Gender and Development for City Officials

August 24, 2018
Orientation on Data Privacy Act of 2012

August 4, 2018
Enhancement Training on Gender Mainstreaming and GAD Planning and

Budgeting
August 1, 2018
Mentoring and Coaching for Leaders

June 22, 2017

Anti Plastic Ordinance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti Plastic Ordinance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance in a Local Government

Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate School

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Maria Adelaida G. Atienza

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Master in Public

DR. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Comprehensive Examination _____________ Date: _______________

DR. FRANCIS KAYODE ASHIPAOLOYE

Title: Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance in a Local

Government Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement

Author: Maria Adelaida G. Atienza

Degree: Master in Public Administration

School: Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas

School Year: 2019-2020

Adviser: Dr. Francis Kayode Ashipaoloye

Plastic pollution has become one of the most serious environmental

degrade posing significant threat to ocean and freshwater ecosystems.

Having difficulty in the proper collection of discarded plastics, various plastic

regulations have proliferated so fast. However, despite the spread of bag

bans around the globe, their effectiveness remains an unanswered question

(Parker, 2019). This study entitled “Implementation of Anti-Plastic Ordinance

in a Local Government Unit: Basis for Policy Enhancement” aimed to assess

market to City Ordinance No. 2012-05.

It specifically aimed to determine the profile of the respondents: age,

use; the level of awareness and compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance of

difference in level of awareness and compliance in the anti-plastic ordinance

enhancement based on the result of the study.

Descriptive type of research was utilized to describe the level of

awareness and compliance of stall owners to anti-plastic ordinance. One

Majority of the respondents were female, married, aged 31-40 years

market and fish section of the wet market.

compliance differs by the type of non-plastic use.

To increase the level of awareness and compliance, the LGU may

disposal of plastic wastes may be specified or detailed. The involvement of

the barangay officials and functionaries may also be obliged to apprehend

violators and the creation of a technical working group may also be

the ordinance for them to have a clearer understanding of its provisions.

Keywords: Anti-Plastic ordinance, City of Tanauan, implementation, policy

Maria Adelaida G. Atienza

Table Title Page

3 Level of Awareness in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance 28

4 Level of Compliance in the Anti-Plastic Ordinance 31

5 Differences in Assessment in Level of Awareness 32

6 Differences in Assessment in Level of Compliance 33

The battles against plastic pollution have concluded into a global

are battling with statewide reduction laws (Howe, 2019).

The Philippines is considered as the world’s third largest ocean

According to government data, the Philippines generates an estimated 43,

of it leaks into the ocean (Vila, 2018).

Pursuant to Section 33 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), all

provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays through appropriate

ordinances, are hereby mandated to consolidate, or coordinate their efforts,

services and resources for purposes of jointly addressing common solid

waste management problems and/or establishing common waste disposal

Cities and municipalities, businesses and the general public have

use of plastic bags (GAIA).

municipality implementing the ban on plastic materials, among them are

The public market in the City of Tanauan was redeveloped in 2016

887 stalls is categorized into Services/Salons/RTWs/Bags/Shoes/

Accessories/Tailoring/Grocery Items/ Rice Dealers while the Wet Section

amount of plastics being collected.

Comprehensive Examination _ Date: ___