CHAPTER III

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF

DATA

Environmental practices and their levels of implementation were evaluated by the

SLRCian students from the college of pharmacy together with the college’s faculty and
administrators, to serve as basis or reference for the planning and development of a
proposed program that will ensure a sustainable environmental-friendly school
community in San Lorenzo Ruiz College of Ormoc (SLRC). The complications
pinpointed by the respondents will aid the school administrators of SLRC in the
development and improvement of the school’s environmental conservation plan (ECP).

Environmental Indicators

1. On Waste Disposal

Data from Table 3a shows that in terms of existing (E) environmental practices
on waste disposal, environmental indicator no. 2: throwing litter in garbage containers
has the highest number of respondents, obtaining 79 responses out of 92 (85.87%). It is
then succeeded by environmental indicators no. 3 and 6 - referring to practicing
segregation of waste (75 or 81.52%) and utilization of paper notes (69 or 75.00%),
respectively. Indicator no. 4 and 1: separating biodegradable from non-biodegradable
materials and composting of yard waste then follows with both indicators obtaining 67
(72.83%) and 64 (69.57%) out of 92 responses, respectively. Lastly, indicator no.5:
selling of old newspapers, magazines and books - with a response rating of 35 or 38.04%
- has been determined by the respondents as the least existing or noticeable
environmental indicator for waste disposal that is being practiced in SLRC. Indicator no.5
being selected as the least existing environmental indicator in terms of waste disposal
coincides with the results for the non- existing (NE) environmental practices. As a matter
of fact, in terms of terms of non-existing (NE) environmental practices on waste disposal,
indicator no.5 obtained the highest response rating of 50 or 54.35%. It is then followed by
indicators no. 1, 4, 6, 3 and 2: composting of yard waste (24 or 26.09%), separating of
biodegradable from non-
biodegradable materials (21 or 22.83%), utilization of used paper for notes (19 or
20.65%), practicing segregation of waste (12 or 13.04%), and throwing litter in garbage
containers (9 or 9.78%), in exact order. It is also apparent from the data that less than ten
percent (<10%) of the respondents have determined that all of the environmental
indicators on waste disposal are not-existing but in the planning stage (NE-PS). In
addition, it is important to note that indicators no. 3 and 4 are identical with both referring
to segregation.

Table 3a. Frequency and Percentage of Environmental Indicators Identified by

Respondents

ENVIRONMENTAL E NE NE-PS
INDICATOR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1. Composting of yard waste 64 69.57 24 26.09 4 4.35

2. Throwing litter in garbage 79 85.87 9 9.78 4 4.35
containers
3. Practicing segregation of 75 81.52 12 13.04 5 5.43
waste
4. Separating biodegradable 67 72.83 21 22.83 4 4.35
from non-biodegradable
materials
5. Selling of old newspapers, 35 38.04 50 54.35 7 7.61
magazines and books
6. Utilization of used paper 69 75.00 19 20.65 4 4.35
for notes
N = 92
Legend: E = existing NE = not existing NE = not existing but in the
planning stage

38
2. On Clean and Green
Table 3b presents the respondents’ observations regarding the environmental
cleanliness and greening of the school campus. Four (4) out of five (5) of the
environmental indicators on clean and green obtained an approximate percentage of
above sixty (≥ 60%) in terms of being an existing (E) practice in SLRC. These indicators
include no. 3, 4, 5 and 1, namely: regular cleaning of the school campus (79 or 85.87%),
throwing of wastes in designated places (79 or 85.87%), keeping the school furniture free
from vandalism (72 or 78.26%), and growing seeds for tree planting (57 or 61.96%).
Meanwhile, in terms of not existing (NE) environmental practices on clean and green,
three (3) indicators among the five (5) environmental indicators garnered a rating of
above 15% (>15%). These indicators are presented in order and are namely: regular
schedule for tree planting (31 or 33.70%), growing seeds for tree planting (25 or
27.17%), and keeping the school furniture free from vandalism (16 or 17.39%).
Additionally, data also shows that less than 15 percent (<15%) of the respondents
referred to all the indicators as not-existing but in the planning stage (NE-PS).
As noted from the data, it implies that minority of the respondents are slightly
divided in their perception on whether the school has been maintaining the practice of
keeping the school furniture free from vandalism. It shows that 16 out of the 92 (17.39%)
respondents affirmed that the practice of keeping the school furniture free from vandalism
is non-existent in SLRC. It is uncertain as to why the 16 respondents checked the not-
existing boxes for indicator no. 5 since it heavily contradicts with the rules of the school.
After all, San Lorenzo Ruiz College of Ormoc strictly prohibits any act of vandalism.

