14. Studies on KAP on solid waste management are very relevant
as SWM is being urgently addressed by many cities and
municipalities in the country in compliance with RA 9003.
-Tatlonghari and Jamias, 2010
15. Correlation of Knowledge and Attitudes
with the Reported Practices on the Solid
Waste Management of Selected
Households in Barangay Old Balara,
Quezon City
Pacariem – Sandoval
SLCM 2016
Adviser: Dr. Carolina Linda Tapia
Preventive Medicine II
AY 2011-2012
44. BIAS CONTROLS
Refusal
Full information
Respectful persuasion
Recall
Choices
Defining time frames
Interviewer
Standardization
Rehearsal
Social Desirability 10 item SD pre-test
Table 1. List of biases and their corresponding controls
75. Total Domain Scores
K A P
Total
Knowledge
Scores
1 0.106
0.272*
(r2
= 0.074)
Table 5: Spearman rank correlation matrix of
mean total SWM scores
76. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of
various mean knowledge subdomain scores.
Subdomain K with A K with P
Segregation
0.179*
(r2
= 0.0340)
0.103
Recycling -0.014 0.106
Dumping 0.074 -0.055
Burning
-0.159*
(r2
= 0.0253)
-0.38
77. Table 6: Spearman rank correlation matrix of
various mean knowledge subdomain scores.
Subdomain K with A K with P
Segregation
0.179*
(r2
= 0.0340)
0.103
Recycling -0.014 0.106
Dumping 0.074 -0.055
Burning
-0.159*
(r2
= 0.0253)
-0.38
83. Table 7: Comparison of sociodemographic data
with other studies
Parameter Group 6, 2012
Tatlonghari et
al., 2010
Sumayao et al.,
[n.d]
Gender F > M ✓
Age 40-65 ✓
Family Income
(Peso)
> 10,000
Occupation Unemployed ✓
Educational
Attainment
High School ✓
Household Size 4-5 ✓
84. Table 8: Comparison of correlation coefficients
with another study
Parameter Group 6, 2012 Tatlonghari et al., 2010
Correlation of
K with P
r= 0.272
(r2
=0.074)
r=0.214
(r2
=0.046)
Correct K → Correct P
Favorable A ≠ Correct P
Segregation and Recycling = ✓
Transition: think how we can help fix the problem.
Analogy in popular culture: Pacific Rim Jaeger = 2.5kilotons. Trash produced is equivalent to 1,600 Jaegers. 1 hummer = 6.4tons. 62,500 hummers
Improper management and disposal practices → unfavorable to health and environment
Improper management and disposal practices → unfavorable to health and environment
This paper is a rare study that investigated KAP correlations in the local setting (Los Banos). The current study substantially borrows from them.
Practices which include segregation, reusing, recycling, burning, and dumping.
A social unit in a house or shelter that owns and operates its own stove or cooking unit. Derived from the NSO definition.
Any solid, non-sewage waste generated by the household
Person primarily responsible for the processing, storage and disposal of household waste. Not necessarily the mother. The definition is neutral to sex, age or any other sociodemographic.
SEG: Separation of household waste into biodegradable and non-biodegradable REC: Recovery of materials intended to be used again DUM: Open – Disposal at undesignated sites Controlled dumping – Disposal at designated sites
Combustion of household waste. Different from incineration which is controlled, legal and serves another purpose in the waste processing chain.
Awareness and understanding: (1) laws, programs, (2) impact to health and environment, (3) consequences, (4) different household level practices.
Position towards: roles, importance, practicalities, participation (with reasons for and against)
Is there a significant correlation between the knowledge and attitudes on SWM and the reported practices of the households?
Theoretical framework shows that KA and sociodemogs affect P
GENERAL: determine if there is a significant (+) correl, between knowledge and attitudes towards reported practices. SPECIFIC: mean K and A scores with reported practices in seg, rec, burning, dumping
H0 – no significant correlation H1 – significant positive. One-tailed.
