The research study was able to capture the social perspectives of DMMMSU-NLUC stakeholders pertaining to sustainable watershed resources management. Gender seemed to have played a major factor when it comes to the awareness and initiatives of the respondents. Males seem to be more aware than females when it comes to theories but females, on the other hand, seem to be more aware of the practical concepts on watershed resources management. Further, females prefer to conduct hands-on community outreach activities regarding watershed conservation than males. In contrary, males prefer to be more initiative by attending more seminars regarding watershed management. Work and social status also played a key role in terms of the awareness and initiatives of respondents. Students, local government officials, and local citizens are only fairly aware on the effects of industrialization in our watershed resources. It is even surprising to know that local government officials are not aware on the effect of siltation to the quality and biodiversity of watershed resources. HOW TO CITE: Aban, J. L. and Manuel, J. I. Jr. (2015). Spatial water quality variations of DMMMSU-NLUC watershed and citizens’ awareness and initiatives to achieve sustainable watershed resources management. DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY Agency In-House Review 2015. June 1, 2015. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13229.90082/1

1. SPATIAL WATER QUALITY VARIATIONS OF
DMMMSU-NLUC WATERSHED AND CITIZENS’
AWARENESS AND INITIATIVES TO ACHIEVE
SUSTAINABLE WATERSHED RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
JOMAR L. ABAN
JAIME I. MANUEL, JR.
Researchers
HOW TO CITE: Aban, J. L. and Manuel, J. I. Jr. (2015). Spatial water quality variations of
DMMMSU-NLUC watershed and citizens’ awareness and initiatives to achieve sustainable watershed
resources management. DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY Agency In-
House Review 2015. June 1, 2015. doi: (insert generated doi here)

2. INTRODUCTION

3. Rationale
 A watershed is a lifeshed that provides land
and water resources to the low-lying
populace (US-EPA, 2012).
 It is the main source of water for both
irrigation and domestic consumption in the
localities and population that it covers.

4. Rationale
 On the other hand, DMMMSU-NLUC has
increased its total population particularly in
the recent decade. During the SY 2014-2015,
it has a total student population of more or
less, 2000 (NLUC Registrar’s Office).
 To accommodate its increasing number of
stakeholders, more administrative and
academic buildings were built, and more will
be built sooner.

5. Rationale
 In connection to this, DMMMSU-NLUC’s
watershed has existed even before
DMMMSU became a state university in La
Union.
 It has been the primary source of land and
water utilities of many residents long ago,
and until now. Therefore, it must be protected
in order for the future generation not to suffer.

6. Conceptual and
Theoretical Framework
High quality
watershed
awareness
initiatives
Water quality
assessment
Water quality
monitoring
Citizens /
stakeholders
Researchers /
environmentalists

7. LOCAL CITIZENS AND
STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ACADEME
 Anything that the local citizens and other
stakeholders in the academe do affect the
quality of water in the watershed.
 Their level of awareness translates to their
actions or initiatives.
 Such initiatives determine the quality of
watershed.

8. RESEARCHERS AND
ENVIRONMENTALISTS
 Researchers and environmentalists play an
important role on the assessment and
monitoring of watersheds.
 Any slight changes in its physical and
chemical composition in watersheds might
cause drastic effects to the low-lying
populace, thus monitoring and evaluation is
needed.

9. TRIANGULATION
 Local citizens and stakeholders in the
academe must know the water quality of their
watersheds so that they may be informed of
the possible effects of such measured
parameters.
 Researchers and environmentalists should
know the awareness and initiatives of the
local stakeholders so that they can determine
the possible causes of watershed
deterioration

10. Research Paradigm

11. Statement of the
Problem
 1.) What is the respondents’ awareness on
sustainable watershed resource management?
 2.) Is there a significant difference on respondents’
awareness in sustainable watershed resource
management when respondents are grouped
according to the following demographic data:
 a.) age,
 b.) gender, and
 c.) work status?

12. Statement of the
Problem
 3.) What are the initiatives of respondents on
sustainable watershed resource management?
 4.) Is there a significant difference on the initiatives
of respondents in sustainable watershed resource
management when respondents are grouped
according to the following demographic data:
 a.) age,
 b.) gender, and
 c.) work status?

13. Statement of the
Problem
 5.) What is the quality of water from the upstream
sites to the downstream sites in terms of:
 a.) pH,
 b.) electrical conductivity,
 c.) dissolved oxygen,
 d.) water temperature, and
 e.) nitrate-N?