39
Table 3b. Frequency and Percentage of Environmental Indicators Identified by
Respondents

ENVIRONMENTAL E NE NE-PS
INDICATOR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
1. Growing seeds for tree 57 61.96 25 27.17 10 10.87
planting
2. Regular schedule for tree 51 55.43 31 33.70 12 13.04
planting
3. Regular cleaning of the 79 85.87 9 9.78 4 4.35
school campus
4. Throwing of wastes in 79 85.87 9 9.78 4 4.35
designated places
5. Keeping the school furniture 72 78.26 16 17.39 4 4.35
free from vandalism
N = 92
Legend: E = existing NE = not existing NE = not existing but in the
planning stage

3. On Air Pollution Control

Table 3c presents the environmental practices in SLRC regarding air pollution

control. Data shows that all of the environmental indicators for air pollution control
obtained an observation rating of above fifty-five percent (>55%) in terms of being an
existing (E) environmental practice. The results indicate that the SLRC community is
keen on air-pollution control by prohibiting smoking (84 or 91.30%), avoiding burning of
waste materials (75 or 81.52%), limiting plastic usage (73 or 79.35%), and encouraging
the use of environmental-friendly vehicles and other means (e.g., walking) for transport
(55 or 59.78%; 68 or 73.91%) within the school campus. However, it is apparent from
data as well that at least 30% of the overall respondents determined that using a bicycle
or a pedal driven cab as a means of transport (33 or 35.87%) is non-existent or a not
existing (NE)

40
Table 3c. Frequency and Percentage of Environmental Indicators Identified by
Respondents

ENVIRONMENTAL E NE NE-PS
INDICATOR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1. No burning of waste 75 81.52 16 17.39 1 1.09

materials
2. No smoking on the entire 84 91.30 6 6.52 2 2.17
campus
3. Using a bicycle or a pedal 55 59.78 33 35.87 4 4.35
driven cab as a means of
transport
4. Using environmentally 73 79.35 13 14.13 6 6.52
friendly materials like
paper bag in place of
plastic bag, etc.
5. Walking on foot 68 73.91 23 25.00 1 1.09

N = 92
practice in SLRC – which is understandable considering the city rules of Ormoc city, and
the location and campus size of San Lorenzo Ruiz College of Ormoc.
Legend: E = existing NE = not existing NE = not existing but in the
planning stage

4. On Water Conservation

Table 3d presents the environmental practices in SLRC concerning water

conservation. As noted from the available data, indicators no. 1, 2, 4, and 5 obtained
percentages of above 75%. The environmental indicators described refer to the following,
in ascending order: turning off faucets when not in use (87 or 94.57%), using containers
for drinking water rather than by hand or through the mouth (83 or 90.22%), no leaking
of faucet and pipes (73 or 79.35%), and no wastage of water (70 or 76.09%). Moreover,
it

41
42
 Table 3d. Frequency and Percentage of Environmental Indicators Identified by
Respondents

ENVIRONMENTAL E NE NE-PS
INDICATOR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1. No leaking of faucets and 73 79.35 15 16.30 4 4.35

pipes
2. No wastage of water 70 76.09 17 18.48 5 5.43
3. Recycling used water for 42 45.65 43 46.74 7 7.61
cleaning toilets or
watering the plants
4. Turning off faucets when 87 94.57 3 3.26 1 1.09
not in use
5. Using containers for 83 90.22 6 6.52 3 3.26
drinking water rather than
by hand or through the
mouth
N = 92
is Legend: E = existing NE = not existing NE = not existing but in the
planning stage
notable from the tabulated data that the respondents have conflicting views on whether SLRC
practices the recycling of used water for cleaning toilets and watering planets. It shows that
42 (45.65%) respondents rated it as existing (E), while 43 (46.74%) of the respondents rated it
as not existing (NE).