Questionnarie: self-constructed, pilot-tested, no validated by expert. No true garbologist in the Philippines. Processing: for completeness, consistency, Microsoft Excel Analysis: SPSS 16
SPEARMAN: Inspection of the data showed they were not normally distributed. Non-parametric. COEFF of DETER: percent of variance attributed to that variable STEPWISE: for confounding and effect modification
Formula from a textbook by Norman and Streiner (2008) for linear regression studies. Emphasize that z-scores are used, hence 1.96 and 1.64, not 0.05 and 0.20.
Target population: Old Balara Accessible: Households
Random points along main road (Laura St.).
1. Must be present. 2. Resided for at least 6 mos 3. SD < 8. Test is used by psychologists. There are many versions, but 10 item chosen to limit length. If >1 households in a house, include all. Differentiate house vs household
K total = 26. IDK = 0. A total – 25 Either 1 or 0. P total = 10. Depends on frequency. P scoring: 3 for parati (>/=4/wk), 2 for madalas (2-3x), 1 for minsan (only when convenient, and 1 time a week), and 0 for hindi (not practicing at all). For burning, reversed.
Dr. Tapia, each highlighted finding is again given a human face to make a connection with the audience. Merely reading “women, middle-aged, highschool” etc, does not make a lasting impact on the audience. The slide is shown for summary purposes.
Dr. Tapia, the following tables are animated in order to highlight only what is important and to minimize the visual load on the audience. Only for summary purposes.
There is a weak positive correlation between total knowledge and practice scores.
There is a weak positive correlation between the knowledge and attitude scores in segregating and burning. There are no correlations between knowledge and practice scores.
There were no significant findings except for burning.
There is neither confounding nor effect modification by the sociodemogs. Standized scatterplots and regression analysis tables would be shown in the appendix
1. There are private collectors + city collectors; 2. Bio: Mon, Fri; NonBio: Wed. 3. Supposedly, no segregation, no collection.
1. Unknown if these children still follow proper disposal. Confirmed by residents and local officials 2. NGOs (such as Tzu Chi) are active in SWM
THJ2010: F (77 vs 52); 41-60; <10K (53% vs >10K 42%), College grad (64%) SUMAYAO: 36-46, <10K (50%), college grad, 5 members
All are consistent with THJ2010 2. But pressure, incentives, rewards, punishment may help. 2a. Participation is key. Attitudinal state is not enough. 3. Knowledge of laws and programs. Recall: segregating and recycling scored highest.
Finding comparable to Tatlonghari. “If you perceive that burning is harmful, you will not do it”.
Knowledge on proper SWM may be reflected in their practices Only a little over half knew that there were existing laws Some were not aware of specific days of collection K is insufficient, but it should not be neglected altogether.
All correlations weak. No findings in other studies. C orrect knowledge on concepts of segregation → favorable attitude towards segregation. Knowledge of effects → unfavorable attitude towards burning. “The more you know about burning, your attitude becomes less conducive to burning.” Warn about counterintuitive scoring for burning attitudes. For mathematical purposes, it is scored relative to the practice itself (burning), not to what is right (do not burn).
Contrary to Tatlonghari and Bennegen.
Strengths, applicability and strategies. Emphasize on having correct knowledge because they lead to better attitudes (segregation, burning) and practice (in general).
1. Total knowledge is correlated with practice: it may be more feasible to invest in vs. attitudes. 2. Community: Lectures, use of incentives and rewards. 3. There are external factors that may affect practice other than KAs. 4. SWM is multifactorial. Each practice may need a different approach. It was found that the correlations across the different practices were inconsistent.
Questionnaire: not validated, no Chronbach's alpha Standardization: formal investigation of constructs of KAPs Social desirability: Observe vs reported. Limited to KAPs: Other effects should be investigated, such as effects of sociodemogs, external variables. More indepth investigation of role of attitudes. Even other studies confirm attitude is not correlation. What is the role?
Total knowledge is correlated with practice: it may be more feasible to invest in (vs. attitudes). Community: Lectures, use of incentives and rewards. There are external factors that may affect practice other than KAs. SWM is multifactorial. Each practice may need a different approach.