14. METHODOLOGY
Research Method and Design
The study employed a combined
 (A) social-quantitative-descriptive research design;
and
 (B) natural-quantitative-descriptive research design.

15. A.) Social-Quantitative-
Descriptive Portion
 Sampling Technique
 On this study, there were a total of 350 respondents.
The Slovin’s formula was used to guarantee that the
samples taken will represent the entire population
 n = N / (1 + N(e2))
Work / Social Status N
(population)
Slovin’s
n
Actual n
DMMMSU-NLUC Students 2000 285 260
DMMMSU-NLUC Personnel 150 20 30
DMMMSU-NLUC Local Citizens 200 28 30
Local Government Officials 66 10 30
TOTAL 2416 343 350

16. Validity and Reliability
 In order to ascertain the validity and reliability of the survey
questionnaires, it was first submitted to the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). At the same time,
the validity of the respondents’ answers to the survey
questionnaire has been achieved through additional interview
from experts regarding sustainable watershed resources
management: one watershed expert from UP Los Banos, another
from the Provincial Government Unit of La Union, and another
expert from Pangasinan State University, Binmaley Aquatic and
Fisheries Resources Department. A focus group discussion
(FGD) has been conducted after the interview to altercate and
explain the right practices in achieving sustainable watershed
resources management. To determine the reliability of the
questionnaire twenty (20) respondents were randomly selected
and were asked to answer after which the data were subjected to
comparison.

17. Data and Statistical
Analysis
Percent (%) Correct Answer Descriptive Interpretation
76 – 100 Very aware
51 – 75 Moderately aware
26 – 50 Fairly aware
0 – 25 Not aware
Percent (%) Correct Answer Descriptive Interpretation
76 – 100 Highly initiative
51 – 75 Moderately initiative
26 – 50 Fairly initiative
0 – 25 Not initiative
To determine the
significant difference in
the level of knowledge
and the initiatives of
respondents when they
are grouped according to
their demographic data,
the T-test and ANOVA
(one factor) were used.
In addition, in conjunction with ANOVA,
when there is significant difference on the
sample groups, the Scheffe’s test was
used to find means that are significantly
different from each other.
All tests of significance were
made with alpha value of 0.05.
IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20
was used for in the computation
and statistical analysis

18. B.) Natural-Quantitative-
Descriptive Portion
Figure 2. DMMMSU-NLUC Watershed and River System showing the 5
sampling stations

19. Con’t…
 Sampling Technique
 The field sampling technique employed is stratified
sampling, where the DMMMSU-NLUC watershed river
system will be divided into 5 strata which will
constitute the 5 stations to where water samples will
be collected randomly. For each of the 5 stations,
There will be 3 water-sample replicates per physico-
chemical property to be determined.

20. Con’t…
 Laboratory Analysis
 The water samples that will be collected will be
subjected to water laboratory analysis at the
Department of Science and Technology at DMMMSU-
Mid La Union Campus, San Fernando La Union.

21. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

22. Table 2. Awareness of respondents on
sustainable watershed resources
management.
Items Mean (%) Interpretation
1. ASWRM1 - I am aware of the DMMMSU-NLUC watershed 96 HA
2. ASWRM2 - Since DMMMSU-NLUC is a rural area, I am
certain that our watershed has no pollution problems.
34 FA
3. ASWRM3 - The waste that I throw elsewhere affects the
quality of watersheds.
91 HA
4. ASWRM4 - The destruction and unsustainable usage of
watershed leads to climate change.
95 HA
5. ASWRM5 - Watershed is defined as the area of land where all
water that is under it or drains of it goes into the same place.
81 HA
6. ASWRM6 - Watershed is a bounded hydrologic system
within which all living things are linked together by their
common water source.
91 HA
7. ASWRM7 - We get our drinking water from watersheds. 60 MA
8. ASWRM8 - There are laws and republic acts in the
Philippines that impose the protection of watersheds.
98 HA
9. ASWRM9 - Industrialization and population growth leads to a
sustainable watershed resource.
39 FA
10. ASWRM10 - Siltation of watersheds would cause increase in
biodiversity and community resiliency.
38 FA
TOTAL MEAN AVERAGE 72.30 MA