5. On Energy Conservation

Data from Table 3e shows that in terms of existing (E) practices, all of the
environmental indicators obtained percentages of at least 70% (≥ 70%). Meanwhile, in
terms of not-existing (NE) practices, all indicators have percentages of below 25%
(<25%). As for the not existing but in planning stages (NE-PS), all of the indicators
garnered

43
percentages lower than ten percent (< 10%). These results indicate that the SLRC
community has exemplary practices for energy conservation. As noted from Table 3e,
respondents have determined that the community’s two best practices for energy
conservation involves using of electrical devices only when needed (90 or 97.83%) and
the turning off lights and other gadgets when not in use (88 or 95.65%).

Table 3e. Frequency and Percentage of Environmental Indicators Identified by

Respondents

ENVIRONMENTAL E NE NE-PS
INDICATOR Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

1. Immediate repair of 66 71.74 20 21.74 6 6.52

electrical gadgets
2. Maximum use of natural 77 83.70 13 14.13 2 2.17
lighting
3. Maximum use of natural 76 82.61 13 14.13 3 3.26
ventilation
4. Turning off lights and 88 95.65 2 2.17 2 2.17
other gadgets when not in
use
5. Using electrical devices 90 97.83 2 2.17 0 0.00
when needed
N = 92
Legend: E = existing NE = not existing NE = not existing but in the
planning stage

44
The Respondent’s Assessment on the Implementation Level of Practices or Indicators
of SLRC’s Environmental Conservation Program (ECP)

Table 4 summarizes data on the implementation level of environmental practices

or indicators as assessed by the respondents. It includes the following areas, namely: (a)
waste disposal, (b) clean and green, (c) air pollution control, (d) water conservation, and
(e) energy conservation. The scale used by the respondents elicits perceptual responses
since the implementation of environmental practices or indicators in Table 4 have not
been directly visualized by the respondents. Furthermore, the SLRC Environmental
Conservation Program (ECP) still remains at the proposal stage while its specific
indicators may not yet be concrete to the vast majority of the respondents, especially to
the college students. In short, the SLRC ECP is still evolving and the preliminary data in
the table may greatly help the college actualize and institutionalize it. This can be realized
after making the program known to its constituents and after making it operational. At
any rate, the indicators have been rated according to the scale of implementation level
ranging from 5 - fully implemented down to 1 - not implemented. (See Code in Table 4.)

The average ratings range from 3.61 (moderately implemented - MI) on energy
conservation; 3.48 (MI) on water conservation; 3.39 (MI) on air pollution control; 2.94
(slightly implemented - SI) on waste disposal; and 2.73 (SI) on clean and green.
Generally, respondents rated the 5 environmental conservation foci or groups of
environmental practices as moderately implemented. However, there are items in each
group or set of environmental practices rated as highly implemented, moderately
implemented, and slightly implemented. Firstly, the environmental indicators rated as
highly implemented includes the following: using containers for drinking water rather
than by hand or through the mouth (4.34) and the using of electrical devices when needed
(4.02). Secondly, for moderately implemented, the environmental indicators are as
follows: no smoking on the entire campus (3.92); turning off lights and other gadgets
when not in use (3.90); turning off faucets when not in use (3.83); maximum use of
natural lighting (3.67); no burning of waste materials (3.65); maximum use of natural
ventilation (3.52); using environmentally- friendly materials like paper bag in place of
plastic bag, etc. (3.48); no leaking of faucets and pipes (3.43); practicing segregation
of waste (3.40); throwing litter in garbage

