Developing a participatory ecological solid waste management program for Don Bosco College Incorporated, Calamba City, Philippines

Participatory ecological solid waste management planning for Don Bosco College Incorporated (DBCI), Calamba City was conducted. This study had five phases: (1) formation of a technical working group (TWG); (2) round-table discussions on ISWM [integrated solid waste management]; (3) symposium on solid waste management [SWM]; (4) baseline information gathering; and (5) strategic SWM training workshop. The development of SWM was assessed using key informant interview, survey questionaire and waste appraisal. The entire process of developing a participatory ecological solid waste management (PESWM) program for DBCI was documented. The technology of participation (TOP) techniques was used to draw the strategic action plan. Source reduction strategies alone (Option 1) and combination of source reduction and recycling strategies (Option 2) were evaluated. Extended benefit cost analysis of the current and alternative options of waste management scheme was done. The major sources of solid wastes in DBCI are the Pavillion (canteen), the kitchen area, and the parks. The least waste generator is the electrical shop. Seventy-two percent of the solid wastes generated are biodegradable. Eight percent of the solid waste are sold to junkshop operators as recyclable wastes, while the rest are hauled to dumpsites as residual wastes. Per capita waste generation of students and employees is 166 g of waste daily while the entire school produces a total of 141 kg solid wastes in a day. Option 1 and Option 2 schemes could reduce the projected wastes generation by as much as 15%. These could reduce annual waste generation by as much as 5 tons. With Option 1 alone, a little more than 3 tons of waste would still be hauled to the municipal dumpsite. If source reduction and recycling strategies are implemented, none will be brought to the municipal dumpsite. The current waste management scheme and the Option 1 scheme are not economically viable. The former has a profitability index of only 0.18, while the latter only has 0.07. Option 2 has positive economic benefits of PhP246,841 in five years. It has 7 times more benefits than costs compared to the other alternatives. It also has an internal rate of return of 162% which is way beyond the discount rate of 12%. This indicates that the Option 2 scheme is the only viable scheme