23. Table 3. Initiatives of respondents on
sustainable watershed resources
management.
Items
Mean
(%) Interpretation
1. ISWRM1 - I am willing to become a volunteer in the
conservation and preservation of the DMMMSU-NLUC
watershed.
98 VI
2. ISWRM2 - With or without payment, I will report illegal
environmental activities to proper authorities in order to
protect our watersheds.
99 VI
3. ISWRM3 - I am willing to conduct extension activities to
increase the knowledge of other people to attain sustainable
watershed resources.
98 VI
4. ISWRM4 - I am attending seminars and trainings relevant and
timely for the protection and conservation of our watershed
resources.
73 MI
5. ISWRM5 - I pick litters and plastics at school, at home, and
elsewhere to maintain the cleanliness leading to the
conservation of our watershed resources.
97 VI
VI = very initiative MI = moderately initiative FI = fairly initiative NI = not initiative

24. Table 3. Initiatives of respondents on
sustainable watershed resources
management.
1. ISWRM6 - I am willing to join clean-up drives, and other
relevant environmental activities to promote watershed
resource management and sustainability.
97 VI
2. ISWRM7 - Watershed management and sustainability
are primary concerns of national and local government
officials. As a mere citizen/student/professional, I just
agree with whatever decisions they make.
24 NI
3. ISWRM8 - DMMMSU-NLUC’s watershed becomes more
sustainable as its population and facilities increase in
number. Hence, no action is needed for the sustainability of
its watershed.
45 FI
4. ISWRM9 - I do not have the capacity to educate my
students/siblings/friends about sustainable watershed
resources management.
65 MI
5. ISWRM10 - I am not in the position to conduct activities or
actions that will lead to sustainable watershed resource.
67 MI
TOTAL MEAN AVERAGE 76.30 VI
VI = very initiative MI = moderately initiative FI = fairly initiative NI = not initiative

25. Table 4. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to gender.
Item No. Variable Mean T-value Decision Remarks
Awareness of Respondents
ASWRM3 Male 88%
0.04
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 93%
ASWRM8 Male 100%
.007
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 96%
ASWRM10 Male 46%
.03
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 33%
Initiatives of Respondents
ISWRM3 Male 94%
.000
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 100%
ISWRM4 Male 81%
.001
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 69%
ISWRM10 Male 77%
.000
Reject
Ho
There is significant
differenceFemale 61%

26. Table 4. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to gender.
The waste that I throw elsewhere
affects the quality of watersheds.
Male 88%
Female 93%
There are laws and republic acts
in the Philippines that impose the
protection of watersheds.
Male 100%
Female 96%
Siltation of watersheds would
cause increase in biodiversity
and community resiliency.
Male 46%
Female 33%

27. Table 4. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to gender.
I am willing to conduct extension
activities to increase the
knowledge of other people to
attain sustainable watershed
resources.
Male 94%
Female 100%
I am attending seminars and
trainings relevant and timely for
the protection and conservation
of our watershed resources.
Male 81%
Female 69%
I am not in the position to
conduct activities or actions that
will lead to sustainable
watershed resource.
Male 77%
Female 61%

28. Table 5. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to age.
Item No. Variable Mean P-value Decision Remarks
Awareness of Respondents
ASWRM
<20 71% a
.500 Accept Ho
There is no significant
difference
21-30 73% a
31-40 74% a
41-50 72% a
51> 73% a
Initiatives of Respondents
ISWRM
<20 73% a
.45 Accept Ho
There is no significant
difference
21-30 77% a
31-40 76% a
41-50 79% a
51> 78% a

29. Table 6. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to work / social status.
Item No. Variable Mean P-value Decision Remarks
Awareness of Respondents
ASWRM9 Student 27% a
.043
Reject
Ho
There is significant
difference
LGO 36% a
Local citizen 36% a
Personnel 58% b
ASWRM10 Student 36% a
.021
Reject
Ho
There is significant
difference
LGO 18% b
Local citizen 42% a
Personnel 45% a

30. Table 6. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to work / social status.
Industrialization and population growth leads
to a sustainable watershed resource.
Student 27% a
LGO 36% a
Local citizen 36% a
Personnel 58% b
Siltation of watersheds would cause increase
in biodiversity and community resiliency.
Student 36% a
LGO 18% b
Local citizen 42% a
Personnel 45% a