45
containers (3.28); throwing of wastes in designated places (3.27); no wastage of water
(3.26); walking on foot (3.25); separating biodegradable from non-biodegradable
materials (3.24); regular cleaning of the school campus (3.04), and; utilization of used
paper for notes (3.00). Lastly, the environmental indicators for slightly implemented are
as follows: keeping the school furniture free from vandalism (2.98); immediate repair of
electrical gadgets (2.96); composting of yard waste (2.67); using a bicycle or a pedal
driven cab as means of transport (2.66); recycling used water for cleaning toilets or
watering the plants (2.53); growing seeds for tree planting (2.30); selling of newspapers,
magazines, and books (2.07), and; regular schedule for tree planting (2.05). There are 16
out of 26 environmental conservation practices in Table 4 equivalent to moderately
implemented that predominate especially under air pollution control. Two (2) practices
are highly implemented; 16 practices are moderately implemented, and eight (8) practices
slightly implemented. Overall, the grand mean of all ratings in the respondents’
assessment of SLRC’s environmental practices (3.23) equates with moderately
implemented. It might be worth pointing out that decimal values in the assessment ratings
have been disregarded due to the nature of the less exacting assessment scale used by the
respondents.

Table 4. The Level of Environmental Program Implementation as Rated by

Respondents Based on a Rating Scale

ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES OR Level of Implementation

Mean
INDICATOR 1 2 3 4 5
A. On Waste Disposal
1. Composting of yard waste 16 30 25 10 11 2.67
2. Throwing litter in garbage containers 11 10 32 15 23 3.28
3. Practicing segregation of waste 8 11 34 14 25 3.40
4. Separating biodegradable from 12 14 25 22 19 3.24
nonbiodegradable materials
5. Selling of old newspapers, magazines 39 22 21 6 4 2.07
and books
6. Utilization of used paper for notes 19 13 24 16 19 3.00
Average Mean 2.94
B. On Clean and Green
1. Growing seeds for tree planting 30 26 18 9 8 2.30
2. Regular schedule for tree planting 37 30 14 5 6 2.05
3. Regular cleaning of the school campus 9 23 29 17 14 3.04

46
Table 4 continued...
4. Throwing of wastes in designated 11 14 26 21 20 3.27
places
5. Keeping the school furniture free from 18 21 17 17 19 2.98
vandalism
Average Mean 2.73
C. On Air Pollution Control
1. No burning of waste materials 6 16 23 6 41 3.65
2. No smoking on the entire campus 6 14 11 11 50 3.92
3. Using a bicycle or a pedal driven cab 21 26 19 10 15 2.66
as means of transport
4. Using environmentally friendly 11 11 20 13 35 3.48
materials like paper bag in place of
plastic bag, etc.
5. Walking on foot 14 13 19 13 30 3.25
Average Mean 3.39
D. On Water Conservation
1. No leaking of faucets and pipes 11 11 23 21 26 3.43
2. No wastage of water 4 15 45 9 19 3.26
3. Recycling used water for cleaning 34 14 21 7 16 2.53
toilets or watering the plants
4. Turning off faucets when not in use 6 4 23 16 41 3.83
5. Using containers for drinking water 8 0 11 7 66 4.34
rather than by hand or through the
mouth
Average Mean 3.48
E. On Energy Conservation
1. Immediate repair of electrical gadgets 11 26 26 14 15 2.96
2. Maximum use of natural lighting 5 10 29 14 34 3.67
3. Maximum use of natural ventilation 8 10 22 20 30 3.52
4. Turning off lights and other gadgets 5 7 24 12 44 3.90
when not in use
5. Using electrical devices when needed 6 2 14 27 42 4.02
Average Mean 3.61
Grand Mean 3.23

Legend: 5 = fully implemented (FI) 2 = slightly implemented (SI)

4 = highly implemented (HI) 1 = not implemented (NI)
3 = moderately implemented (MI)

47
Problems Encountered by Respondents in the Implementation of the Environmental
Conservation Practices in Terms of the Degree of Administrative Support

It is embodied in the SLRC mission statement that “SLRC commits itself to

provide a structured and distinctive learning environment that develops the potential of
students along the core values”. And to have a structured and conducive learning
environment within the campus, it shall require every member of the SLRCian
community to observe and implement the environmental conservation program of the
school. However, the school’s mission is a comprehensive conscientiousness among
SLRCians in performing their role as stewards of the environment.

It is expected that SLRC would translate its mission into action on

environmental conservation practices (also termed indicators in this study) that are
indicating a friendly environment on the school campus. As presented to respondents,
these practices were checked whether existing or not, or still in the planning stage.
Moreover, as discussed earlier, respondents also spot problems in a prospective
institutionalized environment conservation program. Although not yet formally launched
as the SLRC Environmental Conservation Program, some practices or indicators are
currently identifiable but without institutional coordination necessary to make a program
truly operational. Problems encountered by respondents herein relate to the
implementation of the ECP. These focus on the degree of administrative support to the
ECP which arise in an evolving program. Whenever the support is below or not
satisfactory, the problem on the implementation process can be analyzed and reduced
when the program becomes institutionalized and disseminated to all employees and
students of SLRC.

Table 5 records the degree of administrative support on given items, using the
scale of 5 - very satisfactory, 4 - highly satisfactory, 3 - satisfactory, 2 - below
satisfactory, and 1 - not satisfactory.

48
Table 5. Frequency and Mean Distribution of Administrators’ Support as Rated by
Respondents

Degree of Administrators' Support

Category
1 2 3 4 5 Mean
1. Involvement in motivating students and 10 17 27 21 10 2.82
employees
2. Involvement in the planning for ECP 9 18 30 18 10 2.79
3. Concern for a healthy polluted-free 21 14 29 12 9 2.49
SLRCian environment
4. Interest in the implementation of the 13 17 35 6 11 2.51
program
5. Reinforcement of guidelines regarding 11 20 35 12 7 2.60
ECP
6. Readiness in extending financial 10 21 29 7 18 2.79
assistance to the ECP
7. Supporting information dissemination on 10 19 25 13 18 2.88
ECP

The mean rating of each of the category involving the administrators’ support is
equivalent to approx. three (3), which means satisfactory. Obviously, the support is given
in broad terms which still require specifications upon program operation. At any rate,
such inclusive support of the administration foresees the trend of positive action towards a
strong ECP.

After rating administrative support to ECP, respondents were asked to rank

environmental problems existing on the school campus. The problems are given in Table
6 with the corresponding weighted mean and the rank of each item. Of the 14 items in the
table, the first 6 ranking problems are (1) poor ventilation in classrooms, (2) poor waste
management, (3) flooding, (4) poor sewage system, (5) poor sanitary practice, and (6)
contaminated drinking water, in that order. The problems ranked from the lowest 14 to 7

49
up in that order, which means less problematic, are: (14) inadequate lighting facilities,
(13) clogging of drainage, (12) inadequate knowledge in resource information, (11)
uncollected solid waste, (10) poor traffic enforcement, (9) littering in the school campus,
(8) vandalism, and (7) presence of toxic waste. Generally, respondents are supposed to
identify and rank problems in the environmental practices in the campus, which would
only be natural for an evolving and growing ECP.

Table 6. Rank Distribution of Environmental Problems Existing in the School

Campus

W
RANK E
T I R
ENVIRONMENTAL O G A
PROBLEMS IN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 T H N
THE SCHOOL A T K
CAMPUS L E
D

Mean
a. Clogging of 8 9 14 7 2 1 5 1 1 7 13 6 9 7 90 7.22 13
drainage
b. Contaminated 8 7 4 2 4 4 3 5 3 8 6 4 6 5 69 5.61 6
drinking water
c. Flooding 11 14 7 1 2 4 0 7 1 8 4 2 10 3 74 5.25 3
during rainy
season
d. Inadequate 9 0 6 3 14 4 6 10 7 8 11 5 0 2 85 6.60 12
knowledge in
resource
information
e. Inadequate 4 3 11 3 5 13 1 9 15 6 7 4 9 2 92 7.63 14
lighting
facilities
f. Littering in 7 5 7 6 2 6 5 6 6 11 6 10 0 2 79 6.18 9
the school
campus
g. Poor traffic 7 3 1 4 8 10 1 5 9 9 1 3 9 4 74 6.20 10
enforcement

50
Table 6 continued…
h. Poor sanitary 14 6 4 6 7 1 6 3 6 6 4 8 0 6 77 5.51 5
practice
i. Poor sewage 13 4 7 6 6 3 7 3 10 3 7 5 2 2 78 5.41 4
system
j. Poor waste 20 5 7 4 2 4 2 6 7 4 4 4 3 5 77 5.08 2
management
k. Poor 19 4 12 4 4 5 2 4 4 5 2 6 5 0 76 4.57 1
ventilation of
classrooms
l. Presence of 8 3 2 5 8 3 9 7 7 0 7 8 2 5 74 5.97 7
toxic waste
m. Uncollected 9 1 8 9 2 7 7 5 4 9 5 6 4 4 80 6.23 11
solid waste
n. Vandalism 4 6 0 17 8 0 11 4 0 0 6 7 2 11 76 6.12 8