31. Table 6. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to work / social status.
Initiatives of Respondents
ISWRM4 Student 55% a
.020 Reject Ho
There is significant
difference
LGO 88% b
Local citizen 76% b
Personnel 76% b
ISWRM8 Student 39% a
.040 Reject Ho
There is significant
difference
LGO 52% b
Local citizen 30% a
Personnel 61% b
ISWRM9 Student 70% ab
.041 Reject Ho
There is significant
difference
LGO 64% a
Local citizen 48% c
Personnel 79% b

32. Table 6. Awareness and initiatives of
respondents on sustainable watershed
resources management as grouped
according to work / social status.
I am attending seminars and trainings relevant and
timely for the protection and conservation of our
watershed resources.
Student 55% a
LGO 88% b
Local citizen 76% b
Personnel 76% b
DMMMSU-NLUC’s watershed becomes more
sustainable as its population and facilities increase
in number. Hence, no action is needed for the
sustainability of its watershed.
Student 39% a
LGO 52% b
Local citizen 30% a
Personnel 61% b
I do not have the capacity to educate my
students/siblings/friends about sustainable
watershed resources management.
Student 70% ab
LGO 64% a
Local citizen 48% c
Personnel 79% b

33. CONCLUSION

34. Conclusion
 The research study was able to capture the
social perspectives of DMMMSU-NLUC
stakeholders pertaining to sustainable
watershed resources management.

35. Conclusion
 Gender seemed to have played a major factor when it
comes to the awareness and initiatives of the
respondents. Males seem to be more aware than
females when it comes to theories but females, on the
other hand, seem to be more aware of the practical
concepts on watershed resources management.
 Further, females prefer to conduct hands-on community
outreach activities regarding watershed conservation
than males. In contrary, males prefer to be more initiative
by attending more seminars regarding watershed
management.

36. Conclusion
 Work and social status also played a key role in terms of
the awareness and initiatives of respondents.
 Students, local government officials, and local citizens
are only fairly aware on the effects of industrialization in
our watershed resources. It is even surprising to know
that local government officials are not aware on the
effect of siltation to the quality and biodiversity of
watershed resources.

37. Conclusion
 Work and social status also played a key role in terms of
the awareness and initiatives of respondents.
 Students, local government officials, and local citizens
are only fairly aware on the effects of industrialization in
our watershed resources. It is even surprising to know
that local government officials are not aware on the
effect of siltation to the quality and biodiversity of
watershed resources.

38. RECOMMENDATIONS
 1. The researchers highly recommend the conduct of
more hands-on community outreach activities regarding
watershed conservation.
 2. Furthermore, the researchers also recommend that
the academe should take the initiative to help its
stakeholders for them to attend more seminars regarding
watershed management.

39. RECOMMENDATIONS
 3. Since it was found that students, local government
officials, and local citizens are only fairly aware on the
effects of industrialization on watershed resources,
information dissemination pertaining to the negative
impacts of industrialization must be provided.

40. RECOMMENDATIONS
 4. Also, since it is quite noticeable that students have low
initiative when it comes to attending seminars related to
watershed conservation which could be due to financial
difficulties, the researchers high recommend that the
school should provide funds to support students in
seminar and conference endeavors especially because
of the fact that attending scientific conferences are quite
expensive.

41. REFERENCES

42. References
 ALLAN, J.D. (1996). Stream ecology structure and function of running waters. London, Chapman & Hall. 388 p
 CARPENTER, R., CARACO, F., CORREL, L. HOWARTH, W., SHARPLEY, N. AND SMITH, H. (1998). Nonpoint
pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecological Applications. 83:559-568.
 CHAKRAPANI, J. (2005). Major and trace element geochemistry in upper Ganga River in the Himalayas, India.
Environmental Geology. 48:189-201.
 GULER, C., THYNE, D., MCGRAY, E. AND TURNER, K. (2002). Evaluation of graphical and multivariate
statistical methods for classification of water chemistry data. Hydrogeology Journal. 10:455-474.
 PANDEY, S. (2006). Water pollution and health. Review Article. Kathmandu University Medical Journal. 4:128-
134.
 SINGH, P., MALIK, A., SINHA, S., SINGH, K., AND MURTHY, C. (2005). Estimation of source of heavy metal
contamination in sediments of Gomti river (India) using principal component analysis. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution. 166:321-341.
 US-EPA (2012). United States Environmental Protection Agency. What is a watershed? Retrieved February 8,
2015 at: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/whatis.cfm

43. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!