51
Involvement in Environmental Activities among Employees and Students

The fact that the respondents could identify acceptable practices in

environmental conservation within the campus indicates their involvement in
implementing such activities, as constituents of SLRC. The respondents were asked to
rate their involvement from a scale of 5 (very highly satisfactory) to 1 (not satisfactory).
It might be worthwhile pointing out that some items in Table 6 are included in Table 7.
All seven (7) activities with supposed respondent involvement were rated satisfactory
with an average mean of three (approx. 3.18). Raters were the respondents themselves
who assessed their own involvement in the given activities. The three items with the
highest mean ratings, considering decimals, refer to the following: interest in
implementation of ECP, participation in all activities pertaining to ECP, and readiness in
extending assistance to the environmental conservation program. These are broad areas
which need specific psychomotor behaviors in the proposal to implement the ECP of
SLRC, wherein employees and students would be deeply involved. Other areas of
involvement considered satisfactory are the: cooperation in maintaining a healthy and
pollution-free community, participation in information dissemination, modeling the use
of environmentally friendly materials such as paper bags instead of plastic bags, and
monitoring vandalisms and littering within the campus.

52
Table 7. Involvement Level in the Overall Involvement of Activities among Employees
and Students

Level of Satisfaction
INVOLVEMENT
1 2 3 4 5 Mean
General Involvement of Activities
among Employees and Students

1. Participation in all activities 0 10 37 31 14 3.53

pertaining to ECP
2. Cooperation in maintaining a 0 29 21 26 16 3.32
healthy and polluted-free SLRCian
community
3. Interest in the implementation of 0 5 37 30 20 3.71
ECP
4. Readiness in extending assistance to 0 23 24 29 16 3.41
the environmental conservation
program
5. Participation in information 0 26 32 26 8 3.17
dissemination drive on ECP
6. Monitoring vandalisms and littering 25 28 16 13 10 2.51
in keeping the campus free

7. Modeling the use of 16 33 17 16 9 2.63

environmentally friendly materials
such as paper bags instead of plastic
bags, etc.
3.18

Legend: 5 = Very Highly Satisfactory (VHS) 2 = Below Satisfactory (BS)

4 = Highly Satisfactory (HS) 1 = Not Satisfactory (NS)
3 = Satisfactory (S)

53
54
Specific Environmental Practices for Inclusion in the SLRC Environmental
Conservation Program (ECP)

The specific environmental practices to be included in the ECP are as follows: (1)
composting of yard wastes, (2) throwing litter in garbage containers, (3) practicing
segregation of waste or separating biodegradable from non-biodegradable materials, (4)
selling of old newspapers, magazines and books, (5) utilization of used paper for notes,
(6) growing seeds for tree planting, (7) regular schedule for tree planting, (8) regular
cleaning of the school campus, (9) throwing of wastes in designated places, (10) keeping
school furniture free from vandalism, (11) no burning of waste materials, (12) no
smoking on the entire campus, (13) using a bicycle or a pedal driven cab as a means of
transport, (14) using environmentally-friendly materials, (15) walking on foot, (16)
repairing leaking faucets and pipes, (17) reducing water wastage, (18) recycling used
water, and etc. These environmental practices have been pointed out by respondents to be
moderately or slightly implemented. Hence, these areas should occupy a major focus in
the Proposed Program for an Environmentally Sustainable School Community. There is a
need for back up school policies to ensure proper and coordinated implementation of
specific environmental policies. Furthermore, seminar-workshops and consultations with
administrators at the studentry would be necessary for the proposed program to create an
environmentally sustainable community.

An action plan has been designed to make the projected SLRC Environmental
Conservation Program operational. It has specific indicators or practices which have been
identified for inclusion. It is entitled Action plan of the Proposed Program for an
Environmentally Sustainable SLRC community (see Appendix K).

55